Click here to listen to the audio. Alternatively, you may download the file to your computer by right clicking your mouse, choosing "Save Target As", then selecting a location on your computer to save the file.

Lynn Nichols from Nichols Patrick CPE delivers the weekly podcast.  For all of your accounting & auditing and tax CPE needs, please see www.ficpa.org/cpe.  This week's podcast includes:

• IRS Announces Applicable Federal Rates for April
• Taxpayer Representative Must Sign for Both Husband and Wife for Joint Return Election to Be Valid
• Practicing Tax? There's an App for That
• Value of Property Transferred to Family Limited Partnerships Not Included in Decedent's Estate
• Detective Compares Tax Refund Fraud to Crack Epidemic
• Roth IRA Was Ineligible S Corporation Shareholder
• Court Holds Estate Tax Regulation on Farmland Special Use Valuation Invalid
• Wages Paid to S Corporation Executives Were Not Research Expenses

Citations

1. IRS Announces Applicable Federal Rates for April - (Rev. Rul. 2012-11; 2012-14 IRB 1; 3/16/2012)
   The IRS has announced the applicable federal interest rates for April 2012. [Doc 2012-5631]
2. Taxpayer Representative Must Sign for Both Husband and Wife for Joint Return Election to Be Valid - (ECC 201211015; 2/10/2012; rel. 3/16/2012)
   In e-mailed advice, the IRS stated that based on the rationale that both a primary and   secondary taxpayer's signature line must be signed for a valid joint return election to be made, so also must a taxpayer's representative sign on both lines on a couple's behalf. [Doc 2012-5536]
3. Practicing Tax? There's an App for That - (Tax Notes Today; 3/20/2012; Article by Shamik Trivedi)
   Shamik Trivedi examines new technologies and mobile applications that tax practitioners and taxpayers might find useful. [Doc 2012-5317]
4. Value of Property Transferred to Family Limited Partnerships Not Included in Decedent's Estate - (Estate of Beatrice Kelly et al. v. Comm.; T.C. Memo. 2012-73; 3/19/2012)
   The Tax Court held that the value of property a decedent transferred to family limited   partnerships and the value of the gifted partnership interests weren't includable in the decedent's gross estate, finding that the transfer was a bona fide sale and that a management fee paid to the general partner wasn't a retention of income by the decedent. [Doc 2012-5732]
5. Detective Compares Tax Refund Fraud to Crack Epidemic - (Tax Notes Today; 3/20/2012; Statement of Detective Sal Augeri before Senate Subcommittee on Fiscal responsibility and Economic Growth)
   The spread of tax refund fraud "mirrors the spread of crack cocaine" in the 1980s, and  "the problem needs to be fixed at the point of filing" instead of after the money has already been distributed, Detective Sal Augeri of the Tampa Police Department said at a March 20 Senate Finance Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth Subcommittee hearing. [Doc 2012-5822]
6. Roth IRA Was Ineligible S Corporation Shareholder - (Taproot Administrative Services Inc. v. Comm.; CA 9; No. 10-70892; 3/21/2012)
   The Ninth Circuit affirmed a Tax Court decision that held that a corporation that elected  S corporation treatment was taxable as a C corporation because its sole shareholder, a Roth IRA, was an ineligible S corporation shareholder. [Doc 2012-5927]
7. Court Holds Estate Tax Regulation on Farmland Special Use Valuation Invalid - (Carolyn Finfrock v. United States; USDC Cen IL;  No. 3:11-cv-03052; 3/20/2012)
   A U.S. district court, in an estate tax refund suit, held invalid reg. section 20.2032A- 8(a)(2), which provides that any eligible family farm or business real property actually elected for the special use valuation under section 2032A must constitute at least 25 percent of the adjusted value of the gross estate. [Doc 2012-5871]
8. Wages Paid to S Corporation Executives Were Not Research Expenses - (Basim Shami et al. v. Comm.; T.C. Memo. 2012-78; 3/21/2012)
   The Tax Court determined that wages paid to the president and executive vice-president of an S corporation that developed, manufactured and sold hair, skin, and nail products did not qualify as research expenses for purposes of the section 41 credit for increasing research activities because wage allocations were not adequately substantiated. [Doc 2012-5951]