A pending new feature on this newsletter is an occasional tax roundup, with some interesting recent rulings and developments relating to estate and wealth transfer issues. This will not necessarily be a discussion of pending legislation – yet – but as the year goes on and proposals further develop then we will bring you coverage. (On that note if you are interested in exploring a part-time gig as tax updates editor or case updates editor, please reach out).
Also, this is not designed to be an all-inclusive list. For example, there are some frequent areas of determination - such as late portability elections - that do not always present novel situations. For that reason, frequently-encountered issues might be omitted. That being said, if there is anything you would like to see covered, feel free to send tips my way.
New Regulations have been finalized for corporate spinoffs, and multi-year tax reporting relating thereto. Generally the goal is a (perhaps slight) reduction of the uncertainty and administrative burdens surrounding comfort rulings for spinoffs and reorgs under IRC Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) and (G). Those dealing with these issues in both corporate and wealth transfer settings should familiarize themselves with these new, extensive regulations.
Long-nascent rulemaking on updated regulations under 1.352-7, dealing with assumption of partnership liabilities and notice (generally to partners) relating thereto originally published as T.D. 9207 in 2005, has been opened for public comment.
For those dealing with life insurance and related transfer tax issues, Form 712 is commonly encountered. Treasury recently extended a collection period for public comments relating to the burden calculations for Form 712. However, Treasury notes, “There is no change to the form previously approved by OMB.”
CCA 202511015 contains some interesting analysis from the Office of Chief Counsel on the deductibility of theft losses under IRC Section 165 for a fraudulent financial scheme that was entered into for profit, but which did not meet the Ponzi scheme safe harbor of Rev. Proc. 2009-20.
PLR 202509101 dealt with the termination of a GST-grandfathered trust that provided an annuity to a grandchild, with the grandchild’s children being current remainder beneficiaries and the grandchild’s grandchildren being successor remainder beneficiaries. While the termination did not result in GST tax so long as the amounts to be distributed were based on the actuarial value of each beneficiary’s interest, there was recognition of gain to various beneficiaries under IRC Section 1001(e). An in-depth write-up on this ruling will be coming soon.
In Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Option 2025-2 (issued on March 3), the taxpayer had previously transferred real property to his adult daughters at the end of a guardianship. But, he claimed theft and casualty losses relating to the property. The Tax Court denied the losses as he was not the owner of the property for the tax year in question.
In CF Headquarters Corp. v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 5 (issued on March 4), the petitioner (as part of the broader Cantor Fitzgerald holdings) had received a government grant for economic revitalization post-9/11. The petitioner had claimed that the grants were excluded from gross income under IRC Sections 102, 118, and/or 139, but the IRS and Tax Court disagreed. Of interest is the analysis surrounding IRC Section 102, providing a gross income exclusion for gifts. While the gift tax itself is somewhat agnostic to donative intent, this is a factor for the gross income tax exclusion of gifts – and ultimately there was no donative intent on the part of Congress because of the stated legislative intent anticipating economic revitalization in New York City.
Of interest in the charitable planning space is Cade v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-20 (issued on March 10, 2025), under which the taxpayers had an income tax deficiency for 2019 of approximately $90,000 but later claimed on an amended return a charitable deduction for donations of tangible personal property to charity of approximately $285,000 (which, they claimed, would zero out their tax liability while generating a refund). The “certified” written appraisal, and receipt from the charitable recipient, appeared to be self-serving and/or backdated. The IRS moved for summary judgment around the issue of whether a qualified appraisal had been provided, as the information provided by the taxpayer was more in the nature of unqualified opinions of value. Summary judgment was granted on the issue of the qualifications of the appraisers themselves, but not on the issues of the whether there was a valid certified written appraisal under IRC Section 170(f) and the reasonable cause exception thereunder.