IRS Notice Provides Penalty Relief to Certain Partnership Return Filing Taxpayers

by Monte L. Schatz

The IRS has issued Notice 2017-47 that provides penalty relief to partnerships that filed certain untimely returns or untimely requests for extension of time who filed those returns for the first taxable year that began after December 31, 2015.

Section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (the Surface Transportation Act), Public Law 114–41, 129 Stat. 443 (2015), amended section 6072 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and changed the date by which a partnership must file its annual return. The due date for filing the annual return of a partnership changed from the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year (April 15 for calendar-year -2- taxpayers) to the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year (March 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). The new due date applies to the returns of partnerships for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015.

Many partnerships failed to timely file their various partnership returns (1065, 1065-B, 8804, 8805 or 7004 Extension requests for any of the other various partnership returns).  The assumption of these taxpayers was that the normal deadlines for their 2016 Partnership returns applied (namely April 18, 2017 for the actual returns and September 15, 2017 for those that filed the Form 7004 extension for any of these returns).    Normally in these circumstances the taxpayer is subject to late filing penalties; however, the new filing deadlines shortening the return filing period by one month resulted in many taxpayers filing late returns and the IRS has provided relief for those late filed returns.

The IRS in Notice 2017-47 has announced relief will be granted automatically for penalties for failure to timely file Forms 1065, 1065-B, 8804, 8805, and any other returns, such as Form 5471, for which the due date is tied to the due date of Form 1065 or Form 1065-B. Partnerships that qualify for relief and have already been assessed penalties can expect to receive a letter within the next several months notifying them that the penalties have been abated.  For reconsideration of a penalty covered by this notice that has not been abated by February 28, 2018, contact the number listed in the letter that notified you of the penalty or call (800) 829-1040 and state that you are entitled to relief under Notice 2017-47.

SOURCE: IRS Guidewire Issue Number N-2017-47

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Advertisements

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Prohibits Certain Arbitration Clauses

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released a final rule that prohibits certain financial service companies from blocking class action lawsuits with pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class action waiver clauses in consumer financial services contracts. The final rule requires arbitration clauses to contain a provision that explains that the arbitration clause cannot be invoked in a class action proceeding and requires parties to submit certain arbitration records to the CFPB whenever an arbitration claim is filed in relation to a consumer that entered a pre-dispute arbitration agreement after the rule’s compliance date.

 

The rule is a consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, in which Congress authorized the CFPB to issues regulations that limit or prohibit the use of arbitration agreements in the financial industry.  However, it is unclear whether the broad scope may adversely impact smaller entities that cannot afford to defend themselves against a class action lawsuit.

 

The rule is set to become effective on September 17, 2017 and applies to consumer financial services contracts that are entered into 180 days after September 17, 2017.  Thus, the rule does not affect existing contracts, except when a new financial services entity becomes a party to an older contract. Institutions should prepare to review and update their contract provisions to comply with the final rule.

 

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Department of Labor Clarifies Stance on Still-Pending Overtime Rule

By James Pieper

In 2016, a dramatic overhaul of the rules for eligibility and payment of overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was on the verge of taking effect before being halted by an injunction issued by a federal judge.

With a new administration taking over the Department of Labor, the status of the overtime revisions has been uncertain.  Nor was it known whether the Department would defend its authority to revise the rules in the subject litigation.

In a brief filed on June 30, the Department’s new leadership finally provided some clarity.  The Department defended its legal authority to adopt a new rule (as had been challenged by the plaintiffs), but did not defend the actual changes proposed by the prior administration.

Accordingly, although the rule remains in legal and administrative limbo, it is clear that it will not take effect in the form proposed in 2016.  Should the courts conclude that the Department does have authority to set the earning threshold (under which overtime must be paid to non-exempt employees) by administrative rule, then the new Department leadership will adopt a threshold lower than the amount of $47,476 that was set prior to the injunction.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Adopts Simplified Form for Small Nonprofits

By James Pieper

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has adopted a new, shorter online form for small charitable organizations seeking nonprofit status.

The Form 1023-EZ reduces the existing 26-page form to three pages for qualifying groups.  Organizations with gross receipts of $50,000 or less and assets of $250,000 or less will be able to use the streamlined process.

In a media release, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen stated: “This is a common-sense approach that will help reduce lengthy processing delays for small tax-exempt groups and ultimately larger organizations as well. The change cuts paperwork for these charitable groups and speeds application processing so they can focus on their important work.”

The new form can only be completed online and will help the IRS clear its backlog of more than 60,000 pending nonprofit applications.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

FINRA Clarifies Rules Concerning Social Media and Digital Communications

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued a regulatory notice that addresses the use of digital communications and social media by FINRA member firms. FINRA recognized the expansion of social media and digital communication by broker-dealers, which prompted this guidance, updating the 2011 guidance. The new regulatory notice focuses on text messaging, personal versus business communications, third-party content, hyperlinks, native advertising, testimonials, endorsements, and links to BrokerCheck.

The updated guidance addresses the recordkeeping requirements in Rule 17a-4, which ensures certain communications are preserved. FINRA reminds firms that sharing or linking to specific content, such as a video or article, is a communication by the firm subject to Rule 2210 filing and content requirements. FINRA also clarifies that linking to or sharing an independent third-party website may be subject to Rule 2210 requirements, depending on whether the hyperlink is “ongoing” and whether the firm has influence over the content.

FINRA member broker-dealers may use native advertising, but it must comply with Rule 2210. This means that the advertising must be balanced, fair, and not misleading. Additionally, if a firm arranges for an individual to make a comment or post that promotes the firm, its products, or its services, the communication must comply with Rule 2210 and the firm must identify the communication as an advertisement. Similarly, FINRA reiterated that posts by customers or other third parties on the firm’s website or social media sites are not communications with the public and are not subject to the Rule 2210 requirements. However, if the firm or one of its registered representatives “likes” or shares any of the comments the customers or third parties post, the content becomes subject to the communication requirements of Rule 2210.

In light of these guidelines, FINRA members are advised to review their digital communication policy to ensure compliance with the recently issued regulatory notices.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

The Importance of Personal Cybersecurity

Malware attacks occur regularly in the United States, costing an estimated $15 million annually. The attacks on large corporations tend to make the news, but anyone connected to the internet is at risk of becoming a victim of a cyberattack. Personal internet connections are, generally, open, and personal computers are easy to locate with scanners, making an easy target for the cybercriminal.

Roughly 64% of Americans experience a data breach and nearly 20 million people become victims of identity theft each year. Many consumers fall prey to hackers through use of social media, where Cybercriminals gain access to personal data by creating fake links that download malware to user devices when users click the link. Consumers may also suffer data loss when cyber thieves victimize companies. The companies are desirable targets for cybertheft as they often collect their customers’ addresses, names, social security numbers, and other personal information.

In response to the data breaches, security-related legislation has been enacted at both the state and federal level. This legislation requires companies to take certain measures to protect sensitive information and establishes standards for notifying consumers when a breach occurs. Depending upon the industry, such as the healthcare industry, additional rules and penalties apply. Overall, with the proliferation and advanced tactics of cyber criminals, careful planning is required, both by a business and those with devices connected to the internet.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

The Defend Trade Secrets Act

Last summer, Congress enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), which created a federal civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Recently, various courts have started to interpret the DTSA, and determined that it does not preempt existing state law, but gives trade secret owners the option to enforce their claims and receive more consistent outcomes than they would in state court. Prior to the DTSA’s enactment, manufacturers and sellers had to bring trade secret misappropriation claims in state court, unless the parties could establish diversity jurisdiction or an independent federal cause of action.  Because state interpretations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act vary in every state, consistent relief was not always possible.  For example, the definition of “trade secret” and the types of remedies differ across states. However, the DTSA applies nationwide and provides a uniform statute for trade secret owners to rely on in federal court.

The DTSA has important features that will impact trade secret owners.  Notably, it defines “misappropriation” and “trade secret”, which aids in consistent enforcement across state lines.  Additionally, it creates a civil seizure mechanism, which allows courts to order the seizure of property to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret, even before a formal finding of misappropriation is established and without notice to the alleged wrongdoer.  Last, a whistleblower provision provides immunity to employees from criminal or civil liability under federal or state laws for disclosing a trade secret to an attorney or government official for purposes of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of the law or filing a lawsuit made under seal.

Most controversial is the civil seizure provision, and courts are reluctant to permit seizures unless the plaintiff establishes necessity. Also controversial, federal courts are turning to state courts for guidance in interpreting the DTSA, thus, defeating its underlying purpose of providing uniformity. However, these issues are likely to be resolved over time. Since its enactment, it is estimated that less than seventy cases have been brought under the DTSA, but the law provides an important option for those pursuing trade secret claims.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us