The IRS has extended the due dates for the 2015 information reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act for insurance companies, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage. However, no relief from personal reporting was granted, meaning that individuals may have to file their 2015 tax returns based on what information (statements, print-outs, etc.) they might have rather than officially filed and distributed forms.

In question are Form 1095-B and Form 1095-C. These forms contain key information that individuals need to determine their tax liability and/or credit under the Affordable Care Act. Prior to this IRS action, employers and others were required to make these forms available by February 1, 2016. The result would have been that around the end of January most employees would receive both a Form W2, (which they are very familiar with) plus either a Form 1095-B or a Form 1095-C. With this IRS extension, employers and other required entities do not need to make either of these two forms available until March 31, 2016. This means that individuals, unless they file late in the tax season, will have to complete their returns without this key information.

To somewhat protect such individual tax return filers, for 2015 tax year only, they can rely upon other information received from employers, insurance companies and the marketplace in order to determine their eligibility for the premium tax credit/tax penalty when filing their income tax returns. The individuals should keep such documentation (they do not send it in with their tax returns) since, if the information they use varies from the information sent to the IRS base on the forms they receive at the end of March, they may need to prove they reasonably relied on valid sources when preparing their tax returns.

If you have any concerns about your own personal situation, we urge you to seek out competent counsel.

There are still three weeks left in 2015 and it’s not too late to reduce the amount of taxes you will owe at the end of the year. While there are still some “extender legislation” issues (last minute congress battles), such as charitable deductions for those age 70 ½ years or more and the above the line deductions for qualified higher education expenses, most everything else is set. Here is a list of things to consider.

• Nail down losses on investments. Paper losses only look good on paper. If you don’t believe the investment will come back to life, sell and take the loss.

• Self-employment and payroll issues. Make sure your withholding is correct. Penalties are waiting for those who do not adequately cover the amount they owe.

• If you are 70 ½ years old, make sure you begin taking required distributions. You don’t want the 50% penalty you’ll pay if you don’t.

• Make year-end gifts and charitable donations.

Make sure you discuss your situation with your tax planner. Happy Holidays!

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) helped create a generation of citizens that are very well aware of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as it became repeated over and over in nearly every crime drama on television and movies. However, as Monday’s Supreme Court ruling continues to affirm, there are exceptions to the rule.

Following a line of reasoning that become a standard with Shapiro v. U.S., (S Ct 1948) 335 U.S. 1, which was further refined in Grosso v. U.S., (S Ct 1968) 21 AFTR 2d 55421 AFTR 2d 554, the Supreme Court has held that the government can compel production of self-incriminating documents so long as a three prong test is met: (1) the reporting or recordkeeping scheme must have an essentially regulatory purpose; (2) a person must customarily keep the records that the scheme requires him to keep; and (3) the records must have public aspects.

On Monday, the Supreme Court continued its support of this exception when it refused to hear an appeal brought by Eli and Renee Chabot, Chabot, (CA 3 7/17/2015) 116 AFTR 2d 2015-5270, cert denied 11/30/2015. The facts show that the IRS made a demand under the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act for copies of bank statements of accounts the Chabot’s held in an HSBC branch in France. The Chabots refused to produce these statements claiming they had a Fifth Amendment right to not produce documents that could incriminate them as potential participants in illegal activities.

The Third Circuit ruled that the IRS was entitled to demand the documents by ruling that the records were essential to regulatory purposes, that they were required documents, and that they had public aspects. Similar cases in the Second, Fourth, Fifth, seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have had the same result. (in re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Feb. 2, 2012, (CA 2 2013) 741 F.3d 339; Under Seal, (CA 4 2013) 112 AFTR 2d 2013-7316112 AFTR 2d 2013-7316; In re Grand Jury Subpoena, (CA 5 2012) 696 F.3d 428; In re Special Feb. 2011-1 Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Sept. 12, 2011, (CA 7 2012) 691 F.3d 903; In re Grand Jury Investigation M.H., (CA 9 2011) 108 AFTR 2d 2011-5880108 AFTR 2d 2011-5880; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, (CA 11 2013) 111 AFTR 2d 2013-794111 AFTR 2d 2013-794)

With the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling, this exception to the Fifth Amendment remains fully in place and enforceable. Basically, if there is a regulatory business purposes of a document, even if it would incriminate you, you will be required to turn it over to the IRS.