Posted tagged ‘reporting’

New Section 6045B: Reporting Not Required For Corporate Subsidiaries

January 6, 2011

By Jonathan Prokup

From time to time, we receive questions from readers about current topics on their minds.  One of our readers wrote earlier this week to ask about an article from Monday’s Tax Notes2011 Brings New Return Obligation for Corporate Actions Affecting Basis, by Amy Elliott.  The article discussed the newly effective Code section 6045B which generally requires corporations that engage in some act that affects the basis of their outstanding stock or other securities (e.g., a stock split or a distribution in excess of earnings and profits) to file a statement with the IRS and furnish a similar statement to their security holders describing the effect of the action on the basis of each share of their stock.

After reading this article, one of our readers expressed concern that the provision could apply to all corporate actions, including purely internal actions among domestic and foreign subsidiary corporations.  For large, multinational companies, a requirement to report to both the stockholders and the IRS every action that affected the basis of a subsidiary’s stock could create an obvious burden.  Read literally, the text of the statute would seem to suggest this is exactly what is required, given that the statute applies to “any issuer of a specified security.”  Code section 6045B(a)(1).  (A “specified security” generally refers to any security in which basis reporting is required – e.g., stocks, bonds, derivative contracts.) (more…)

Senate Fixes An Onerous Reporting Requirement With An Onerous Reporting Requirement?

September 16, 2010

By Dustin Covello

As we’ve discussed previously at the TaxBlawg, a minor provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Section 9006, which dramatically expands the requirements for reporting payments on Form 1099 – has become a hot-button issue in Congress.  Prior to the law, Form 1099 reporting was not required for payments for goods or (with some exceptions) payments to corporations.  Section 9006 expanded the Form 1099 requirement to cover such payments made to a single payee if the payments exceed an aggregate of $600 or more during a calendar year.

Over the summer, the small business lobby called foul, arguing that the expansion imposed an oppressive paperwork burden on small businesses.  Consequently, earlier this week, Senate Democrats and Republicans proposed dueling amendments to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to “fix” the expanded Form 1099 reporting requirement of Section 9006.  In the eternal spirit of politics, each party’s amendment failed because neither wanted to give the other credit for being the savior of small businesses.  Despite the failure of these amendments to Section 9006, the Senate passed the bill this afternoon, foreshadowing its likely enactment in the near future.

(more…)

Certain Uncertainty: Congress Juggles Tax Proposals

August 4, 2010

By Jonathan Prokup

Although death and taxes might, according to Benjamin Franklin, be the only certainties in this world, Congress is surely striving to add another – that is, the certainty of uncertainty.  Congress, it seems, is committed to keeping taxpayers in as much doubt as possible for as long as possible about the status of a variety of important provisions that will affect both substantive tax liabilities and compliance obligations.

(more…)

What Would Happen If A Taxpayer Asks The IRS For The Same “Deal” That Timothy Geithner Got?

June 25, 2010

By George W. Connelly

As my readers know, I focus my practice on representing people who have “misunderstandings” with the Internal Revenue Service.  I can’t count the number of clients who have made a comment along the lines of “get me Geithner’s deal” since it came to light that he had some significant and frankly embarrassing tax problems while working for the International Monetary Fund.  In point of fact, making a statement like that to an IRS employee is probably one of the worst things a taxpayer could say, because the rank and file IRS employees realize that if they did what Mr. Geithner did, they would be fired on the spot.

(more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers

%d bloggers like this: