President Trump’s Tax Plan: Key Proposals & Changes You Need to Know (2025)

 

President Trump and the Republican Congress plan to act swiftly to make broad changes to the United States — including its federal tax system. Congress is already working on legislation that would extend and expand provisions of the sweeping Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), as well as incorporate some of Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

To that end, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have compiled a 50-page document that identifies potential avenues they may take, as well as how much these tax and other fiscal changes would cost or save. Here’s a preview of potential changes that might be on the horizon.

Big Plans

The TCJA is the signature tax legislation from Trump’s first term in office, and it cut income tax rates for many taxpayers. Some provisions — including the majority affecting individuals — are slated to expire at the end of 2025. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the temporary TCJA provisions would cost $4.6 trillion over 10 years. For context, the federal debt currently rings in at more than $35 trillion, and the budget deficit is $711 billion.

In addition to supporting the continuation of the TCJA, the president has pushed to reduce the 21% corporate tax rate to 20% or 15%, with the goal of generating growth. He also supports eliminating the 15% corporate alternative minimum tax imposed by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law during the previous administration. It applies only to the largest C corporations.

Regarding tax cuts for individuals beyond TCJA extensions, Trump has expressed that he’s in favor of:

  • Eliminating the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates worth more than $13.99 million),
  • Repealing or raising the $10,000 cap on the deduction for state and local taxes,
  • Creating a deduction for auto loan interest, and
  • Eliminating income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits.

Finally, he wants to cut IRS funding, which would reduce expenditures but also reduce revenues. Without offsets, these plans would drive up the deficit significantly.

Possible Offsets

The House GOP document outlines numerous possibilities beyond just spending reductions to pay for these tax cuts. For example, tariffs — a major plank in Trump’s campaign platform — may play a role.

The GOP document suggests a 10% across-the-board import tariff. Trump, however, has discussed and imposed various tariff amounts, depending on the exporting country. The 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican products, which were imposed earlier, have been paused until March 4. An additional 10% tariff on Chinese imports took effect on February 4.

In addition, Trump said tariffs on goods from other countries, including the 27-member European Union, could happen soon. While he maintains that those countries will pay the tariffs, it’s generally the U.S. importer of record that’s responsible for paying tariffs. Economists generally agree that at least part of the cost would then be passed on to consumers.

The House GOP document also examines generating savings through changes to various tax breaks. Here are some of the options:

The mortgage interest deduction. Suggestions include eliminating the deduction or lowering the current $750,000 limit to $500,000.

Head of household status. The document looks at eliminating this status, which provides a higher standard deduction and certain other tax benefits to unmarried taxpayers with children compared to single filers.

The child and dependent care tax credit. The document considers eliminating the credit for qualified child and dependent care expenses.

Renewable energy tax credits. The IRA created or expanded various tax credits encouraging renewable energy use, including tax credits for electric vehicles and residential clean energy improvements, such as solar panels and heat pumps. The GOP has proposed changes ranging from a full repeal of the IRA to more limited deductions.

Employer-provided benefits. Revenue could be raised by eliminating taxable income exclusions for transportation benefits and on-site gyms.

Health insurance subsidies. Premium tax credits are currently available for households with income above 400% of the federal poverty line (the amounts phase out as income increases). Revenue could be raised by limiting such subsidies to the “most needy Americans.”

Education-related breaks are also being assessed. The House GOP document looks at how much revenue could be generated by eliminating credits for qualified education expenses, the deduction for student loan interest and federal income-driven repayment plans. The GOP is also weighing the elimination of interest subsidies for federal loans while borrowers are still in school and imposing taxes on scholarships and fellowships, which currently are exempt.

The Hurdles

Republican lawmakers plan on passing tax legislation using the reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. However, the GOP holds the majority in the House by only three votes.

That gives potential holdouts within their own caucus a lot of leverage. For example, deficit hawks might oppose certain proposals, while centrist members may prove reluctant to eliminate popular tax breaks and programs.

Republican representatives of all stripes are likely to oppose moves that would hurt industries in their districts, such as the reduction or elimination of certain clean energy incentives. And, of course, lobbyists will make their voices heard.

Stay Tuned

The GOP hopes to enact tax legislation within President Trump’s first 100 days in office, but that may be challenging. We’ll keep you apprised of important developments.

© 2025

Federal Court Rules Against DOL’s “White Collar” Overtime Rule

A federal district court judge has struck down the Biden administration’s new rule regarding the salary threshold for determining whether certain employees are exempt from federal overtime pay requirements. The first phase of the rule took effect for most employers in July 2024 and affects executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employees.

With a Republican administration poised to take control of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the court’s ruling may sound the death knell for the rule. Here’s what the ruling means for employers.

The rejected rule

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), nonexempt workers are entitled to overtime pay at 1.5 times their regular pay rate for hours worked per week that exceed 40. EAP employees are exempt from the overtime requirement if they satisfy three tests:

Salary basis test. An employee is paid a predetermined and fixed salary that isn’t subject to reduction due to variations in the quality or quantity of his or her work.

Salary level test. The salary isn’t less than a specific amount or threshold.

Duties test. An employee primarily performs executive, administrative or professional duties.

The new rule focused on the salary level test and increased the threshold in two steps. The first step occurred on July 1, 2024, when most salaried workers earning less than $844 per week or $43,888 per year became eligible for overtime (up from $684 per week or $35,568 per year). The second step was scheduled to kick in on January 1, 2025, when the salary threshold would have increased to $1,128 per week or $58,656 per year.

In addition, the rule raised the total compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (HCEs), who are subject to a more relaxed duties test than employees earning less. HCEs need only “customarily and regularly” perform at least one of the duties of an exempt EAP employee instead of primarily performing such duties.

As of July 1, 2024, this less restrictive test applied to HCEs who perform office or nonmanual work and earn total compensation (including bonuses, commissions and certain benefits) of at least $132,964 per year (up from $107,432). It would have risen to $151,164 on January 1, 2025.

The rule also established a mechanism to update the salary thresholds every three years, based on current earnings data from the most recent available four quarters of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the DOL could temporarily delay a scheduled update when warranted by unforeseen economic or other conditions.

The court’s ruling

In June 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily blocked the rule as far as its application to the State of Texas as an employer — so on an extremely limited basis — while it considered the state’s underlying legal challenge to the rules (State of Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor). Multiple business groups joined Texas and asked the court to vacate the rule entirely.

On November 15, 2024, the court did just that. It found that the new rule exceeded the DOL’s authority to define terms because the EAP exemption requires that an employee’s status turn on duties, not salary — and the new rule impermissibly made salary predominate over duties. The court also found the automatic updating mechanism exceeded the DOL’s authority.

Notably, the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the doctrine known as “Chevron deference.” Under the doctrine, which had been in effect for decades, courts deferred to “permissible” agency interpretations of the laws they administer. The high court’s ruling empowers courts to reject agency rules more easily.

Employer response

As a result of the court’s ruling, the salary thresholds for EAP employees and HCEs return to their earlier levels: $684 per week or $35,568 per year for the former and $107,432 for the latter. On its face, that’s good news for employers. However, many businesses have started making moves in response to the new rule. For example, employers may have reclassified some employees as nonexempt, increased salaries to retain exempt status for others or reduced salaries to offset new overtime pay. Now what?

Of course, the DOL could appeal the ruling, which could make employers reluctant to institute any immediate changes. An appeal would be heard by the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has repeatedly ruled against the Biden administration.

The best predictor of what’s to come may be the treatment of a similar DOL rule issued by President Obama’s administration. A court invalidated the rule in November 2016 in a ruling that was appealed while Obama was still in office. The DOL under President Trump’s first administration withdrew the appeal and issued the revised and less expansive rule that took effect in 2019.

Regardless, bear in mind that exempt employees also must satisfy the applicable duties test, whatever the salary threshold. An employee whose salary exceeds the threshold but doesn’t primarily engage in the applicable duties isn’t exempt from the overtime requirements.

Proceed with caution

Employers that roll back changes in status or salary increases that were implemented in anticipation of the new rule may find that employees — or their attorneys — begin to question whether their duties warrant an exemption. Even if they don’t pursue litigation, rollbacks must be weighed against the impact on employee morale in a competitive job market. The best course will vary by employer, and legal advice is strongly encouraged. We’ll keep you updated on the latest news regarding the ruling.

© 2025

IRS 2025 Retirement Contribution Limits & MAGI Phaseout Explained

2025 IRS retirement contribution limits chart

The IRS has issued its 2025 inflation-adjusted contribution amounts for retirement plans in Notice 2024-80. Many retirement-plan-related limits will increase for 2025 — but less than in prior years. Thus, depending on the type of plan you have, you may have limited opportunities to increase your retirement savings.

Type of limitation 2024 limit 2025 limit
Elective deferrals to 401(k), 403(b), 457(b)(2) and 457(c)(1) plans $23,000 $23,500
Annual benefit limit for defined benefit plans $275,000 $280,000
Contributions to defined contribution plans $69,000 $70,000
Contributions to SIMPLEs $16,000 $16,500
Contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs $7,000 $7,000
Catch-up contributions to 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans for those age 50 or older $7,500 $7,500
Catch-up contributions to 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans for those age 60, 61, 62 or 63* N/A $11,250
Catch-up contributions to SIMPLE plans for those age 50 or older $3,500 $3,500
Catch-up contributions to SIMPLE plans for those age 60, 61, 62 or 63* N/A $5,250
Catch-up contributions to IRAs for those age 50 or older $1,000 $1,000
Compensation for benefit purposes for qualified plans and SEPs $345,000 $350,000
Minimum compensation for SEP coverage $750 $750
Highly compensated employee threshold $155,000 $160,000

* A change that takes effect in 2025 under SECURE 2.0

Your MAGI may reduce or even eliminate your ability to take advantage of IRAs. Fortunately, IRA-related MAGI phaseout range limits all will increase for 2025:

Traditional IRAs

MAGI phaseout ranges apply to the deductibility of contributions if a taxpayer (or his or her spouse) participates in an employer-sponsored retirement plan:

  • For married taxpayers filing jointly, the phaseout range is specific to each spouse based on whether he or she is a participant in an employer-sponsored plan:
    • For a spouse who participates, the 2025 phaseout range limits will increase by $3,000, to $126,000–$146,000.
    • For a spouse who doesn’t participate, the 2025 phaseout range limits will increase by $6,000, to $236,000–$246,000.
  • For single and head-of-household taxpayers participating in an employer-sponsored plan, the 2025 phaseout range limits will increase by $2,000, to $79,000–$89,000.

Taxpayers with MAGIs in the applicable range can deduct a partial contribution; those with MAGIs exceeding the applicable range can’t deduct any IRA contribution.

But a taxpayer whose deduction is reduced or eliminated can make nondeductible traditional IRA contributions. The $7,000 contribution limit for 2025 (plus $1,000 catch-up, if applicable, and reduced by any Roth IRA contributions) still applies. Nondeductible traditional IRA contributions may also be beneficial if your MAGI is too high for you to contribute (or fully contribute) to a Roth IRA.

Roth IRAs

Whether you participate in an employer-sponsored plan doesn’t affect your ability to contribute to a Roth IRA, but MAGI limits may reduce or eliminate your ability to contribute:

  • For married taxpayers filing jointly, the 2025 phaseout range limits will increase by $6,000, to $236,000–$246,000.
  • For single and head-of-household taxpayers, the 2025 phaseout range limits will increase by $4,000, to $150,000–$165,000.

You can make a partial contribution if your MAGI falls within the applicable range, but no contribution if it exceeds the top of the range.

(Note: Married taxpayers filing separately are subject to much lower phaseout ranges for traditional and Roth IRAs.)

Revisit your retirement plan

To better ensure that your retirement plans remain on track, consider these 2025 inflation-adjusted contribution limits. We can help you review your plans and make any necessary modifications.

 

© 2025

How the 2024 U.S. Election Could Impact Your Taxes: Key Changes and Proposals

2024 Presidential Election

The outcome of the November 5 election is likely to significantly impact taxes. Many provisions in President-elect Donald Trump’s signature tax legislation from his first time in the White House, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Now, there’s a better chance that most provisions will be extended.

This is especially true as Republicans have won back a majority in the U.S. Senate. As of this writing, Republicans have 52 seats, with a few seats yet to be called, so their majority could grow. The balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives remains up in the air, with quite a few seats yet to be called.

In addition to the TCJA, the former and future president has suggested many other tax law changes during his campaign. Here’s a brief overview of some potential tax law changes:

Expiring provisions of the TCJA

Examples of expiring provisions include lower individual tax rates, an increased standard deduction, and a higher gift and estate tax exemption. The president-elect would like to make the TCJA’s individual and estate tax cuts permanent. He’s also indicated that he’s open to revisiting the TCJA’s $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction.

Business taxation

President-elect Trump has proposed decreasing the corporate tax rate from its current 21% to 20% (or even lower for companies making products in America). He’d also like to expand the Section 174 deduction for research and development expenditures.

Individual taxable income

The president-elect has proposed eliminating income and payroll taxes on tips for restaurant and hospitality workers, and excluding overtime pay and Social Security benefits from taxation.

Housing incentives

President-elect Trump has alluded to possible tax incentives for first-time homebuyers but without specifics. The Republican platform calls for reducing mortgage rates by slashing inflation, cutting regulations and opening parts of federal lands to new home construction.

Tariffs

The president-elect has called for higher tariffs on imports, suggesting a baseline tariff of 10%, with a 60% tariff on imports from China. (In speeches, he’s proposed a 100% tariff on certain imported cars.)

Final Thoughts

Which extensions and proposals will actually come to fruition will depend on a variety of factors. For example, Congress has to pass tax bills before the president can sign them into law. If you have questions on how these potential changes may affect your overall tax liability, please contact us.

 

© 2025

How will the 2025 Inflation Adjustment Numbers Affect Your Year-End Tax Planning?

The IRS has issued its 2025 inflation adjustment numbers for more than 60 tax provisions in Revenue Procedure 2024-40. Inflation has moderated somewhat this year over last, so many amounts will increase over 2024 but not as much as in the previous year. Take these 2025 numbers into account as you implement 2024 year-end tax planning strategies.

Individual income tax rates

Tax-bracket thresholds increase for each filing status, but because they’re based on percentages, they increase more significantly for the higher brackets. For example, the top of the 10% bracket will increase by $325–$650, depending on filing status, but the top of the 35% bracket will increase by $10,200–$20,400, again depending on filing status.

  2025 ordinary-income tax brackets

Tax rate

Single

Head of household

Married filing jointly
or surviving spouse
Married filing separately

10% $0 –   $11,925 $0 –   $17,000 $0 –   $23,850 $0 –   $11,925
12% $11,926 –   $48,475 $17,001 –   $64,850 $23,851 –   $96,950 $11,926 –   $48,475
22% $48,476 – $103,350 $64,851 – $103,350 $96,951 – $206,700 $48,476 – $103,350
24% $103,351 – $197,300 $103,351 – $197,300 $206,701 – $394,600 $103,351 – $197,300
32% $197,301 – $250,525 $197,301 – $250,500 $394,601 – $501,050 $197,301 – $250,525
35% $250,526 – $626,350 $250,501 – $626,350 $501,051 – $751,600 $250,526 – $375,800
37% Over $626,350 Over $626,350 Over $751,600 Over $375,800

Note that under the TCJA, the rates and brackets are scheduled to return to their pre-TCJA levels (adjusted for inflation) in 2026 if Congress doesn’t extend the current levels or make other changes.

Standard deduction

The TCJA nearly doubled the standard deduction, indexed annually for inflation, through 2025. In 2025, the standard deduction will be $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, $22,500 for heads of households, and $15,000 for singles and married couples filing separately.

After 2025, the standard deduction amounts are scheduled to drop back to the amounts under pre-TCJA law unless Congress extends the current rules or revises them. Also worth noting is that the personal exemption that was suspended by the TCJA is scheduled to return in 2026. Of course, Congress could extend the suspension.

Long-term capital gains rate

The long-term gains rate applies to realized gains on investments held for more than 12 months. For most types of assets, the rate is 0%, 15% or 20%, depending on your income. While the 0% rate applies to most income that would be taxed at 12% or less based on the taxpayer’s ordinary-income rate, the top long-term gains rate of 20% kicks in before the top ordinary-income rate does.

  2025 long-term capital gains brackets*

Tax rate
Single
Head of household
Married filing jointly
or surviving spouse
Married filing separately
0% $0 –   $48,350 $0 –   $64,750 $0 –   $96,700 $0 –   $48,350
15% $48,351 – $533,400 $64,751 – $566,700 $96,701 – $600,050 $48,351 – $300,000
20% Over $533,400 Over $566,700 Over $600,050 Over $300,000
* Higher rates apply to certain types of assets.

As with ordinary income tax rates and brackets, those for long-term capital gains are scheduled to return to their pre-TCJA levels (adjusted for inflation) in 2026 if Congress doesn’t extend the current levels or make other changes.

AMT

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a separate tax system that limits some deductions, doesn’t permit others and treats certain income items differently. If your AMT liability exceeds your regular tax liability, you must pay the AMT.

Like the regular tax brackets, the AMT brackets are annually indexed for inflation. In 2025, the threshold for the 28% bracket will increase by $6,500 for all filing statuses except married filing separately, which will increase by half that amount.

  2025 AMT brackets

Tax rate Single
Head of household
Married filing jointly
or surviving spouse
Married filing separately
26% $0 – $239,100 $0 – $239,100 $0 – $239,100 $0 – $119,550
28% Over $239,100 Over $239,100 Over $239,100  Over $119,550

The AMT exemptions and exemption phaseouts are also indexed. The exemption amounts in 2025 will be $88,100 for singles and $137,000 for joint filers, increasing by $2,400 and $3,700, respectively, over 2024 amounts. The inflation-adjusted phaseout ranges in 2025 will be $626,350–$978,750 for singles and $1,252,700–$1,800,700 for joint filers. Phaseout ranges for married couples filing separately are half of those for joint filers.

The exemptions and phaseouts were significantly increased under the TJCA. Without Congressional action, they’ll drop to their pre-TCJA levels (adjusted for inflation) in 2026.

Education and child-related breaks

The maximum benefits of certain education and child-related breaks will generally remain the same in 2025. But most of these breaks are limited based on a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). Taxpayers whose MAGIs are within an applicable phaseout range are eligible for a partial break — and breaks are eliminated for those whose MAGIs exceed the top of the range.

The MAGI phaseout ranges will generally remain the same or increase modestly in 2025, depending on the break. For example:

The American Opportunity credit. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, the MAGI amount used by joint filers to determine the reduction in the American Opportunity credit isn’t adjusted for inflation. The credit is phased out for taxpayers with MAGIs in excess of $80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns). The maximum credit per eligible student is $2,500.

The Lifetime Learning credit. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, the MAGI amount used by joint filers to determine the reduction in the Lifetime Learning credit isn’t adjusted for inflation. The credit is phased out for taxpayers with MAGIs in excess of $80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns). The maximum credit is $2,000 per tax return.

The adoption credit. The MAGI phaseout range for eligible taxpayers adopting a child will increase in 2025 — by $7,040. It will be $259,190–$299,190 for joint, head-of-household and single filers. The maximum credit will increase by $470, to $17,280 in 2025.

Note: Married couples filing separately generally aren’t eligible for these credits.

These are only some of the education and child-related tax breaks that may benefit you. Keep in mind that, if your MAGI is too high for you to qualify for a break for your child’s education, your child might be eligible to claim one on his or her tax return.

Gift and estate taxes

The unified gift and estate tax exemption and the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption are both adjusted annually for inflation. In 2025, the amount will be $13.99 million (up from $13.61 million in 2024). Beware that the TJCA approximately doubled these exemptions starting in 2018. Both exemptions are scheduled to drop significantly in 2026 if lawmakers don’t extend the higher amount or make other changes.

The annual gift tax exclusion will increase by $1,000, to $19,000 in 2025. (It isn’t part of a TCJA provision that’s scheduled to expire.)

Crunching the numbers

With the 2025 inflation adjustment amounts trending slightly higher than 2024 amounts, it’s important to understand how they might affect your tax and financial situation. Also keep in mind that many amounts could change substantially in 2026 because of expiring TCJA provisions — or new tax legislation, which could even go into effect sooner. We’d be happy to help crunch the numbers and explain the tax-saving strategies that may make the most sense for you in the current environment of tax law uncertainty.

 

© 2025

Ease the Financial Pain of Natural Disasters with Tax Relief

Hurricane Milton has caused catastrophic damage to many parts of Florida. Less than two weeks earlier, Hurricane Helene victimized millions of people in multiple states across the southeastern portion of the country. The two devastating storms are among the many weather-related disasters this year. Indeed, natural disasters have led to significant losses for many taxpayers, from hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe storms to the wildfires again raging in the West.

If your family or business has been affected by a natural disaster, you may qualify for a casualty loss deduction and federal tax relief.

Understanding the casualty loss deduction

A casualty loss can result from the damage, destruction or loss of property due to any sudden, unexpected or unusual event. Examples include floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Normal wear and tear or progressive deterioration of property doesn’t constitute a deductible casualty loss. For example, drought generally doesn’t qualify.

The availability of the tax deduction for casualty losses varies depending on whether the losses relate to personal- or business-use items. Generally, you can deduct casualty losses related to your home, household items and personal vehicles if they’re caused by a federally declared disaster. Under current law, that’s defined as a disaster in an area that the U.S. president declares eligible for federal assistance. Casualty losses related to business or income-producing property (for example, rental property) can be deducted regardless of whether they occur in a federally declared disaster area.

Casualty losses are deductible in the year of the loss, usually the year of the casualty event. If your loss stems from a federally declared disaster, you can opt to treat it as having occurred in the previous year. You may receive your refund more quickly if you amend the previous year’s return than if you wait until you file your return for the casualty year.

Factoring in reimbursements

If your casualty loss is covered by insurance, you must reduce the loss by the amount of any reimbursement or expected reimbursement. (You also must reduce the loss by any salvage value.)

Reimbursement also could lead to capital gains tax liability. When the amount you receive from insurance or other reimbursements (less any expense you incurred to obtain reimbursement, such as the cost of an appraisal) exceeds the cost or adjusted basis of the property, you have a capital gain. You’ll need to include that gain as income unless you’re eligible to postpone reporting the gain.

You may be able to postpone the reporting obligation if you purchase property that’s similar in service or use to the destroyed property within the specified replacement period. You can also postpone if you buy a controlling interest (at least 80%) in a corporation owning similar property or if you spend the reimbursement to restore the property.

Alternatively, you can offset casualty gains with casualty losses not attributable to a federally declared disaster. This is the only way you can deduct personal-use property casualty losses incurred in locations not declared disaster areas.

Calculating casualty loss

For personal-use property, or business-use or income-producing property that isn’t completely destroyed, your casualty loss is the lesser of:

  • The adjusted basis of the property immediately before the loss (generally, your original cost, plus improvements and less depreciation), or
  • The drop in fair market value (FMV) of the property as a result of the casualty (that is, the difference between the FMV immediately before and immediately after the casualty).

For business-use or income-producing property that’s completely destroyed, the amount of the loss is the adjusted basis less any salvage value and reimbursements.

If a single casualty involves more than one piece of property, you must figure each loss separately. You then combine these losses to determine the casualty loss.

An exception applies to personal-use real property, such as a home. The entire property (including improvements such as landscaping) is treated as one item. The loss is the smaller of the decline in FMV of the whole property and the entire property’s adjusted basis.

Other limits may apply to the amount of the loss you can deduct, too. For personal-use property, you must reduce each casualty loss by $100 (after you’ve subtracted any salvage value and reimbursement).

If you suffer more than one casualty loss during the tax year, you must reduce each loss by $100 and report each on a separate IRS form. If two or more taxpayers have losses from the same casualty, the $100 rule applies separately to each taxpayer.

But that’s not all. For personal-use property, you also must reduce your total casualty losses by 10% of your adjusted gross income after you’ve applied the $100 rule. As a result, smaller personal-use casualty losses often provide little or no tax benefit.

Keeping necessary records

Documentation is critical to claim a casualty loss deduction. You’ll need to show:

  • That you were the owner of the property or, if you leased it, that you were contractually liable to the owner for the damage,
  • The type of casualty and when it occurred,
  • That the loss was a direct result of the casualty, and
  • Whether a claim for reimbursement with a reasonable expectation of recovery exists.

You also must be able to establish your adjusted basis, reimbursements and, for personal-use property, pre- and post-casualty FMVs.

Qualifying for IRS relief

This year, the IRS has granted tax relief to taxpayers affected by numerous natural disasters. For example, Hurricane Helene relief was recently granted to the entire states of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina and parts of Florida, Tennessee and Virginia. The relief typically extends filing and other deadlines. The IRS may provide additional relief to Hurricane Milton victims. (For detailed information about your area, visit: https://bit.ly/3nzF2ui.)

Be aware that you can be an affected taxpayer even if you don’t live in a federally declared disaster area. You’re considered affected if records you need to meet a filing or payment deadline postponed during the applicable relief period are located in a covered disaster area. For example, if you don’t live in a disaster area but your tax preparer does and is unable to pay or file on your behalf, you likely qualify for filing and payment relief.

Turning to us for help

If you’ve had the misfortune of incurring casualty losses due to a natural disaster, contact us. We’d be pleased to help you take advantage of all available tax benefits and relief.

 

© 2025

Federal Court Rejects FTC’s Noncompete Agreement Ban

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a final rule prohibiting most noncompete agreements with employees. The ban was scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024, but ran into multiple court challenges. Now the court in one of those cases has knocked down the rule, leaving its future uncertain.

The FTC ban

The FTC’s rule would have prohibited noncompetes nationwide. In addition, existing noncompetes for most workers would no longer be enforceable after it became effective. The rule was expected to affect 30 million workers.

The rule includes an exception for existing noncompete agreements with “senior executives,” defined as workers earning more than $151,164 annually who are in policy-making positions. Policy-making positions include:

  • A company’s president,
  • A chief executive officer or equivalent,
  • Any other officer who has policy-making authority, and
  • Any other natural person who has policy-making authority similar to an officer with such authority.

Employers couldn’t enter new noncompetes with senior executives under the new rule.

Unlike an earlier proposed rule issued for public comment in January 2023, the final rule didn’t require employers to legally modify existing noncompetes by formally rescinding them. Instead, they were required only to provide notice to workers bound by an existing agreement — other than senior executives — that they wouldn’t enforce such agreements against the workers.

Legal challenges

On the day the FTC announced the new rule, a Texas tax services firm filed a lawsuit challenging the rule in the Northern District of Texas (Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and similar industry groups joined the suit in support of the plaintiff. Additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission) and the Middle District of Florida (Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission).

The Ryan case is the first to reach judgment. On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the FTC exceeded its authority in implementing the rule and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. It further held that the FTC cannot enforce the ban, a ruling that applies on a nationwide basis.

Notably, in July 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and stay of the rule’s effective date. It found the plaintiff didn’t establish that it was reasonably likely to succeed in its argument against the ban. By contrast, on August 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction and stay. That plaintiff requested relief only for itself, though, not nationwide. But the Ryan ruling means the FTC can’t enforce the ban at all unless it prevails on appeal.

An appeal would be before the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has become a favorite destination for challenges to President Biden’s policies. Although the court often sides with the challengers, it’s also regularly been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

An FTC appeal could face an uphill battle regardless, though, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that reversed the longstanding doctrine of “Chevron deference.” Under that precedent, courts gave deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws they administer. According to the new ruling, however, it’s now up to courts to decide “whether the law means what the agency says.”

The bottom line

For now, the FTC’s noncompete ban remains in limbo and won’t take effect on September 4, 2024. But that doesn’t mean noncompetes aren’t still vulnerable to attack. For example, some private parties are using anti-trust laws to challenge such agreements. And an FTC spokesperson has indicated that the Ryan ruling won’t deter the agency “from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions.”

 

© 2025

IRS Issues Final Regulations on Inherited IRAs

The IRS has published new regulations relevant to taxpayers subject to the “10-year rule” for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from inherited IRAs or other defined contribution plans. The final regs, which take effect in 2025, require many beneficiaries to take annual RMDs in the 10 years following the deceased’s death.

SECURE Act Ended Stretch IRAs

The genesis of the new regs dates back to the 2019 enactment of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act. One of the many changes in that tax law was the elimination of so-called “stretch IRAs.”

Previously, all beneficiaries of inherited IRAs could stretch RMDs over their entire life expectancies. Younger heirs in particular benefited by taking smaller distributions for decades, deferring taxes while the accounts grew. These heirs also could pass on the IRAs to later generations, deferring the taxes even longer.

The SECURE Act created limitations on which heirs can stretch IRAs. These limits are intended to force beneficiaries to take distributions and expedite the collection of taxes. Specifically, for IRA owners or defined contribution plan participants who died in 2020 or later, only “eligible designated beneficiaries” (EDB) are permitted to stretch out payments over their life expectancies. The following heirs are considered eligible for this favorable treatment:

  • Surviving spouses,
  • Children younger than “the age of majority,”
  • Individuals with disabilities,
  • Chronically ill individuals, and
  • Individuals who are no more than 10 years younger than the account owner.

All other heirs (known as designated beneficiaries) are required to take the entire balance of the account within 10 years of the death, regardless of whether the deceased died before, on or after the required beginning date (RBD) of his or her RMDs.

Note: In 2023, under another law, the age at which account owners must begin taking RMDs increased from 72 to 73, pushing the RBD date to April 1 of the year after the account owner turns 73. The age is slated to jump to 75 in 2033.

Proposed Regs Muddied The Waters

In February 2022, the IRS issued proposed regs addressing the 10-year rule — and they brought some bad news for many affected heirs. The proposed regs provided that, if the deceased dies on or after the RBD, designated beneficiaries must take their taxable RMDs in years one through nine after death (based on their life expectancies), receiving the balance in the tenth year. A lump-sum distribution at the end of 10 years wouldn’t be allowed.

The IRS soon heard from confused taxpayers who had recently inherited IRAs or defined contribution plans and didn’t know when they were required to start taking RMDs. Beneficiaries could have been hit with a penalty based on the amounts that should have been distributed but weren’t. This penalty was 50% before 2023 but was lowered to 25% starting in 2023 (or 10% if a corrective distribution was made in a timely manner). The plans themselves could have been disqualified for failing to make RMDs.

As a result, the IRS issued a series of waivers on enforcement of the 10-year rule. With the release of the final regulations, the waivers will come to an end after 2024.

Final Regs Settle The Matter

The IRS reviewed comments on the proposed regs suggesting that if the deceased began taking RMDs before death, the designated beneficiaries shouldn’t be required to continue the annual distributions as long as the remaining account balance is fully distributed within 10 years of death. The final regs instead require these beneficiaries to continue receiving annual distributions.

If the deceased hadn’t begun taking his or her RMDs, though, the 10-year rule is somewhat different. While the account has to be fully liquidated under the same timeline, no annual distributions are required. That gives beneficiaries more opportunity for tax planning.

To illustrate, let’s say that a designated beneficiary inherited an IRA in 2021 from a family member who had begun to take RMDs. Under the waivers, the beneficiary needn’t take RMDs for 2022 through 2024. The beneficiary must, however, take annual RMDs for 2025 through 2030, with the account fully distributed by the end of 2031. Had the deceased not started taking RMDs however, the beneficiary would have the flexibility to not take any distributions in 2025 through 2030. So long as the account was fully liquidated by the end of 2031, the beneficiary would be in compliance.

Additional Proposed Regs

The IRS released another set of proposed regs regarding other RMD-related changes made by SECURE 2.0, including the age when individuals born in 1959 must begin taking RMDs. Under the proposed regs, the “applicable age” for them would be 73 years.

They also include rules addressing:

  • The purchase of an annuity with part of an employee’s defined contribution plan account,
  • Distributions from designated Roth accounts,
  • Corrective distributions,
  • Spousal elections after a participant’s death,
  • Divorce after the purchase of a qualifying longevity annuity contract, and
  • Outright distributions to a trust beneficiary.

The proposed regs would take effect in 2025.

Timing Matters

It’s important to realize that even though RMDs from an inherited IRA aren’t yet required, that doesn’t mean a beneficiary shouldn’t take distributions. If you’ve inherited an IRA or a defined contribution plan and are unsure of whether you should be taking RMDs, contact us. We’d be pleased to help you determine the best course of action for your tax situation.

 

© 2025

IRS Ramps Up Compliance Enforcement Against Certain Businesses

The Inflation Reduction Act provided the IRS with billions of dollars of additional funding to reduce the so-called “tax gap” between what taxpayers owe and what they actually pay. The tax agency has already launched numerous initiatives aimed at this goal, including several business-related compliance campaigns. Let’s take a closer look at three of the most significant recent targets.

Abusive Pass-Through Practices

The IRS has accelerated its enforcement efforts against partnerships and other pass-through entities, which it claims have been overlooked for more than a decade. According to the IRS, while tax filings for pass-through entities have jumped by 70% since 2010, audit rates for them fell from 3.8% in 2010 to 0.1% in 2019.

To remedy this, the tax agency is creating a new office that will focus exclusively on partnerships, S corporations, and trusts and estates. That’s in addition to a special work group focused on pass-throughs, including complex partnerships, in its Large Business and International Division.

The IRS also launched a new regulatory initiative to prevent basis-shifting, which it calls “a major tax loophole exploited by large, complex partnerships.” Basis-shifting occurs when a single business with many related-party entities enters a series of transactions to maximize deductions and minimize taxes. For example, a partnership might transfer tax basis from property that doesn’t generate tax deductions (stock or land) to property that does (equipment).

The end game, the IRS says, is to take abusive deductions or reduce gains when the asset is sold, effectively making taxable income vanish. The IRS claims these “shell games” cost the federal government billions of dollars annually. To combat the losses, it plans on issuing regulations that:

  • Eliminate the inappropriate tax benefits created from basis-shifting between related parties, and
  • Prohibit partnership basis-shifting among members of a consolidated group.

Proposed regulations released in June 2024 would require the reporting of certain basis-shifting transactions. The IRS has also issued a Revenue Ruling that provides that certain related-party partnership transactions involving basis-shifting lack economic substance — a sign it intends to challenge the transactions.

Improper Employee Retention Tax Credit Claims

The IRS crackdown on ineligible Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) claims came to light in July 2023, when the tax agency announced that it was shifting its ERTC review focus to compliance concerns. It began intensified audits and criminal investigations of both promoters and businesses that filed or were filing suspect claims.

Two months later, the IRS instituted a moratorium on processing claims submitted after September 14, 2023. The moves came in response to what the tax agency described as a flood of illegitimate claims largely driven by fraudulent promoters.

The moratorium gave the IRS time to review more than 1 million ERTC claims totaling more than $86 billion. The review found that 10% to 20% of claims have clear signs of being erroneous and another 60% to 70% of claims reveal an unacceptable level of risk. Tens of thousands of the former group have been or will be denied, and the IRS will perform additional analysis of the latter group.

The IRS continued to process claims made before September 14, 2023, during its review period. As of late June, it had processed 28,000 claims worth $2.2 billion and rejected more than 14,000 claims worth more than $1 billion. Review of claims filed for 2020 uncovered more than 22,000 improper claims, resulting in $572 million in assessments against taxpayers. These figures could be even higher when the IRS turns its attention to the 2021 tax year because the maximum per-employee credit amount was $7,000 per quarter that year. It was $5,000 for the 2020 tax year.

With more than 1.4 million ERTC claims still unprocessed, concerned businesses may want to take advantage of the IRS’s Withdrawal Program. The program is available to eligible employers that filed a ERTC claim but haven’t yet received, cashed or deposited a refund. The IRS will treat withdrawn claims as if they were never filed, so taxpayers aren’t at risk of liability for repayment, penalties or interest.

The IRS also may reopen its now-closed Voluntary Disclosure Program for employers that claimed and received the credit but weren’t entitled to it. A decision is expected this summer.

Personal Use of Corporate Jets

In February 2024, the IRS unveiled a new audit initiative scrutinizing the personal use of corporate aircraft. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides a generous bonus depreciation provision that prompted numerous businesses to buy corporate jets. These aircraft, however, are often used for both business and personal reasons, triggering some complicated tax implications.

Businesses generally can claim a deduction for expenses related to maintaining a corporate jet if it’s used for business purposes. Deductible expenses include depreciation, pilot wages, interest, insurance and hangar fees. The amount of the deduction for aircraft travel on a business’s tax return can reach into the tens of millions of dollars.

Corporate jets, however, are frequently used for both business and personal reasons by a company’s executives, shareholders and partners, as well as their family and friends. The personal use generally results in income inclusion for the individuals and can limit a business’s ability to deduct costs related to that travel.

Notably, personal use includes not only taking the jet for purely personal purposes (for example, to attend a concert in another city) but also bringing family members or other guests along on a trip that’s otherwise for a business purpose. That’s because the purpose of a trip is determined on a passenger-by-passenger basis.

The new audit initiative includes audits of aircraft usage by large corporations and partnerships (and also high-income taxpayers). The exams will focus on whether jet usage is properly allocated between business and personal reasons. While the initial plans called for dozens of audits, the IRS indicated that the number could increase based on the results and as it continues to add new examiners.

Protect Yourself

An aggressive and well-funded IRS makes tax compliance more important than ever. We can help businesses minimize their tax bills while staying on the right side of the law.

 

© 2025

SECURE 2.0: Which provisions went into effect in 2024?

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) 2.0 Act was signed into law in December 2022, bringing more than 90 changes to retirement plan and tax laws. Many of its provisions are little known and were written to roll out over several years rather than immediately taking effect.

Here are several important changes that went into effect in 2024:

Pension-Linked Emergency Savings Accounts (PLESAs).

More than half of U.S. adults would turn to borrowing when confronted by an emergency expense of $1,000 or more, according to a Bankrate survey — a figure that has held steady for years. In response, SECURE 2.0 contains provisions related to emergency access to retirement savings, including PLESAs. PLESAs are defined contribution plans designed to encourage workers to save for financial emergencies.

Beginning this year, employers can offer PLESAs linked to employees’ retirement accounts, with the PLESA treated as a Roth, or after-tax, account. Non-highly-compensated employees can be automatically enrolled with a deferral of up to 3% of compensation but no more than $2,500 annually (indexed for inflation) — or less if the employer chooses. Employees can make qualified withdrawals tax- and penalty-free. Employers must allow at least one withdrawal per month, with no fee for the first four per year.

Starter 401(k) plans.

SECURE 2.0 creates a new kind of retirement plan for employers not already sponsoring a qualified retirement plan, called a starter 401(k). Employers must automatically enroll all employees at a deferral rate of at least 3% of compensation but no more than 15%. The maximum annual deferral is $6,000 (indexed for inflation), plus the annual IRA catch-up contribution of $1,000 for those age 50 or older. No actual deferral percentage (ADP) or top-heavy testing of the plan is required, reducing the compliance and cost burden for employers.

Employers can impose age and service eligibility requirements, and employees may elect out. They also can choose to contribute at a different level. Employer contributions aren’t allowed, so less record keeping is required.

Top-heavy rules.

Defined contribution plans that are considered “top-heavy” must make nonelective minimum contributions equal to 3% of a participant’s compensation. This can represent a significant expense for small employers. Top-heavy plans are those where the aggregate of accounts for key employees exceeds 60% of the aggregate accounts for non-key employees.

Starting in 2024, employers can perform the top-heavy test separately on excludable employees (those who are under age 21 and have less than a year of service) and non-excludable employees. The goal is to eliminate the incentive for employers to exclude employees from the plan to avoid the minimum contribution obligation.

SIMPLE IRAs.

SECURE 2.0 boosts the annual Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees (SIMPLE) IRA and SIMPLE 401(k) deferral limit and the catch-up limit to 110% of the 2024 contribution limits (indexed for inflation) for employers with 25 or fewer employees. Employers with 26 to 100 employees can offer the higher deferral limits if they provide a 4% matching contribution or a 3% employer contribution.

Employers now can make additional contributions to each employee in the plan, as well. Additional contributions must be made in a uniform manner and can’t exceed the lesser of up to 10% of compensation or $5,000 (indexed for inflation) per employee.

Early withdrawal exceptions.

SECURE 2.0 allows penalty-free early withdrawals from qualified retirement plans for “unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to personal or family emergency expenses.” Employees have three years to repay such withdrawals; no additional emergency withdrawals are permitted during the three-year repayment period, except to the extent that any previous withdrawals within that period have been repaid. The withdrawals are otherwise limited to once per year.

Victims of domestic abuse by a spouse or partner also are exempt from early withdrawal penalties for the lesser of $10,000 (indexed for inflation) or 50% of their vested account balances. The law’s detailed definition of domestic abuse includes abuse of a participant’s child or another family member living in the same household. Withdrawals can be repaid over a three-year period, and participants can recover income taxes paid on repaid distributions.

Note: An early withdrawal penalty exception for terminally ill individuals took effect in 2023.

Employer-provided student loan relief.

Younger employees with large amounts of student debt have sometimes missed out on their employer’s matching contributions to retirement plans. SECURE 2.0 tackles this catch-22 by allowing these employees to receive matching contributions based on their qualified student loan payments. Employers can make matching contributions to 401(k) plans or SIMPLE IRAs. Note that contributions based on student loan payments must be made available to all match-eligible employees.

Section 529 plan rollovers.

Beginning this year, owners of certain 529 plans can transfer unused funds intended for qualified education expenses directly to the plan beneficiary’s Roth IRA without incurring any federal tax or the 10% penalty for nonqualified withdrawals.

A beneficiary’s rollover amount is limited to a lifetime maximum of $35,000, and rollovers are subject to the applicable Roth IRA annual contribution limit. Rollover amounts can’t include contributions made to the plan in the previous five years, and the 529 account must have been maintained for at least 15 years.

Required minimum distributions (RMDs).

Designated Roth 401(k) and 403(b) plans provided by employers have been subject to annual RMDs in the same way that traditional 401(k)s are. As of 2024, though, the plans aren’t subject to RMDs until the death of the owner.

Act now

Many employers need to amend their plans due to changes related to SECURE 2.0. Fortunately, they generally have until the end of 2025 to make these amendments as long as they comply by the law’s deadlines. Contact us for additional details.

© 2025