Author: Alexis Long

Categories
General

Employee or Independent Contractor? A Guide to the New Rule

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule on January 10, 2024, significantly revising its guidance on the classification of workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as either employees or independent contractors, which took effect on March 11, 2024. This rule aims to provide clearer analysis for determining a worker’s classification and is designed to be more aligned with long-standing judicial precedents. The objective is to mitigate the risk of misclassifying employees as independent contractors, which can deprive workers of minimum wage, overtime pay, and other FLSA protections, while also offering a consistent framework for businesses engaging individuals who operate independently​​.

The final rule applies the following six factors to analyze employee or independent contractor status under the FLSA:

(1) opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;

(2) investments by the worker and the potential employer;

(3) degree of permanence of the work relationship;

(4) nature and degree of control;

(5) extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and

(6) skill and initiative.

Per the DOL, the final rule provides detailed guidance regarding the application of each of these six factors. No factor or set of factors among this list of six has a predetermined weight, and additional factors may be relevant if such factors in some way indicate whether the worker is in business for themself (i.e., an independent contractor), as opposed to being economically dependent on the employer for work (i.e., an employee under the FLSA).

The background and motivation for this update stem from the original intentions of the FLSA, which was enacted in 1938 to establish critical worker protections. The misclassification of employees as independent contractors has been a persistent challenge, leading to situations where workers might not receive rightful employment benefits, including overtime pay, workers’ compensation insurance, employment taxes, and benefits costs. This misclassification also affects organizational obligations and flexibility in workforce management. The DOL emphasizes that the classification of independent contractors should be narrow under FLSA interpretation to prevent circumvention of employment laws​​.

The introduction of this rule reflects the DOL’s commitment to ensuring that labor laws are appropriately applied to protect workers while also providing clear guidance for employers. By revising the classification guidance, the DOL intends to address and reduce the incidences of misclassification, ensuring that workers are correctly categorized and thereby receive the protections and benefits to which they are entitled under the law​​.

For more detailed information on the new rule and its implications, you can visit the U.S. Department of Labor’s website and other legal analyses provided by labor and employment law experts.

Categories
Financial Institutions and Banking

Bank Wire: BNPL Loans: Managing the Risk

In a recent bulletin, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) offers guidance to community banks on managing the risks associated with buy now, pay later (BNPL) loans. These loans can take many forms, but the bulletin focuses on those that are payable in four or fewer installments and carry no finance charges. Typically, these loans are offered at the point of sale. The lender pays the merchant a discounted price for the good or service and, in exchange, assumes responsibility for granting credit and collecting payments from the borrower. The lender’s primary source of revenue is the difference between the total installment payments and the discounted purchase price, though it may also collect late fees from the borrower.

The bulletin warns banks of various risks associated with BNPL loans. For example, borrowers may overextend themselves or not fully understand their repayment obligations; applicants with limited or no credit history may present underwriting challenges; and the lack of clear, standardized disclosure language may obscure the true nature of the loan, creating a risk of violating prohibitions against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. The OCC offers tips on designing risk management systems that “capture the unique characteristics and risks of BNPL loans.” You can find the bulletin at https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bulletin-2023-37.html.

Guidance on venture loans

In another recent bulletin, the OCC offers guidance to banks considering venture lending — that is, commercial lending activities that target high-risk borrowers in the early, expansion, or late stages of development. According to the bulletin, the primary risks associated with venture lending include unproven cash flows, untested business models, difficulty projecting future cash flows, high liquidity needs, high investment spending, and limited refinancing or business exit options.

Typically, these risks are greater for borrowers at an earlier stage of development. The bulletin — which can be found at https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bulletin-2023-34.html — provides guidance on managing these risks.

CFPB proposal would close overdraft loophole

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued a proposed rule designed to rein in excessive overdraft fees charged by large banks. The proposal would end the exemption of overdraft lending services from the Truth in Lending Act and other consumer protection laws.

Banks would be permitted to extend overdraft loans if they comply with the requirements of these laws or, alternatively, charge a fee to recoup their costs at an established benchmark (as low as $3) or at a cost they calculate (provided they show their cost data). The proposed rule would apply only to insured financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, but it may be expanded to smaller institutions in the future.

© 2024

Categories
Financial Institutions and Banking

Staying Atop the New-and-Improved CRA Rules

Final rules to strengthen and modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were unveiled by the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) late last year. Among other things, the new rules strive to adapt the CRA regulations to changes in the banking industry, including the expanded role of mobile and online banking.

At nearly 1,500 pages, the new rules are complex. Fortunately, with the exception of provisions that are similar to current CRA regulations, banks have until January 1, 2026, to comply. All banks should reevaluate their CRA programs in light of the new rules, and prepare for any necessary adjustments.

CRA in a nutshell

The CRA encourages banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate — including low and moderate-income neighborhoods — consistent with safe and sound banking operations. To monitor compliance, the federal banking agencies periodically evaluate banks’ records in meeting their communities’ credit needs and make their performance evaluations and CRA ratings available to the public. The agencies take a bank’s CRA rating into account when considering requests to approve bank mergers, acquisitions, charters, branch openings and deposit facilities. A bank’s CRA rating may also affect its reputation in the community.

Highlights of the new rules

CRA evaluation standards vary depending on a bank’s size. The new rules increase the asset size thresholds as follows:

  • Small banks are defined as those with less than $600 million in assets (up from $357 million).
  • Intermediate banks are those with $600 million but less than $2 billion in assets (up from $1.503 billion).
  • Large banks are those with $2 billion or more in assets (up from $1.503 billion).

The final rules create a new evaluation framework that rates a bank’s CRA performance based on four tests: 1) a retail lending test, 2) a community development financing test, 3) a community development services test, and 4) a retail products and services test. These new tests, which are more stringent than existing standards, have varying applicability depending on a bank’s asset size.

Small banks will be evaluated under the current “small bank lending test,” though they may opt into the new retail lending test. Intermediate banks will be subject to the new retail lending test — plus, they’ll have the option of having their community development loans and investments evaluated under the existing community development test or the new community development financing test. Finally, large banks will be evaluated under all four new tests.

Rules matter

As before, banks of all sizes will still be able to request an evaluation under an approved strategic plan. The new rules also provide for the evaluation of lending by certain large banks outside traditional assessment areas generated by the growth of new delivery systems, such as online and mobile banking. Staying current with the latest CRA rules will help your bank pass the tests and maintain its good standing over time.

© 2024

Categories
Financial Institutions and Banking

Federal Court: Financial Institution Liable for ACH Fraud Losses

In a recent case — Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union — the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held a credit union liable for more than $500,000 in fraudulent ACH payments deposited into a member’s account and quickly withdrawn. The payments were the result of a business email compromise scam. There was little or no evidence that the credit union had actual knowledge of the scam. But the court found that such knowledge was imputed to the credit union based on real-time alerts from its anti-money laundering system and various red flags indicating that the account was being used for fraudulent purposes.

Compromised email scam

The plaintiff in Studco was a manufacturer of commercial metal building products. A supplier informed the plaintiff that it would be sending a change in banking instructions. However, a third party, which had gained access to the plaintiff’s email system, prevented the plaintiff from receiving the legitimate email from the supplier with the new banking instructions. Instead, the third party sent the plaintiff a spoofed email, purportedly from the supplier, instructing it to direct future payments to a personal account at the defendant credit union. Neither the plaintiff nor its supplier had accounts at the credit union.

Over the next few weeks, the plaintiff made four ACH deposits — totaling $558,869 — that named its supplier as beneficiary but listed the account number for the personal account created by the scammers. The individual owner of that account quickly dispersed all the funds. Although the credit union declined to make attempted international wire transfers from the account — based on Office of Foreign Assets Control alerts — it didn’t otherwise stop activity into or out of the account.

The credit union’s computer system automatically generates warnings for ACH transactions when, as in this case, the identified payee doesn’t exactly match the name of the receiving account holder. However, the system generates “hundreds to thousands” of these warnings per day, the majority of which aren’t significant, so the credit union’s personnel doesn’t actively monitor them.

Court decision

The court said, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted by Virginia, the plaintiff had the right to recover the fraudulent ACH deposits received by the credit union if it showed that the credit union “‘[knew] that the name and [account] number’ of the incoming ACHs from [the plaintiff] ‘identif[ied] different persons.’” According to the UCC, “know” means “actual knowledge,” defined as follows:

Actual knowledge of information received by the organization is effective for a particular transaction from the time it is brought to the attention of the individual conducting that transaction and, in any event, from the time it would have been brought to the individual’s attention if the organization had exercised due diligence. [Emphasis added]

The UCC further provides that an organization exercises due diligence if it “maintains reasonable routines for communicating significant information to the person conducting the transaction and there is reasonable compliance with the routines.”

In Studco, the court held that the credit union would have discovered the mismatch between the intended payee and the recipient if it had exercised due diligence. Evidence at trial showed that the credit union failed to do so. Among other things:

  • The credit union allowed the recipient to open the account even though it triggered an “ID verification warning,” stating that the system was unable to verify the address provided.
  • The credit union failed to establish a reasonable routine for monitoring suspicious activity alerts. It wasn’t reasonable to ignore those alerts because of their sheer volume. The credit union could have implemented a system to “escalate pertinent alerts of high-value transactions.”
  • It was unreasonable for the credit union to allow the deposits into the personal account, which was a new account that had a small starting balance followed by multiple high-value transactions.

The court essentially applied a “knew or should have known” standard that’s a departure from the “actual knowledge” standard used by many courts. (See “What other courts have said” on page X.) As the court explained, the credit union couldn’t “ignore their own systems to prevent fraud in order to claim that they did not have actual knowledge of said fraud.”

Stay tuned

It remains to be seen whether the Studco case is an aberration, or whether it heralds a shift in how courts view financial institutions’ responsibility to monitor ACH transactions for potential fraud. The credit union has appealed the decision to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sidebar: What other courts have said

Before Studco (see main article), most courts have focused on a bank’s state of knowledge at the time an ACH payment is credited to the recipient’s account. They point to language in the Uniform Commercial Code regarding misdescription of the beneficiary: “If the beneficiary’s bank does not know that the name and number refer to different persons, it may rely on the number as the proper identification of the beneficiary of the order. The beneficiary’s bank need not determine whether the name and number refer to the same person.” As the comments to this provision explain, “It is possible for the beneficiary’s bank to determine whether the name and number refer to the same person, but if a duty to make that determination is imposed on the beneficiary’s bank the benefits of automated payment are lost.”

In Shapiro v. Wells Fargo Bank, a case with similar facts to Studco, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that it wasn’t unreasonable for Wells Fargo to allow its automated payment system to ignore a potential name mismatch and rely on the number as the proper identification.

© 2024

Categories
Financial Institutions and Banking

FAQs About Selling Mortgages on the Secondary Market

In an increasingly volatile marketplace, community banks need to be resourceful to take advantage of strategies that can help them maintain profitability and stability over time. Selling mortgage loans that your bank originated to secondary market investors can create a much-needed influx of cash, but it’s important to understand and mitigate the risks.

How did we get here?

Traditionally, community banks that participated in the secondary market were brokers, originating mortgages closed on behalf of larger financial institutions. In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized new loan originator compensation rules, which substantially limited the fees a broker could earn.

Since then, many community banks, in an effort to enhance noninterest income, have begun originating mortgages on their own behalf and then selling them to secondary market investors.

What are the risks?

Community banks that move away from the broker role and originate their own loans increase their risk exposure. For one thing, they become subject to CFPB rules, including the Ability-to-Repay (ATR) and Qualified Mortgage (QM) rules, which were revised in April 2021 with a mandatory compliance date of October 1, 2022. Even after selling a loan to the secondary market, a bank remains liable under these rules. A bank might even be required to buy back the loan years later if it’s determined that it failed to properly evaluate the borrower’s ability to repay or to meet qualified mortgage standards.

To mitigate these risks, it’s important for banks to develop or update underwriting policies, procedures and internal controls to ensure compliance with the revised ATR and QM rules. It’s also critical for banks to have loan officers and other personnel in place with the skill and training necessary to implement the rules.

Moreover, there’s a risk that contracts to sell mortgages to the secondary market will have a negative effect on a bank’s regulatory capital. Often, these contracts contain credit-enhancing representations and warranties, under which the seller assumes some of the risk of default or nonperformance. Generally, these exposures must be reported and risk-weighted (using one of several approaches) on a bank’s call reports. In turn, this can increase the amount of capital or reserves the bank is required to maintain.

Will updated Basel III rules add risk?

In addition, the Basel III capital rules are currently being updated to reduce operational risk in banks. The update was made in response, in part, to several 2023 regional bank failures largely caused by inadequate levels of capital. Known as the Basel III endgame, the update is somewhat controversial because some see its requirements as excessively stringent. Currently, the Basel III endgame is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025, and will phase in the capital ratio impact over three years.

Among other things, the updated rules would reduce banks’ ability to use their own models for calculating capital requirements for loans. Banks would instead be required to use standardized measures and models to evaluate loan risks.

Stay vigilant.

Community banks have much to gain by selling their mortgage loans to the secondary market, but only if they fully understand and take steps to mitigate the potential problems. Staying on top of the latest regulatory updates and developing proper procedures and internal controls will help ensure the rewards outweighs the risks.

© 2024

Categories
News

Taking your spouse on a business trip? Can you write off the costs?

A recent report shows that post-pandemic global business travel is going strong. The market reached $665.3 billion in 2022 and is estimated to hit $928.4 billion by 2030, according to a report from Research and Markets. If you own your own company and travel for business, you may wonder whether you can deduct the costs of having your spouse accompany you on trips.

Is your spouse an employee?

The rules for deducting a spouse’s travel costs are very restrictive. First of all, to qualify for the deduction, your spouse must be your employee. This means you can’t deduct the travel costs of a spouse, even if his or her presence has a bona fide business purpose, unless the spouse is an employee of your business. This requirement prevents tax deductibility in most cases. If your spouse is your employee, you can deduct his or her travel costs if his or her presence on the trip serves a bona fide business purpose.

Merely having your spouse perform some incidental business service, such as typing up notes from a meeting, isn’t enough to establish a business purpose. In general, it isn’t enough for his or her presence to be “helpful” to your business pursuits — it must be necessary. In most cases, a spouse’s participation in social functions, for example as a host or hostess, isn’t enough to establish a business purpose. That is, if his or her purpose is to establish general goodwill for customers or associates, this is usually insufficient.

Further, if there’s a vacation element to the trip (for example, if your spouse spends time sightseeing), it will be more difficult to establish a business purpose for his or her presence on the trip. On the other hand, a bona fide business purpose exists if your spouse’s presence is necessary to care for a serious medical condition that you have. If your spouse’s travel satisfies these requirements, the normal deductions for business travel away from home can be claimed. These include the costs of transportation, meals, lodging, and incidental costs such as dry cleaning, phone calls, etc.

What if your spouse isn’t an employee?

Even if your spouse’s travel doesn’t satisfy the requirements, however, you may still be able to deduct a substantial portion of the trip’s costs. This is because the rules don’t require you to allocate 50% of your travel costs to your spouse. You need only allocate any additional costs you incur for him or her. For example, in many hotels the cost of a single room isn’t that much lower than the cost of a double. If a single would cost you $150 a night and a double would cost you and your spouse $200, the disallowed portion of the cost allocable to your spouse would only be $50. In other words, you can write off the cost of what you would have paid traveling alone. To prove your deduction, ask the hotel for a room rate schedule showing single rates for the days you’re staying. And if you drive your own car or rent one, the whole cost will be fully deductible even if your spouse is along. Of course, if public transportation is used, and for meals, any separate costs incurred by your spouse aren’t deductible.

Have questions? You want to maximize all the tax breaks you can claim for your small business. Contact your ATA representative if you have questions or need assistance with this or other tax-related issues. © 2024

Categories
General

Small Businesses Can Help Employees Save for Retirement, too.

Many small business owners run their companies as leanly as possible. This often means not offering what are considered standard fringe benefits for midsize or larger companies, such as a retirement plan. If this is the case for your small business, don’t give up on the idea of helping your employees save for retirement in a tax-advantaged manner. When you’re ready, there are a couple account-based options that are relatively simple and inexpensive to launch and administrate. SEP IRAs Simplified Employee Pension IRAs (SEP IRAs) are individual accounts that small businesses establish on behalf of each participant. (Self-employed individuals can also establish SEP IRAs.) Participants own their accounts, so they’re immediately 100% vested. If a participant decides to leave your company, the account balance goes with them — most people roll it over into a new employer’s qualified plan or traditional IRA.

What are the advantages for you?

SEP IRAs don’t require annual employer contributions. That means you can choose to contribute only when cash flow allows. In addition, there are typically no setup fees for SEP IRAs, though participants generally must pay trading commissions and fund expense ratios (a fee typically set as a percentage of the fund’s average net assets). In 2024, the contribution limit is $69,000 (up from $66,000 in 2023) or up to 25% of a participant’s compensation. That amount is much higher than the 2024 limit for 401(k)s, which is $23,000 (up from $22,500 in 2023). What’s more, employer contributions are tax-deductible. Meanwhile, participants won’t pay taxes on their SEP IRA funds until they’re withdrawn.

There are some disadvantages to consider.

Although participants own their accounts, only employers can make SEP IRA contributions. And if you contribute sparsely or sporadically, participants may see little value in the accounts. Also, unlike many other qualified plans, SEP IRAs don’t permit participants age 50 or over to make additional “catch-up” contributions.

SIMPLE IRAs

Another strategy is to offer employees SIMPLE IRAs. (“SIMPLE” stands for “Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees.”) As is the case with SEP IRAs, your business creates a SIMPLE IRA for each participant, who’s immediately 100% vested in the account. Unlike SEP IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs allow participants to contribute to their accounts if they so choose. SIMPLE IRAs are indeed relatively simple to set up and administer. They don’t require the sponsoring business to file IRS Form 5500, “Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan.” Nor must you submit the plan to nondiscrimination testing, which is generally required for 401(k)s. Meanwhile, participants face no setup fees and enjoy tax-deferred growth on their account funds. Best of all, they can contribute more to a SIMPLE IRA than they can to a self-owned traditional or Roth IRA. The 2024 contribution limit for SIMPLE IRAs is $16,000 (up from $15,500 in 2023), and participants age 50 or over can make catch-up contributions to the tune of $3,500 this year (unchanged from last year). On the downside, that contribution limit is lower than the limit for 401(k)s. Also, because contributions are made pretax, participants can’t deduct them, nor can they take out plan loans. Then again, making pretax contributions does lower their taxable income. Perhaps most important is that employer contributions to SIMPLE IRAs are mandatory — you can’t skip them if cash flow gets tight. However, generally, you may deduct contributions as a business expense.

Is now the time?

Overall, the job market remains somewhat tight and, in some industries, the competition for skilled labor is fierce. Offering one of these IRA types may enable you to attract and retain quality employees more readily. Some small businesses may even qualify for a tax credit if they start a SEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA or other eligible plan. We can help you decide whether now is the right time to do so. © 2024

Categories
General

New Option for Unused Funds in a 529 College Savings Plan

With the high cost of college, many parents begin saving with 529 plans when their children are babies. Contributions to these plans aren’t tax deductible, but they grow tax deferred. Earnings used to pay qualified education expenses can be withdrawn tax-free. However, earnings used for other purposes may be subject to income tax plus a 10% penalty.

What if you have a substantial balance in a 529 plan but your child doesn’t need all the money for college? Perhaps your child decided not to attend college or received a scholarship. Or maybe you saved for private college, but your child attended a lower-priced state university. What should you do with unused funds? One option is to pay the tax and penalties and spend the money on whatever you wish. But there are more tax-efficient options, including a new 529-to-Roth IRA transfer.

Nuts and bolts Beginning in 2024, you can transfer unused funds in a 529 plan to a Roth IRA for the same beneficiary, without tax or penalties. These rollovers are subject to several rules and limits: Transfers have a lifetime maximum of $35,000 per beneficiary. The 529 plan must have existed for at least 15 years. The rollover must be through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. Transferred funds can’t include contributions made within the preceding five years or earnings on those contributions. Transfers are subject to the annual limits on contributions to Roth IRAs (without regard to income limits). For example, let’s say you opened a 529 plan for your son after he was born in 2001.

When your son graduated from college in 2023, there was $30,000 left in the account. In 2024, under the new option, you can begin transferring funds into your son’s Roth IRA. Since the 529 plan was opened at least 15 years ago (and no contributions were made in the last five years), the only restriction on rollover is the annual Roth IRA contribution limit. Assuming your son hasn’t made any other IRA contributions for 2024, you can roll over up to $7,000 (if your son has at least that much earned income for the year). If your son’s earned income for 2024 is less than $7,000, the amount eligible for a rollover will be reduced.

For example, if he takes an unpaid internship and earns $4,000 during the year from a part-time job, the most you can roll over for the year is $4,000. A 529-to-Roth IRA rollover is an appealing option to avoid tax and penalties on unused funds, while helping the beneficiaries start saving for retirement. Roth IRAs are a great savings vehicle for young people because they’ll enjoy tax-free withdrawals decades later. Other options Roth IRA rollovers aren’t the only option for avoiding tax and penalties on unused 529 plan funds.

You can also change a plan’s beneficiary to another family member. Or you can use 529 plans for continuing education, certain trade schools, or even up to $10,000 per year of elementary through high school tuition. In addition, you can withdraw funds tax-free to pay down student loan debt, up to $10,000 per beneficiary. It’s not unusual for parents to end up with unused 529 funds.

Contact us if you have questions about the most tax-wise way to handle them. © 2024

 

Categories
General

Medical Expense “Bunching”: Maximize Your 2024 Savings

As you file your 2023 tax return, start thinking about how you can boost itemized deductions for 2024. You may be able to “bunch” medical expenses so you exceed the 7.5% of adjusted gross income necessary to deduct some costs.

Say, for example, you’ve already scheduled surgery that will involve out-of-pocket expenses but still fall short of the deductible threshold. Think about scheduling elective procedures, such as dental work or Lasik surgery, and making qualified purchases (https://bit.ly/4brS5Vc ) that will push you over the threshold. Note that only the expenses over that amount and that aren’t covered by insurance or paid through a tax-advantaged account will be deductible.

Contact one of our experts for more tax planning help!

Categories
Tax

Get ready for the 2023 gift tax return deadline

Did you make large gifts to your children, grandchildren or others last year? If so, it’s important to determine if you’re required to file a 2023 gift tax return. In some cases, it might be beneficial to file one — even if it’s not required.

Who must file?

The annual gift tax exclusion has increased in 2024 to $18,000 but was $17,000 for 2023. Generally, you must file a gift tax return for 2023 if, during the tax year, you made gifts:

  • That exceeded the $17,000-per-recipient gift tax annual exclusion for 2023 (other than to your U.S. citizen spouse), that you wish to split with your spouse to take advantage of your combined $34,000 annual exclusion for 2023,
  • That exceeded the $175,000 annual exclusion in 2023 for gifts to a noncitizen spouse,
  • To a Section 529 college savings plan and wish to accelerate up to five years’ worth of annual exclusions ($85,000) into 2023,
  • Of future interests — such as remainder interests in a trust — regardless of the amount, or
  • Of jointly held or community property.

Keep in mind that you’ll owe gift tax only to the extent that an exclusion doesn’t apply and you’ve used up your lifetime gift and estate tax exemption ($12.92 million for 2023). As you can see, some transfers require a return even if you don’t owe tax.

Who might want to file?

No gift tax return is required if your gifts for 2023 consisted solely of gifts that are tax-free because they qualify as:

  • Annual exclusion gifts,
  • Present interest gifts to a U.S. citizen spouse,
  • Educational or medical expenses paid directly to a school or health care provider,
  • Political or charitable contributions.

But if you transferred hard-to-value property, such as artwork or interests in a family-owned business, you should consider filing a gift tax return even if you’re not required to. Adequate disclosure of the transfer in a return triggers the statute of limitations, generally preventing the IRS from challenging your valuation more than three years after you file.

The deadline is April 15 The gift tax return deadline is the same as the income tax filing deadline. For 2023 returns, it’s Monday, April 15, 2024 — or Tuesday, October 15, 2024, if you file for an extension.

But keep in mind that, if you owe gift tax, the payment deadline is April 15, regardless of whether you file for an extension. If you’re not sure whether you must (or should) file a 2023 gift tax return on IRS Form 709, contact us. © 2024