15-May-2019 4:31pm
EZTAX wrote:Some clients are worse off because they lost their EIC.
15-May-2019 5:29pm
dave829 wrote:EZTAX wrote:Some clients are worse off because they lost their EIC.
Today, the Tax Court said that taxpayers can get the EIC because the payments are taxable (and thus, Notice 2014-7 is wrong).
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCInOP/Opi ... x?ID=11863
15-May-2019 5:47pm
15-May-2019 5:57pm
15-May-2019 6:41pm
16-May-2019 4:49am
MSchmahl wrote:dave829 wrote:EZTAX wrote:Some clients are worse off because they lost their EIC.
Today, the Tax Court said that taxpayers can get the EIC because the payments are taxable (and thus, Notice 2014-7 is wrong).
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCInOP/Opi ... x?ID=11863
This is big news and deserves its own thread if the IRS does not appeal.
16-May-2019 7:09am
16-May-2019 7:55am
16-May-2019 11:38am
dave829 wrote:The Tax Court is saying that the payments are taxable (based on prior decisions, such as Bannon), but the IRS is saying that they aren't taxable, due to its position stated in Notice 2014-7. In the Feigh case (yesterday's Tax Court decision), the parties had stipulated that the payments weren't taxable due to Notice 2014-7, and the IRS didn't argue, in the alternative, that they were taxable. As a result, the Tax Court didn't have to rule on the taxability issue since the parties had already stipulated to it. The only issue the court had to rule on was the refundable credits. The Tax Court ruled that it didn't have to follow the IRS's position in Notice 2014-7, and that since the payments were taxable, the taxpayer was entitled to the credits. Strange decision.
Our holding addresses the power of the IRS, through a notice, to deem
income otherwise includible as not includible for purposes of calculating a benefit
bestowed by Congress. We do not reach the related issue of whether the IRS may
properly classify income as not includible through a regulation
16-May-2019 12:04pm
dave829 wrote:The Tax Court is saying that the payments are taxable (based on prior decisions, such as Bannon), but the IRS is saying that they aren't taxable, due to its position stated in Notice 2014-7.
TaxMonkey wrote:The Tax Court made no decision on the tax ability of the payments:
16-May-2019 1:44pm
16-May-2019 3:27pm
16-May-2019 4:09pm
The administrative-law principle that a federal agency's determination is entitled to judicial respect if the determination is authorized by statute and made based on the agency's experience and informed judgment. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). Under Skidmore, the level of deference given to an agency’s interpretation is based on the degree of the agency’s care; the agency’s consistency, formality, and relative expertise; and the persuasiveness of the agency’s position.
16-May-2019 4:37pm
EZTAX wrote:If I amend a return, do i need to show the IHSS payments as taxable income?
16-May-2019 5:59pm