The IRS in PLR 202048009 denied taxpayers’ request for Section 301.9100-3 relief (“9100 relief”) to make a late mark-to-market election for securities traders under Section 475(f)(1) because they failed to prove that they acted reasonably and in good faith and that granting the relief would not prejudice the government’s interests.
The mark-to-market election for securities traders under Section 475(f)(1) allows taxpayers to recognize unrealized gains and losses. A taxpayer makes a mark-to-market election by filing a statement before the due date of the tax return, without regard to any extension, for the taxable year immediately preceding the election year. The taxpayers failed to make a timely election and sought 9100 relief to make a late election.
The 9100 relief allows the IRS to grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election, as long as a taxpayer provides sufficient evidence to establish that the taxpayer acted reasonably in good faith, and that the relief will not prejudice the interests of the government. A taxpayer is deemed to have not acted reasonably and in good faith if specific facts have changed since the due date for requesting the election that would make the election beneficial to the taxpayer. In other words, the 9100 relief requires that the taxpayer does not operate with the benefit of hindsight. If Section 481(a) adjustment is required for an accounting method regulatory election for which 9100 relief is requested, the interests of the government are deemed to be prejudiced, unless a taxpayer can demonstrate unusual and compelling circumstances that warrant the relief.
The IRS ruled that the taxpayers failed to demonstrate that it acted reasonably and in good faith because specific material facts changed after the due date for making the election and the taxpayers benefitted from hindsight. In addition, the Section 475(f)(1) election is an accounting method regulatory election that requires a Section 481(a) adjustment and the taxpayers failed to establish unusual and compelling circumstances that would overcome the deemed prejudice to the interests of the government in such a situation.
Contacts:
Caleb Cordonnier
Senior Manager
Washington, D.C.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
More tax hot topics
No Results Found. Please search again using different keywords and/or filters.