Author: Slattery & Holman, P.C.

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new final rule regarding the salary threshold for determining whether employees are exempt from federal overtime pay requirements. The threshold is slated to jump 65% from its current level by 2025 and is expected to make four million additional workers eligible for overtime pay.

On the same day the overtime rule was announced, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a final rule prohibiting most noncompete agreements with employees, with similarly far-reaching implications for many employers. Both regulations could be changed by court challenges, but here’s what you need to know for now.

The overtime rule

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

1.  Salary basis test. The 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.
2. Salary level test. The salary isn’t less than a specific amount, or threshold (currently, $684 per week or $35,568 per year).
3. Duties test. The employee primarily performs executive, administrative or professional duties.

The new rule focuses on the salary level test and will increase the threshold in two steps. Starting on July 1, 2024, most salaried workers who earn less than $844 per week will be eligible for overtime. On January 1, 2025, the threshold will climb further, to $1,128 per week.

The rule also will increase the total compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (HCEs). HCEs are subject to a more relaxed duties test than employees earning less. They need only “customarily and regularly” perform at least one of the duties of an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee, as opposed to primarily performing such duties.

This looser test currently applies to HCEs who perform office or nonmanual work and earn total compensation (including bonuses, commissions and certain benefits) of at least $107,432 per year. The compensation threshold will move up to $132,964 per year on July 1, and to $151,164 on January 1, 2025.

The final rule also includes a mechanism to update the salary thresholds every three years. Updates will reflect current earnings data from the most recent available four quarters from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rule also permits the DOL to temporarily delay a scheduled update when warranted by unforeseen economic or other conditions. Updated thresholds will be published at least 150 days before they take effect.

Plan your approach

With the first effective date right around the corner, employers should review their employees’ salaries to identify those affected — that is, those whose salaries meet or exceed the current level but fall below the new thresholds. For employees who are on the bubble under the new thresholds, employers might want to increase their salaries to retain their exempt status. Alternatively, employers may want to reduce or eliminate overtime hours or simply pay the proper amount of overtime to these employees. Or they can reduce an employee’s salary to offset new overtime pay.

Remember, too, that exempt employees also must satisfy the applicable duties test (which varies depending on whether the exemption is for an executive, professional or administrative role). An employee whose salary exceeds the threshold but doesn’t primarily engage in the applicable duties isn’t exempt.

Obviously, depending on the selected approach, budgets may require adjustments. If some employees will be reclassified as nonexempt, employers may need to provide training to employees and supervisors on new timekeeping requirements and place restrictions on off-the-clock work.

Be aware that business groups have promised to file lawsuits to block the new rule, as they succeeded in doing with a similar rule promulgated in 2016. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a skeptical eye to administrative rulemaking in recent years. So it makes sense to proceed with caution. Bear in mind, too, that some employers also are subject to state and local wage and hour laws with more stringent standards for exempt status.

The noncompete ban

The new rule from the FTC bans most noncompete agreements nationwide (which will conflict with some state laws). In addition, existing noncompetes for most workers will no longer be enforceable after the rule becomes effective, 120 days after it’s published in the Federal Register. The rule is projected to affect 30 million workers. However, it doesn’t apply to certain noncompete agreements and those entered into as part of the sale of a business.

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

• A business’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.

Note that employers can’t enter new noncompetes with senior executives.

Unlike the proposed rule issued for public comment in January 2023, the final rule doesn’t require employers to legally modify existing noncompetes by formally rescinding them. Instead, they must only provide notice to workers bound by existing agreements — other than senior executives — that they won’t enforce such agreements against the workers. The rule includes model language that employers can use to provide notice.

A lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court shortly after the FTC voted on the final rule, arguing the FTC doesn’t have the statutory authority to issue the rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also subsequently filed a court challenge to block the noncompete ban.

More to come

Whether either of these rules will eventually become effective as written remains to be seen. Judicial intervention or a potential swing in federal political power could mean they land in the dustbin of history before taking effect — or shortly thereafter. We’ll keep you up to date on the latest news regarding these two rules.

© 2025

For the third consecutive year, the IRS has published guidance that offers some relief to taxpayers covered by the “10-year rule” for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from inherited IRAs or other defined contribution plans. But the IRS also indicated in Notice 2024-35 that forthcoming final regulations for the rule will apply for the purposes of determining RMDs from such accounts in 2025.

Beneficiaries face RMD rule changes

The need for the latest guidance traces back to the 2019 enactment of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act. Among other changes, the law eliminated so-called “stretch IRAs.”

Pre-SECURE Act, all beneficiaries of inherited IRAs were allowed to stretch the RMDs on the accounts over their entire life expectancies. For younger heirs, this meant they could take smaller distributions for decades, deferring taxes while the accounts grew. They also had the option to pass on the IRAs to later generations, which deferred the taxes for even longer.

To avoid this extended tax deferral, the SECURE Act imposed limitations on which heirs can stretch IRAs. Specifically, for IRA owners or defined contribution plan participants who died in 2020 or later, only “eligible designated beneficiaries” (EDB) may stretch payments over their life expectancies. The following heirs are EDBs:

• 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 (“designated beneficiaries”) must 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) for RMDs. (In 2023, the age at which account owners must start taking RMDs rose from age 72 to age 73, pushing the RBD date to April 1 of the year after account owners turn 73.)

In February 2022, the IRS issued proposed regs that came with an unwelcome surprise for many affected heirs. They provide 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. In other words, they aren’t permitted to wait until the end of 10 years to take a lump-sum distribution. This annual RMD requirement gives beneficiaries much less tax planning flexibility and could push them into higher tax brackets during those years.

Confusion reigns

It didn’t take long for the IRS to receive feedback from confused taxpayers who had recently inherited IRAs or defined contribution plans and were unclear about when they were required to start taking RMDs on the accounts. The uncertainty put both beneficiaries and defined contribution plans at risk. How? Beneficiaries could have been dinged with excise tax equal to 25% of the amounts that should have been distributed but weren’t (reduced to 10% if the RMD failure is corrected in a timely manner). The plans could have been disqualified for failure to make RMDs.

In response to the concerns, only six months after the proposed regs were published, the IRS waived enforcement against taxpayers subject to the 10-year rule who missed 2021 and 2022 RMDs if the plan participant died in 2020 on or after the RBD. It also excused missed 2022 RMDs if the participant died in 2021 on or after the RBD.

The waiver guidance indicated that the IRS would issue final regs that would apply no earlier than 2023. But then 2023 rolled around — and the IRS extended the waiver relief to excuse 2023 missed RMDs if the participant died in 2020, 2021 or 2022 on or after the RBD.

Now the IRS has again extended the relief, this time for RMDs in 2024 from an IRA or defined contribution plan when the deceased passed away during the years 2020 through 2023 on or after the RBD. If certain requirements are met, beneficiaries won’t be assessed a penalty on missed RMDs, and plans won’t be disqualified based solely on such missed RMDs.

Delayed distributions aren’t always best

In a nutshell, the succession of IRS waivers means that designated beneficiaries who inherited IRAs or defined contributions plans after 2019 aren’t required to take annual RMDs until at least 2025. But some individuals may be better off beginning to take withdrawals now, rather than deferring them. The reason? Tax rates could be higher beginning in 2026 and beyond. Indeed, many provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including reduced individual income tax rates, are scheduled to sunset after 2025. The highest rate will increase from 37% to 39.6%, absent congressional action.

What if the IRS reverses course on the 10-year rule, allowing a lump sum distribution in the tenth year rather than requiring annual RMDs? Even then, it could prove worthwhile to take distributions throughout the 10-year period to avoid a hefty one-time tax bill at the end.

On the other hand, beneficiaries nearing retirement likely will benefit by delaying distributions. If they wait until they’re no longer working, they may be in a lower tax bracket.

Stay tuned

The IRS stated in its recent guidance that final regs “are anticipated” to apply for determining RMDs for 2025. However, based on the tax agency’s actions in the past few years, skepticism about that is understandable. We’ll continue to monitor future IRS guidance and keep you informed of any new developments.

 

© 2025

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) established and expanded numerous incentives to encourage taxpayers to increase their use of renewable energy and adopt a range of energy efficient improvements. In particular, the law includes funding for nearly $9 billion in home energy rebates.

While the rebates aren’t yet available, many states are expected to launch their programs in 2024. And the IRS recently released some critical guidance (Announcement 2024–19) on how it’ll treat the rebates for tax purposes.

The rebate programs

The home energy rebates are available for two types of improvements. Home Efficiency Rebates apply to whole-house projects that are predicted to reduce energy usage by at least 20%. These rebates are applicable to consumers who reduce their household energy use through efficiency projects. Examples include the installation of energy efficient air conditioners, windows and doors.

The maximum rebate amount is $8,000 for eligible taxpayers with projects with at least 35% predicted energy savings. All households are eligible for these rebates, with the largest rebates directed to those with lower incomes. States can choose to provide a way for homeowners or occupants to receive the rebates as an upfront discount, but they aren’t required to do so.

Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates are available for low- or moderate-income households that upgrade to energy efficient equipment and appliances. They’re also available to individuals or entities that own multifamily buildings where low- or moderate-income households represent at least 50% of the residents. These rebates cover up to 100% of costs for lower-income families (those making less than 80% of the area median income) and up to 50% of costs for moderate-income families (those making 80% to 150% of the area median income). According to the Census Bureau, the national median income in 2022 was about $74,500 — meaning some taxpayers who assume they won’t qualify may indeed be eligible.

Depending on your state of residence, you could save up to:

• $8,000 on an ENERGY STAR-certified electric heat pump for space heating and cooling,
• $4,000 on an electrical panel,
• $2,500 on electrical wiring,
• $1,750 on an ENERGY STAR-certified electric heat pump water heater, and
• $840 on an ENERGY STAR-certified electric heat pump clothes dryer and/or an electric stove, cooktop, range or oven.

The maximum Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate is $14,000. The rebate amount will be deducted upfront from the total cost of your payment at the “point of sale” in participating stores if you’re purchasing directly or through your project contractors.

The tax treatment

In the wake of the IRA’s enactment, questions arose about whether home energy rebates would be considered taxable income by the IRS. The agency has now put the uncertainty to rest, with guidance stating that rebate amounts won’t be treated as income for tax purposes. However, rebate recipients must reduce the basis of the applicable property by the rebate amount.

If a rebate is provided at the time of sale of eligible upgrades and projects, the amount is excluded from a purchaser’s cost basis. For example, if an energy-efficient equipment seller applies a $500 rebate against a $600 sales price, your cost basis in the property will be $100, rather than $600.

If the rebate is provided at a later time, after purchase, the buyer must adjust the cost basis similarly. For example, if you spent $600 to purchase eligible equipment and later receive a $500 rebate, your cost basis in the equipment drops from $600 to $100 upon receipt of the rebate.

Interplay with the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit

The IRS guidance also addresses how the home energy rebates affect the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit. As of 2023, taxpayers can receive a federal tax credit of up to 30% of certain qualified expenses, including:

• Qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during the year,
• Residential energy property expenses, and
• Home energy audits.

The maximum credit each year is:

• $1,200 for energy property costs and certain energy-efficient home improvements, with limits on doors ($250 per door and $500 total), windows ($600) and home energy audits ($150), and
• $2,000 per year for qualified heat pumps, biomass stoves or biomass boilers.

Taxpayers who receive home energy rebates and are also eligible for the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit must reduce the amount of qualified expenses used to calculate their credit by the amount of the rebate. For example, if you purchase an eligible product for $400 and receive a $100 rebate, you can claim the 30% credit on only the remaining $300 of the cost.

Act now?

While the IRA provides that the rebates are available for projects begun on or after August 16, 2022, projects must fulfill all federal and state program requirements. The federal government, however, has indicated that it’ll be difficult for states to offer rebates for projects completed before their programs are up and running. In the meantime, though, projects might qualify for other federal tax breaks. Contact us to determine the most tax-efficient approach to energy efficiency.

© 2025

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) test for determining whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been revised several times over the past decade. Now, the DOL is implementing a new final rule rescinding the employer-friendly test that was developed under the Trump administration. The new, more employee-friendly rule takes effect March 11, 2024.

Role of the new final rule

Even though the DOL’s final rule isn’t necessarily controlling for courts weighing employment status issues, it’s likely to be considered persuasive authority. Moreover, it’ll guide DOL misclassification audits and enforcement actions.

If you’re found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors, you may owe back pay if employees weren’t paid minimum wage or overtime pay, as well as penalties. You also could end up liable for withheld employee benefits and find yourself subject to various federal and state employment laws that apply based on the number of affected employees.

The rescinded test

The Trump administration’s test (known as the 2021 Independent Contractor Rule) focuses primarily on whether, as an “economic reality,” workers are dependent on employers for work or are in business for themselves. It examines five factors. And while no single factor is controlling, the 2021 rule identifies two so-called “core factors” that are deemed most relevant:

• The nature and degree of the employer’s control over the work, and
• The worker’s opportunity for profit and loss.

If both factors suggest the same classification, it’s substantially likely that classification is proper.

The new test

The final new rule closely shadows the proposed rule published in October 2022. According to the DOL, it continues the notion that a worker isn’t an independent contractor if, as a matter of economic reality, the individual is economically dependent on the employer for work. The DOL says the rule aligns with both judicial precedent and its own interpretive guidance prior to 2021.

Specifically, the final rule enumerates six factors that will guide DOL analysis of whether a worker is an employee under the FLSA:

1. The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill (the lack of such opportunity suggests employee status),

2. Investments by the worker and the potential employer (if the worker makes similar types of investments as the employer, even on a smaller scale, it suggests independent contractor status),

3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship (an indefinite, continuous or exclusive relationship suggests employee status),

4. The employer’s nature and degree of control, whether exercised or just reserved (control over the performance of the work and the relationship’s economic aspects suggests employee status),

5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business (if the work is critical, necessary or central to the principal business, the worker is likely an employee), and

6. The worker’s skill and initiative (if the worker brings specialized skills and uses them in connection with business-like initiative, the worker is likely an independent contractor).

In contrast to the 2021 rule, all factors will be weighed — no single factor or set of factors will automatically determine a worker’s status.

The final new rule does make some modifications and clarifications to the proposed rule. For example, it explains that actions that an employer takes solely to comply with specific and applicable federal, state, tribal or local laws or regulations don’t indicate “control” suggestive of employee status. But those that go beyond compliance and instead serve the employer’s own compliance methods, safety, quality control, or contractual or customer service standards may do so.

The final rule also recognizes that a lack of permanence in a work relationship can sometimes be due to operational characteristics unique or intrinsic to particular businesses or industries and the workers they employ. The relevant question is whether the lack of permanence is due to workers exercising their own independent business initiative, which indicates independent contractor status. On the other hand, the seasonal or temporary nature of work alone doesn’t necessarily indicate independent contractor classification.

The return, and clarification, of the factor related to whether the work is integral to the business also is notable. The 2021 rule includes a noncore factor that asks only whether the work was part of an integrated unit of production. The final new rule focuses on whether the business function the worker performs is an integral part of the business.

For tax purposes

In a series of Q&As, the DOL addressed the question: “Can an individual be an employee for FLSA purposes even if he or she is an independent contractor for tax purposes?” The answer is yes.

The DOL explained that the IRS applies its version of the common law control test to analyze if a worker is an employee or independent contractor for tax purposes. While the DOL considers many of the same factors as the IRS, it added that “the economic reality test for FLSA purposes is based on a specific definition of ‘employ’ in the FLSA, which provides that employers ‘employ’ workers if they ‘suffer or permit’ them to work.”

In court cases, this language has been interpreted to be broader than the common law control test. Therefore, some workers who may be classified as contractors for tax purposes may be employees for FLSA purposes because, as a matter of economic reality, they’re economically dependent on the employers for work.

Next steps

Not surprisingly, the DOL’s final new rule is already facing court challenges. Nonetheless, you should review your work relationships if you use freelancers and other independent contractors and make any appropriate changes. Remember, too, that states can have different tests, some of which are more stringent than the DOL’s final rule. Contact your employment attorney if you have questions about the DOL’s new rule. We can assist with any issues you may have regarding independent contractor status for tax purposes.

© 2025

In the face of a flood of illegitimate claims for the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), the IRS has imposed an immediate moratorium through at least the end of 2023 on processing new claims for the credit. The reason the IRS cites for the move is the risk of honest small business owners being scammed by unscrupulous promoters who submit questionable claims on their behalf.

The fraud problem

The ERTC is a refundable tax credit intended for businesses that 1) continued paying employees while they were shut down due to the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, or 2) suffered significant declines in gross receipts from March 13, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Eligible employers can receive credits worth up to $26,000 per retained employee. The ERTC can still be claimed on amended returns.

The requirements are strict, though. Specifically, you must have:

• Sustained a full or partial suspension of operations due to orders from a governmental authority that limited commerce, travel or group meetings due to COVID during 2020 or the first three quarters of 2021,
• Experienced a significant decline in gross receipts during 2020 or a decline in gross receipts in the first three quarters of 2021, or
• Qualified as a recovery startup business — which could claim the credit for up to $50,000 total per quarter, without showing suspended operations or reduced receipts — for the third or fourth quarters of 2021 (qualified recovery startups are those that began operating after February 15, 2020, and have annual gross receipts of less than or equal to $1 million for the three years preceding the quarter for which they are claiming the ERTC).

Additional restrictions apply, too.

Nonetheless, the potentially high value of the ERTC, combined with the fact that some employers can file claims for it until April 15, 2025, has led to a cottage industry of fraudulent promoters offering to help businesses claim refunds for the credit. They wield inaccurate information to generate business from innocent clients who may pay upfront fees in the thousands of dollars or must pay the promoters a percentage of refunds they get.

Victims could end up on the hook for repayment of the credit, along with penalties and interest on top of the fees paid to the promoter. Moreover, as the IRS has noted, promoters may leave out key details, unleashing a “domino effect of tax problems” for unsuspecting businesses.

The impact of the moratorium

Payouts on legitimate claims already filed will continue during the moratorium period. But taxpayers should expect a lengthier wait. The IRS has extended the standard processing goal of 90 days to 180 days and potentially much longer for claims flagged for further review or audit.

Increased fraud worries are prompting the agency to shift its review focus to compliance concerns. The shift includes intensified audits and criminal investigations of both promoters and businesses filing suspect claims.

The IRS also is working to develop new initiatives to aid businesses that have fallen prey to aggressive promoters. For example, it expects to soon offer a settlement program that will allow those who received an improper ERTC payment to avoid penalties and future compliance action by repaying the amount received.

If you claimed the credit, but your claim hasn’t yet been processed or paid, you can withdraw your claim if you now believe it was improper. You can withdraw even if your case is already under or awaiting audit. The IRS says this option is available for filers of the more than 600,000 claims currently awaiting processing.

Still considering claiming the credit?

The IRS urges taxpayers to carefully review the ERTC guidelines during the moratorium period. Legitimate claimants shouldn’t be dissuaded, but, as the IRS says, it’s best to confirm the validity of your claim with a “trusted tax professional — not a tax promoter or marketing firm looking to make money” by taking a “big chunk” out of your claim. And don’t count on seeing payment of your credit anytime soon. Contact us if you have questions regarding the ERTC.

© 2025

With fraudulent Employee Retention Tax Credit claims on the rise, the IRS has suspended claim processing through year end.