IRS tax scams are on the rise.  Therefore, it’s important to use caution when viewing emails and receiving telephone calls purportedly from the IRS.  Falling victim to a tax scam can be very costly, not only in money, but also in the amount of time and aggravations it can take to straighten out the resulting mess.

IRS tax scams are on the rise.  Therefore, it’s important to use caution when viewing emails and receiving telephone calls purportedly from the IRS.  Falling victim to a tax scam can be very costly, not only in money, but also in the amount of time and aggravations it can take to straighten out the resulting mess.

Phone Scams

The IRS has issued a warning about a pervasive phone scam.  The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) called it the largest scam of its kind.  It has received reports of over 20,000 contacts related to this scam, and thousands of victims have paid over $1 million to fraudsters claiming to be from the IRS.

Potential victims are threatened with deportation, arrest, having their utilities shut off, or having their driver’s licenses revoked.  Callers are frequently insulting or hostile – apparently to scare their potential victims.  Potential victims may be told they are entitled to big refunds, or that they owe money that must be paid immediately to the IRS.  When unsuccessful the first time, sometimes phone scammers call back trying a new strategy.

Thieves who run this scam often:

• Use common names and fake IRS badge numbers.
• Know the last four digits of the victim’s Social Security Number.
• Make caller ID appear as if the IRS is calling.
• Send bogus IRS emails to support the bogus calls.
• Make background noise of other calls being conducted to mimic a call site.
• Call a second time claiming to be the police or department of motor vehicles.  The caller ID again appears to support their claim.

You should know that the IRS always sends taxpayers a written notification of any tax due via the U.S. mail.  More importantly, the IRS will never ask for credit card, debit card, or prepaid card information over the telephone.

If you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, and you think you owe taxes, hang up and call the IRS at (800) 829-1040 or, better yet, call us for help.  If you don’t owe taxes or have no reason to think you owe any taxes, hang up and report the incident to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at (800) 366-4484.

Anyone targeted by this scam should also file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission using the “FTC Complaint Assistant” at FTC.gov and add “IRS Telephone Scam” to the comments portion of the complaint.

Email Scams

It is also important to be on the lookout for possible email scams that use the IRS as a lure.  You should know that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information.  This includes any type of electronic communication, such as text messages and social media channels.  The IRS also does not ask for PINs, passwords, or similar confidential access information for credit card, bank or other financial accounts via email or any other means.

If you receive a suspicious email, do not open any attachments or click on any links contained in the message.  Instead, forward the email to [email protected]

The IRS has issued guidance clarifying that taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct their business expenses, even if their PPP loans are forgiven. The IRS previously issued Notice 2020-32 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, which stated that taxpayers who received PPP loans and had those loans forgiven would not be able to claim business deductions for their otherwise deductible business expenses.

The IRS has issued guidance clarifying that taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct their business expenses, even if their PPP loans are forgiven. The IRS previously issued Notice 2020-32 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, which stated that taxpayers who received PPP loans and had those loans forgiven would not be able to claim business deductions for their otherwise deductible business expenses.

The COVID-Related Tax Relief Act of 2020 ( P.L. 116-260) amended the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136) to clarify that business expenses paid with amounts received from loans under the PPP are deductible as trade or business expenses, even if the PPP loan is forgiven. Further, any amounts forgiven do not result in the reduction of any tax attributes or the denial of basis increase in assets. This change applies to years ending after March 27, 2020.

Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 83 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, I.R.B. 2020-50, 1552 are obsoleted.

The IRS has waived the requirement to file Form 1099 series information returns or furnish payee statements for certain COVID-related relief that is excluded from gross income.

The IRS has waived the requirement to file Form 1099 series information returns or furnish payee statements for certain COVID-related relief that is excluded from gross income.

Reporting Affected

The IRS waives the requirement to file Form 1099 series information returns, or furnish payee statements, for the following:

• forgiveness of covered loans under the original Paycheck Protection Program (PPP);
• forgiveness of covered loans under the Paycheck Protection Program Second Draw (PPP II);
• Treasury Program loan forgiveness under section 1109 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136);
• certain loan subsidies authorized under section 1112(c) of the CARES Act;
• certain COVID-related student emergency financial aid grants under section 3504, 18004, or 18008 of the CARES Act or section 277(b)(3) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 (COVID Relief Act) (Division N, P.L. 116-260);
• Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) grants under section 1110(e) of the CARES Act or section 331 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Economic Aid Act) (Division N, P.L. 116-260); and
• shuttered venue operator grants under section 324(b) of the Economic Aid Act.

Other Reporting

The waivers do not affect requirements to file and furnish other forms, such as forms in the 1098 series. For example, the waiver does not apply to the requirement to file and furnish Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement, for qualified tuition and related expense payments, including qualified tuition and related expenses paid with COVID-related student emergency financial aid grants. Also, because borrowers may deduct mortgage interest that the Small Business Administration paid to lenders, lenders may include those mortgage interest payments in Box 1 of Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement. Lenders who are unable to furnish with this information by February 1, 2021, are encouraged to furnish a corrected Form 1098 as promptly as possible.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, certain employers and employees who use the automobile lease valuation rule to determine the value of an employee’s personal use of an employer-provided automobile may switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile method.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, certain employers and employees who use the automobile lease valuation rule to determine the value of an employee’s personal use of an employer-provided automobile may switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile method.

Background

Under the general rule, an employer who provides an employee a vehicle must adopt one of the following methods to determine the value of an employee’s personal use of the vehicle: the automobile lease valuation rule, or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. (In certain cases, a third method, the commuting valuation rule, may be used.)

The employer and the employee must use the chosen valuation method consistently (that is, in each subsequent year), except that the employer and the employee may use the commuting valuation rule if its requirements are satisfied.

As a result of the pandemic, many employers suspended business operations or implemented telework arrangements for employees, thus reducing business and personal use of employer-provided automobiles, This has increased the lease value to be included in an employee’s income for 2020 compared to prior years. In contrast, the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule includes in income only the value that relates to actual personal use, providing a more accurate reflection of the employee’s income in these circumstances.

Switch to Cents-per-Mile

Due to the suddenness and unexpected onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS is allowing an employer that uses the automobile lease valuation rule for the 2020 calendar year to instead use the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule beginning on March 13, 2020, if:

• at the beginning of 2020, the employer reasonably expected that an automobile with a fair market value not exceeding $50,400 would be regularly used in the employer’s trade or business throughout the year; and
• due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the automobile was not regularly used in the employer’s trade or business throughout the year.

Employers that choose to switch from the automobile lease valuation rule to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule in the 2020 calendar year must prorate the value of the vehicle using the automobile lease valuation rule for January 1, 2020, through March 12, 2020.

Employers that switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule during 2020 generally may:

• revert to the automobile lease valuation rule for 2021; or
• continue using vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for 2021.

In either case, the special valuation rule used in 2021 must be used for all subsequent years.

Employees must use the same special valuation rule used by their employer.

Estimated tax underpayment penalties under Code Sec. 6654 are waived for certain excess business loss-related payments for tax years beginning in 2019. The relief is available to individuals, as well as trusts and estates that are treated as individuals for estimated tax payment penalty purposes.

Estimated tax underpayment penalties under Code Sec. 6654 are waived for certain excess business loss-related payments for tax years beginning in 2019. The relief is available to individuals, as well as trusts and estates that are treated as individuals for estimated tax payment penalty purposes.

Rules Delayed

Certain business losses were limited in tax years beginning in 2017 through 2025 by the excess business loss rules of Code Sec. 461(l). Under these rules, any disallowed excess business losses are carried forward as net operating losses (NOLs). The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) postponed application of the excess business loss rules to tax years beginning after December 31, 2020.

Relief for 2019

The relief is available only for estimated tax income tax installments due on or before July 15 2020 for a tax year that began in 2019.

An individual taxpayer may have underpaid one or more installments for the tax year that began in 2019, if the individual anticipated having a lower required annual payment after using an NOL carried forward from a prior-year excess business loss that, before the enactment of the CARES Act, would have been available to reduce taxable income in the tax year that began in 2019.

Waiver Request

To qualify for the relief, the taxpayer must:

• have filed a timely 2019 federal income tax return;
• complete the 2019 version of Form 2210, Underpayment of Estimated Taxes, or Form 2210-F, Underpayment of Tax for Farmers and Fishermen; and
• include certain required attachments and calculations.

The IRS has extended the time period during which employers must withhold and pay the employee portion of Social Security tax that employers elected to defer on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.

The IRS has extended the time period during which employers must withhold and pay the employee portion of Social Security tax that employers elected to defer on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Specifically:

• the end date of the period for withholding and paying the deferred tax is postponed from April 30, 2021, to December 31, 2021; and
• any interest, penalties, and additions to tax for late payment of any unpaid deferred tax will begin to accrue on January 1, 2022, rather than on May 1, 2021.

Notice 2020-65, I.R.B. 2020-38, 567, is modified.

Employee Tax Deferral

In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) disaster, President Trump issued a memorandum on August 8, 2020, directing the Treasury Secretary to use his Code Sec. 7508A authority to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the employee portion of the 6.2-percent old-age, survivors and disability insurance (OASDI) tax (Social Security tax) under Code Sec. 3101(a), and the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) Tier 1 tax that is attributable to the 6.2-percent Social Security tax under Code Sec. 3201. The deferral was available only for tax on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, and only for employees whose biweekly, pre-tax pay was less than $4,000, or a similar amount where a different pay period applied.

The Treasury Secretary and the IRS then issued Notice 2020-65, directing employers that elected to apply the deferral to withhold and pay the deferred taxes ratably from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021. Interest, penalties, and additions to tax would begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, on any unpaid applicable taxes.

Payment Period Extended

The recent COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 (Division N, P.L. 116-260) extended the payment period, and required the Treasury Secretary to apply Notice 2020-65 by substituting "December 31, 2021" for "April 30, 2021" and substituting "January 1, 2022" for "May 1, 2021."

Employers that elected to defer employees’ payroll taxes can now withhold and pay the deferred tax throughout 2021, instead of just during the first four months of the year.

The IRS has issued guidance that provides partnerships with relief from certain penalties for the inclusion of incorrect information in reporting their partners’ beginning capital account balances on the 2020 Schedules K-1 (Forms 1065 and 8865). The IRS has also provided relief from accuracy-related penalties for any tax year for the portion of an imputed underpayment attributable to the inclusion of incorrect information in a partner’s beginning capital account balance reported by a partnership for the 2020 tax year.

The IRS has issued guidance that provides partnerships with relief from certain penalties for the inclusion of incorrect information in reporting their partners’ beginning capital account balances on the 2020 Schedules K-1 (Forms 1065 and 8865). The IRS has also provided relief from accuracy-related penalties for any tax year for the portion of an imputed underpayment attributable to the inclusion of incorrect information in a partner’s beginning capital account balance reported by a partnership for the 2020 tax year.

Penalty Relief

A partnership will not be subject to a penalty under Code Secs. 6698, 6721, or 6722 for the inclusion of incorrect information in reporting its partners’ beginning capital account balances on the 2020 Schedules K-1 if the partnership can show that it took ordinary and prudent business care in following the 2020 Form 1065 Instructions. Under those instructions, a partnership can report its partners’ beginning capital account balances using any one of the following methods: tax basis method, modified outside basis method, modified previously taxed capital method, or section 704(b) method.

In addition, a partnership will not be subject to a penalty under Code Secs. 6698, 6721, or 6722 for the inclusion of incorrect information in reporting its partners’ ending capital account balances on Schedules K-1 in tax year 2020, or its partners’ beginning or ending capital account balances on Schedules K-1 in tax years after 2020, to the extent the incorrect information is attributable solely to the incorrect information reported as the beginning capital account balance on the 2020 Schedule K-1 for which relief is provided by this guidance.

Finally, on certain conditions, the IRS will waive any accuracy-related penalty under Code Sec. 6662 for any tax year with respect to any portion of an imputed underpayment that is attributable to an adjustment to a partner’s beginning capital account balance reported by the partnership for the 2020 tax year. However, this waiver will be granted only to the extent the adjustment arises from the inclusion of incorrect information for which the partnership qualifies for relief under section 3 of this guidance.

Final regulations provide guidance related to the limitation on the deduction for employee compensation in excess of $1 million.

Final regulations provide guidance related to the limitation on the deduction for employee compensation in excess of $1 million. Specifically, the regulations address:

• what constitutes a publicly held corporation for purposes of Code Sec. 162(m)(2);
• the definition of a covered employee for purposes of Code Sec. 162(m)(3);
• the definition of compensation for purposes of Code Sec. 162(m)(4);
• the application of Code Sec. 162(m) to a taxpayer’s deduction for compensation for a tax year ending on or after a privately held corporation becomes public; and
• what constitutes a binding contract and material modification for purposes of the grandfather rule in Code Sec. 162(m)(4)(B).

The IRS has adopted the proposed regulations with a small number of modifications.

Background

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA) modified the definitions of "covered employee," "compensation," and "publicly held corporation" for purposes of the limitation on the deduction for excessive employee compensation paid by publicly held corporations.

Publicly Held Corporations

The TCJA expanded the definition of publicly held corporation to include: (1) corporations with any class of securities and (2) corporations that are required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. The final regulations adopt the prosed regulation’s stance that a corporation is publicly held if, as of the last day of its tax year, its securities are required to be registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act or is required to file reports under section 15(d). A foreign private issuer (FPI) is also a publicly held corporation if it meets the same requirements.

Under the regulations, a publicly held corporation includes an affiliated group of corporations (affiliated group) that contains one or more publicly held corporations. In addition a subsidiary corporation that meets the definition of publicly held corporation is separately subject to Code Sec. 162(m) compensation limitations. Furthermore, an affiliated group includes a parent corporation that is privately held if one or more of its subsidiary corporations is a publicly held corporation. The regulations provide further clarification for affiliated groups where certain members are not publicly held. In the case where a covered employee of two or more members of an affiliated groups is paid by a member of the affiliated group that is not a publicly held, the compensation is prorated for purposes of determining the deduction.

In instances where a privately held corporation becomes public, Code Sec. 162(m) applies to the deduction for any compensation that is otherwise deductible for the tax year ending on or after the date that the corporation becomes a publicly held corporation. The regulations provide that a corporation is considered to become publicly held on the date that its registration statement becomes effective either under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

Covered Employees

Under the TCJA, a covered employee is the principal executive officer (PEO), the principal financial officer (PFO), or one of the three other highest compensated executives. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulation’s stance that there is no requirement that an employee must an executive officer at the end of the tax year to be a covered employee. Covered employees may include employees who have left the corporation. Furthermore, the definition applies regardless of whether the executive officer’s compensation is subject to disclosure for the last completed fiscal year under the applicable SEC rules.

The term "covered employee" also includes any employee who was a covered employee of any predecessor of the publicly held corporation for any preceding taxable year beginning after December 31, 2016. The regulations provide rules for determining the predecessor of a publicly held corporation for various corporate transactions. With respect to asset acquisitions, the regulations provide that, if an acquiror corporation acquires at least 80% of the net operating assets (determined by fair market value on the date of acquisition) of a publicly held target corporation, then the target corporation is a predecessor of the acquiror corporation for purposes of covered employees.

Applicable Employee Compensation

The final regulations define compensation as the aggregate amount allowable as a deduction for services performed by a covered employee, without regard for Code Sec. 162(m). Compensation includes payment for services performed by a covered employee in any capacity, including as a common law employee, a director, or an independent contractor. The regulations clarify that compensation also includes an amount that is includible in the income of, or paid to, a person other than the covered employee, including after the death of the covered employee.

In cases where a publicly held corporation holds a partnership, it must:

• take into account its distributive share of the partnership’s deduction for compensation paid to the publicly held corporation’s covered employee and
• aggregate that distributive share with the corporation’s otherwise allowable deduction for compensation paid directly to that employee in applying the Code Sec. 162(m) deduction limitation.

Grandfather Rules

The amendments made by the TCJA to Code Sec. 162(m) do not apply to any compensation paid under a written binding contract that is effect on November 2, 2017, and is not materially modified after that date. A contract is binding if it obligates a publicly held company to pay the compensation if the employee performs services or satisfies requirements in the contract. Under the final regulations:

• The TCJA amendments apply to any amount of compensation that exceeds the amount that applicable law obligates the corporation to pay under a written binding contract that was in effect on November 2, 2017.
• A provision in a compensation agreement that purports to give the employer discretion to reduce or eliminate a compensation payment (negative discretion) is taken into account only to the extent the corporation has the right to exercise that discretion under applicable law, such as state contract law.
• Under an ordering rule, the grandfathered amount is allocated to the first otherwise deductible payment paid under the arrangement, then to the next otherwise deductible payment, etc. For tax years ending before December 20, 2019, the final regulations allow the grandfathered amount to be allocated to the last otherwise deductible payment or to each payment on a pro rata basis.
• A material modification occurs when a contract is amended to increase the amount of compensation payable to the employee. However, a modification that defers compensation is not a material modification if any compensation that exceeds the original amount based on a reasonable rate of interest or a predetermined actual investment.

The final regulations depart from the proposed regulations with respect to the recovery of compensation. Under the proposed regulations, a corporation’s right to recover compensation is disregarded in determining the grandfathered amount only if the corporation recovery right or obligation depends on a future condition that is objectively outside of the corporation’s control. However, the final regulations recognize that a recovery right is a contractual right that is separate from the corporation’s binding obligation to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that the corporation’s right to recover compensation does not affect the determination of the amount of compensation the corporation has a written binding contract to pay under applicable law as of November 2, 2017.

The final regulations also clarify the application of the grandfather rule to compensation payable under nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plans. Specifically, the grandfathered amount under an is the amount that the corporation is obligated to pay under the terms of the plan as of November 2, 2017. The regulations also provide rules for calculating the grandfather amount for account balance plans, and analogous rules for nonaccount balance plans when:

• the corporation is obligated to pay the employee the account balance that is credited with earnings and losses and has no right to terminate or materially amend the contract;
• the terms of a plan that is a written binding contract as of November 2, 2017, provide that the corporation may terminate the plan and distribute the account balance to the employee; or
• the plan provides that the corporation may not terminate the contract, but may discontinue future contributions and distribute the account balance.

However, the corporation may instead elect to treat the account balance as of the termination or freeze date as the grandfathered amount regardless of when the amount is paid and regardless of whether it has been credited with earnings or losses prior to payment.

In addition, the final regulations provide that all compensation attributable to the exercise of a non-statutory stock option or a stock appreciation right (SAR) is grandfathered if the option or SAR is grandfathered and the extension satisfies Reg. §1.409A-1(b)(5)(v)(C)(1).

Effective Dates

Generally, these final regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date that they are published as final in the federal register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply these final regulations to a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017. Taxpayers that elect to apply the final regulations before the effective date must apply the final regulations consistently and in their entirety to that taxable year and all subsequent taxable years.

In addition, the final regulations include special applicability dates for certain aspects of the definition of:

• a covered employee,
• a predecessor of a publicly held corporation,
• compensation, and
• a written binding contract and material modification.

The regulations also include a special applicability date for the application of the Code Sec. 162(m) deduction limitations deductible for a taxable year ending on or after a privately held corporation becomes a publicly held corporation.

The IRS has issued final regulations providing additional guidance on the limitation on the deduction for business interest under Code Sec. 163(j). The regulations finalize various portions of the proposed regulations issued in 2020 with few modifications. They address the application of the limit in the context of calculating adjusted taxable income (ATI) with respect to depreciation, amortization, and depletion. The regulations also finalize rules on the definitions of real property development and redevelopment, as well as application to passthrough entities, regulated investment companies (RICs), and controlled foreign corporations.

The IRS has issued final regulations providing additional guidance on the limitation on the deduction for business interest under Code Sec. 163(j). The regulations finalize various portions of the proposed regulations issued in 2020 with few modifications. They address the application of the limit in the context of calculating adjusted taxable income (ATI) with respect to depreciation, amortization, and depletion. The regulations also finalize rules on the definitions of real property development and redevelopment, as well as application to passthrough entities, regulated investment companies (RICs), and controlled foreign corporations.

Calculating ATI

A taxpayer’s ATI for purposes of the Section 163(j) limit is the taxpayer’s tentative taxable income for the tax year with certain adjustments. For example, depreciation, amortization, and depletion for tax years beginning before January 1, 2022, is added back to tentative taxable income, but is subtracted from tentative taxable income if the taxpayer sells or disposes the property before January 1, 2022.

The final regulations provide that a taxpayer has the option to use an alternative computation method for property dispositions where the ATI adjustment is the lesser of: (1) any gain recognized on the sale or disposition; or (2) the greater of the allowed or allowable depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction of the property sold before January 1, 2022.

Similar rules apply for the sale or other disposition of an interest in a partnership or stock of a member of a consolidated group. However, the negative adjustment to tentative taxable income is reduced to the extent the taxpayer establishes that the additions to tentative taxable income in a prior tax year did not result in an increase in the amount allowed as a deduction for business interest expense for the year.

Real Property Development

The Section 163(j) limit does not apply to certain excepted trades or businesses, including an electing real property trade or business. An electing real property trade or business is any trade or business described in Code Sec. 469(c)(7)(C).

In response to comments about the application of this definition to timberlands, the 2020 proposed regulations provided definitions for real property development and redevelopment for clarity relying on the Code Sec. 464(e) definition of farming for that purpose. Section 464(e) generally excludes the cultivation and harvesting of trees (except those bearing fruit or nuts) from the definition of "farming".

The final regulations retain these definitions for real property development and real property redevelopment. Thus, to the extent the evergreen trees may be located on parcels of land covered by forest, the business activities of cultivating and harvesting such evergreen trees are a component of a "real property development" or "real property redevelopment" trade or business.

Self-Charged Lending

The final regulations adopt the proposed rules for self-charged lending transactions between partners and partnerships without change. For a transaction between a lending partner and a borrowing partnership in which the lending partner owns a direct interest, any business interest expense of the borrowing partnership attributable to a self-charged lending transaction is business interest expense of the borrowing partnership.

However, to the extent the lending partner receives interest income attributable to the self-charged lending transaction and also is allocated excess business interest in the same tax year, the lending partner may treat that interest income as an allocation of excess business income from the borrowing partnership to the extent of the lending partner’s allocation of excess business interest expense.

The IRS has released final regulations that address the changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), concerning the deduction of certain fines, penalties, and other amounts. The final regulations also provide guidance relating to the information reporting requirements for fines and penalties under Code Sec. 6050X.

The IRS has released final regulations that address the changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), concerning the deduction of certain fines, penalties, and other amounts. The final regulations also provide guidance relating to the information reporting requirements for fines and penalties under Code Sec. 6050X.

The final regulations adopt proposed regulations released last May ( NPRM REG-104591-18), with modifications.

TCJA Changes

Under changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the TCJA, businesses may not deduct fines and penalties paid or incurred after December 21, 2017, due to the violation of a law (or the investigation of a violation) if a government (or similar entity) is a complainant or investigator. Exceptions to this rule are available if the payment was for restitution, remediation, taxes due, or paid or incurred to come into compliance with a law. For the exceptions to apply, the taxpayer must identify the payment as restitution, remediation, or compliance in a court order or settlement agreement. In addition, Code Sec. 6050X now requires the officer or employee that has control over the suit or agreement to file a return with the IRS

The final regulations establish that a taxpayer generally may not take a deduction for any amount that was paid or incurred:

• by suit, agreement, or otherwise;
• to, or at the direction of, a government or governmental entity; and
• in relation to the violation, or investigation or inquiry by the government or governmental entity into the potential violation, of any civil or criminal law.

This rule applies regardless of whether the taxpayer admits guilt or liability, or pays the amount imposed for any other reason. This includes instances where the taxpayer pays to avoid the expense or uncertain outcome of an investigation or litigation.

The final regulations also clarify that a suit or agreement is treated as binding under applicable law even if all appeals have not been exhausted.

Governmental Entities

Under the final regulations, governmental entities include nongovernmental entities that exercise self-regulatory powers, including imposing sanctions.

The regulations also clarify that, for purposes of the information reporting requirements in Code Sec. 6050X, a nongovernmental entity treated as a governmental entity does not include a nongovernmental entity of a territory of the United States, including American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, a foreign country, or a Native American tribe.

Violations of Law

Under the final regulations, violations of the law do not include any order or agreement in a suit in which a government or governmental entity enforces rights as a private party.

Investigations

The final regulations also make clear that amounts paid or incurred for required routine investigations or inquiries continue to be deductible. In general, amounts paid or incurred for routine investigations or inquiries, such as audits or inspections, required to ensure compliance with rules and regulations applicable to the business or industry, which are not related to any evidence of wrongdoing or suspected wrongdoing, are not amounts paid or incurred relating to the potential violation of any law.

Establishing Payment

Under the final regulations, a taxpayer can establish that a payment was made for restitution or remediation by providing documentary evidence of the following:

• the taxpayer was legally obligated to pay the amount that the order or agreement identified as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law;
• the amount paid or incurred for the nature and purpose identified; and
• the date on which the amount was paid or incurred.

The final regulations expand the list of documentary evidence that may be used to meet the establishment requirement. According to the regulations, taxpayers may be able to use documentary evidence in a foreign language to satisfy the establishment requirement if the taxpayer provides a complete and accurate certified English translation of the documentary evidence.

Reporting of the amount by a government or governmental entity under Code Sec. 6050X alone does not satisfy the establishment requirement.

Disgorgement, Forfeiture of Profits

Under the final regulations, a taxpayer’s claim for a deduction for amounts paid or incurred through disgorgement or forfeiture of profits will be permitted if:

• the amount is otherwise deductible;
• the order or agreement identifies the payment, not in excess of net profits, as restitution, remediation, or an amount paid to come into compliance with a law;
• the taxpayer establishes that the amount was paid as restitution, remediation, or an amount paid to come into compliance with a law; and
• the origin of the taxpayer’s liability is restitution, remediation, or an amount paid to come into compliance with a law.

However, amounts paid or incurred through disgorgement will be disallowed if the amounts are disbursed to the general account of the government or governmental entity for general enforcement efforts or other discretionary purposes.

Restitution, Remediation

Final Reg. §1.162-21(e)(4)(i) clarifies that restitution and remediation do not include amounts paid to a general account or for discretionary purposes. In addition, the final regulations provide that if amounts paid by the taxpayer pursuant to an order or an agreement is returned, the taxpayer must include the amount in its income under the tax benefit rule.

Reg. §1.162-21(e)(4)(i)(A) also provides special restitution and remediation rules to address amounts paid or incurred for irreparable harm to the environment, natural resources, or wildlife.

Coming into Compliance

The final regulations list certain payments that will not be treated as “paid or incurred to come into compliance with a law.” In addition, the taxpayer must perform any required services or take any required action in order to come into compliance with the law.

The final regulations also modify an example to clarify that when a taxpayer upgrades equipment or property to a higher standard than what is required to come into compliance with the law, the taxpayer will be able to deduct the difference between what the taxpayer paid and the amount required to come into compliance.

Identification

Under Code Sec. 162(f)(2)(A), an order or agreement must identify the amount paid or incurred as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law. The final regulations modify the proposed rule for payment amounts not identified. Under this rule, the identification requirement may be met even if the order or agreement does not allocate the total lump-sum payment amount among restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with the law. The rule also applies when the order or agreement fails to allocate the total payment among multiple taxpayers. In addition, the final regulations clarify that the identification requirement may be met even in cases where the order or agreement does not provide an estimated payment amount.

Consistent with Code Sec. 162(f)(2)(A)(ii), the final regulations provide that the order or agreement, not the taxpayer, must meet the identification requirement with language specifically stating or describing that the amount will be paid or incurred as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law.

The final regulations eliminated the rebuttable presumption for the identification requirement. Instead, the identification requirement is met when the order or agreement specifically states that the payment constitutes restitution, remediation, or an amount paid to come into compliance with a law, or when it uses a different form of the required words. For orders or agreements in a foreign language, in order to meet the identification requirement the taxpayer must provide a complete and accurate certified English translation that describes the nature and purpose of the payment using the foreign language equivalent of restitution, remediation, or coming into compliance with the law.

According to the final regulations, an order or agreement will also meet the identification requirement if it describes the damage done, harm suffered, or manner of noncompliance with a law, and describes the action required of the taxpayer to (1) restore the party, property, or environment harmed or (2) perform services, take action, or provide property to come into compliance with that law.

Taxes and Interest

Under Code Sec. 162(f)(4), taxpayers may still deduct any taxes due, including any related interest on the taxes. However, the final regulations clarify that if penalties are imposed with respect to otherwise deductible taxes, a taxpayer may not deduct the penalties or the interest paid with respect to such penalties.

Multiple Payors

The final regulations address situations where there are multiple payors and the aggregate amount they are required to pay, or the costs to provide the property or the service, meets or exceeds the threshold amount. In those instances, the appropriate official should file an information return and furnish a written statement for the separate amount that each individually liable payor is required to pay, even if a payor’s payment liability is less than the threshold amount.

Material Change

According to the TCJA, the amendments to Code Sec. 162(f) apply to agreements entered into on or after December 22, 2017. However, the proposed regulations clarified that if the parties to an agreement that was binding prior to December 22, 2017, make a material change to that agreement on or after the date that the proposed regulations become final, the regulations will apply to the agreement. The final regulations have eliminated that requirement.

Reporting Requirements

The final regulations provide that if the aggregate amount a payor is required to pay equals or exceeds the threshold amount of $50,000 under Reg. §1.6050X-1(f)(6), the appropriate official of a government or governmental entity must file an information return with the IRS with respect to the amounts or incurred paid and any additional information required. That information includes:

• the amounts paid or incurred pursuant to the order or agreement;
• the payor’s taxpayer identification number (TIN); and
• other information required by the information return and the related instructions.

The official must provide this information by filing Form 1098-F, Fines, Penalties, and Other Amounts, with Form 1096, Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns, on or before the annual due date. However, the regulations do not require an appropriate official to file information returns for each tax year in which a payor makes a payment pursuant to a single order or agreement. Instead, the appropriate official should only one information return for the aggregate amount identified in the order or agreement.

In instances where the final amount is unknown but is expected to meet or exceed the $50,000 threshold amount, the appropriate official should report the threshold amount on Form 1098-F.

The appropriate official must also furnish a written statement with the same information to the payor. They can satisfy this requirement by providing a copy of Form 1098-F. This statement must be provided by January 31 of such year.

Effective Date

The final regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The final regulations under Reg. §1.6050X-1 apply only to orders and agreements, pursuant to suits and agreements, that become binding under applicable law on or after January 1, 2022.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor allowing a trade or business that manages or operates a qualified residential living facility to be treated as a "real property trade or business" solely for purposes of qualifying to make the Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B) election. This guidance formalizes the proposed safe harbor issued in Notice 2020-59, I.R.B. 2020-34, 782. Taxpayers may apply the rules to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor allowing a trade or business that manages or operates a qualified residential living facility to be treated as a "real property trade or business" solely for purposes of qualifying to make the Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B) election. This guidance formalizes the proposed safe harbor issued in Notice 2020-59, I.R.B. 2020-34, 782. Taxpayers may apply the rules to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Qualified Residential Living Facilities

A facility is deemed to be a "qualified residential living facility" if it:

• consists of multiple rental dwelling units within one or more buildings or structures that generally serve as primary residences on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to individual customers or patients;
• provides supplemental assistive, nursing, or other routine medical services;
• has an average period of customer or patient use of individual rental dwelling units of 30 days or more; and
• retains books and records to substantiate requirements.

Further, taxpayers must use the Code Sec. 168(g) alternative depreciation system to depreciate the property under Code Sec. 168(g)(8).

Taxpayers satisfying the requirements of the safe harbor after a deemed cessation of the electing trade or business will have their initial election under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B) automatically reinstated.

The IRS has released final regulations addressing the post-2017 simplified accounting rules for small businesses. The final regulations adopt and modify proposed regulations released in August 2020.

The IRS has released final regulations addressing the post-2017 simplified accounting rules for small businesses. The final regulations adopt and modify proposed regulations released in August 2020.

Implementation of the Rules

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) put in place a single $25 million gross receipts test for determining whether certain taxpayers qualify as small taxpayers that can use the cash method of accounting, are not required to use inventories, are not required to apply the Uniform Capitalization (UNICAP rules), and are not required to use the percentage of completion method for a small construction contract.

Highlights of Changes in the Final Regulations

Annual syndicate election. The proposed regulations permit a taxpayer to elect to use the allocated taxable income or loss of the immediately preceding tax year to determine whether the taxpayer is a syndicate under Code Sec. 448(d)(3) for the current tax year. Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer that makes this election must apply the rule to all subsequent tax years, unless it receives IRS permission to revoke the election.

The final regulations provide additional relief by making the election an annual election. The election is valid only for the tax year for which it is made, and once made, cannot be revoked. The IRS intends to issue procedural guidance to address the revocation of an election made under the proposed regulations as a result of the application of the final regulations.

Five-year written consent requirement relaxed. The proposed regulations require a taxpayer that meets the gross receipts test in the current tax year to obtain the written consent of the Commissioner before changing to the cash method if the taxpayer had previously changed its overall method from the cash method during any of the five tax years ending with the current tax year. The final regulations remove the 5-year restriction on making automatic accounting method changes for certain situations.

Other changes. Additional changes include the following:

• To reduce confusion about the nature of property treated as non-incidental materials and supplies under Code Sec. 471(c)(1)(B)(i), the final regulations refer to the method under that provision as the "section 471(c) NIMS inventory method."
• The final regulations provide that inventory costs includible in the section 471(c) NIMS inventory method are direct material costs of the property produced or the costs of property acquired for resale.
• Examples are added to clarify the principle that a taxpayer may not ignore its regular accounting procedures or portions of its books and records under the non-AFS section 471(c) inventory method.
• The final regulations clarify how a taxpayer treats costs to acquire or produce tangible property that the taxpayer does not capitalize in its books and records.

Applicability Date

The final regulations are applicable for tax years beginning on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may apply the final regulations under a particular Code provision for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, if the taxpayer follows all the applicable rules contained in the regulations that relate to that Code provision for the tax year and all subsequent tax years, and follows the administrative procedures for filing a change in method of accounting.

Final regulations clarify the definition of "real property" that qualifies for a like-kind exchange, including incidental personal property. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97), like-kind exchanges occurring after 2017 are limited to real property used in a trade or business or for investment.

Final regulations clarify the definition of "real property" that qualifies for a like-kind exchange, including incidental personal property. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97), like-kind exchanges occurring after 2017 are limited to real property used in a trade or business or for investment.

The final regulations largely adopt regulations that were proposed in June ( NPRM REG-117589-18). However, they also:

• add a " state or local law" test to define real property; and
• reject the “purpose and use” test in the proposed regulations.

In addition, the final regulations classify cooperative housing corporation stock and land development rights as real property. The final regulations also provide that a license, permit, or other similar right is generally real property if it is (i) solely for the use, enjoyment, or occupation of land or an inherently permanent structure; and (ii) in the nature of a leasehold, an easement, or a similar right.

General Definition
Under the final regulations, property is classified as "real property" for like-kind exchange purposes if, on the date it is transferred in the exchange, the property is real property under the law of the state or local jurisdiction in which it is located. The proposed regulations had limited this “state or local law” test to shares in a mutual ditch, reservoir, or irrigation company.

However, the final regulations also clarify that real property that was ineligible for a like-kind exchange before the TCJA remains ineligible. For example, intangible assets that could not be like-kind property before the TCJA (such as stocks, securities, and partnership interests) remain ineligible regardless of how they are characterized under state or local law.

Accordingly, under the final regulations, property is real property if it is:

• classified as real property under state or local law;
• specifically listed as real property in the final regulations; or
• considered real property based on all of the facts and circumstances, under factors provided in the regulations.

These tests mean that property that is not real property under state or local law might still be real property for like-kind exchange purposes if it satisfies the second or third test.

Types of Real Property
Under both the proposed and final regulations, real property for a like-kind exchange is:

• land and improvements to land;
• unsevered crops and other natural products of land; and
• water and air space superjacent to land.

Under both the proposed and final regulations, improvements to land include inherently permanent structures, and the structural components of inherently permanent structures. Each distinct asset must be analyzed separately to determine if it is land, an inherently permanent structure, or a structural component of an inherently permanent structure. The regulations identify several specific items, assets and systems as distinct assets, and provide factors for identifying other distinct assets.

The final regulations also:

• incorporate the language provided in Reg. §1.856-10(d)(2)(i) to provide additional clarity regarding the meaning of "permanently affixed;"
• modify the example in the proposed regulations concerning offshore drilling platforms; and
• clarify that the distinct asset rule applies only to determine whether property is real property, but does not affect the application of the three-property rule for identifying properties in a deferred exchange.

"Purpose or Use" Test
The proposed regulations would have imposed a "purpose or use" test on both tangible and intangible property. Under this test, neither tangible nor intangible property was real property if it contributed to the production of income unrelated to the use or occupancy of space.

The final regulations eliminate the purpose and use test for both tangible and intangible property. Consequently, tangible property is generally an inherently permanent structure—and, thus, real property—if it is permanently affixed to real property and will ordinarily remain affixed for an indefinite period of time. A structural component likewise is real property if it is integrated into an inherently permanent structure. Accordingly, items of machinery and equipment are real property if they comprise an inherently permanent structure or a structural component, or if they are real property under the state or local law test—irrespective of the purpose or use of the items or whether they contribute to the production of income.

Similarly, whether intangible property produces or contributes to the production of income is not considered in determining whether intangible property is real property for like-kind exchange purposes. However, the purpose of the intangible property remains relevant to the determination of whether the property is real property.

Incidental Personal Property
The incidental property rule in the proposed regulations provided that, for exchanges involving a qualified intermediary, personal property that is incidental to replacement real property (incidental personal property) is disregarded in determining whether a taxpayer’s rights to receive, pledge, borrow, or otherwise obtain the benefits of money or non-like-kind property held by the qualified intermediary are expressly limited as provided in Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(6).

Personal property is incidental to real property acquired in an exchange if (i) in standard commercial transactions, the personal property is typically transferred together with the real property, and (ii) the aggregate fair market value of the incidental personal property transferred with the real property does not exceed 15 percent of the aggregate fair market value of the replacement real property (15-percent limitation).

This final regulations adopt these rules with some minor modifications to improve clarity and readability. For example, the final regulations clarify that the receipt of incidental personal property results in taxable gain; and the 15-percent limitation compares the value of all of the incidental properties to the value of all of the replacement real properties acquired in the same exchange.

Effective Dates
The final regulations apply to exchanges beginning after the date they are published as final in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may also rely on the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2020, if followed consistently and in their entirety, for exchanges of real property beginning after December 31, 2017, and before the publication date of the final regulations. In addition, conforming changes to the bonus depreciation rules apply to tax years beginning after the final regulations are published.

The IRS has released rulings concerning deductions for eligible Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan expenses.

The IRS has released rulings concerning deductions for eligible Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan expenses. The rulings:

• deny a deduction if the taxpayer has not yet applied for PPP loan forgiveness, but expects the loan to be forgiven; and
• provide a safe harbor for deducting expenses if PPP loan forgiveness is denied or the taxpayer does not apply for forgiveness.

Background
In response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) expanded Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act for certain loans made from February 15, 2020, through August 8, 2020 (PPP loans). An eligible PPP loan recipient may have the debt on a covered loan forgiven, and the cancelled debt will be excluded from gross income. To prevent double tax benefits, under Reg. §1.265-1, taxpayers cannot deduct expenses allocable to income that is either wholly excluded from gross income or wholly exempt from tax.

The IRS previously determined that businesses whose PPP loans are forgiven cannot deduct business expenses paid for by the loan ( Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837). The new guidance expands on the previous guidance, but provides a safe harbor for taxpayers whose loans are not forgiven.

No Business Deduction
In Rev. Rul. 2020-27, the IRS amplifies guidance in Notice 2020-32. A taxpayer that received a covered PPP loan and paid or incurred certain otherwise deductible expenses may not deduct those expenses in the tax year in which the expenses were paid or incurred if, at the end of the tax year, the taxpayer reasonably expects to receive forgiveness of the covered loan on the basis of the expenses it paid or accrued during the covered period. This is the case even if the taxpayer has not applied for forgiveness by the end of the tax year.

Safe Harbor
In Rev. Proc. 2020-51, the IRS provides a safe harbor allowing taxpayers to claim a deduction in the tax year beginning or ending in 2020 for certain otherwise deductible eligible expenses if:

• the eligible expenses are paid or incurred during the taxpayer’s 2020 tax year;
• the taxpayer receives a PPP covered loan that, at the end of the taxpayer’s 2020 tax year, the taxpayer expects to be forgiven in a subsequent tax year; and
• in a subsequent tax year, the taxpayer’s request for forgiveness of the covered loan is denied, in whole or in part, or the taxpayer decides never to request forgiveness of the covered loan.

A taxpayer may be able to deduct some or all of the eligible expenses on, as applicable:

• a timely (including extensions) original income tax return or information return for the 2020 tax year;
• an amended return or an administrative adjustment request (AAR) under Code Sec. 6227 for the 2020 tax year; or
• a timely (including extensions) original income tax return or information return for the subsequent tax year.

Applying Safe Harbor
To apply the safe harbor, a taxpayer attaches a statement titled "Revenue Procedure 2020-51 Statement" to the return on which the taxpayer deducts the expenses. The statement must include:

• the taxpayer’s name, address, and social security number or employer identification number;
• a statement specifying whether the taxpayer is an eligible taxpayer under either section 3.01 or section 3.02 of Revenue Procedure 2020-51;
• a statement that the taxpayer is applying section 4.01 or section 4.02 of Revenue Procedure 2020-51;
• the amount and date of disbursement of the taxpayer’s covered PPP loan;
• the total amount of covered loan forgiveness that the taxpayer was denied or decided to no longer seek;
• the date the taxpayer was denied or decided to no longer seek covered loan forgiveness; and
• the total amount of eligible expenses and non-deducted eligible expenses that are reported on the return.

The IRS has issued final regulations under Code Sec. 274 relating to the elimination of the employer deduction of for transportation and commuting fringe benefits by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97), effective for amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. The final regulations address the disallowance of a deduction for the expense of any qualified transportation fringe (QTF) provided to an employee of the taxpayer. Guidance and methodologies are provided to determine the amount of QTF parking expenses that is nondeductible. The final regulations also address the disallowance of the deduction for expenses of transportation and commuting between an employee’s residence and place of employment.

The IRS has issued final regulations under Code Sec. 274 relating to the elimination of the employer deduction of for transportation and commuting fringe benefits by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97), effective for amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. The final regulations address the disallowance of a deduction for the expense of any qualified transportation fringe (QTF) provided to an employee of the taxpayer. Guidance and methodologies are provided to determine the amount of QTF parking expenses that is nondeductible. The final regulations also address the disallowance of the deduction for expenses of transportation and commuting between an employee’s residence and place of employment.

The final regulations adopt earlier proposed regulations with a few minor modifications in response to public comments ( REG-119307-19). Pending issuance of these final regulations, taxpayers had been allowed to apply to proposed regulations or guidance issued in Notice 2018-99, I.R.B. 2018-52, 1067. Notice 2018-99 is obsoleted on the publication date of the final regulations.

The final regulations clarify an exception for parking spaces made available to the general public to provide that parking spaces used to park vehicles owned by members of the general public while the vehicle awaits repair or service are treated as provided to the general public.

The category of parking spaces for inventory or which are otherwise unusable by employees is clarified to provide that such spaces may also not be usable by the general public. In addition, taxpayers will be allowed to use any reasonable method to determine the number of inventory/unusable spaces in a parking facility.

The definition of "peak demand period" for purposes of determining the primary use of a parking facility is modified to cover situations where a taxpayer is affected by a federally declared disaster.

The final regulations also provide that taxpayers using the cost per parking space methodology for determining the disallowance for parking facilities may calculate the cost per space on a monthly basis.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers can choose to apply the regulations to tax years ending after December 31, 2019.

As part of a series of reminders, the IRS has urged taxpayers get ready for the upcoming tax filing season. A special page ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/steps-to-take-now-to-get-a-jump-on-next-years-taxes), updated and available on the IRS website, outlines steps taxpayers can take now to make tax filing easier in 2021.

As part of a series of reminders, the IRS has urged taxpayers get ready for the upcoming tax filing season. A special page ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/steps-to-take-now-to-get-a-jump-on-next-years-taxes), updated and available on the IRS website, outlines steps taxpayers can take now to make tax filing easier in 2021.

Taxpayers receiving substantial amounts of non-wage income like self-employment income, investment income, taxable Social Security benefits and, in some instances, pension and annuity income, should make quarterly estimated tax payments. The last payment for 2020 is due on January 15, 2021. Payment options can be found at IRS.gov/payments. For more information, the IRS encourages taxpayers to review Pub. 5348, Get Ready to File, and Pub. 5349, Year-Round Tax Planning is for Everyone.

Income
Most income is taxable, so taxpayers should gather income documents such as Forms W-2 from employers, Forms 1099 from banks and other payers, and records of virtual currencies or other income. Other income includes unemployment income, refund interest and income from the gig economy.

Forms and Notices
Beginning in 2020, individuals may receive Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation, rather than Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, if they performed certain services for and received payments from a business. The IRS recommends reviewing the Instructions for Form 1099-MISC and Form 1099-NEC to ensure clients are filing the appropriate form and are aware of this change.

Taxpayers may also need Notice 1444, Economic Impact Payment, which shows how much of a payment they received in 2020. This amount is needed to calculate any Recovery Rebate Credit they may be eligible for when they file their federal income tax return in 2021. People who did not receive an Economic Impact Payment in 2020 may qualify for the Recovery Rebate Credit when they file their 2020 taxes in 2021.

Additional Information
To see information from the most recently filed tax return and recent payments, taxpayers can sign up to view account information online. Taxpayers should notify the IRS of address changes and notify the Social Security Administration of a legal name change to avoid delays in tax return processing.

This year marks the 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week-a collaboration by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry. The IRS and the Security Summit partners have issued warnings to all taxpayers and tax professionals to beware of scams and identity theft schemes by criminals taking advantage of the combination of holiday shopping, the approaching tax season and coronavirus concerns. The 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week coincided with Cyber Monday, the traditional start of the online holiday shopping season.

This year marks the 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week-a collaboration by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry. The IRS and the Security Summit partners have issued warnings to all taxpayers and tax professionals to beware of scams and identity theft schemes by criminals taking advantage of the combination of holiday shopping, the approaching tax season and coronavirus concerns. The 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week coincided with Cyber Monday, the traditional start of the online holiday shopping season.

The following are a few basic steps which taxpayers and tax professionals should remember during the holidays and as the 2021 tax season approaches:

• use an updated security software for computers and mobile phones;
• the purchased anti-virus software must have a feature to stop malware and a firewall that can prevent intrusions;
• don't open links or attachments on suspicious emails because this year, fraud scams related to COVID-19 and the Economic Impact Payment are common;
• use strong and unique passwords for online accounts;
• use multi-factor authentication whenever possible which prevents thieves from easily hacking accounts;
• shop at sites where the web address begins with "https" and look for the "padlock" icon in the browser window;
• don't shop on unsecured public Wi-Fi in places like a mall;
• secure home Wi-Fis with a password;
• back up files on computers and mobile phones; and
• consider creating a virtual private network to securely connect to your workplace if working from home.

In addition, taxpayers can check out security recommendations for their specific mobile phone by reviewing the Federal Communications Commission's Smartphone Security Checker. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued warnings about fraud and scams related to COVID-19 schemes, anti-body testing, healthcare fraud, cryptocurrency fraud and others. COVID-related fraud complaints can be filed at the National Center for Disaster Fraud. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission also has issued alerts about fraudulent emails claiming to be from the Centers for Disease Control or the World Health Organization. Taxpayers can keep atop the latest scam information and report COVID-related scams at www.FTC.gov/coronavirus.

The IRS has released the annual inflation adjustments for 2021 for the income tax rate tables, and for over 50 other tax provisions. The IRS makes these cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) each year to reflect inflation.

The IRS has released the annual inflation adjustments for 2021 for the income tax rate tables, and for over 50 other tax provisions. The IRS makes these cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) each year to reflect inflation.

2021 Income Tax Brackets
For 2021, the highest income tax bracket of 37 percent applies when taxable income hits:

• $628,300 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $523,600 for single individuals and heads of households,
• $314,150 for married individuals filing separately, and
• $13,050 for estates and trusts.

2021 Standard Deduction
The standard deduction for 2021 is:

• $25,100 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $18,800 for heads of households, and
• $12,550 for single individuals and married individuals filing separately.

The standard deduction for a dependent is limited to the greater of:

• $1,100 or
• the sum of $350 plus the dependent’s earned income.

Individuals who are blind or at least 65 years old get an additional standard deduction of:

• $1,350 for married taxpayers and surviving spouses, or
• $1,700 for other taxpayers.

AMT Exemption for 2021
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption for 2021 is:

• $114,600 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $73,600 for single individuals and heads of households,
• $57,300 for married individuals filing separately, and
• $25,700 for estates and trusts.

The exemption amounts begin to phase out when alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) exceeds:

• $1,047,200 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $523,600 for single individuals, heads of households, and married individuals filing separately, and
• $85,650 for estates and trusts.

Expensing Section 179 Property in 2021
For tax years beginning in 2021, taxpayers can expense up to $1,050,000 in Code Sec. 179 property. However, this dollar limit is reduced when the Section 179 property placed in service during the year exceeds $2,620,000.

Estate and Gift Tax Adjustments for 2021
The following inflation adjustments apply to federal estate and gift taxes in 2021:

• the gift tax exclusion is $15,000 per donee, or $159,000 for gifts to spouses who are not U.S. citizens;
• the federal estate tax exclusion is $11,700,000; and
• the maximum reduction for real property under the special valuation method is $1,190,000.

2021 Inflation Adjustments for Other Tax Items

The maximum foreign earned income exclusion amount in 2021 is $108,700.

The IRS also provided inflation-adjusted amounts for the:

• adoption credit,
• lifetime learning credit,
• earned income credit,
• excludable interest on U.S. savings bonds used for education,
• various penalties, and
• many other provisions.

Effective Date
These inflation adjustments generally apply to tax years beginning in 2021, so they affect most returns that will be filed in 2022. However, some specified figures apply to transactions or events in calendar year 2021.

The IRS has released the 2021 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions.

The IRS has released the 2021 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions.

Key Unchanged Amounts
The 2021 contribution limit remains unchanged at $19,500 for employees who take part in:

• 401(k) plans,
• 403(b) plans,
• most 457 plans, and
• the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan

The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over who participate in these plans also remains unchanged at $6,500.

The limitation for SIMPLE retirement accounts is unchanged at $13,500.

For individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), the limit on annual contributions to an IRA remains unchanged at $6,000. The additional catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over is not subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment, and so remains $1,000.

IRAs and Roth IRAs
The income ranges for determining eligibility to make deductible contributions to traditional IRAs and to contribute to Roth IRAs have increased for 2021.

Taxpayers can deduct contributions to a traditional IRA if they meet certain conditions. The deduction phases out if the taxpayer or his or her spouse takes part in a retirement plan at work. The deduction phase out depends on the taxpayer's filing status and income.

• For single taxpayers covered by a workplace retirement plan, the 2021 phase-out range is $66,000 to $76,000, up from $65,000 to $75,000 for 2020.
• For married couples filing jointly, when the spouse making the contribution takes part in a workplace retirement plan, the 2021 phase-out range is $105,000 to $125,000, up from $104,000 to $124,000 for 2020.
• For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan but who is married to someone who is covered, the 2021 phase out range is between $198,000 and $208,000, up from $196,000 and $206,000 for 2020.
• For a married individual who is covered by a workplace plan and is filing a separate return, the phase-out range is not subject to an annual COLA and remains $0 to $10,000.

The 2021 income phase-out ranges for Roth IRA contributions are:

• $125,000 to $140,000 for singles and heads of household (up from $124,000 to $139,000 in 2020),
• $198,000 to $208,000 for married filing jointly (up from $196,000 to $206,000 in 2020), and
• $0 to $10,000 for married filing separately.

Saver’s Credit
The income limit for low- and moderate-income workers to claim the Saver's Credit under Code Sec. 25B has also increased for 2021:

• $66,000 for married couples filing jointly (up from $65,000 in 2020),
• $49,500 for heads of household (up from $48,750 in 2020), and
• $33,000 for singles and married filing separately (up from $32,500 in 2020).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA expanded insurance coverage, and includes popular provisions such as required coverage of preexisting medical conditions.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA expanded insurance coverage, and includes popular provisions such as required coverage of preexisting medical conditions.

Three major issues are at play in this case:

• Do the plaintiff challengers of ACA—two individuals, the Trump Administration, and a number of states led by Texas—have standing to bring this case?
• Did reducing the penalty amount under Code Sec. 5000A(c) to $0 render the individual mandate in the ACA unconstitutional?
• If the mandate is unconstitutional, does that mean the act itself is unconstitutional, in whole or in part?

Background
The individual mandate in the ACA requires that taxpayers either maintain minimum essential coverage, have an exemption, or pay a penalty. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 zeroed out the penalty. The plaintiffs in this case argue that without the penalty, the mandate is unconstitutional. They further contend that the mandate is so essential to ACA that it cannot be severed from the rest of the law, and thus the entire act should be struck down. At the very least, they would like the Court to strike down portions of the ACA.

The challenger states are: Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They have added two individuals, and the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump Administration is also a party.

Other states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. House of Representatives have intervened to defend the ACA. The intervenor states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington.

Oral Arguments
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides of this case on November 10. The challengers argued that Republicans used the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to eliminate the law’s penalty for Americans who do not get health coverage. This rendered the mandate unconstitutional, and since the mandate is so essential to the rest of the act, the whole act must also fall.

The attorneys on behalf of the House, however, argued that the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to take on a legislative role contrary to the Court’s precedent, and that striking down the ACA would throw millions of people off their health insurance, end pre-existing condition protections, and create "chaos in the health care sector."

The Supreme Court appeared unlikely to completely wipe out ACA, with key conservative justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicating that such a ruling would be too broad of a role for the courts. "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down," Chief Justice Roberts said.

If the three more liberal justices agree with the two conservative justices, it would provide the minimum five votes needed for the ACA to survive its latest appearance before the Supreme Court. A decision is expected before the end of term in June.

The IRS has provided guidance to taxpayers that want to apply either Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, or want to rely on proposed regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19.

The IRS has provided guidance to taxpayers that want to apply either Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, or want to rely on proposed regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19, for:

• certain depreciable property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021;
• certain plants planted or grafted after September 27, 2017, by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021; and
• components acquired or self-constructed after September 27, 2017, of certain larger self-constructed property and placed in service by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021.

Rev. Proc. 2020-25, 2020-19 I.R.B. 785, and Rev. Proc. 2019-43, 2019-48 I.R.B. 1107, are modified.

Change in Accounting Method
The guidance applies to taxpayers who are changing their method of accounting for depreciable property that includes:

• components described in Reg. §1.168(k)-2(c) or NPRM REG-106808-19 where the component election has already been made; and
• specified plants for which the Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election has been made and that are planted, or grafted to a plant that was previously planted, after September 27, 2017, during the taxpayer’s 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020 tax year.

This guidance does not apply to property or a plant:

• that is impacted by a late election, or withdrawn election under Code Sec. 163(j)(7) after November 16, 2020, pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2020-22;
• for which the taxpayer is changing from deducting the cost or other basis of such property as an expense to capitalizing and depreciating the cost or other basis, or vice versa; or
• that the taxpayer does not own at the beginning of the year of change, with some exceptions.

In addition, this guidance cannot be used to make a late election, or revoke an election, under Code Sec. 168, Code Sec. 179, or Reg. §1.1502-68.

Taxpayers have a choice of applying the 2020 final regulations under T.D. 9916, the previous final regulations under T.D. 9874, or both the final regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19. However, once a taxpayer applies Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, the taxpayer must apply Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 to all subsequent tax years.

Automatic Extensions of Time
Applicable taxpayers may make a late Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election, a late Code Sec. 168(k)(7) election, a late Code Sec. 168(k)(10) election, a late component election, a late designated transaction election, or a late proposed component election, by filing either:

• an amended Form 1065 for the placed-in-service year of the property, or for the planting year of the specified plant, as applicable, on or before December 31, 2021; or
• a Form 3115 with the taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal income tax return or Form 1065 for the taxpayer’s first or second tax year succeeding the tax year in which the taxpayer placed in service the property or the planting year of the specified plant, or, if later, the taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal income tax return or Form 1065 that is filed on or after November 6, 2020, and on or before December 31, 2021.

Effective Date
This guidance is effective on November 6, 2020.

The IRS has issued final regulations to update the life expectancy and distribution period tables under the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules. The tables reflect the general increase in life expectancy. The tables would apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, with transition relief.

The IRS has issued final regulations to update the life expectancy and distribution period tables under the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules. The tables reflect the general increase in life expectancy. The tables would apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, with transition relief.

RMDs apply to qualified plans, including 401(k) plans and profit sharing plans. They also apply to IRAs (including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs), inherited Roth IRAs, Tax Sheltered Annuity plans, and eligible deferred compensation plans. In general, RMDs must begin for the year the individual reaches age 72. An RMD for a calendar year is determined by dividing the participant’s account balance by the applicable distribution period.

Distribution periods are based on life expectancies and are found in one of three tables, depending on the circumstances:

• During the employee’s lifetime (including year of death), the applicable distribution period is determined by the Uniform Lifetime Table. The figures in that table are the joint and last survivor life expectancy for the employee and a hypothetical beneficiary 10 years younger.
• If an employee's sole beneficiary is the employee's surviving spouse and the spouse is more than 10 years younger than the employee, then the applicable distribution period is the joint and last survivor life expectancy of the employee and spouse under the Joint and Last Survivor Table.
• After the employee’s death, the distribution period is generally based on the designated beneficiary’s age using the Single Life Expectancy Table.

Updated Tables
Distribution periods under the new rules would generally increase between one and two years. For example, a 72-year-old IRA owner who applied the prior Uniform Lifetime Table to calculate RMDs used a life expectancy of 25.6 years. Applying the new Uniform Lifetime Table, a 72-year-old IRA owner will use a life expectancy of 27.4 years to calculate RMDs. As another example, a 75-year-old surviving spouse who is the employee’s sole beneficiary and applied the prior Single Life Table to compute RMDs used a life expectancy of 13.4 years. Under these regulations, a 75-year-old surviving spouse will use a life expectancy of 14.8 years.

Retirees and beneficiaries would be able to withdraw slightly smaller amounts from their plans each year. They could leave amounts in tax-favored retirement accounts for a slightly longer period of time, to account for the possibility that they may live longer.

Applicability Date
The life expectancy tables and Uniform Lifetime Table under these regulations apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. Thus, for an IRA owner who attained age 70.5 in February of 2020 (so that the individual attains age 72 in August of 2021 and the individual’s required beginning date is April 1, 2022), these regulations do not apply to the RMD for the individual’s 2021 distribution calendar year (which is due April 1, 2022) but will apply to the RMD for the individual’s 2022 distribution calendar year (which is due December 31, 2022).

These regulations include a transition rule that applies if an employee died before January 1, 2022, and, under the rules of Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5, the distribution period that applies for calendar years following the calendar year of the employee’s death is equal to a single life expectancy calculated as of the calendar year of the employee’s death (or if applicable, the year after the employee’s death), reduced by one for each subsequent year.

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

2021 Wage Cap
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on wages is 7.65 percent each for the employee and the employer. FICA tax has two components:

• a 6.2 percent Social Security tax, also known as Old Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance (OASDI); and
• a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, also known as hospital insurance (HI).

For self-employed workers, the Self-Employment tax is 15.3 percent, consisting of:

• a 12.4 percent OASDI tax; and
• a 2.9 percent HI tax.

OASDI tax applies only up to a wage base, which includes most wages and self-employment income up to the annual wage cap.

For 2021, the wage base is $142,800. Thus, OASDI tax applies only to the taxpayer’s first $142,800 in wages or net earnings from self-employment. Taxpayers do not pay any OASDI tax on earnings that exceed $142,800.

There is no wage cap for HI tax.

Maximum Social Security Tax for 2021
For workers who earn $142,800 or more in 2021:

• an employee will pay a total of $8,853.60 in social security tax ($142,800 x 6.2 percent);
• the employer will pay the same amount; and
• a self-employed worker will pay a total of $17,707.20 in social security tax ($142,800 x 12.4 percent).

Additional Medicare Tax
Higher-income workers may have to pay an Additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent. This tax applies to wages and self-employment income that exceed:

• $250,000 for married taxpayers who file a joint return;
• $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separate returns; and
• $200,000 for other taxpayers.

The annual wage cap does not affect the Additional Medicare tax.

Benefits Increase for 2021
Finally, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase social security and SSI benefits for 2019 by 1.3 percent. The COLA is intended to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of these benefits.

The IRS has adopted previously issued proposed regulations ( REG-106808-19) dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation deduction. In addition, some clarifying changes have been made to previously issued final regulations ( T.D. 9874). Changes to the proposed and earlier final regulations are largely in response to various comments submitted by practitioners, and generally relate to:

The IRS has adopted previously issued proposed regulations ( REG-106808-19) dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation deduction. In addition, some clarifying changes have been made to previously issued final regulations ( T.D. 9874). Changes to the proposed and earlier final regulations are largely in response to various comments submitted by practitioners, and generally relate to:

• the definition of qualified used property;
• the election to claim bonus depreciation on components acquired or self-constructed after September 27, 2017, for larger self-constructed property for which manufacture, construction, or production began before September 28, 2017;
• application of the mid-quarter convention;
• clarifications to the definition of qualified improvement property, predecessor, and class of property; and
• clarifications to the rules for consolidated groups
  The rules for consolidated groups have also been moved from Proposed Reg. §1.168(k)-2(b)(3)(v) to new Reg. §1.1502-68.

Used Property
The 2019 final regulations provide that in determining whether the taxpayer or a predecessor had a depreciation interest in property prior to its acquisition, only the five calendar years immediately prior to the current placed-in-service year are considered. The latest IRS regulations clarify that the five calendar years immediately prior to the current calendar year in which the property is placed in service by the taxpayer, and the portion of such current calendar year before the placed-in-service date of the property without taking into account the applicable convention, are taken into account. In addition, the five-year look-back period applies separately to the taxpayer and a predecessor.

Furthermore, if the taxpayer or a predecessor, or both, have not been in existence during the entire look-back period, then only the portion of the look-back period during which the taxpayer or a predecessor, or both, have been in existence is taken into account.

Expanded Component Election
The prior regulations allow taxpayers to election to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on components of certain larger constructed property that qualifies for bonus depreciation if the construction of the larger property began before September 28, 2017. The components must be acquired or constructed after September 27, 2017, and the larger property must be placed in service before 2020 (2021 in the case of property with a longer construction period). The final regulations remove the 2020/2021 cutoff date. In addition, the final regulations provide that eligible larger self-constructed property also includes property that is constructed for a taxpayer under a written contract that is not binding and that is entered into prior to construction for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business. The definition of a larger constructed property is also clarified.

Qualified Improvement Property
The 15-year recovery period for qualified improvement property applies only to improvements "made by the taxpayer." The final regulations clarify that an improvement is considered made by a taxpayer if the property is constructed for the taxpayer. However, qualified improvement property received by a transferee taxpayer in a nonrecognition transaction described in Code Sec. 168(i)(7) is not eligible for bonus depreciation.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The final regulations clarify that depreciable basis is not reduced by the amount of bonus deduction in determining whether the mid-quarter convention applies.

Binding Contracts
Generally, property acquired pursuant to a binding contract entered into after September 27, 2017, does not qualify for bonus depreciation at the 100 percent rate. The final regulations clarify that a contract for a sale of stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as the result of a Code Sec. 336(e) election made for a disposition described in Reg. §1.336-2(b)(1) is a binding contract if enforceable under state law.

Floor Plan Financing
The IRS intends to issue guidance relating to transition relief for taxpayers with a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that want to revoke elections not to claim bonus depreciation for property placed in service during 2018.

The IRS will not allow a taxpayer to limit the amount of its otherwise deductible floor plan interest in order to qualify for bonus depreciation. However, guidance will address transition relief for the 2018 tax year for taxpayers that treated Code Sec. 168(j)(1) as providing an option for a business with floor plan financing indebtedness to include or exclude its floor plan financing interest expense in determining the amount allowed as a deduction for business interest expense for the tax year.

Effective Date
In general, the regulations apply to property acquired after September 27, 2017, and placed in service during or after a tax years that begins on or after January 1, 2021. However, they may be relied on for earlier tax years.

Final regulations reflect the significant changes that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) made to the Code Sec. 274 deduction for travel and entertainment expenses. These regulations finalize, with some changes, previously released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-100814-19.

Final regulations reflect the significant changes that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) made to the Code Sec. 274 deduction for travel and entertainment expenses. These regulations finalize, with some changes, previously released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-100814-19.

Changes to Code Sec. 274 under the TCJA
For most expenses paid or incurred after 2017, TCJA:

• repealed the "directly related to a trade or business" and the business-discussion exceptions to the general disallowance of entertainment expense deductions;
• eliminated the general business expense deduction for 50 percent of entertainment (but not meal) expenses; and
• repealed the special substantiation rules for deductible entertainment (but not travel) expenses. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until they are finalized.

Entertainment Expenses
Among other things, Reg. §1.274-11:

• restates the statutory rules of Code Sec. 274(a), including the entertainment deduction disallowance rule for dues or fees to any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization;
• substantially incorporates the existing definition of "entertainment" from Reg. §1.274-2(b)(1); and
• confirms that the nine exceptions in Code Sec. 274(e) continue to apply to deductible entertainment expenditures.

The regulations also confirm that "entertainment" does not include food or beverages unless they are provided at or during an entertainment activity, and their costs are included in the entertainment costs.

Food and Beverage Expenses
As under the proposed regulations, Reg. §1.274-12 allows taxpayers to deduct 50 percent of business meal expenses if:

• the expense is an ordinary and necessary business expense;
• the expense is not lavish or extravagant; the taxpayer or an employee is present when the food or beverage is furnished;
• the food or beverage is provided to a current or potential business customer, client, consultant, or similar business contact; and
• food and beverages that are provided during or at an entertainment activity are purchased separately from the entertainment, or their cost is separately stated.

With respect to the fourth requirement listed above, the final regulations adopt the definition of "business associate" in Reg. §1.274-2(b)(2)(iii), but expands it to include employees. Thus, these requirements would apply to employer-provided meals to employees as well as non-employees. The final regulations also flesh out the fifth requirement listed above, and clarify that the separate charges for entertainment-related food and beverages must reflect their actual cost, including delivery fees, tips, and sales tax. Indirect expenses such as transportation to the food are not included in the actual cost.

Exceptions and Special Rules
Food or beverage expenses for employer-provided meals at an eating facility do not include expenses for the operation of the facility, such as salaries of employees preparing and serving meals, and other overhead costs. The final regulations apply the TCJA changes to the exceptions and special rules for deductible food and beverages in Code Sec. 274(e), Code Sec. 274(k) and Code Sec. 274(n), including:

• reimbursed food or beverage expenses;
• recreational expenses for employees;
• items available to the public; and
• goods or services sold to customers.

The final regulations also provide examples on several specific scenarios to illustrate the rules.

The IRS has issued a final regulation addressing tax withholding on certain periodic retirement and annuity payments under Code Sec. 3405(a), to implement amendments made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA). The regulation affects payors of certain periodic payments, plan administrators that are required to withhold on such payments, and payees who receive such payments. The final regulation adopts, without modification, a proposed regulation that updated and replaced the provisions of three questions and answers with a new regulation regarding the default withholding rate on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

The IRS has issued a final regulation addressing tax withholding on certain periodic retirement and annuity payments under Code Sec. 3405(a), to implement amendments made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA). The regulation affects payors of certain periodic payments, plan administrators that are required to withhold on such payments, and payees who receive such payments. The final regulation adopts, without modification, a proposed regulation that updated and replaced the provisions of three questions and answers with a new regulation regarding the default withholding rate on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

Withholding on Periodic Payments
Before the TCJA, if a withholding certificate (Form W-4P) was not in effect for a periodic payment, the default withholding rate on the payment was determined by treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding exemptions. The TCJA amended Code Sec. 3405(a)(4) so that the default withholding rate on such a periodic payment is instead determined under rules prescribed by the Treasury Secretary.

After the TCJA was enacted, the IRS issued three notices providing that, for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020, the default withholding rate on periodic payments under Code Sec. 3405(a)(4) is based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding allowances ( Notice 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, 330; Notice 2018-92, I.R.B. 2018-51, 1038; Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353).

Under new Reg. §31.3405(a)-1, the default rate of withholding on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020, is determined in the manner described in the applicable forms, instructions, publications, and other guidance prescribed by the IRS.

Applicability Date
The final regulation applies to periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance for employers on federal income tax withholding from employees’ wages.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance for employers on federal income tax withholding from employees’ wages. The final regulations:

• address the amount of federal income tax that employers withhold from employees’ wages;
• implement changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• reflect the redesigned Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Certificate, and related IRS publications.

TCJA Changes
The TCJA made many amendments affecting income tax withholding on employees’ wages. The TCJA made many amendments affecting income tax withholding on employees’ wages.After the TCJA was enacted, the IRS issued guidance to implement the changes (for example, Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353; Notice 2018-92, I.R.B. 2018-51, 1038; Notice 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, 330). The IRS updated Form W-4 and its instructions with significant changes intended to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and make the withholding system more transparent for employees. It also released IRS Publication 15-T, Federal Income Tax Withholding Methods, which provides percentage method tables, wage bracket withholding tables, and other computational procedures for employers to use to compute withholding for the 2020 calendar year.

On February 13, 2020, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking ( REG-132741-17) to update the regulations under Code Sec. 3401 and Code Sec. 3402 to reflect the legislative changes, and expand the rules to accommodate changes necessary to fully implement the redesigned Form W-4 and its related computational procedures, along with most existing computational procedures that apply to 2019 or earlier Forms W-4.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with a few revisions.

Form W-4
The final regulations do not require all employees with a 2019 or earlier Form W-4 in effect to furnish a redesigned Form W-4. Comments expressed concerns that the proposed regulations and the related forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance would require employers to maintain two different systems for computing income tax withholding on wages: one for 2019 or earlier Forms W-4, and another for the redesigned Forms W-4.

In response, the IRS is acknowledging concerns with (1) instructions to the redesigned Form W-4 for employees with multiple jobs and (2) optional computational “bridge” entries permitted under the regulations and described in Publication 15-T that will allow employers to continue in effect 2019 or earlier Forms W-4 as if the employees had furnished redesigned Forms W-4.

The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(f)(4)-1(a) to provide that an employer’s use of the computational bridge entries to adapt a 2019 or earlier Form W-4 to the redesigned computational procedures as if using entries on a redesigned Form W-4 will continue in effect such a Form W-4 that was properly in effect on or before December 31, 2019.

Lock-in Letters
The IRS issues a "lock-in" letter to notify an employer that an employee is not entitled to claim exemption from withholding, or is not entitled to the withholding allowance claimed on the employee’s Form W-4. The lock-in letter prescribes the withholding allowance the employer must use to figure withholding. After the lock-in letter becomes effective, the IRS may issue a subsequent modification notice, but only after the employee contacts the IRS to request an adjustment to the withholding prescribed in the lock-in letter.

Under the final regulations, employers are not required to notify the IRS that they no longer employ an employee for whom a lock-in letter was issued. Further, the final regulations do not require the IRS to reissue lock-in letters or modification notices solely because of the redesigned Form W-4.

The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(iv) relating to lock-in letters. and Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(vii) relating to modification notices, to provide that an employer may comply with a lock-in letter or modification notice that is based on a 2019 or earlier Form W-4, as required by the regulations, if the employer implements the maximum withholding allowance and filing status permitted in a lock-in letter or modification notice by using the computational bridge entries as set forth in forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance to calculate withholding for such a Form W-4.

Estimated Tax Payments
The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(m)-1(d) to allow employees to take estimated tax payments into account, as long as the employee (1) follows the instructions to the IRS’s Tax Withholding Estimator (available at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-withholding-estimator) or IRS Publication 505, (2) is not subject to a lock-in letter or modification notice, and (3) does not request withholding from wages that falls below the pro rata share of income taxes attributable to wages determined under forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance. The IRS intends to update its Tax Withholding Estimator and Publication 505 to reflect this rule.

Applicable Date
The final regulations generally apply on the date they are published in the Federal Register. Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g), regarding withholding compliance, applies as of February 13, 2020. Reg. §31.3402(f)(5)-1(a)(3), regarding the requirement to use the current version of Form W-4, applies as of March 16, 2020. The removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), regarding the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables, applies on and after January 1, 2020.

Except for the removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), taxpayers may choose to apply the final regulations on and after January 1, 2020, and before their applicability date set forth in the regulations.

The Treasury and IRS have issued guidance on the recent order by President Trump to defer certain employee payroll tax obligations on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Under the guidance:

The Treasury and IRS have issued guidance on the recent order by President Trump to defer certain employee payroll tax obligations on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Under the guidance:

• the due date for the withholding and payment of the employee’s portion of the 6.2-percent old-age, survivors and disability insurance (OASDI) tax (Social Security tax) under Code Sec. 3101(a), and the employee’s portion of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) Tier 1 tax that is attributable to the 6.2-percent Social Security tax under Code Sec. 3201, on applicable wages is postponed until the period beginning on January 1, 2021, and ending on April 30, 2021; and
• the deferred taxes must be withheld and paid from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021.

The guidance states that it does not separately postpone the deposit obligation for employee Social Security tax. This is because the deposit obligation does not arise until the tax is withheld, so by postponing the time for withholding the employee Social Security tax, the deposit obligation is delayed by operation of the tax regulations.

7508A Relief
In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) disaster, President Trump issued a memorandum on August 8, 2020, directing the Treasury Secretary to use his Code Sec. 7508A authority to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the employee’s portion of Social Security tax, and the employee’s portion of the RRTA equivalent tax, on wages and compensation paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. The deferral is available only for employees whose biweekly, pre-tax pay is less than $4,000, or a similar amount where a different pay period applies.

The Treasury Secretary has determined that employers required to withhold and pay the employee share of the Social Security tax under Code Sec. 3102(a) or the RRTA tax equivalent under Code Sec. 3202(a) are affected by the COVID-19 emergency for purposes of the relief described in the presidential memorandum.

Applicable Wages
The deferral applies to wages under Code Sec. 3121(a) or compensation under Code Sec. 3231(e) paid to an employee on a pay date during the period beginning on September 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020 (collectively "applicable wages"), but only if the amount of wages or compensation paid for a biweekly pay period is less than $4,000, or the equivalent threshold amount with respect to other pay periods.

Applicable wages are determined on a pay period-by-pay period basis. If the amount of wages or compensation payable to an employee for a pay period is less than the corresponding pay period threshold amount, then that amount is considered applicable wages for the pay period. In that case, the relief provided in the guidance applies to the wages or compensation paid to that employee for that pay period, irrespective of the amount of wages or compensation paid to the employee for other pay periods.

Paying Deferred Taxes
An affected employer must withhold and pay the total applicable taxes that it has deferred ratably from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021. Interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, on any unpaid deferred taxes.

If necessary, the employer can make arrangements to otherwise collect the total deferred taxes from the employee.

The IRS has released the 2020-2021 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IEs) rates, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided in the guidance must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390.

The IRS has released the 2020-2021 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IEs) rates, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided in the guidance must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390.

The guidance is effective for per diem allowances for lodging, meal and incidental expenses, or for meal and incidental expenses only, that are paid to any employee on or after October 1, 2020, for travel away from home on or after October 1, 2020. For computing the amount allowable as a deduction for travel away from home, the guidance is effective for M&IEs or for incidental expenses only paid or incurred on or after October 1, 2020.

Transportation Industry Rates
The special M&IE rates for taxpayers in the transportation industry are:

• $66 for any locality of travel in the continental United States (CONUS), and
• $71 for any locality of travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Incidental Expenses Only Rate
The rate is $5 per day for any CONUS or OCONUS travel for the incidental expenses only deduction.

High-Low Substantiation Method
For purposes of the high-low substantiation method, the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the per diem substantiation method) are:

• $292 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $198 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

The amount of these rates that is treated as paid for meals, and the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the M&IE only substantiation method), are:

• $71 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $60 for travel to any other locality within CONUS

The guidance provides a list of localities that have a federal per diem rate of $245 or more, and are high-cost localities for a specified portion of the calendar year. The list differs from the high-cost locality list in Notice 2019-55:

• Added to the list: Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Kennebunk/Kittery/Sanford, Maine; Virginia Beach, Virginia.
• Localities that have changed the portion of the year in which they are high-cost localities: Sedona, Arizona; Monterey, California; Santa Barbara, California; District of Columbia; Naples, Florida; Jekyll Island/Brunswick, Georgia; Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jamestown/Middletown/Newport, Rhode Island; Charleston, South Carolina.
• Removed from the list: Midland/Odessa, Texas; Pecos, Texas.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that limit the Code Sec. 245A dividends received deduction and the Code Sec. 954(c) exception on distributions supported by certain earnings and profits not subject to the integrated international tax regime created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Proposed regulations and temporary regulations, issued on June 18, 2019, are adopted and removed, respectively.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that limit the Code Sec. 245A dividends received deduction and the Code Sec. 954(c) exception on distributions supported by certain earnings and profits not subject to the integrated international tax regime created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Proposed regulations and temporary regulations, issued on June 18, 2019, are adopted and removed, respectively.

TCJA Provisions
The TCJA transitioned the United States from a primarily deferral-based international system of taxation (i.e., current taxation of subpart F income) to a participation exemption system with immediate taxation of certain offshore earnings. The TCJA introduced:

• the Code Sec. 245A dividends received deduction;
• the Code Sec. 965 transition tax; and
• the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime under Code Sec. 951A.

The Code Sec. 245A deduction provides a 100-percent deduction to domestic corporations for certain dividends received from a specified foreign corporations (SFC) after December 31, 2017. Earnings and profits generated before the deduction became available are subject to the Code Sec. 965 transition tax on post-1986 earnings and profits.

The GILTI regime subjects certain intangible income of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) to current taxation, for tax years starting in 2018.

The subpart F regime was retained for tax years starting in 2018. The regime subjects certain earnings of a CFC to current taxation. The regime also provides that dividends received by a CFC, from a related CFC, are not included in the recipient CFC’s income and subject to current tax under subpart F, if certain requirements are met under the Code Sec. 954(c) exception.

Earnings and profits that are previously taxed under the transition tax, or subpart F or GILTI regimes, are treated as being distributed before non-previously taxed earnings and profits, and a distribution of previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) is not treated as a distribution of a dividend eligible for the Code Sec. 245A deduction.

Limits on Deduction
The final regulation limit the Code Sec. 245A deduction with respect to a dividend received by a U.S. corporation from certain SFCs so that the deduction is not available for the earnings and profits attributable to base erosion-type income. The final regulations limit the deduction to the portion of the dividend that exceeds the ineligible amount of the dividend. The ineligible amount is the sum of (1) 50 percent of the extraordinary disposition amount, and (2) the extraordinary reduction amount.

An extraordinary disposition is a disposition of an asset by a SFC that:

is outside of the ordinary course of activities to a related party during the disqualified period (between January 1, 2018, and the end of the foreign corporation's last taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018), and
exceeds the lesser of $50 million or 5 percent of the gross value of the SFC’s assets.
The Code Sec. 245A deduction is limited with respect to extraordinary dispositions, because earnings and profits generated in those transactions are not subject to tax under the transition tax, or the GILTI and subpart F regimes and, as a result, are not of the residual type for which the Code Sec. 245A deduction is intended to potentially be available.

Extraordinary reductions result from transfers of CFC stock where:

a controlling Code Sec. 245A shareholder transfers more than 10 percent of its stock of the CFC, or
there is a greater than 10 percent change in the controlling Code Sec. 245A shareholder’s overall ownership of the CFC.
The Code Sec. 245A deduction is limited in connection with extraordinary reductions because the deduction can result in complete avoidance of U.S. tax with respect to subpart F income or tested income that, absent the extraordinary reduction, would have been included in income by the selling U.S. shareholder under the subpart F or GILTI regimes, respectively

The final regulations require taxpayers to compute, track, and report information relevant for determination of extraordinary dispositions and extraordinary reductions. If an SFC is sold and there is no Code Sec. 245A shareholder of the target SFC after the transaction, the extraordinary disposition account of the target SFC is generally eliminated.

A taxpayer may elect to close the tax year of the CFC for all purposes of the Code on the date of an extraordinary reduction. This prevents disallowance of the Code Sec. 245A deduction. Under the election, the CFC’s earnings and profits for the tax year up to the date of the extraordinary reduction are subject to taxation under the subpart F or GILTI regimes in the seller’s hands, while the remaining earnings and profits of the CFC for the year would be subject to taxation under the subpart F or GILTI regimes in the buyer’s hands. The final regulations clarify that there must be agreement between the buyer and seller of the CFC that was subject to the extraordinary reduction for the election to be made.

Limits on Exception
Application of the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) is also limited when portion of a dividend is paid out of an extraordinary disposition account, or when an extraordinary reduction occurs.

The Code Sec. 954(c)(6) exception is limited where its application would otherwise allow earnings and profits that had accrued after December 31, 2017 (the last measurement date for determining the amount of earnings and profits subject to the transition tax), and that was generated by income that had never been tested under the subpart F and GILTI regimes, to inappropriately qualify for an exception to the subpart F regime.

Treasury has issued final and amended regulations on the rules for distributions made by terminated S corporations during the post-termination transition period (PTTP). These regulations apply after an S corporation has become a C corporation.

Treasury has issued final and amended regulations on the rules for distributions made by terminated S corporations during the post-termination transition period (PTTP). These regulations apply after an S corporation has become a C corporation.

Generally, the regulations are applicable as of the date they are published in the Federal Register.

Eligible Terminated S Corporation (ETSC) Under Section 481
In the case of an S election revocation with a retroactive effective date, the revocation may be treated as occurring on the retroactive effective date for ETSC qualification as well.

The treasury department amended Reg. §§1.481-5(b)(2) and (3) so that a corporation may test compliance with the revocation requirement and the shareholder identity requirement on either:

• the date the revocation was made; or
• in the case of a revocation with a retroactive effective date, the date the revocation was effective.

To qualify as an ETSC under Code Sec. 481, a corporation must satisfy the revocation requirement by making a revocation of its S election during the two-year period beginning on December 22. It also must satisfy the shareholder identify requirement that the owners of the stock of the corporation on the date the S election was revoked are the same owners as on December 22, 2017.

The two year period during which an S corporation can revoke its S election ends on December 23. Reg. §1.1362-2(a)(2) provides that Code Sec. 7503 applies where the last day for making a revocation occurs on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

No Newcomer Rule
Reg. §1.1377-2(b) applies to a corporation’s taxable years beginning after the date of the publication of final regulations. It eliminates the no-newcomer rule for special treatment under Code Sec. 1371(e)(1) of distributions of money by a corporation with respect to its stock during the PTTP.

In the case of a corporation using the calendar year as its annual accounting period, newcomers are not entitled to receive distributions of the accumulated adjustments account (AAA) before January 1, 2021, unless the corporation chooses to apply Reg. §1.1377-2(b) before January 1, 2021.

The final regulations allow but do not require corporations to apply the final regulations addressing distributions made during the ETSC period to tax years beginning on or before the date that the final regulations are published.

Distributions of Money by ETSC
Reg. §1.1371-1 addresses distributions of money by an ETSC. It provides rules for qualified distributions and distributions where Code Sec. 301 applies during the tax years of the ETSC period, including the tax year in which the ETSC period ends.

Under Reg. §1.1371-2, if an intervening audit PTTP arises, the ETSC period immediately stops. Then, the ETSC period resumes provided that the ETSC’s AAA balance is greater than zero. Otherwise, later distributions by the ETSC are treated in the manner provided in Code Sec. 301(c).

Applicability Dates of the Regulations
A corporation may choose to apply the rules set forth in Reg. §§1.481-5, 1.1371-1, and 1.1371-2 to tax years beginning on or before the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register. In addition, a corporation generally may choose to not apply the no-newcomer rule in Reg. §1.1377-2(b) to tax years beginning on or before publication as long as the three year period described in Code Sec. 6501(a) has not expired.

Final regulations clarify that the amount of the rehabilitation credit for a qualified rehabilitated building (QRB) is determined as a single credit in the year the QRB is placed in service. This is the case even though the credit is allocated ratably over a five-year period. The final regulations adopt without modification proposed regulations released earlier this year ( NPRM REG-124327-19).

Final regulations clarify that the amount of the rehabilitation credit for a qualified rehabilitated building (QRB) is determined as a single credit in the year the QRB is placed in service. This is the case even though the credit is allocated ratably over a five-year period. The final regulations adopt without modification proposed regulations released earlier this year ( NPRM REG-124327-19).

TCJA Changes to Rehabilitation Credit
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) amended the rehabilitation credit for amounts paid or incurred after 2017. The credit is now claimed ratably over a five-year period that begins in the year the QRB is placed in service. The ratable share for each year is 20 percent of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) for the building. However, a transition rule allows certain taxpayers to claim the credit all in one year under pre-TCJA rules if the 24- or 60-month period selected for the substantial rehabilitation test began by June 20, 2018.

Final Rehabilitation Credit Regs Include Coordination Rules and Examples
The amended version of the rehabilitation credit is still determined in the year the QRB is placed in service. This single credit is then claimed ratably over five years. This single-credit approach also applies to the recapture, basis adjustment, and leased property rules. These results are consistent with pre-TCJA law.

To reflect these changes, the final regs provide:

• a general rule for calculating the rehabilitation credit;
• definitions of "ratable share" and "rehabilitation credit determined;"
• a rule coordinating the amended credit with the Code Sec. 50 rules for the investment credit; and
• examples illustrating the interaction of the credit with Code Sec. 50(a) (recapture in case of dispositions, etc.), Code Sec. 50(c) (basis adjustment to investment credit property); and Code Sec. 50(d)(5) (relating to certain leased property when the lessee is treated as owner and subject to an income inclusion requirement).

Effective Date for Rehab Credit Regs
The final regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after the date they are published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may apply them to QREs paid or incurred after December 31, 2017, as long as they apply them in their entirety and in a consistent manner.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The presidential memorandum to defer payroll taxes has "caused confusion and concern among accountants and businesses," according to the AICPA. Thus, in its letter released on August 13, the AICPA asks IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig and Assistant Treasury Secretary David Kautter to issue guidance on a number of related issues, including the following items:

• Guidance stating that the deferral is voluntary and that an "eligible employee" is responsible for making an affirmative election to defer the payroll taxes;
• Guidance stating that an "eligible employee" is an employee whose wages are less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period;
• Guidance stating that the $4,000 limit should apply separately to each employer of an employee; and
• Guidance stating a payment due date(s) for the deferred taxes and a mechanism for employees to pay the deferred taxes.

Payroll Tax Forgiveness

Notably, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated earlier this week that participation in the deferral of payroll taxes is not mandatory. "We cannot force people to participate," Mnuchin said in a televised interview. "But I think many small businesses will do this and pass on the benefits." Additionally, Mnuchin alluded that Trump intends to make the deferral a cut if reelected, essentially forgiving the deferred taxes.

To that end, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow attempted to clarify Trump’s position that the payroll tax deferral should be forgiven rather than delayed. And when Trump talks about "terminating the payroll tax", he is only referring to those taxes specified within the presidential memorandum, not the entire payroll tax as a whole, according to Kudlow.

"I just want to be clear that the president is saying that he will provide forgiveness; he will terminate the deferral on a forgiveness basis," Kudlow told reporters at the White House on August 13. "That is what he is saying just to be clear…there was some confusion about that."

Additionally, Kudlow told reporters that the payroll tax deferral would apply to the self-employed. Although the applicable presidential memorandum is not currently written as such, Kudlow added that the administration "will make a technical change to it."

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The final rules generally adopt the proposed regulations issued in December 2019 ( NPRM REG-107431-19) with minor clarifications.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes.

Under previously issued regulations, the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). Thus, the taxpayer must reduce any contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit received or expected to receive in return. A de minimis exception is available if the SALT credit does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment.

A taxpayer is not required to reduce the charitable contribution deduction because of the receipt of SALT deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce the charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive SALT deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

Payments by Individuals

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor for individuals whose have a portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Any disallowed portion of the charitable contribution deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164. The safe harbor is allowed in the tax year the charitable payment is made, but only to the extent that the SALT credit is applied as provided under state or local law to offset the individual’s SALT liability for the current or preceding tax year. Any unused credit may be carried forward as provided under state and local law.

The final regulations are not intended to permit a taxpayer to avoid the SALT deduction cap. Thus, any payment treated as a state or local tax under Code Sec. 164 is subject to the limit. Also, a taxpayer is not permitted to deduct the same under more than one rule, so a taxpayer who relies on this safe harbor to deduction payments as SALT taxes may also not deduct the same payment under any other Code provision.

Payments by Business Entities

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor that business entities may continue to deduct charitable contributions in exchange a SALT credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose.

If a C corporation or specified passthrough entity makes the charitable payment in exchange for a SALT credit, it may deduct the payment as a business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to be received. In addition, if the charitable payment bears a direct relationship to the taxpayer’s business, then it may be deducted as a business expense rather than a charitable contribution regardless of whether the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a SALT credit.

The safe harbor for C corporations and specified passthrough entities applies only to payments of cash and cash equivalents. The safe harbor for specified passthrough entities does not apply if the credit received or expected to be received reduces a state or local income tax.

Benefits from Third Party

If a taxpayer receives any goods, services, or other benefits from a charitable organization in consideration for a contribution, then the charitable deduction must be reduced by the value of those benefits. If the contribution exceeds the fair market value of the benefits received, then only the excess is a deductible as a charitable contribution.

The final regulations continue to provide that this quid pro quo principal applies regardless of whether the party providing the goods, services, or other benefits is the charitable organization or not. A taxpayer will be treated as receiving goods and services in consideration for the taxpayer’s charitable contribution if, at the time the taxpayer makes the payment or transfer, the taxpayer receives or expects to receive goods or services in return. The final rules clarify that the quid pro quo principle applies regardless of whether the party providing the quid pro quo is the donee or a third party.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

Section 163(j) Limitation

A taxpayer’s deduction of business interest expenses paid or incurred for the tax year is generally limited to the sum of:

• the taxpayer’s business interest income for the tax year for which the taxpayer is claiming the deduction (not including investment income);
• 30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI), but not less than zero; and
• the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The percentage limit is generally increased to 50 percent of ATI for 2019 and 2020. For a partnership, however, the 50 percent limit applies for 2020 only, and a special allocation of excess business interest expense (EBIE) to a partner may apply for the 2019 tax year. A taxpayer may elect not to use the 50 percent ATI limit, and any taxpayer other than a partnership may elect for 2020 to use its ATI from the 2019 tax year to calculate its limitation.

The 163(j) limitation does not apply to certain small businesses whose gross receipts are less than a threshold amount ($26 million for 2020). It also does not apply to electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain regulated public utilities.

Final Regulations

The final regulations generally adopt proposed rules that were issued in December 2018, with some modifications. Taxpayer may continue to rely on some of the rules in the proposed regulations. One significant change is that the final regulations provide any that any depreciation, amortization, or depletion that is capitalized into inventory under Code Sec. 263A before 2022 will be added back to tentative taxable income in calculating ATI.

This is change from the proposed rules which effectively resulted in taxpayers with inventory to effectively use earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) instead of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) before 2022 in calculating ATI. Also, the final rules eliminate the “lesser of” standard with respect to sales and disposition of stock, and require taxpayers to back out depreciation deductions that were allowed or allowable during the EBITDA period.

The IRS had adopted the broad definition of business interest in the proposed rules, including the definition of substitute interest and the embedded loan rule with some modifications. However, the final regs exclude commitment fees, debt issuance costs, guaranteed payments (except used as capital), and hedging rules. The IRS has also modified the anti-avoidance rule for time value of money.

Qualified Residential Living Facilities

The IRS has proposed a safe harbor for a trade or business that manages or operates a qualified residential living facility to be treated as a real property trade or business solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business. A facility is qualified if it:

• consists of multiple rental dwelling units within one or more structures that generally serve as primary residences on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to individual customers or patients;
• provides supplemental assistive, nursing, or other routine medical services; and
• has an average period of customer or patient use of the individual rental dwelling units that is 90 days or more.

The safe harbor is proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Proposed Regulations

In addition to the final regulations, the IRS has issued new proposed regulations that provide rules regarding:

• different computational methods a taxpayer can choose in determining certain adjustments to tentative taxable income;
• the treatment of EBIE allocated to a partner in 2019, and the election to use ATI from 2019 for the 2020 tax year under Code Sec. 163(j)(10);
• interest expense associated with debt proceeds of partnerships and S corporations (passthrough entities);
• application of the limitation for a partnership’s self-charged lending transactions, partnerships engaged in trades or businesses that are not passive activities, publicly traded partnerships, certain section 734(b) adjustments, and tiered partnership structures;
• application to U.S. shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) and to foreign persons with effectively connected income in the United States; and
• application to corporate look-through provisions.

Finally, the IRS has also released FAQs that provide a general overview of the aggregation rules that apply for purposes of the gross receipts test, and that apply to determine whether a taxpayer is a small business that is exempt from the business interest expense deduction limitation.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

In general, a "carried interest" is an interest in a partnership in the investment management business that consists of the right to receive future partnership profits. Carried interests are given to a partner in exchange for performing asset management services for businesses such as private equity funds, venture capital funds, and hedge funds.

Prior to Code Sec. 1061, taxpayers tended to treat carried interests as interests in partnership profits subject to long-term capital gain rates. Code Sec. 1061, however, reflects that a carried interest may in fact be compensation for services and therefore properly subject to ordinary income rates. As a result, Code Sec. 1061 applies a longer, three-year holding period to certain net long-term capital gain with respect to any "applicable partnership interest" (API)—essentially, any carried interest. The effect of this is to recharacterize as short-term capital gain certain net long-term capital gain of a partner who holds one or more APIs.

The proposed regulations define the amount of otherwise long-term capital gain that fails to meet the three-year holding period as the "recharacterization amount," and refers to the person who is subject to income tax on the recharacterization amount as the "owner taxpayer." In addition, the proposed regulations provide a framework for determining the recharacterization amount when an API is held though one or more tiers of passthrough entities.

A partnership interest is an API if it is transferred in connection with the performance of "substantial" services. Under the proposed regulations, services are presumed to be substantial with respect to a partnership interest transferred in connection with those services. Basically, this means that the partnership is presumed to get good value for the partnership interest it transfers in exchange for services.

Generally, an API is any interest in a partnership that is transferred to or held by the taxpayer in connection with the performance of services by the taxpayer in any "applicable trade or business" (ATB). Under Code Sec. 1061(c)(2), to qualify as an ATB, an activity must be "conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis." Under the proposed regulations, an activity is conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis if it meets the "ATB activity test." Under this test, the total level of activity conducted in one or more entities must meet the level of activity to establish a trade or business for purposes of trade or business expenses under Code Sec. 162.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations.

Background

Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework due to specific reasons related to COVID-19. The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for certain reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. The credits are allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a) (the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance tax (social security tax)), first reduced by any credits claimed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f), and Code Sec. 3221(a) (the Railroad Retirement Tax Act Tier 1 tax), on all wages and compensation paid to all employees. The credits are increased by the amount of the employer’s share of Medicare tax on qualified leave wages.

The paid leave credits have per-day and maximum dollar limits for each employee, and apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

The CARES Act provides an employee retention credit for certain employers experiencing economic hardship related to COVID-19 but who pay qualified wages to their employees. Employers eligible for the employee retention credit are those that carry on a trade or business during calendar year 2020 and tax-exempt organizations that either have a full or partial suspension of operations during any calendar quarter in 2020 due to an order from an appropriate governmental authority limiting commerce, travel, or group meetings (for commercial, social, religious, or other purposes) due to COVID-19, or experience a significant decline in gross receipts during the calendar quarter.

Qualified wages are those paid by an employer to some or all employees after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and include the employer’s qualified health plan expenses that are properly allocable to such wages or compensation. Qualified wages differ depending on whether the employer averaged more than 100 full-time employees during 2019, or 100 full-time employees or fewer during 2019.

The employee retention credit is a fully refundable tax credit for employers equal to 50 percent of qualified wages; the maximum for an eligible employer for qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000. The credit is allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a), first reduced by:

• any credits allowed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f),
• the paid leave credits described above, and
• the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3221(a) that are attributable to the Code Sec. 3111(a) rate in effect, first reduced by any paid leave credits allowed, on all wages and compensation paid to all employees.

The same wages or compensation cannot be counted for both the Families First Act leave credits and the CARES Act employee retention credit.

Refundability of Credits

If the amount of the paid sick and family leave credits is more than the taxes imposed by Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a) for any calendar quarter, the excess is treated as an overpayment that must be refunded under Code Sec. 6402(a) and Code Sec. 6413(b). A similar refund is required for the employee retention credit.

The IRS has revised Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and is revising the other employment tax returns, so that employers can use these returns to claim the paid sick and family leave credits and the employee retention credit. The revised returns will provide for any credits in excess of the employment taxes imposed as described above, to be credited against other employment taxes and then for any remaining balance to be refunded to the employer.

Advance Payment of Credits and Erroneous Refunds

In anticipation of the paid sick and family leave credits, including any refundable portions, these credits may be advanced as provided by IRS forms and instructions, up to the total allowable amount and subject to applicable limits for the calendar quarter.

The IRS has created Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due To COVID-19, which employers can use to request an advance of the paid sick or family leave credits, the employee retention credit, or two or more of them. Employers must reconcile any advance payments claimed on Form 7200 with total credits claimed and total taxes due on their employment tax returns. A refund, a credit, or an advance of any portion of these credits to a taxpayer in excess of the amount to which the taxpayer is entitled is an erroneous refund for which the IRS must seek repayment.

Temporary Regulations

The temporary regulations provide that erroneous refunds of the credits are treated as underpayments of the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a), and authorize the IRS to assess any portion of the credits erroneously credited, paid, or refunded in excess of the amount allowed as if those amounts were tax liabilities subject to assessment and administrative collection procedures. This allows the IRS to efficiently recover the amounts, while also preserving administrative protections afforded to taxpayers with respect to contesting their tax liabilities under the Code and avoiding unnecessary costs and burdens associated with litigation. These procedures will apply in the normal course in processing employment tax returns that report advances in excess of claimed credits and in examining returns for excess claimed credits.

The temporary regulations also provide that employers against whom an erroneous refund of credits can be assessed as an underpayment include persons treated as the employer under Code Sec. 3401(d), Code Sec. 3504, and Code Sec. 3511, consistent with their liability for the employment taxes against which the credit applied.

The temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credit refunds advanced or paid on or after April 1, 2020, and all employee retention credit refunds advanced or paid on or after March 13, 2020. Further, the temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credits (including any increases in the credits) refunded on or after April 1, 2020, including advanced refunds, as well as all employee retention credits that are refunded on or after March 13, 2020, including advanced refunds.

Applicability Date

The temporary regulations are effective July 29, 2020, the date they are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register.

Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

The Treasury Department and IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits electronic or written comments. Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by 60 days after the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-111879-20) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The IRS expects to have limited personnel available to process public comments that are submitted on paper through the mail. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered to the extent practicable. The Treasury and IRS will publish for public availability any comment submitted electronically, and to the extent practicable on paper. Send paper submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-111879-20), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

President Donald Trump signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-142) on June 5. The legislation aims to expand usability of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s ( P.L. 116-136) headliner small business loan program.

President Donald Trump signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-142) on June 5. The legislation aims to expand usability of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s ( P.L. 116-136) headliner small business loan program.

PPP in the House
The bipartisan, bicameral-crafted P.L. 116-142 makes several changes to the rapidly implemented Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The bill, authored by House Reps. Chip Roy, R-Tex., and Dean Phillips, D-Minn., was approved in the House by a 417-to-1 vote on May 27. After a brief stall in the Senate, P.L. 116-142 cruised through the upper chamber by voice vote on June 3.

Most notably, the legislation includes some of the following PPP changes:

• Extends the expense forgiveness period from eight weeks to 24 weeks;
• Reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent;
• Eliminates the two-year loan repayment restrictions for future borrowers;
• Allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients; and
• Extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Questions Remain
However, riding shotgun with the measure’s increased PPP flexibility is a list of remaining unanswered questions and potential issues. While policymakers and stakeholders alike await more Treasury and SBA guidance, additional legislative text is already in the works to iron out certain wrinkles in past PPP legislation and related IRS guidance.

"Our colleagues have continued to track the program’s [PPP] operation and recommend further tweaks where necessary. In recent days, Senator Collins helped strengthen and improve the House’s proposed PPP modifications before they passed the bill and sent it to us. And I know the senior Senator from Maine has already identified several more technical fixes for the new legislation that I hope Congress will address," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on June 4 from the Senate floor.

Looking Ahead to PPP Technical Corrections, Enhancements
Although the ink may still be drying on the PPP Flexibility Act, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., co-architect of the small business loan program, said on June 4 that her staff is currently drafting a PPP technical corrections bill. The next bill is expected to address concerns with P.L. 116-142 60 percent "cliff", among other items.

"Two of my priorities would be to correct what I believe to be a drafting error in the House bill that eliminates partial forgiveness for small businesses with PPP loans who have been unable to retain, recall, or pay their full number of employees due to circumstances beyond the employer’s control," Collins said in a June 4 statement. "The House bill contains a cliff: even if a small employer spent 59 percent out of the 60 percent of the funding designated to pay their employees, none of the loan would be forgiven. The employer would be saddled with debt." Additionally, Collins noted the next PPP bill would allow for overhead funding to be used for masks and other protective gear for employees.

Fellow PPP policy architect Senate Small Business Committee Chair Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on June 4 also alluded to another PPP bill. "I appreciate the Administration’s flexibility and commitment to address the bill’s inadvertent technical errors that could create unintended consequences for small businesses as they seek forgiveness," Rubio said in a June 4 statement. "If the Administration cannot address these issues, Congress will need to fix them through additional legislation…," Rubio said.

Tax Treatment of Ordinary Business Expenses
Additionally, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., told reporters on June 4 that Senate leadership is trying to take up the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Bill (S. 3612). The bill would clarify that receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan does not affect the tax treatment of ordinary business expenses.

However, according to controversial IRS Notice 2020-32, businesses that qualify for PPP loan forgiveness will not be able to deduct certain expenses, including wages, paid for by the loan. "The money coming in the PPP is not taxable. So, if the money that is coming is not taxable, you cannot double dip," Mnuchin said. But Congress’s top, bipartisan tax writers immediately voiced disapproval of IRS and Treasury’s position, stating that the IRS guidance goes against congressional intent.

"[A]s was expressed to Treasury during the development of the PPP, we did not intend to deny the deductibility of ordinary and necessary business expenses, nor did these small businesses expect to lose deductions for their business expenses when they applied for a PPP loan," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., wrote in a recent letter to Mnuchin.

And while many business groups are also commending Congress’s approval of P.L. 116-142, their leadership is also calling for more PPP-related legislation. "The PPP changes passed by both chambers are another important step in providing relief to small businesses that otherwise will not survive until the economic recovery phase," U.S. Travel Association Executive Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy Tori Emerson Barnes said in a statement. However, the Travel Association, similar to other industry trade groups, has called for additional PPP enhancements.

"While this measure does a good job making the PPP work better for businesses that are eligible, other PPP enhancements will be needed to make sure all the key pieces are in place when the recovery begins—in particular, extending eligibility to non-profit and quasi-governmental entities that are vital drivers of local and regional economic development," Barnes said.

To that end, it remains unclear at this time whether additional PPP changes, enhancements, and clarifications will come by way of Treasury and SBA guidance, another stand-alone bill, or catch a ride with the next round of economic relief legislation. However, prior to the Senate’s approval of P.L. 116-142, McConnell submitted to the congressional record per Sen. Ron Johnson's, R-Wisc., hold on the bill, a letter from the measure’s bipartisan, bicameral authors and policy architects clarifying congressional intent for PPP loans covered period extension.

"The extension of the covered period in P.L. 116-142 is to allow borrowers who received PPP loans before June 30, 2020, to continue to make expenditures for allowable uses until December 31, 2020," the record states. "The extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act."

PPP Disclosures
Meanwhile, in the spirit of PPP transparency, Rubio and Senate Small Business Committee ranking member Ben Cardin, D-Md., sent a letter this week to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza calling for more public disclosures of information related to PPP loans and borrowers. "Given the grave nature of this crisis and the unprecedented level of funding that has been appropriated, it is critical that the public and Congress have timely and complete information about where these funds are going, and the committee expects an increased level of transparency and accountability from the SBA," Rubio and Cardin wrote.

Some of the items Rubio and Cardin have requested be made publicly available on the SBA’s website include the following:

• name of business or nonprofit borrower and address,
• business type,
• lender and address,
• loan or grant amount,
• congressional district, and
• number of jobs supported.

In consultation with Treasury Department, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has issued...

In consultation with Treasury Department, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has issued:

• new and revised guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP);
• revised PPP application forms;
• a revised PPP loan forgiveness application; and
• a new "EZ" PPP loan forgiveness application.

New, Revised PPP Guidance
The guidance implements the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) ( P.L. 116-142), which President Trump signed on June 5, 2020. The PPPFA aims to expand usability of the PPP for small businesses provided in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136).

The updated guidance expands PPP eligibility for business owners who have past felony convictions. Further, to implement the PPPFA, the SBA revised its first PPP interim final rule that was issued in April. As noted in Treasury’s recent announcement issued on June 8, the new rule reflects updates related to loan maturity, deferral of loan payments, and forgiveness.

The new and revised PPP guidance can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-IFR--Additional-Revisions-to-First-Interim-Final-Rule.pdf.

Revised PPP Applications
The SBA has issued revised the PPP application forms to conform with the changes in the guidance.

The revised Borrower application form can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-Borrower-Application-Form-Revised-June-12-2020.pdf.

For the revised Lender application form, see https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-Lender-Application-Form-Revised-June-12-2020.pdf.

Senators Request PPP Forgiveness Simplification
In a bipartisan effort, a group of over 40 senators have requested that Treasury and the SBA simplify the PPP loan forgiveness application for certain small business loans. Specifically, the senators urged Treasury and the SBA to revise the form so that it is no longer than one page for any loan under $250,000.

"While the Small Business Administrator was also given the ability to require additional documentation necessary to verify proper use of PPP funds, we believe it is beyond the program’s intent to require the information solicited in the 11-page forgiveness application that the SBA recently released," the senators wrote in a recent letter addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza. "We appreciate the interest in appropriately auditing the use of government money. However, the loan forgiveness application – which understandably needs more information for loans worth significantly more than $250,000 – is three times longer than the original application for the PPP."

On the heels the senators’ request, the SBA has released both a revised, full PPP loan forgiveness application, and a new "EZ" forgiveness application (Form 3508EZ). The new EZ loan forgiveness application can be used by:

• borrowers that are self-employed and have no employees;
• borrowers that did not reduce the salaries or wages of their employees by more than 25%, and did not reduce the number or hours of their employees; or
• borrowers that experienced reductions in business activity as a result of health directives related to COVID-19, and did not reduce the salaries or wages of their employees by more than 25%.

Both the full forgiveness application and the EZ forgiveness application give borrowers the option of using the original 8-week covered period (if their loan was made before June 5, 2020) or the PPPFA’s extended 24-week covered period. The EZ application requires fewer calculations and less documentation for eligible borrowers.

The new EZ forgiveness application can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-Forgiveness-Application-3508EZ.pdf.

The revised, full forgiveness application can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/3245-0407-SBA-Form-3508-PPP-Forgiveness-Application.pdf.

The IRS is postponing deadlines for certain time-sensitive actions due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency. This relief affects employment taxes, employee benefit plans, exempt organizations, individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), Coverdell education savings accounts, health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer and Medicare Advantage medical saving accounts (MSAs).

The IRS is postponing deadlines for certain time-sensitive actions due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency. This relief affects employment taxes, employee benefit plans, exempt organizations, individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), Coverdell education savings accounts, health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer and Medicare Advantage medical saving accounts (MSAs).

With certain exceptions, the relief postpones deadlines for certain actions due to be performed on or after March 30, 2020, and before July 15, 2020. The revised deadline for an affected taxpayer to perform a time-sensitive action described in the relief is July 15, 2020, unless a different revised deadline is specified.

Qualified Retirement Plans
For employee benefit plans (including a section 403(b) plan, a governmental section 457(b) plan, a SEP plan described in section 408(k), or a SIMPLE IRA plan described in section 408(p)), or any sponsor, administrator, participant, beneficiary, disqualified person, or other person with respect to the plan, the relief affects applying for a funding waiver under Code Sec. 412(c) for a defined benefit pension plan that is not a multiemployer plan.

For multiemployer defined benefit pension plans, the relief affects actions due to be performed on or before the dates in (1) Code Sec. 432(b)(3) for certification of funded status and related notice to interested parties; (2) Code Sec. 432(c)(1) and (e)(1) for adopting a funding improvement plan or rehabilitation plan (and the notification to the bargaining parties of the schedules thereunder); or (3) Code Sec. 432(c)(6) and (e)(3) for the annual update of a funding improvement plan or a rehabilitation plan, and its contribution schedules, and the filing of those updates with the Form 5500 annual return.

For cooperative and small employer charity pension (CSEC) plans, the relief affects actions to be performed on or before the dates in (1) Code Sec. 433(c)(9) for making the contribution required to be made for the plan year; (2) Code Sec. 433(f)(3)(B) for making required quarterly installments; (3) Code Sec. 433(j)(3) for the adoption of a funding restoration plan; or (4) Code Sec. 433(j)(4) for the certification of funded status.

For filing Form 5330, Return of Excise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans, and payment of the associated excise taxes, the period beginning on March 30, 2020, and ending on July 15, 2020, will be disregarded in calculating any interest or penalty for failure to file the Form 5330 or pay the excise tax postponed under the relief. Interest and penalties on postponed filing and payment obligations will begin to accrue on July 16, 2020.

Other relief related to qualified retirement plans affects:

• extension of initial remedial amendment period for section 403(b) plans;
• certain actions affecting pre-approved defined benefit plans;
• the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS); and
• requests for approval of a substitute mortality table.

Form 5498 Series
For filers of Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information, Form 5498-ESA, Coverdell ESA Contribution Information, and Form 5498-SA, HSA, Archer MSA, or Medicare Advantage MSA Information, the due date for filing and furnishing the forms is postponed to August 31, 2020, and the period beginning on the original due date of those forms and ending on August 31, 2020, will be disregarded in calculating any penalty for failure to file those forms. Penalties on the postponed filing will begin to accrue on September 1, 2020.

Employers and CPEOs
The relief applies to employers who perform correct employment tax reporting errors using the interest-free adjustment process under Code Secs. 6205 and 6413.

For certified professional employer organizations (CPEOs), the relief provides a temporary waiver of the requirement that CPEOs must file certain employment tax returns and their accompanying schedules electronically. The relief for CPEOs applies only to (1) Forms 941 filed for the second, third, and fourth quarter of 2020; and (2) Forms 943 filed for calendar year 2020. CPEOs can file paper versions of these forms and their schedules if they so choose. The waiver applies to all CPEOs, and individual waiver requests do not need to be submitted.

Exempt Organizations
For exempt organizations, the relief applies to electronic submissions of Form 990-N under Code Sec. 6033(i), and filing suits for declaratory judgment under Code Sec. 7428.

Effect on Other Documents
Rev. Proc. 2017-18, I.R.B. 2017-5, Rev. Proc. 2017-55, I.R.B. 2017-43, Announcement 2018-5, I.R.B. 2018-13, Rev. Proc. 2019-19, I.R.B. 2019-19, Rev. Proc. 2019-39, I.R.B. 2019-42, and Rev. Proc. 2020-10, I.R.B. 2020-10, are modified. Notice 2020-18, I.R.B. 2020-15, Notice 2020-20, I.R.B. 2020-16, and Notice 2020-23, I.R.B. 2020-18, are amplified.

The IRS has issued guidance on coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans.

The IRS has issued guidance on coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans. The guidance

• presents the rules set out in Act Sec. 2202 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136);
• adds three new categories to the list of individuals who qualify due to adverse financial consequences;
• provides analysis and examples of repayments reporting; and
• includes safe harbors for employee certification and the plan loan payment suspension period.

Background: Coronavirus-Distributions and Plan Loan Relief
The CARES Act provides that qualified individuals may treat up to $100,000 in distributions made from their eligible retirement plans (including IRAs) between January 1, 2020, and December 30, 2020, as "coronavirus-related" distributions. A coronavirus-related distribution is not subject to the 10-percent additional tax that otherwise generally applies to distributions made before an individual reaches age 59-1/2. In addition, a coronavirus-related distribution can be included in income in equal installments over a three-year period, and an individual has three years to repay a coronavirus-related distribution to a plan or IRA and undo the tax consequences of the distribution.

In addition, the CARES Act provides that plans may implement certain relaxed rules for qualified individuals relating to plan loan amounts and repayment terms. In particular, plans may suspend loan repayments that are due from March 27, 2020, through December 31, 2020, and the dollar limit on loans made between March 27, 2020, and September 22, 2020, is raised from $50,000 to $100,000.

New Categories of Qualified Individuals
One of the categories of individuals who qualify for coronavirus-related distributions are those who experience adverse financial consequences as a result of coronavirus. As laid out in the CARES act, these consequences may include:

• being quarantined, being furloughed or laid off, or having work hours reduced due to such virus or disease;
• being unable to work due to lack of child care due to such virus or disease; or
• closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual due to such virus or disease.

The CARES Act authorizes the Treasury Department to add to this list. Under the guidance, a qualified individual also includes an individual who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of:

• a reduction in pay (or self-employment income) due to COVID-19 or having a job offer rescinded or start date for a job delayed due to COVID-19;
• the individual’s spouse or a member of the individual’s household being quarantined, being furloughed or laid off, or having work hours reduced due to COVID-19, being unable to work due to lack of childcare due to COVID-19, having a reduction in pay (or self-employment income) due to COVID-19, or having a job offer rescinded or start date for a job delayed due to COVID-19; or
• closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual’s spouse or a member of the individual’s household due to COVID-19.

For purposes of applying these additional factors, a member of the individual’s household is someone who shares the individual’s principal residence.

Recontributions: Recognizing Income in Year of Distribution
The new guidance goes into detail on recontributions. Individuals have up to three years to recontribute qualified distributions. Recontributed dollars are not taxed, so earlier returns may have to be amended. The rules differ depending on whether the individual is recognizing income over three years or entirely in the year of distribution.

If a taxpayer includes all coronavirus-related distributions received in a year in gross income for that year and recontributes any portion during the three-year recontribution period, the amount of the recontribution will reduce the amount of the related distribution included in gross income for the year of the distribution.

Example 1. Bob receives a $45,000 coronavirus distribution from his employer plan on November 1, 2020. Bob recontributes $45,000 to an IRA on March 31, 2021. Bob reports the recontribution on Form 8915-E, and files the 2020 federal income tax return on April 10, 2021. No portion of the coronavirus-related distribution is includible as income for the 2020 tax year. [Note: The guidance states that Form 8915-E, Qualified 2020 Disaster Retirement Plan Distributions and Repayments, is expected to be available before the end of 2020.]

Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Bob timely requests an extension of time to file the 2020 federal income tax return and makes a recontribution on August 2, 2021, before filing the 2020 federal income tax return. Bob files the 2020 federal income tax return on August 10, 2021. As in Example 1, no portion of the coronavirus-related distribution is includible in income for the 2020 tax year because Bob made the recontribution before the timely filing of the 2020 federal income tax return.

Example 3. Cynthia receives a $15,000 distribution from an employer plan on March 30, 2020. Cynthia elects out of the 3-year ratable income inclusion on Form 8915-E and includes the entire $15,000 in gross income for the 2020 tax year. On December 31, 2022, she recontributes $15,000 to her employer plan. Cynthia will need to file an amended federal income tax return for the 2020 tax year to report the amount of the recontribution and reduce the gross income by $15,000 with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution included on the 2020 original federal income tax return.

Recontributions: Recognizing Income Over Three Years
If a qualified individual includes a coronavirus-related distribution ratably over a three-year period and the individual recontributes any portion to an eligible retirement plan at any date before the timely filing of the individual’s federal income tax return (that is, by the due date, including extensions) for a tax year in the three-year period, the amount of the recontribution will reduce the ratable portion of the coronavirus-related distribution that is includible in gross income for that tax year.

Example 4. Dan receives $75,000 from his employer plan on December 1, 2020. Dan uses the three-year ratable income inclusion method. Dan makes one recontribution of $25,000 to the plan on April 10, 2022. Dan files his 2021 federal income tax return on April 15, 2022. Without the recontribution, Dan should include $25,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on each of his 2020, 2021, and 2022 federal income tax returns. However, as a result of the recontribution, Dan should include $25,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2020 federal income tax return, $0 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2021 federal income tax return, and $25,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2022 federal income tax return.

Example 5. The facts are the same as in Example 4, except Dan recontributes $25,000 to the plan on August 10, 2022. Dan files the 2021 federal income tax return on April 15, 2022, and does not request an extension of time to file that federal income tax return. As a result of the recontribution, Dan should include $25,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2020 federal income tax return, $25,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2021 federal income tax return, and $0 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2022 federal income tax return.

Carryovers. If the taxpayer recontributes an amount for a tax year in the three-year period that exceeds the amount that is otherwise includible in gross income for that tax year, the excess amount of the recontribution may be carried forward to reduce the amount of the distribution includible in gross income in the next tax year in the three-year period. Alternatively, the qualified individual is permitted to carry back the excess amount of the recontribution to a prior tax year or years in which the individual included income attributable to a coronavirus-related distribution. The individual will need to file an amended federal income tax return for the prior tax year or years to report the amount of the recontribution on Form 8915-E and reduce his or her gross income by the excess amount of the recontribution.

Example 6. Eliza receives a distribution of $90,000 from her IRA on November 15, 2020. Eliza ratably includes the $90,000 distribution in income over a three-year period. Without any recontribution, Eliza will include $30,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on each of the 2020, 2021, and 2022 federal income tax returns. Eliza includes $30,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2020 federal income tax return. Eliza then recontributes $40,000 to an IRA on November 10, 2021 (and makes no other recontribution in the three-year period). Eliza may do either of the following:

• Option 1: Include $0 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2021 federal income tax return. Carry forward the excess recontribution of $10,000 to 2022, and include $20,000 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2022 federal income tax return.
• Option 2: Include $0 in income with respect to the coronavirus-related distribution on the 2021 tax return and $30,000 in income on the 2022 federal income tax return. Also, file an amended federal income tax return for 2020 to reduce the amount included in income as a result of the coronavirus-related distribution to $20,000 (that is, the $30,000 original amount includible in income for 2020 minus the remaining $10,000 recontribution that is not offset on either the 2021 or 2022 federal tax return).

Safe Harbor for Plan Loans
The CARES Act provides that in the case of a qualified individual with a loan from a qualified employer plan outstanding on or after March 27, 2020, if the due date for any repayment with respect to the loan occurs during the period beginning on March 27, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020, the due date shall be delayed for one year.

Under a safe harbor provided in the guidance, a qualified employer plan will satisfy this requirement if a qualified individual’s obligation to repay a plan loan is suspended under the plan for any period beginning not earlier than March 27, 2020, and ending not later than December 31, 2020. The loan repayments must resume after the end of the suspension period, and the term of the loan may be extended by up to one year from the date the loan was originally due to be repaid.

The IRS has released guidance that provides temporary administrative relief to help certain retirement plan participants or beneficiaries who need to make participant elections by allowing flexibility for remote signatures. Specifically, the guidance provides participants, beneficiaries, and administrators of qualified retirement plans and other tax-favored retirement arrangements with temporary relief from the physical presence requirement for any participant election (1) witnessed by a notary public in a state that permits remote notarization, or (2) witnessed by a plan representative using certain safeguards. The guidance accommodates local shutdowns and social distancing practices and is intended to facilitate the payment of coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans to qualified individuals, as permitted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) ( P.L. 116-136).

The IRS has released guidance that provides temporary administrative relief to help certain retirement plan participants or beneficiaries who need to make participant elections by allowing flexibility for remote signatures. Specifically, the guidance provides participants, beneficiaries, and administrators of qualified retirement plans and other tax-favored retirement arrangements with temporary relief from the physical presence requirement for any participant election (1) witnessed by a notary public in a state that permits remote notarization, or (2) witnessed by a plan representative using certain safeguards. The guidance accommodates local shutdowns and social distancing practices and is intended to facilitate the payment of coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans to qualified individuals, as permitted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) ( P.L. 116-136).

Conditions for Participant Elections
Reg. §1.401(a)-21 sets forth standards for the use of an electronic medium to provide applicable notices to recipients or to make participant elections with respect to a retirement plan, an employee benefit arrangement, or an individual retirement plan. Reg. §1.401(a)-21(e)(6) defines a participant election as any consent, election, request, agreement, or similar communication made by or from a participant, beneficiary, alternate payee, or an individual entitled to benefits under a retirement plan, employee benefit arrangement, or individual retirement plan. Reg. §1.401(a)-21(d) sets forth the following conditions for participant elections:

• The individual must be effectively able to access the electronic medium used to make the participant election;
• The electronic system must be reasonably designed to preclude any person other than the appropriate individual from making the participant election;
• The electronic system must provide the individual making the participant election with a reasonable opportunity to review, confirm, modify, or rescind the terms of the election before it becomes effective; and
• The individual making the participant election, within a reasonable time, must receive confirmation of the election through either a written paper document or an electronic medium under a system that satisfies the applicable notice requirements under Reg. §1.401(a)-21.

Applicability
While this temporary relief, which covers the period from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, is intended to facilitate the payment of coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans to qualified individuals, as permitted by section 2202 of the CARES Act, the temporary relief applies to any participant election that requires the signature of an individual to be witnessed in the physical presence of a plan representative or notary.

The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.

The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.

PPP Loans
The CARES Act expanded the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) existing Section 7(a) loan program to include certain PPP loans. The PPP is made available from the SBA to provide small businesses with loans to help pay payroll costs, mortgages, rent, and utilities during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis. All payments of principal, interest, and fees under the loans are deferred for at least 6 months. The loans are also forgiven for amounts payroll costs, mortgage or rent obligations, and certain utility payments incurred between February 15 and June 30. The loans are 100 percent guaranteed by the SBA.

Deductions Prohibited
If the SBA forgives a taxpayer’s PPP loan pursuant to Act. Sec. 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the amount of the loan is excluded from gross income. Under Reg. §1.265-1 taxpayers cannot deduct expenses that are allocable to income that is either wholly excluded from gross income or wholly exempt from the taxes. This rule exists in order to prevent double tax benefits. Thus, the IRS has determined that taxpayers who have their PPP loans forgiven may not deduct any business or interest expenses related to the income associated with the loan.

Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, SBA is expected to issue regulations and guidance to assist borrowers as they complete their applications, and to provide lenders with guidance on their responsibilities, according to Treasury.

Measures included in the application and instructions intended to reduce compliance burdens and simplify the process for borrowers include:

• options to calculate payroll costs using an "alternative payroll covered period" that aligns with borrowers’ regular payroll cycles;
• flexibility to include eligible payroll and non-payroll expenses paid or incurred during the eight-week period after receiving their PPP loan;
• step-by-step instructions on how to perform the calculations required by the CARES Act to confirm eligibility for loan forgiveness;
• borrower-friendly implementation of statutory exemptions from loan forgiveness reduction based on rehiring by June 30; and
• the addition of a new exemption from the loan forgiveness reduction for borrowers who have made a good-faith, written offer to rehire workers that was declined.

Eligible individuals who are not otherwise required to file federal income tax returns for 2019 may use a new simplified return filing procedure to make sure they receive the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136).

Eligible individuals who are not otherwise required to file federal income tax returns for 2019 may use a new simplified return filing procedure to make sure they receive the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136).

Alternatively, these eligible individuals may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool, available at www.irs.gov/coronavirus to submit the information the IRS needs to issue their payments.

EIPs and Recovery Rebate Credit
The CARES Act provides a fully refundable Recovery Rebate Credit for the 2020 tax year. However, the IRS is making EIPs during 2020 to refund the credit in advance, based on 2019 or 2018 information. Most individuals are eligible for the credit, except for nonresident aliens and individuals who qualify as another taxpayer’s dependent.

The maximum credit is $1,200 for each eligible individual, plus $500 for each qualifying child. There is no minimum income requirement, but the credit is phased out for higher-income individuals. Eligible individuals and qualifying children generally must have valid Social Security numbers.

Taxpayers who filed 2019 or 2018 returns automatically receive their Economic Payments. If the taxpayer identified an account for direct deposit of a refund, the Economic Impact Payment is direct deposited into the same account. Otherwise, the IRS mails a paper check to the taxpayer’s last known address.

Nonfilers who received Social Security and railroad retirement, survivor or disability benefits before 2020 also receive EIPs based on their Forms SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099 via direct deposit or paper checks, in the same way they receive their benefits. Recipients of supplemental security income (SSI) or Veterans Administration Compensation and Pension (C&P) benefits also automatically receive EIPs in the same way they receive their benefits. These nonfilers may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool to provide information about their qualifying children so that they also receive the $500 additional credit.

Other nonfilers who are not required to file returns, such as people with income below the filing threshold, may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool to provide basic information that allows the IRS to calculate and issue their EIPs.

Simplified Filing Procedures
Rather than using the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool, a simplified return filer may use a simplified procedure to file a paper or electronic return for 2019 on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors. A simplified return filer is an eligible individual who:

• has not filed a federal income tax return for 2019;
• is not required to file a return for 2019, and
• has the required identification number.

Simplified returns are due by October 15, 2020. The IRS urges these individuals to file electronically to speed receipt of their payments.

Simplified Return Information
The simplified return should include only the following information:

• "EIP2020" written on the form;
• the individual’s filing status as of the end of tax year 2019;
• required identification information, including name, mailing address, and SSN for the individual (and spouse on a joint return);
• information regarding each dependent who was under the age of 17 at the end of tax year 2019; and
• the filer’s signature, using an IP PIN if applicable.

Generally lines 1 through 24 of the return are left blank, even if the values for these lines are in fact not zero, except as values are required for electronic returns.

The IRS will compute the Economic Impact Payment based on this information. The IRS will not challenge the accuracy of the items of income that are properly reported under these procedures.

To encourage businesses that have experienced an economic hardship due to COVID-19 to keep employees on their payroll, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) has provided several new credits for employers, including a new employee retention credit. The IRS has issued a fact sheet summarizing a few key points about the new credit.

To encourage businesses that have experienced an economic hardship due to COVID-19 to keep employees on their payroll, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) has provided several new credits for employers, including a new employee retention credit. The IRS has issued a fact sheet summarizing a few key points about the new credit.

Certain employers can claim the credit for wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. This includes tax-exempt organizations, employers with suspended operations due to a government order related to COVID-19, and those that have experienced a significant decline in gross receipts. The credit amount is 50 percent of up to $10,000 in qualified wages paid to an employee. This means that an employer’s maximum credit for qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000.

Qualified wages include the cost of employer-provided health care, but not the amount of qualified sick leave wages or family leave wages for which the employer received tax credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) ( P.L. 116-127). Qualified wages vary based on the average number of the employer’s full-time employees in 2019:

• If the employer had 100 or fewer employees on average in 2019, the credit is based on wages paid to all employees, regardless if they worked or not.
• If the employer had more than 100 employees on average in 2019, the credit is allowed only for wages paid to employees for time they did not work.

In each case, the wages that qualify are those paid for a calendar quarter in which the employer experiences an economic hardship.

To claim the credit, employers must report their total qualified wages and the related health insurance costs for each quarter on their quarterly employment tax returns, usually Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, beginning with the second quarter of 2020. If an employer does not have enough federal employment taxes to cover the amount of the credit (after they have deferred deposits of employer Social Security taxes), it may request an advance payment of the credit by submitting Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19, to the IRS.

The IRS has more information on the credit at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/faqs-employee-retention-credit-under-the-cares-act and https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have provided tax relief to certain individuals and businesses affected by travel disruptions arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have provided tax relief to certain individuals and businesses affected by travel disruptions arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency. Under the guidance:

• up to 60 consecutive calendar days of U.S. presence that are presumed to arise from COVID-19 travel disruptions will not be counted for determining U.S. tax residency under Code Sec. 7701(b), or determining whether an individual qualifies for tax treaty benefits for income from personal services performed in the United States;
• for certain U.S. citizens and residents, qualification for gross income exclusion of foreign earned income under Code Sec. 911 will not be impacted by days spent away from a foreign country due to the COVID-19 emergency; and
• certain U.S. business activities by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation will not be counted for determining whether the individual or entity is engaged in a U.S. trade or business or has a U.S. permanent establishment.

COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception
Travel and related disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 emergency may cause foreign individuals who did not anticipate meeting the “substantial presence test” under Code Sec. 7701(b)(3) to become U.S. residents for federal tax purposes during 2020, and may impact an individual’s qualifications for certain treaty benefits. To address this, Rev. Proc. 2020-20 allows certain foreign individuals to claim a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception to becoming U.S. residents, and provides similar relief for determining whether an individual (whether or not an eligible for the medical travel exception) qualifies for U.S. income tax treaty benefits for income from dependent personal services performed in the United States.

An individual can claim a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception if he or she:

• was not a U.S. resident at the close of the 2019 tax year;
• is not a lawful permanent resident at any point in 2020;
• is present in the United States on each day of his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period; and
• does not become a U.S. resident in 2020 due to days of presence in the United States outside of the individual’s COVID-19 Emergency Period.

The COVID-19 Emergency Period is a period of up to 60 consecutive calendar days selected by an individual, starting on or after February 1, 2020, and on or before April 1, 2020, during which he or she is physically present in the United States on each day.

An eligible individual who intended to leave the United States during his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period but could not leave due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions can exclude up to 60 calendar days of presence in the United States for the substantial presence test. The COVID-19 emergency will be considered a medical condition that kept the individual from leaving the United States on each day during his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period, and will not be treated as a pre-existing medical condition.

Further, any days of presence during an individual’s COVID-19 Emergency Period on which he or she was unable to leave the United States due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions will not be counted in determining his or her eligibility for treaty benefits for income from employment or performing other dependent personal services within the United States.

The guidance provides details on claiming a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception and an exemption from income withholding under a U.S. income tax treaty.

Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Relief
Rev. Proc. 2020-27 provides a waiver for certain individuals who failed to meet the eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) for the foreign earned income exclusion because adverse conditions in a foreign country kept the individual from meeting the requirements during 2019 and 2020. The COVID-19 emergency is an adverse condition that precluded the normal conduct of business in:

• the People’s Republic of China (excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau (China)) as of December 1, 2019; and
• any other foreign country, as of February 1, 2020.

The covered period ends on July 15, 2020, unless the Treasury Department and IRS announce an extension.

Under this relief, an individual who left the particular foreign country on or after the dates stated above, but on or before July 15, 2020, will be treated as a qualified individual under the foreign earned income exclusion rules for the period when he or she was present in, or was a bona fide resident of, that foreign country if the individual establishes a reasonable expectation that he or she would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) but for the COVID-19 Emergency. An individual who was first physically present or established residency in China after December 1, 2020, or another foreign country after February 1, 2020, is not eligible.

Individuals seeking to qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion because they could reasonably have been expected to have been present in a foreign country for 330 days but for the COVID-19 Emergency, and have met the other requirements to qualify, may use any 12-month period to meet the qualified individual requirement.

Previously issued revenue procedures under Code Sec. 911(d)(4) remain in full force and effect. Rev. Proc. 2020-14, 2020-16 I.R.B. 661, is supplemented.

U.S. Business Activities
Nonresident aliens who perform services or other activities in the United States, and foreign corporations that employ individuals to perform services or other activities in the United States, and are engaged in a U.S. trade or business are subject to federal tax on their business income from that trade or business. If the individuals performing those services or activities are temporarily in the United States solely due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions, the nonresident alien or foreign corporation might be treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business even though it would not be if the individuals performing the services were not present in the United States.

IRS frequently asked questions (FAQs)—at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/information-for-nonresident-aliens-and-foreign-businesses-impacted-by-covid-19-travel-disruptions—provide that certain U.S. business activities conducted by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation will not be counted for up to 60 consecutive calendar days in determining whether the individual or entity is engaged in a U.S. trade or business or has a U.S. permanent establishment, if those activities would not have been conducted in the United States but for the COVID-19 travel disruptions.

President Trump on March 27 signed the $2 trillion bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The House approved the historically large emergency relief measure by voice vote just hours before Trump’s signature. The CARES Act cleared the Senate unanimously on March 25, by a 96-to-0 vote.

President Trump on March 27 signed the $2 trillion bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The House approved the historically large emergency relief measure by voice vote just hours before Trump’s signature. The CARES Act cleared the Senate unanimously on March 25, by a 96-to-0 vote.

Generally, the following individual and business tax-related provisions are included in what lawmakers have dubbed the "phase three" COVID-19 emergency relief package:

• Direct cash payments of up to $1,200 for certain individual taxpayers and $2,400 for certain married couples filing jointly; those amounts would increase by $500 for every eligible child;
• The 10-percent early withdrawal penalty is waived for distributions up to $100,000 from qualified retirement accounts for coronavirus-related purposes;
• Payments delayed for employer-side payroll taxes;
• The taxable income limit is eliminated for certain net operating losses (NOL) and businesses and individuals can carry back NOLs arising in 2018, 2019, and 2020 to the last five tax years;
• Excess business loss rules suspended under section 461(l);
• Refunds accelerated of previously generated corporate AMT credits;
• Forgivable loans to small businesses that retain their employees throughout this crisis;
• Temporarily enact provisions of the bipartisan Employer Participation in Repayment Act, which would allow employers to contribute up to $5,250 tax-free to help pay down their employees’ student loans; and
• Various technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), including the so-called retail glitch.

Wolters Kluwer Special Report CARES Act Tax Briefing
Wolters Kluwer provides a detailed discussion of the tax-related provisions under the CARES Act in the "Special Report CARES Act (COVID-19 Economic Stimulus) Tax Briefing" (at https://engagetax.wolterskluwer.com/Cares-Act.pdf).

Let’s Work Together
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who spent many late nights in the U.S. Capitol recently participating in bipartisan negotiations on the Senate’s CARES Act, thanked Republican and Democratic leadership in both the Senate and the House for their bipartisanship. "I am pleased that Congress has passed the CARES Act, the largest economic relief package in history for hardworking Americans and businesses that, through no fault of their own, have been adversely impacted by the coronavirus outbreak," Mnuchin said in a March 27 press release. "President Trump is fully committed to ensuring that American workers and businesses have the resources they need. This legislation provides much-needed relief to help our fellow Americans overcome this difficult but temporary challenge."

Phase Four Economic Relief Package
The CARES Act is considered "phase three" of lawmakers’ and the Trump administration’s collaborative response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., have said they want to see a fourth economic relief measure.

"Our work to help Americans during this emergency won’t stop here. Congress must do more to address the significant public health and economic consequences of the coronavirus," Neal said in a March 27 statement. "In a fourth response package, I want to provide any needed additional support to people who have lost their incomes and to affected patients and health care providers. We should take bold action to improve our country’s economic health too," he added. Additionally, Neal said that he would like to see the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit expanded, as well as infrastructure investments to put people back to work and reinvigorate the economy.

Legislative View – Looking Back and Ahead
"From a legislative view, the CARES Act shares the key characteristics that we’ve seen with other emergency legislation, namely bipartisan willingness to forego typical concerns over cost and take action at unusual speed," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of federal legislative and regulatory services in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, told Wolters Kluwer in a March 27 emailed statement. "Similar dynamics were apparent in other emergency legislation including bills enacted after the attacks of September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and during the financial crisis," Gimigliano added. "But those precedents also show that each of those three characteristics begins to break down with successive legislative attempts. That made quick passage of the CARES Act key and the development of a ‘coronavirus 4’ package something to watch closely."

Lawmakers are continuing talks on a "phase four" economic relief package in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. To that end, the House’s "CARES 2" package is currently in the works and could see a floor vote as early as this month.

Lawmakers are continuing talks on a "phase four" economic relief package in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. To that end, the House’s "CARES 2" package is currently in the works and could see a floor vote as early as this month.

"CARES 2"
President Trump signed into law the $2 trillion bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-127) on March 27. The CARES Act is known on Capitol Hill as the third phase of legislation aimed to address the national emergency. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that a House floor vote on a "CARES 2" package could happen later in April.

"The acceleration of the coronavirus crisis demands that we continue to legislate," Pelosi said in a "Dear Colleagues" letter sent out to members during the week of April 6. "We must double down on the down-payment we made in the CARES Act by passing a CARES 2 package, which will extend and expand this bipartisan legislation to meet the needs of the American people," she added. According to Pelosi, the CARES 2 package would (1) go further in assisting small businesses (including farmers), (2) extend and strengthen unemployment benefits, and (3) distribute additional direct payments.

"Our communities cannot afford to wait, and we must move quickly," Pelosi wrote. "It is my hope that we will craft this legislation and bring it to the Floor later this month."

Paycheck Protection Program
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is seeking an increase in funding for the CARES Act’s Paycheck Protection Program. Accordingly, several bipartisan lawmakers have called for congressional action to provide the necessary funding needed for small businesses. The administration is reportedly asking for an additional $250 billion for the largely overrun loan program.

"Through this tax break, workers can get back on payrolls and stay there. By working with their bank, small businesses can get eight weeks of cash-flow assistance through 100 percent federally guaranteed loans," House Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said on April 7. "If the business [including churches] uses the money to maintain payroll, the portion of the loans used for covered payroll costs, interest on mortgage obligations, rent, and utilities would be forgiven."

Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called for swift action on the matter. "Congress needs to act with speed and total focus to provide more money for this uncontroversial bipartisan program," McConnell said on April 7. "I will work with [Treasury] Secretary Steven Mnuchin and [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer and hope to approve further funding for the Paycheck Protection Program by unanimous consent or voice vote during the next scheduled Senate session on Thursday."

The IRS announced on March 30 that distribution of economic impact payments in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic would begin in the next three weeks. On April 1, the Treasury Department clarified that Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefit recipients who are not required to file a federal tax return will not have to file a return in order to receive their economic impact payment.

The IRS announced on March 30 that distribution of economic impact payments in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic would begin in the next three weeks. On April 1, the Treasury Department clarified that Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefit recipients who are not required to file a federal tax return will not have to file a return in order to receive their economic impact payment.

Eligibility Based on Returns, Generally
Eligible taxpayers who filed tax returns for either 2019 or 2018 will automatically receive an economic impact payment of up to $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for married couples, and up to $500 for each qualifying child. The payment amount will be reduced based on adjusted gross income (AGI). The phase-out begins at AGI above $75,000 for single individuals, $150,000 for joint filers, with the payment amount reduced by $5 for each $100 above the thresholds. Single filers with income exceeding $99,000 and $198,000 for joint filers with no children are not eligible.

The IRS will generally base the payment amount on information from:

• the 2019 tax return for taxpayers who have filed their 2019 return; or
• the 2018 tax return for taxpayers who have not yet filed the their 2019 return.

1099s Used for Certain Recipients
The IRS will use the information on the Form SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099 to generate economic impact payments to recipients of benefits reflected in the Form SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099 who are not required to file a tax return and did not file a return for 2018 or 2019. This includes senior citizens, Social Security recipients and railroad retirees who are not otherwise required to file a tax return.

These recipients will receive these payments as a direct deposit or by paper check, just as they would normally receive their benefits.

No payments for dependents, currently. Since the IRS would not have information regarding any dependents for these recipients, each person would receive $1,200 per person, without the additional amount for any dependents at this time.

Other Details
The IRS has addressed other common queries related to economic impact payments:

• Calculating and depositing the payment: The IRS will calculate and automatically send the economic impact payment to those eligible. The economic impact payment will be deposited directly into the same banking account reflected on the 2019 tax returns filed by taxpayers.
• Direct deposit information: A web-based portal for individuals is being developed to provide the taxpayers’ banking information to the IRS online, so that they can receive payments immediately as opposed to checks in the mail.
• Taxpayers who have not filed their tax return for 2018 or 2019: The IRS urges taxpayers with an outstanding tax filing obligation for 2018 or 2019 to file sooner to receive an economic impact payment. Taxpayers should include direct deposit banking information on their tax returns.
• Availability of economic impact payments: The IRS states that for those concerned about visiting a tax professional or local community organization in person to get help with a tax return, the economic impact payments will be available throughout the rest of 2020.

More Information
Even though it currently has a reduced staff in many of its offices, the IRS assures taxpayers that it remains committed to helping eligible individuals receive their payments expeditiously. The IRS urges taxpayers to visit its Coronavirus Tax Relief webpage ( https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus for updated information related to economic impact payments, rather than calling IRS assistors who are helping process 2019 returns.

For the latest information on the economic impact payments, see the IRS’s "Economic impact payments: What you need to know" webpage ( https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/economic-impact-payments-what-you-need-to-know).

The Treasury Department and IRS have provided a notice with additional relief for taxpayers, postponing until July 15, 2020, a variety of tax form filings and payment obligations that are due between April 1, 2020 and July 15, 2020. Associated interest, additions to tax, and penalties for late filing or late payment will be suspended until July 15, 2020. Additional time to perform certain time-sensitive actions during this period is also provided. The notice also postpones due dates with respect to certain government acts and postpones the application date to participate in the Annual Filing Season Program. This notice expands upon the relief provided in Notice 2020-18, I.R.B. 2020-15, 590, and Notice 2020-20, I.R.B. 2020-16, 660.

The Treasury Department and IRS have provided a notice with additional relief for taxpayers, postponing until July 15, 2020, a variety of tax form filings and payment obligations that are due between April 1, 2020 and July 15, 2020. Associated interest, additions to tax, and penalties for late filing or late payment will be suspended until July 15, 2020. Additional time to perform certain time-sensitive actions during this period is also provided. The notice also postpones due dates with respect to certain government acts and postpones the application date to participate in the Annual Filing Season Program. This notice expands upon the relief provided in Notice 2020-18, I.R.B. 2020-15, 590, and Notice 2020-20, I.R.B. 2020-16, 660.

NOTE: The relief is limited to the relief explicitly provided in Notice 2020-18, Notice 2020-20, and Notice 2020-23, and does not apply for any other type of federal tax, any other type of federal tax return, or any other time-sensitive act.

Relief Measures

• Taxpayers Affected by COVID-19 Emergency. Any person (as defined in Code Sec. 7701(a)(1)) with a federal tax payment obligation specified in the notice, or a federal tax return or other form filing obligation specified in the notice, which is due to be performed (originally or pursuant to a valid extension) on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020, is affected by the COVID-19 emergency for purposes of the relief.
• Postponement of Due Dates. For an affected taxpayer, the due date for filing specified forms and making specified payments is automatically postponed to July 15, 2020. This relief is automatic: affected taxpayers do not have to call the IRS or file any extension forms, or send letters or other documents to receive this relief. However, affected taxpayers who need additional time to file may choose to file the appropriate extension form by July 15, 2020, to obtain an extension to file their return, but the extension date may not go beyond the original statutory or regulatory extension date.
• Specified Time-Sensitive Actions. Affected taxpayers also have until July 15, 2020, to perform all specified time-sensitive actions listed in either Reg. §301.7508A-1(c)(1)(iv) - (vi) or Rev. Proc. 2018-58, I.R.B. 2018-50, 990, that are due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020. This includes the time for filing all petitions with the Tax Court, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court, filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax, and bringing suit upon a claim for credit or refund of any tax.
• Certain Government Acts. The notice also provides the IRS with additional time to perform the time-sensitive actions described in Reg. §301.7508A-1(c)(2). Due to the COVID-19 emergency, IRS employees, taxpayers, and other persons may be unable to access documents, systems, or other resources necessary to perform certain time-sensitive actions due to office closures or state and local government executive orders restricting activities.
• Annual Filing Season Program. Under Rev. Proc. 2014-42, I.R.B. 2014-29, 192, applications to participate in the Annual Filing Season Program for the 2020 calendar year must be received by April 15, 2020. The relief postpones the 2020 calendar year application deadline to July 15, 2020.

Specified Forms and Payments
The filing and payment obligations covered by the relief are the following:

• Individual income tax payments and return filings on Form 1040, Form 1040-SR, Form 1040-NR, Form 1040-NR-EZ, Form 1040-PR, and Form 1040-SS.
• Calendar year or fiscal year corporate income tax payments and return filings on Form 1120, Form 1120-C, Form 1120-F, Form 1120-FSC, Form 1120-H, Form 1120-L, Form 1120-ND, Form 1120-PC, Form 1120-POL, Form 1120-REIT, Form 1120-RIC, Form 1120-S, and Form 1120-SF.
• Calendar year or fiscal year partnership return filings on Form 1065 and Form 1066.
• Estate and trust income tax payments and return filings on Form 1041, Form 1041-N, and Form 1041-QFT.
• Estate and generation-skipping transfer tax payments and return filings on Form 706, Form 706-NA, Form 706-A, Form 706-QDT, Form 706-GS(T), Form 706-GS(D), Form 706-GS(D-1), and Form 8971.
• Gift and generation-skipping transfer tax payments and return filings on Form 709 that are due on the date an estate is required to file Form 706 or Form 706-NA.
• Estate tax payments of principal or interest due as a result of an election made under Code Secs. 6166, 6161, or 6163 and annual recertification requirements under Code Sec. 6166.
• Exempt organization business income tax and other payments and return filings on Form 990-T.
• Excise tax payments on investment income and return filings on Form 990-PF and return filings on Form 4720.
• Quarterly estimated income tax payments calculated on or submitted with Form 990-W, Form 1040-ES, Form 1040-ES (NR), Form 1040-ES (PR), Form 1041-ES, and Form 1120-W.
  Notice 2020-18, I.R.B. 2020-15, 590, and Notice 2020-20, I.R.B. 2020-16 are amplified. Rev. Proc. 2014-42, I.R.B. 2014-29, 192, is modified, applicable for calendar year 2020.

synopsisThe Treasury Department and the IRS have released the "Get My Payment" tool to assist Americans in receiving their “economic impact payments” issued under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The free tool went live on April 15, and is located at https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released the "Get My Payment" tool to assist Americans in receiving their “economic impact payments” issued under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The free tool went live on April 15, and is located at https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/get-my-payment.

Get My Payment
The "Get My Payment" tool generally allows consumers to check the status of their payments, and to enter their direct deposit information if the IRS does not already have it.

"Thanks to hard work and long hours by dedicated IRS employees, these payments are going out on schedule, as planned, without delay, to the nation," the IRS said in an April 15 statement emailed to Wolters Kluwer. "The IRS employees are delivering these payments in record time compared to previous stimulus efforts."

Treasury had earlier announced that millions of Americans were already starting to see their economic impact payments. "These payments are being automatically issued to eligible 2019 or 2018 federal tax return filers who received a refund using direct deposit," Treasury said in an April 13 press release.

Non-Filers Option
Americans who did not file a tax return in 2018 or 2019 can use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" option ( https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/non-filers-enter-payment-info-here) to submit basic personal information to receive their payments.

For those who filed 2018 or 2019 tax returns with direct deposit information or receive Social Security, however, no additional action on their part is needed. These individuals are expected to automatically receive the payment in their bank accounts.

"We are pleased that more than 80 million Americans have already received their Economic Impact Payments by direct deposit in record time," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in an April 15 press release. "The free ‘Get My Payment App’ will allow Americans who do not have their direct deposit information on file with the IRS to input it, track the status, and get their money fast."

Status Not Available
Many individuals began voicing complaints on April 15 that the Get My Payment tool was not functional. In response, the IRS on the same day stated: "The Get My Payment site is operating smoothly and effectively. As of mid-day today, more than 6.2 million taxpayers have successfully received their payment status and almost 1.1 million taxpayers have successfully provided banking information, ensuring a direct deposit will be quickly sent. IRS is actively monitoring site volume; if site volume gets too high, users are sent to an online ‘waiting room’ for a brief wait until space becomes available, much like private sector online sites. Media reports saying the tool ‘crashed’ are inaccurate."

The IRS also provided consumers with the following information regarding certain situations in which payment status is deemed unavailable. The IRS listed the following reasons why users may receive the "Status Not Available" notice while using the online tool:

• If you are not eligible for a payment (see IRS.gov on who is eligible and who is not eligible).
• If you are required to file a tax return and have not filed in tax year 2018 or 2019. If you recently filed your return or provided information through Non-Filers: Enter Your Payment Info on IRS.gov. Your payment status will be updated when processing is completed.
• If you are a SSA or RRB Form 1099 recipient, SSI or VA benefit recipient– the IRS is working with your agency to issue your payment; your information is not available in this app yet.

"You can check the app again to see whether there has been an update to your information," the IRS said. "The IRS reminds taxpayers that Get My Payment data is updated once per day, so there’s no need to check back more frequently."

President Trump signed into law the first two phases of the House’s coronavirus economic response package. Meanwhile, the Senate has been developing and negotiating "much bolder" phase three legislation.

President Trump signed into law the first two phases of the House’s coronavirus economic response package. Meanwhile, the Senate has been developing and negotiating "much bolder" phase three legislation.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act
The House had sent its Families First Coronavirus Response bill (HR 6201) and accompanying technical corrections resolution to the Senate on the evening of March 16. "I have decided we are going to vote…on the bill that came over from the House, and send it to the president for his signature," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters during a March 17 press briefing. "A number of my members think there are a number of shortcomings in the bill, and I counsel them to gag and vote for it anyway… and address those shortcomings in the next measure."

Senate Democrats were largely pleased with leadership’s decision to pass the House bill without amending it, while moving forward on additional legislation. "We will have other opportunities to legislate," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, R-N.Y., said from the Senate floor on the morning of March 17.

President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127) into law on the evening of March 18.

Paid Leave Credits
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act increases funding for COVID-19 testing, and extends paid sick leave to employees all over the country affected by the pandemic. Under the new law, employers with fewer than 500 employees and government employers must provide paid sick leave to employees who are forced to stay home due to illness, quarantining, or caring for a family member because of COVID-19, or to care for a son or daughter if the school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.

The new law compensates non-governmental employers for the required paid leave with refundable credits against the employer’s portion of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) payroll tax or the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) Tier 1 payroll tax, as appropriate. It also provides similar credits for paid leave "equivalent amounts" to self-employed individuals affected by COVID-19.

Paid sick leave credit. For an employee who is unable to work because of a COVID-19 quarantine or self-quarantine, or who has COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical diagnosis, eligible employers may receive a refundable sick leave credit for sick leave at the employee's regular rate of pay, up to $511 per day and $5,110 in total, for a total of 10 days. For an employee who is caring for someone with COVID-19, or is caring for a child because the child's school or child care facility is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to the COVID-19, eligible employers may claim a credit for two-thirds of the employee's regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day and $2,000 in total, for up to 10 days.

Paid family care (child care) leave credit. For an employee who is unable to work because of a need to care for a child whose school or child care facility is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, due to the COVID-19, eligible employers may receive a refundable family care (child care) leave credit. This credit is equal to two-thirds of the employee's regular pay, up to $200 per day and $10,000 in total. Up to 10 weeks of qualifying leave can be counted towards the child care leave credit.

Phase Three
"That legislation [the Families First Coronavirus Response Act] was hardly perfect. It imposes new costs and uncertainty on small businesses at precisely the most challenging moment for small businesses in living memory," Senate Majority Leader McConnell said from the Senate floor on March 19. "So the Senate is even more determined that our legislation cannot leave small business behind."

The phase three measure under consideration includes several key components, such as:

• new federally-guaranteed loans for small businesses;
• direct financial help/emergency tax relief;
• targeted lending to industries of national importance; and
• health resources for those working on the front lines of combating COVID-19.

"The small business relief will help. And so will a number of additional tax relief measures, which will be designed to help employers maintain cash flow and keep making payroll," McConnell said. He also highlighted Republicans’ focus of putting "cash in the hands of the American people…from the middle class on down."

To that end, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reportedly said on March 19 that the forthcoming economic stimulus package would deliver $1,000 to every U.S. adult and $500 for every child. Further a second round of checks in the same amount would go out to individuals six weeks later, Mnuchin added.

"Americans need cash now and the president wants to get cash now. And I mean now, in the next two weeks," Mnuchin said at the White House.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Schumer has continued discussions with Senate Republicans and the Trump administration. As this Issue went to press, it still remained unclear how quickly Democrats and Republicans will reach consensus on the phase three measure.

"We don’t want bailouts unless they are used for workers, unless the industries keep all their employees, unless they don’t cut salaries of their employees, and unless they are not allowed to buy back their own stocks or raise corporate salaries," Schumer said in a March 19 tweet.

"At President Trump’s direction, we are moving Tax Day from April 15 to July 15," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a March 20 tweet. "All taxpayers and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties."

"At President Trump’s direction, we are moving Tax Day from April 15 to July 15," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a March 20 tweet. "All taxpayers and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties."

The Treasury and IRS officially announced the extension on March 21 (IR-2020-58; more details can be found in Notice 2020-18).

The move to extend this year’s tax filing deadline to July 15 follows the IRS’s formal announcement that certain 2019 tax year payments could be deferred without interest or penalties (see "Due Date for Federal Income Tax Payments Extended to July 15" in this Issue).

File as Usual if a Refund is Expected
"Working with our members, state societies, and tax professionals everywhere, AICPA scored a victory in the extension of the tax filing deadline to July 15, 2020," the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) said in a March 20 tweet. However, the AICPA noted that it still encourages taxpayers to file their returns as soon as possible so that refunds can stimulate the economy.

"The AICPA understands the need for economic stimulus and, if possible, those who can file and get refunds should do so now," AICPA president and CEO Barry Melancon said in a statement.

Similarly, Mnuchin also encouraged taxpayers to file their returns, if possible. "While I still encourage taxpayers who expect to get a refund to file their taxes, this deadline extension will give everyone maximum flexibility to do what is best for them."

See Tax Filing and Tax Payment Relief for Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic for a summary of filing and payment delays allowed by the federal and state governments.

The Treasury Department and IRS have extended the due date for the payment of federal income taxes otherwise due on April 15, 2020, until July 15, 2020, as a result of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency. The extension is available to all taxpayers, and is automatic. Taxpayers do not need to file any additional forms or contact the IRS to qualify for the extension. The relief only applies to the payment of federal income taxes. Penalties and interest on any remaining unpaid balance will begin to accrue on July 16, 2020.

The Treasury Department and IRS have extended the due date for the payment of federal income taxes otherwise due on April 15, 2020, until July 15, 2020, as a result of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency. The extension is available to all taxpayers, and is automatic. Taxpayers do not need to file any additional forms or contact the IRS to qualify for the extension. The relief only applies to the payment of federal income taxes. Penalties and interest on any remaining unpaid balance will begin to accrue on July 16, 2020.

Dollar Limits
The due date for making federal income tax payments otherwise due on April 15, 2020, for any taxpayer is automatically extended until July 15, 2020. The extension is limited to a maximum amount:

• up to $1 million for individuals, regardless of filing status, and other unincorporated entities such as trust and estates; and
• up to $10 million for each C corporation that does not join in filing a consolidated return or for each consolidated group.

Federal Income Tax Payments Only
The relief is available for federal income tax payments, including payments of tax on self-employment income, otherwise due on April 15, 2020. Thus, it applies to the payment of federal income taxes for the 2019 tax year, as well estimated income tax payments for the 2020 tax year that are due on April 15, 2020. The extension is not available for the payment or deposit of any other type of federal tax.

Taxpayers are urged to check with their state tax agencies for details on any delays in filing and payment state taxes.

Penalties and Interest
Any interest, penalty, or addition to tax for failure to pay federal income taxes postponed will not begin to accrue until July 16, 2020. The period from April 15, 2020, to July 15, 2020, will be disregarded but only for interest, penalties, or additions to tax up to maximum dollar amounts ($1 million or $10 million as applicable).

Interest, penalties, and additions to tax will continue to accrue from April 15, 2020, on the amount of any federal income tax in excess of the maximum dollar amounts. Taxpayers subject to penalties or additions to tax that are not suspended may seek reasonable cause under Code Sec. 6651 for failure to pay tax.

Individuals and certain trusts and estates may also seek a waiver to a penalty under Code Sec. 6654 for failure to pay estimated income taxes. Similar relief is not available for estimated tax payments by corporations or tax-exempt organizations for the penalty under Code Sec. 6655.

The IRS has provided emergency relief for health savings accounts (HSAs) and COVID-19 health plans costs. Under this relief, health plans that otherwise qualify as high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) will not lose that status merely because they cover the cost of testing for or treatment of COVID-19 before plan deductibles have been met. In addition, any vaccination costs will count as preventive care and can be paid for by an HDHP.

The IRS has provided emergency relief for health savings accounts (HSAs) and COVID-19 health plans costs. Under this relief, health plans that otherwise qualify as high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) will not lose that status merely because they cover the cost of testing for or treatment of COVID-19 before plan deductibles have been met. In addition, any vaccination costs will count as preventive care and can be paid for by an HDHP.

HSAs and HDHPs
Eligible individuals can deduct contributions to HSAs. One requirement to qualify as an individual is to be covered under an HDHP and have no disqualifying health coverage. An HDHP is a health plan that satisfies certain requirements, including requirements with respect to minimum deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket expenses.

COVID-19 Relief
A health plan that otherwise satisfies the HDHP requirements will not fail to be an HDHP merely because it provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19 prior to satisfaction of the applicable minimum deductible. As a result, the individuals covered by such a plan will not fail to be eligible individuals merely because of the provision of health benefits for testing and treatment of COVID-19.

This relief provides flexibility to HDHPs to provide health benefits for COVID-19 testing and treatment without application of a deductible or cost sharing. Individuals participating in HDHPs or any other type of health plan should consult their particular health plan regarding health benefits for COVID-19 testing and treatment provided by the plan, including the potential application of any deductible or cost sharing.

Caution. The IRS states that this relief applies only to HSA-eligible HDHPs. Employees and other taxpayers in any other type of health plan should contact their plan with specific questions about what their plan covers.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has requested additional guidance on tax reform’s Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has requested additional guidance on tax reform’s Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction.

199A Deduction Guidance
The IRS issued final and proposed regulations in February 2019 on the Code Sec. 199A QBI deduction enacted in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Additionally, the IRS later issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the computation of QBI and instructions to Form 8995, Qualified Business Income Deduction Simplified Computation, and Form 8995-A, Qualified Business Income Deduction.

However, taxpayers and practitioners need additional related guidance, according to the AICPA. "We urge that you provide additional certainty regarding which deductions are not reductions for QBI," the AICPA wrote in a March 4 letter addressed to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy, and Michael J. Desmond, IRS chief counsel. The letter was released by AICPA on March 6.

In brief, the AICPA recommends that Treasury and the IRS confirm that the deductible portion of self-employment tax under Code Sec. 164(f), the deduction for self-employed health insurance under Code Sec. 162(l), and the deduction for contributions to qualified retirement plans under Code Sec. 404 are not automatically reductions of QBI. Additionally, it recommends that the IRS update form instructions to reflect the same treatment for a charitable deduction under Code Sec. 170.

199A Rules Under Review
Meanwhile, the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is currently reviewing Code Sec. 199A rules as related to guidance on computations for shareholders of real estate investment trusts (REIT). OIRA received the rules from Treasury on March 5, according to its website.

Tax reform legislation widely known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) was signed into law on December 22, 2017. The TCJA brought forth the most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code in over 30 years. However, widespread efforts to implement the TCJA amidst ongoing tax-related global developments continue to this day. Now, two years following its enactment, Treasury, the IRS, and the tax community remain steadfast in working toward understanding and communicating congressional intent under the new law.

Tax reform legislation widely known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) was signed into law on December 22, 2017. The TCJA brought forth the most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code in over 30 years. However, widespread efforts to implement the TCJA amidst ongoing tax-related global developments continue to this day. Now, two years following its enactment, Treasury, the IRS, and the tax community remain steadfast in working toward understanding and communicating congressional intent under the new law.

The Tax Council Policy Institute (TCPI), a nonprofit, non-partisan public policy research and educational organization, will devote its 21st Annual Tax Policy & Practice Symposium to reviewing the current state of U.S. tax law and how it may continue to evolve, when it presents "Hindsight is 2020: What the TCJA and Global Developments Tell us About the Future of Tax" (February 13-14, 2020).

Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting sat down recently with two principal organizers of this year’s TCPI Symposium to preview some of the issues that will be discussed. Lynda K. Walker, Esq., is executive director and general counsel of TCPI. John Gimigliano is principal-in-charge of legislative and regulatory services in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP and former senior tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee. KPMG is program manager for the 2020 TCPI Symposium.

Wolters Kluwer: As the name of this year’s symposium reflects, hindsight is 20/20. Are there any particular policy choices made two years ago under the TCJA that standout now as being either well-matched or less than ideal for the functionality of the current U.S. tax system as it relates to domestic as well as multinational business?

Lynda K. Walker: Tax law is constantly evolving, and it seems now more rapidly than ever. Congress and the business community worked for years to advance some of the concepts in the TCJA, particularly the necessity of lower rates for global competitiveness. Enactment of the major overhaul of the business tax system within that legislation was met with much enthusiasm, but it is not the end of the challenge. Promulgation of regulations—an ongoing process—as well as implementation of those rules and the administration of them are major areas of focus for tax executives and will be covered extensively at our upcoming conference. We have designed this symposium’s program to examine how well the tax system is working to meet the goals that Congress was looking to achieve given the passage of time and the practical application of the law. The experts speaking at the symposium are from various fields and bring varying perspectives. We hope to provide our attendees with the gamut of expert thought on the issues of current interest. The program also strives to bring some new understanding to both external and internal pressures on our tax system(s) in the U.S. and globally, not only currently but prospectively.

John Gimigliano: In some ways it is almost too early to know, being only one complete tax filing season in, but that is part of what we are trying to explore by bringing together the experts at the symposium. Although the TCJA was a partisan piece of legislation and there were people that claimed it did or did not do certain things, hopefully we can now put that aside and evaluate what the law does and does not do, and maybe we now have enough experience with it to make those determinations.

Wolters Kluwer: As you mentioned, internal and external pressures on the federal tax system will be examined during the symposium. What are some examples of internal and external forces that affect tax policy generally?

John Gimigliano: You can look at budgetary and political pressures as key internal forces that affect all tax policy. As I said, the TCJA was a Republican bill, and Democrats have made it pretty clear that they have issues with not only how it was enacted but also the substance of the bill. We saw these internal, political pressures manifest especially because we had an election since the enactment of the TCJA, and the House has gone from Republican to Democratic-controlled. That is not to suggest cause and effect, but it does change the potential for changes to the system that was enacted in December of 2017. And, of course there is another big election looming that could change that political calculus again. As for external pressures, the most notable one is the work being done at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to address the digital economy and the opportunity to change international tax rules pretty dramatically in a way that was not envisioned when the TCJA was negotiated, drafted, and enacted. Additionally, there are external trade pressures at work on the tax system. There has always been a fine line between tax and trade policy, and if we have dramatic changes in trade policy, it could certainly trickle over to the tax side.

Lynda K. Walker: Currently, we are seeing a recognition of the correlation between tax and trade policy that is vastly different from a few years ago. Among our peers in the tax policy community, we now talk about tax and trade as related in a way that seems to have more common acceptance than in the past. There is a convergence of these other global issues on tax policy in a very distinguishable way that is a big potential external pressure.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you touch upon the importance of businesses staying informed of the direction the OECD will go with regard to reforms to international tax standards?

Lynda K. Walker: It is really important that businesses pay very close attention to what is going on in the OECD, the European Union (EU), and other economic blocks around the world, perhaps now more than ever. During the time we were debating tax reform in this country, other countries began to move in their efforts to broaden their tax bases. We were occupied with tax reform, and their tax proposals and efforts were moving forward. Moreover, tax executives need certainty—and the whole debate and movement toward multilateral agreements from bilateral and unilateral jurisdictional action could be a forbearer to another regime in global taxation. It is important that taxpayers be part of the dialogue and that business has a seat at the table with government as matters that could have a sweeping impact on where and how business is conducted are discussed and determined.

Wolters Kluwer: As TCPI materials noted, the symposium is expected to highlight the "real world" effects of the TCJA and how it has changed thinking about global investment. What might a preview of this discussion include?

John Gimigliano: Now stepping away from the theoretical of enactment and all the things the TCJA may or may not do, it is important to examine what it means now to be a tax professional. With two years of experience with the TCJA, what does it really do, and how does it change the decisions that tax directors have to make as to whether, when, or where to buy equipment or to develop intellectual property? Those are the kind of questions we are hoping to address with this real world application of our experience with the TCJA.

Wolters Kluwer: Generally, have the regulations promulgated since passage of the TCJA succeeded in clarifying complex provisions of the statute?

Lynda K. Walker: The TCJA is so broad and impacts so much of the tax code, it really does seem like we are relying heavily on regulations, which we always do in the tax world, but we still need a lot more explanation on some of the TCJA provisions. I am sure it has been a challenge for the IRS, and we are very happy that we will have Michael J. Desmond, IRS chief counsel, with us for this symposium to provide some insight into how the IRS has proceeded and plans to continue to move forward with guidance.

John Gimigliano: This is the challenge of being in the executive branch and getting a piece of legislation handed to you and trying to make it work. As a former tax writer, it is often easier to write these provisions in the abstract, but it is so much more challenging in various ways to make sure that it works for taxpayers and that it is administrable by the IRS. You do not want to put the IRS in a position to fail with a provision that ultimately is impossible to administer. These are the challenges that the IRS has, and so far, by all accounts, both Treasury and the IRS have done a pretty good job. But there’s still so much left to do.

Wolters Kluwer: As for any particular provisions, especially those with final regulations, that may still carry uncertainty for taxpayers and practitioners, what might generally be the way to approach the conundrum?

John Gimigliano: I could point to many of the TCJA regulations that are finalized and still say that there are unanswered questions and that people are going to have to make judgment calls. That has always been the case with tax; there are always judgment calls to be made. There is no statute and no regulation that can ever anticipate every fact pattern. So, people will do their best to analyze the rules and examples provided but will ultimately have to make judgment calls.

Wolters Kluwer: How should U.S. businesses prepare for potential changes in tax policy after the elections?

Lynda K. Walker: Businesses should stay engaged in the process with policy makers and groups like TCPI. Tax executives should engage in the discussion, and never think tax law is static. Taxpayers should be prepared for government to revisit the tax code as fiscal and economic needs change, and be prepared to navigate those waters as they shift.

Wolters Kluwer: Can the current corporate tax rate really be considered "permanent" just because it was enacted as such under the TCJA, or is it a relatively impermanent feature of the tax code just like others, largely dependent upon which Party has the White House and majority in Congress?

Lynda K. Walker: It is definitely fair to say that there will be pressure put on the rate as well as the tax code in general, because both Parties have objectives that require money. I do not know that anyone believes anything in the tax code is absolutely written in stone. That is part of the challenge for business in that they need some level of certainty to make long-term business and investment decisions, and to have major changes on an ongoing basis does not provide that certainty.

John Gimigliano: Permanence is an illusion; nothing is permanent. And even temporary policy is somewhat misleading. Take for example the R&D tax credit that was finally made permanent after being considered temporary tax policy for over 30 years. These are all relative terms.

Wolters Kluwer: What are you hoping the symposium accomplishes?

Lynda K. Walker: We hope that this program accomplishes our mission, which is to bring about a stronger and better understanding of federal tax policies and how they impact business and the economy as a whole. We hope this brings some careful study to the forefront through active evaluation and open discussion so that people leave more engaged and perhaps more aware. In our programs, our goal is always to have as inclusive a dialogue as possible by engaging all the critical stakeholders, including government, business, and academia. We work diligently to elevate the discourse on issues where we all might not have exactly the same frame of reference but hopefully the same goal, which is a thriving economy where business can operate under fair and transparent tax laws.

John Gimigliano: I hope we can advance taxpayers’ and practitioners’ understanding of the TCJA. We have all had so many questions since its enactment in late 2017. Now with a little bit of time, hopefully by gathering these experts together and in keeping with TCPI’s mission, it will advance everyone’s understanding of the law—where it is working, where it is not, and what changes are likely to come.

For more information on the 2020 TCPI Symposium, go to https://www.tcpi.org/event/21st-annual-tax-policy-and-practice-symposium/.

On February 11, the White House released President Donald Trump’s fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget proposal, which outlines his administration’s priorities for extending certain tax cuts and increasing IRS funding. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on February 12 regarding the FY 2021 budget proposal.

On February 11, the White House released President Donald Trump’s fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget proposal, which outlines his administration’s priorities for extending certain tax cuts and increasing IRS funding. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on February 12 regarding the FY 2021 budget proposal.

Extension of TCJA’s Individual Tax Cuts
Trump’s FY 2021 budget proposal indicates that tax cuts for individuals and passthrough entities under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which are set to expire at the end of 2025, would be extended. This extension is estimated to cost $1.4 trillion over 10 years, and is reportedly being used as a "placeholder" in the budget for Trump’s forthcoming "Tax Cuts 2.0" plan.

Infrastructure
Trump’s budget proposal also calls for a $1 trillion infrastructure package, although funding details remain scarce at this time. In January, House Democrats unveiled their infrastructure proposal, which also lacked funding details.

IRS Funding
Additionally, Trump’s budget proposes $12 billion in base funding for the IRS "to modernize the taxpayer experience and ensure that the IRS can fulfill its core tax filing season responsibilities." The budget proposal would boost IRS funding from currently enacted levels of $11.5 billion.

Further, the budget would provide $300 million to continue the IRS’s modernization efforts. Specifically, the budget proposal states that IRS funding would help to:

• digitize more IRS communications to taxpayers, so they can respond quickly and accurately to IRS questions;
• create a call-back function for certain IRS telephone lines, so taxpayers do not need to wait on hold to speak with an IRS representative; and
• make it easier for taxpayers to make and schedule payments online.

Hill Reaction
"The Trump Economy stands firm on the proven pro-growth pillars of tax cuts, deregulation, energy independence, and better trade deals," the budget proposal states. However, Democratic lawmakers, while highlighting criticisms of the TCJA, are all but promising Trump’s budget request will not become law.

"Repealing incentives to reduce carbon emissions will hinder our fight against climate change and deter the kind of innovation our planet needs. And extending misguided tax cuts for the richest Americans will only deepen the deficit and further concentrate wealth at the top," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement after the budget proposal was released.

"It [Trump’s budget proposal] doubles down on the failed 2017 GOP tax law, extending expiring provisions and adding $1.5 trillion more to debt over the last six years of the budget window. Most of this extension’s tax breaks go to the richest one-fifth of households," House Budget Committee Democrats said in a committee report during the week of February 10.

However, it is worth noting that Trump’s budget proposal is merely an annual starting point for budget negotiations as Congress has the "power of the purse." Additionally, many of Trump’s requests, particularly those that include extending TCJA tax cuts, would have little chance of successfully clearing the currently Democratic-controlled House.

SFC Hearing; Wyden Bill
Secretary Mnuchin spent much of the SFC hearing praising and defending the TCJA and Treasury’s implementation of the GOP law. "Tax cuts, regulatory reform, and better trade deals are improving the lives of hardworking Americans," Mnuchin told lawmakers. "Unemployment remains historically low at 3.6 percent and is at or near all-time lows for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and veterans. The unemployment rate for women recently reached its lowest point in nearly 70 years," he added.

Likewise, SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa praised the TCJA and pointed to the same statistics mentioned by Mnuchin as evidence of its success. "Statistics like these show the tax reform is a success. The Treasury Department’s work to implement the new tax law has been an important part of that success," Grassley said.

However, SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., did not mince words when criticizing Mnuchin’s leadership of Treasury, the TCJA, and related regulations. "It sure looks like corporate special interests are going to make off with new loopholes worth $100 billion in addition to their outlandish share of the original $2 trillion Trump tax law," Wyden said during his opening statement. "When people say the tax code is rigged and the Trump administration has made it worse, what I’ve described is a textbook case of what they are talking about."

In that vein, Wyden introduced a bill on February 12 which would block Treasury’s "exception to the new tax on foreign earnings that allows multinationals to essentially choose the lowest available tax rate," as noted in Wyden’s press release. During the hearing, Wyden accused Treasury of creating a new "corporate tax loophole." Generally, Wyden’s bill would amend the tax code to clarify that high-taxed amounts are excluded from tested income for purposes of determining global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) only if such amounts would be foreign base company income or insurance income.

Recently, Democrats have been criticizing Treasury for proposing related GILTI regulations based on corporate interests, but Mnuchin vehemently denied that claim. "Our job is to implement the legislation, not to make the legislation," he told lawmakers during the hearing. "Our job has been to implement that part of the tax code consistent with the intent and as prescribed by the law and that is what we have done."

Energy Tax Policy
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Capitol, in a February 11 letter to Senator Grassley, nearly 30 Democratic senators called for prompt committee action on energy tax policy. "Despite numerous opportunities, including in the recent tax extenders package, the Finance Committee has failed to take action on the dozens of energy tax proposals pending before it," the senators wrote in the letter led by Wyden. "Energy tax incentives have played a key part in shaping U.S. energy policy for more than 100 years, and members have shown clear interest in re-examining that ongoing role."

House Democratic and Republican tax writers debated the effects of tax reform’s corporate income tax cut during a February 11 hearing convened by Democrats. Democratic lawmakers have consistently called for an increase in the corporate tax rate since it was lowered from 35 percent to 21 percent in 2017 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

House Democratic and Republican tax writers debated the effects of tax reform’s corporate income tax cut during a February 11 hearing convened by Democrats. Democratic lawmakers have consistently called for an increase in the corporate tax rate since it was lowered from 35 percent to 21 percent in 2017 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

During the House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Democrats largely criticized low federal income tax receipts from corporations following the TCJA’s corporate tax rate cut, while Republicans focused on highlighting the resulting economic growth and global competitiveness.

Corporate Tax Revenue
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., opened the hearing by criticizing corporate tax revenues for being at their lowest level in history. "Some large corporations pay zero year after year. It is therefore not surprising that we collect less corporate tax revenue than all but one of the other OECD nations," Neal said during opening statements.

Similarly, Jason Furman, an economic policy professor in the Harvard Kennedy School and Department of Economics at Harvard University, told lawmakers during the hearing that the low levels of corporate tax revenue are a major reason why overall federal revenue is also low. Additionally, Furman told lawmakers that there is no evidence that the TCJA has made a "substantial contribution to investment or longer-term economic growth."

Inversions
However, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, testified that corporate tax receipts were falling before the TCJA ever took effect. He credited the TCJA’s corporate tax cut for essentially ceasing corporate inversions. A corporate inversion, in very general terms, is a process in which U.S.-based companies relocate operations outside of the country to reduce their tax burden.

"After years of having five to six prominent companies annually depart the United States, inversions have simply stopped," Holtz-Eakin testified. "Multinationals are bringing operations back to the United States, and many acquisitions of U.S. businesses now are made by U.S. firms, rather than foreign buyers," he added.

Further, Holtz-Eakin issued a reminder that "everyone bears the burden" of corporate income taxes. "Corporations are not walled off from the broader economy, and neither are the taxes imposed on corporate income. Taxes on corporations fall on stockholders, employees, and consumers alike."

JCT
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper, detailed in its February 10 report several contributing variables in understanding the corporate income tax equation and its relation to federal revenue. Generally, a corporation’s income tax liability is determined by applying a 21-percent rate to its taxable income.

As the JCT notes in its report, prior to the TCJA, the corporate income tax involved a four-step graduated tax rate schedule, with a top corporate tax rate of 35 percent on taxable income in excess of $10 million. The corporate income tax also included "an alternative minimum tax (AMT) that was payable (in addition to all other tax liabilities) to the extent that it exceeded the corporation’s regular income tax liability." However, the TCJA eliminated the graduated corporate rate structure and repealed the corporate AMT, effective in 2018.

More Hearings Expected
While this particular hearing convened by Democrats was generally seen on Capitol Hill to serve more of a messaging purpose rather than legislative purpose, more TCJA-related hearings are expected this year. "We’re going to be doing a series of hearings on the [GOP] tax bill," Neal told the press after the hearing. "People frequently pay a lot of attention to the spending side, and we are saying that there is also a revenue question here."

The IRS will allow a farmer that is exempt from the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules by reason of having average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less to revoke a prior election out of the UNICAP rules made under Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) with respect to pre-productive plant expenditures. The guidance also explains how a farmer may make an election out under Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) in a tax year in which the farmer is no longer exempt from the UNICAP rules as a qualifying small business taxpayer with $25 million or less in average annual gross receipts.

The IRS will allow a farmer that is exempt from the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules by reason of having average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less to revoke a prior election out of the UNICAP rules made under Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) with respect to pre-productive plant expenditures. The guidance also explains how a farmer may make an election out under Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) in a tax year in which the farmer is no longer exempt from the UNICAP rules as a qualifying small business taxpayer with $25 million or less in average annual gross receipts.

Revocation of the prior election out is beneficial because a farmer that makes the election must depreciate farm property placed in service during any tax year the election is in effect using the MACRS alternative depreciation system (ADS). ADS requires use of the straight-line method over depreciation periods that are generally longer than those that apply under the MACRS general depreciation system (GDS) if the election out is not made ( Code Sec. 263A(e)(2)). If the election out is revoked, a qualifying small business farmer remains exempt from the UNICAP rules under the $25 million gross receipts test but is no longer required to use ADS on existing or newly acquired property by reason of the prior election out.

In addition, a rule that treats all plants produced by the farmer as section 1245 property, and requires ordinary income recapture to the extent of deductions otherwise required to be capitalized, no longer applies to new plantings after revocation of the election out is made ( Code Sec. 263A(e)(1)).

Eligible Farmers
The election out may be revoked by a farmer that:

• is exempt from the UNICAP rules by reason of the $25 million average gross receipts test for qualifying small business taxpayers (as described in Code Sec. 448(c) and provided by Code Sec. 263A(i), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), effective for tax years beginning after 2017);
• previously made the election out of UNICAP under Code Sec. 263A(d)(3); and
• wants to apply the $25 million gross receipts exemption for small business taxpayers in the same tax year that it revokes the Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) election out.

Revocation Procedure
An eligible small business farmer receives IRS consent to revoke a prior election out by continuing not to capitalize costs under the UNICAP rules on its original tax return (including extensions) for the tax year of the revocation of the election out, continuing to treat plantings in prior tax years as section 1245 property, and changing the depreciation method of farm property from ADS to GDS as explained below.

Special rule for 2018 tax year. A small business farmer that already filed a timely 2018 return may revoke the election out in the 2018 tax year by filing an amended 2018 return (an administrative adjustment request in the case of certain partnerships) before filing a 2019 return. Alternatively, Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, may be filed with a timely income tax return for the first, second, or third tax year following the 2018 tax year.

Changing From ADS to GDS
A farmer revoking the election out may cease using ADS to depreciate its existing farming property beginning in the year the election out is revoked, and ADS will not apply to farm property placed in service in the revocation year or thereafter. The switch from ADS to GDS is made using the MACRS change in use rules ( Reg. §1.168(i)-4(d)) and, therefore, the GDS method applies prospectively on the remaining basis of the farm property. The change in use rules, however, allow a farmer to elect to continue to depreciate its existing property using ADS. Property switched from ADS to GDS is not eligible for bonus depreciation. A farmer may make an ADS election for classes of newly acquired property under the usual ADS election rules.

A farmer revoking the election out has adopted an impermissible accounting method if it continues to use ADS in the revocation year and the following tax year (unless the election to continue using ADS was made under the change in use rules). In this case, a farmer must file Form 3115 and compute a section 481 adjustment as if the switch from ADS to GDS had been made in the revocation year. Similarly, a farmer that depreciates newly acquired property using ADS in the revocation year and the following year has adopted an impermissible method that must be corrected by filing Form 3115 unless a valid ADS election was made.

Losing Exemption Under Gross Receipts Test
The guidance allows a small business farmer to make a Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) election out of the UNICAP rules in the first tax year the farmer no longer qualifies for exemption under the $25 million average gross receipts test. The election out is made on the original tax return (including extensions) using the currently prescribed election Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) procedures, and by continuing not to capitalize costs under the UNICAP rules.

The electing farmer must use ADS to depreciate property placed in service in the election out year and subsequent years. Bonus depreciation may not be claimed on this property. An election out is not valid if ADS is not used to depreciate this property. ADS does not apply to property placed in service during tax years prior to the election out year.

Effective Date
The guidance is generally effective on February 21, 2020. Transition guidance is provided for taxpayers that filed a Form 3115 on or before February 21, 2020, to obtain consent to revoke a Code Sec. 263A(d)(3) election.

Rev. Proc. 2019-43, I.R.B. 2019-48, 1107, which lists the automatic accounting method changes, is modified to included certain accounting method changes described in the guidance.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

Year-End Tax Package
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, (HR 1865), logs just over 700 pages and serves as only half of the government spending package for fiscal year 2020, which runs through September 30. Most notably, HR 1865 serves as the legislative vehicle for a year-end tax package, which carries a costly $426 billion price tag over a 10-year budget window, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), JCX-54R-19.

Some of the tax-related provisions in the year-end package include, among other items:

• Retroactive and current renewal of over two dozen temporary tax breaks known as tax extenders, which have expired or would soon be expired, spanning from 2017 to 2019. Generally, the renewed tax breaks are extended through 2020, and the biodiesel and short-line railroad maintenance tax credits are extended until 2022;
• The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) (HR 1994), which makes sweeping changes to retirement savings and employer retirement contributions provisions;
• Certain fixes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• Full repeal of three tax-related provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148), two of which include the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the 40 percent excise "Cadillac" tax on high-dollar employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

The House approved HR 1865 on December 17 by a 297-to-120 vote. The Senate cleared the measure on December 19 by a 71-to-23 vote.

"So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

"There were numerous fits and starts, but this result is a reminder that Congressional muscle memory on extenders is very strong, so ultimately the members did what they always do – extend them," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of the federal legislative and regulatory services group in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP told Wolters Kluwer. "Some might be surprised to see the ACA taxes rolled back, but it has always felt like those items were on borrowed time; it was really just a question of when and how they were repealed, not whether. So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

SECURE ACT
The bipartisan SECURE Act, which cleared the House in May but remained stalled in the Senate most of the year, makes a number of major as well as administrative changes for retirement savings affecting both individuals and employers.

Some of those changes are noted as follows:

IRA Changes

• Moving the start date for requirement required minimum distributions (RMDs) to the year the owner turns 72;
• Ending the 70 1/2 age limit for contribute contributions to an IRA; and
• Shortening the distribution period for nonspouse inherited IRAs to a 10-year maximum.
  The 10-year window for distributions to a nonspouse beneficiary applies regardless of when the IRA owner dies. Thus, the change will severely limit the use of "stretch IRAs" as an effective planning tool. Limited exceptions are available.

401(k) Changes

• Requiring plans to offer participation to long-term, part-time employees;
• Encouraging auto-enrollment by increasing the cap; and
• Streamlining the safe harbor for non-elective contributions.

Employers with 401(k) plans must offer employees who work between 500 and 1000 hours year an additional means to participate in the plan. The rule change would only affect 401(k) cash or deferral arrangements, and no other qualified plans.

Retirement Plans for Small Employers

Several changes are made to encourage more small employers to offer retirement benefits to their employees, such as:

• Adding a new tax credit for small employers using auto-enrollment plans;
• Increasing the credit for small employer pension plan start-up costs; and
• Allow small employers of two or more to band together to participate in a new class of pooled multiple employer plans (MEPs).

Congress Adjourns Until 2020
After an eventful two-week sprint to the finish line, Congress adjourned for the year on December 20. Lawmakers are expected to return to Washington, D.C. during the week of January 6, 2020.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

Year-End Tax Package
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, (HR 1865), logs just over 700 pages and serves as only half of the government spending package for fiscal year 2020, which runs through September 30. Most notably, HR 1865 serves as the legislative vehicle for a year-end tax package, which carries a costly $426 billion price tag over a 10-year budget window, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), JCX-54R-19.

Some of the tax-related provisions in the year-end package include, among other items:

• Retroactive and current renewal of over two dozen temporary tax breaks known as tax extenders, which have expired or would soon be expired, spanning from 2017 to 2019. Generally, the renewed tax breaks are extended through 2020, and the biodiesel and short-line railroad maintenance tax credits are extended until 2022;
• The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) (HR 1994), which makes sweeping changes to retirement savings and employer retirement contributions provisions;
• Certain fixes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• Full repeal of three tax-related provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148), two of which include the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the 40 percent excise "Cadillac" tax on high-dollar employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

The House approved HR 1865 on December 17 by a 297-to-120 vote. The Senate cleared the measure on December 19 by a 71-to-23 vote.

"So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

"There were numerous fits and starts, but this result is a reminder that Congressional muscle memory on extenders is very strong, so ultimately the members did what they always do – extend them," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of the federal legislative and regulatory services group in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP told Wolters Kluwer. "Some might be surprised to see the ACA taxes rolled back, but it has always felt like those items were on borrowed time; it was really just a question of when and how they were repealed, not whether. So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

SECURE ACT
The bipartisan SECURE Act, which cleared the House in May but remained stalled in the Senate most of the year, makes a number of major as well as administrative changes for retirement savings affecting both individuals and employers.

Some of those changes are noted as follows:

IRA Changes

• Moving the start date for requirement required minimum distributions (RMDs) to the year the owner turns 72;
• Ending the 70 1/2 age limit for contribute contributions to an IRA; and
• Shortening the distribution period for nonspouse inherited IRAs to a 10-year maximum.
  The 10-year window for distributions to a nonspouse beneficiary applies regardless of when the IRA owner dies. Thus, the change will severely limit the use of "stretch IRAs" as an effective planning tool. Limited exceptions are available.

401(k) Changes

• Requiring plans to offer participation to long-term, part-time employees;
• Encouraging auto-enrollment by increasing the cap; and
• Streamlining the safe harbor for non-elective contributions.

Employers with 401(k) plans must offer employees who work between 500 and 1000 hours year an additional means to participate in the plan. The rule change would only affect 401(k) cash or deferral arrangements, and no other qualified plans.

Retirement Plans for Small Employers

Several changes are made to encourage more small employers to offer retirement benefits to their employees, such as:

• Adding a new tax credit for small employers using auto-enrollment plans;
• Increasing the credit for small employer pension plan start-up costs; and
• Allow small employers of two or more to band together to participate in a new class of pooled multiple employer plans (MEPs).

Congress Adjourns Until 2020
After an eventful two-week sprint to the finish line, Congress adjourned for the year on December 20. Lawmakers are expected to return to Washington, D.C. during the week of January 6, 2020.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

District Court
According to the opinion, "the rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today." Therefore, the opinion directs the district court to carefully consider whether the mandate can be legally distinct from the rest of the law. The opinion instructs the district court to answer two questions: Which parts of the ACA "are indeed inseverable" now that the mandate is no longer enforced and whether a ruling in the case should apply only to the Republican-led states that sued to overturn the law, an issue raised by Trump administration lawyers.

Dissenting Opinion
A dissenting opinion discussed that Congress made it clear that it wanted the rest of the ACA to stand and sending the case back to the lower court was criticized. The opinion also highlighted that sending the case back to the lower court merely identifies serious flaws in the district court’s analysis and remands for a do-over, which will unnecessarily prolong this litigation and the concomitant uncertainty over the future of the health care sector.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

The regulations address issued related to all aspects of the gain deferral rules and also various requirements that must be met for an entity to qualify as a qualified opportunity fund (QOF) or as a qualified opportunity zone business. Duplicative rules regarding QOFs and qualified opportunity zone businesses have been combined and definitions of key terms added. The regulations detail which taxpayers are eligible to make the election, the types of capital gains eligible for deferral, and the method of making deferral elections. Revisions are made to the rules applying the statutory 180-period and other requirements with regard to the making of a qualifying investment in a QOF.

The IRS will reflect these regulations in updated forms, instructions, and other guidance in January 2020.

Benefits of QOF Investments
Taxpayers may elect to temporarily defer capital gain in income if the gain is invested within 180 days in a QOF. The gain is recognized on Dec. 31, 2026, or if earlier, upon the occurrence of an inclusion event such as the sale of the QOF investment. However, 10 percent of the deferred gain is not recognized if the investment is held five years and 15 percent is not recognized after seven years. In addition, taxpayers may exclude recognition of gain on appreciation in the investment if the investment in the qualified opportunity fund is held for at least 10 years.

Section 1231 gains
The final regulations provide that eligible gains include the gross amount of eligible section 1231 gains unreduced by section 1231 losses regardless of character. The proposed regulations took a "netting" approach. The 180-day period for an eligible taxpayer to invest an amount with respect to an eligible section 1231 gain begins on the date of the sale of the section 1231 asset rather than at the end of the tax year.

RICS and REITS
The 180-day period for RIC or REIT capital gain dividends generally begins at the close of the shareholder’s tax year in which the capital gain dividend would otherwise be recognized by the shareholder. To ensure that RIC and REIT shareholders do not have to wait until the close of their tax year to invest capital gain dividends received during the tax year, the final regulations also provide that shareholders may elect to begin the 180-day period on the day each capital gain dividend is paid. The 180-day period for undistributed capital gain dividends, however, begins on either the last day of the shareholder’s tax year in which the dividend would otherwise be recognized or the last day of the RIC or REIT’s tax year, at the shareholder’s election.

The aggregate amount of a shareholder’s eligible gain with respect to capital gain dividends received from a RIC or a REIT cannot exceed the aggregate amount of capital gain dividends that the shareholder receives as reported or designated by that RIC or that REIT for the shareholder’s tax year.

Installment Sales
The final regulations allow an eligible taxpayer to elect to choose the 180- day period to begin on either (i) the date a payment under an installment sale is received for that tax year, or (ii) the last day of the tax year the eligible gain under the installment method would be recognized. Therefore, if the taxpayer defers gain from multiple payments under an installment sale, there might be multiple 180-day periods, or a single 180-day period at the end of the taxpayer’s tax year, depending upon taxpayer’s election.

Partners, S Corporation Shareholders, and Trust Beneficiaries
The final regulations provide partners, S shareholders, and beneficiaries of decedents’ estates and non-grantor trusts with the option to treat the 180-day period as commencing upon the due date of the related entity’s tax return, not including any extensions. This rule does not apply to grantor trusts.

Gain from Disposal of Partial Interest in QOF Investment
Gain arising from an inclusion event is eligible for deferral even though the taxpayer retains a portion of its qualifying investment after the inclusion event. If an inclusion event relates only to a portion of a taxpayer’s qualifying investment in the QOF, (i) the deferred gain that otherwise would be required to be included in income (inclusion gain amount) may be invested in a different QOF, and (ii) the taxpayer may make a deferral election with respect to the inclusion gain amount, so long as the taxpayer satisfies all requirements for a deferral election on the inclusion gain amount.

Post-December 31, 2026 Gain Ineligible
Gain arising after December 31, 2026 (including gain mandatorily recognized on that date) is not eligible for deferral.

Death Related Transfers of QOF Investments
A qualifying investment received by a beneficiary in a transfer by reason of death remains a qualifying investment in the hands of the beneficiary.

Acquisition of Eligible Interest from Person Other than a QOF
A taxpayer may make a deferral election for an eligible interest acquired from a person other than a QOF. The final regulations do not require the transferor to have made a prior deferral election for the acquirer of an eligible interest to make the election.

Further, for interests in entities that existed before the enactment of the deferral provision, if such entities become QOFs, then the interests in those entities, even though not qualifying investments in the hands of a transferor, are eligible interests that may (i) be acquired by an investor and (ii) result in a qualifying investment of the acquirer if the acquirer has eligible gain and the acquisition was during the 180-day period with respect to that gain.

Built in Gains
Built-in gain of a REIT, a RIC, or an S corporation potentially subject to corporate-level tax is eligible for deferral. If the deferral election is made, the amount of gain is not included in the calculation of the entity’s net recognized built-in gain.

Identification of Disposed Interests in a QOF
The final regulations permit taxpayers to specifically identify QOF stock that is sold or otherwise disposed. If a taxpayer fails to adequately identify which QOF shares are disposed of, then the FIFO identification method applies. If, after application of the FIFO method, a taxpayer is treated as having disposed of less than all of its investment interests that the taxpayer acquired on one day and the investments vary in its characteristics, then a pro-rata method applies to the remainder.

The specific identification method does not apply to the disposition of interests in a QOF partnership.

Deferred Gain Retains Tax Attributes
The final regulations make it clear that if a taxpayer is required to include in income some or all of a previously deferred gain, the gain so included has the same attributes that the gain would have had if the recognition of gain had not been deferred. If a deferred gain cannot be clearly associated with an investment in a particular QOF, an ordering rule applies to make this determination.

Effective Date
The final regulations are generally applicable to tax years beginning after 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

With respect to the portion of a taxpayer’s first tax year ending after December 21, 2017, that began on December 22, 2017, and for tax years beginning after December 21, 2017, and on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register taxpayers may rely on either the proposed regulations or the final regulations but not both.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

Background
Code Sec. 721(a) generally provides that no gain or loss is recognized by either a partnership or any of its partners upon a contribution of property to the partnership in exchange for a partnership interest. In Code Sec. 721(c), the Treasury Secretary has regulatory authority to override this nonrecognition provision for gain realized on the transfer of property to a domestic or foreign partnership if the gain, when recognized, would be includible in the gross income of a person other than a U.S. person.

Under temporary regulations issued in 2017, if a U.S. person contributes certain property with built-in gain to a partnership that has foreign partners related to the transferor, then gain will be recognized unless the gain deferral method is applied with respect to the property ( Temporary Reg. §§1.721(c)-2T; 1.721(c)-3T). Under a de minimis exception, nonrecognition continues to apply if the sum of all built-in gain property contributed to the partnership during the tax year does not exceed $1 million.

The final regulations adopt the temporary regulations with certain modifications.

Related Person Definition
The final regulations modify the definition of related person in certain situations. This modification provides relief when certain foreign individual partners of a partnership would be treated as a related person with respect to a domestic corporation by reason of Code Sec. 267(c)(3).

Consistent Allocation Method
The final regulations add a new sentence in Reg. §1.721(c)-3(c)(1). Upon a variation (as described in Reg. §1.706-4(a)(1)) of a U.S. transferor’s interest in a Code Sec. 721(c) partnership, book items with respect to section 721(c) property that are allocated under the interim closing method (as described in Reg. §1.706-4) will be treated as allocated in the same percentage for applying the consistent allocation method in a single tax year, unless the variation results from a transaction undertaken with a principal purpose of avoiding the tax consequences of the gain deferral method.

Reporting Requirements
The 2017 regulations required much of the reporting to be on statements attached to returns. Since the 2017 regulations were issued, however, the IRS has updated and added new schedules to Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, to facilitate compliance with these reporting requirements. The IRS has also issued new Form 8838-P, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Pursuant to the Gain Deferral Method (Section 721(c)). The final regulations generally require taxpayers to use these forms and schedules.

The final regulations also clarify the duration for which the U.S. transferor must extend the period of limitations on the assessment of tax under Reg. §1.721(c)-6(b).

Technical Termination Rules
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, ( P.L. 115-97) (the "TCJA") eliminated technical terminations. However, the applicability date for these final regulations relates back to the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations, which is before the effective date provided in the TCJA. Accordingly, the final regulations retain technical termination rules, but their application will be limited. The rules will only apply to technical terminations occurring on or after the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations but before the effective date for the repeal of Code Sec. 708(b)(1)(B) provided in the TCJA.

Effective Date
The regulations are effective on the date of filing with the Federal Register. For dates of applicability, see Reg. §§1.197-2(l)(5)(i), 1.704-1(f), 1.704-3(g)(1), 1.721(c)-1(e), 1.721(c)-2(e), 1.721(c)-3(e), 1.721(c)-4(d), 1.721(c)-5(g), 1.721(c)-6(g), and 1.6038B-2(j)(4).

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

"This report is about more than what happened during the past year," IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig wrote in the report’s opening message to taxpayers. "It’s also designed to provide insight into the people serving this country on behalf of the IRS, and provide a glimpse into the future," he added.

IRS Pub. 5382 also focuses criminal investigation results and efforts involving civil enforcement. Also discussed are ongoing compliance areas, including micro-captives, syndicated conservation easements, and virtual currency. The report further covers the IRS’s implementation of new tax laws, and the IRS’s ongoing work on the new Taxpayer First Act of 2019.

Individual Audits Down
Taxpayers are now half as likely to be audited by the IRS for their individual income tax returns as they were a decade ago. As described in IRS Pub. 5382, the IRS audited 0.45 percent of individual (1040) income tax returns during fiscal year (FY) 2019. This number is down from 1.1 percent of tax returns audited in 2010. The IRS’s ongoing loss to its total workforce is largely to blame for the consistent decline in IRS audits, according to the report.

"The IRS lost more than 29,618 full time positions between FY 2010 and FY 2019, which includes Information Technology, Operations Support, Taxpayer Service and Enforcement personnel. These losses directly correlate with a steady decline in the number of individual audits during the past nine years," the report notes.

Hill Reaction
Although individual audits have significantly decreased, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are criticizing the fact that the IRS continues to conduct more examinations on lower-income individual taxpayers than it does on higher-income taxpayers or corporations. However, the IRS has said previously that audits on higher-income individuals and businesses are significantly more complex and require more resources.

"IRS audit rates are at their lowest levels in 40 years, allowing the wealthy and well-connected to steal from taxpayers with no consequences," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a January 7 statement. "The bulk of tax avoidance and fraud comes from corporations, pass-through business and those at the top. Ensuring the wealthy and corporations pay what they owe takes the most resources and manpower, and I’m working with the IRS to get a clear picture on funding and staffing levels needed to audit top earners at 2010 levels," Wyden added.

Currently, the IRS anticipates that up to 31 percent of its workforce (nearly 19,719 full-time employees) will retire within the next five years. The IRS’s workforce decline is expected to create a "significant risk of a large knowledge and experience gap for the nation’s tax agency," according to the IRS report.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

Wolters Kluwer recently sat down with Jennifer Acuña, Principal, Federal Legislative and Regulatory Services, KPMG LLP, in Washington, D.C. to discuss over 30 temporary tax provisions known as "tax extenders," which have expired or will soon expire spanning from 2017 to 2019. Before joining KPMG, Acuña served as chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), and was previously tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee.

New Tax Extenders Climate on Capitol Hill
"There is an interesting dynamic going on with tax extenders on Capitol Hill. In the past, extenders were viewed as a priority item, and that has changed," Acuña said.

Generally, tax extenders have been viewed on Capitol Hill as a consistently bipartisan annual or biannual year-end legislative initiative. However, the fate of tax extenders is more uncertain than it has been in the past – in part because it is not clear yet whether there will be an opportunity for any further tax legislation to become law this year, Acuña observed.

Funding Bill Likely Driver for Tax Package
Lawmakers are revving up negotiations as Congress races against this year’s dwindling legislative calendar to reach an agreement on fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations. Government funding is scheduled to expire on November 21.

Given the political climate on Capitol Hill and Congress’s limited time left on the legislative calendar, a stand-alone tax package is considered unlikely to make its way through both chambers successfully. That said, November’s "must-pass" government funding bill could be the legislative vehicle for dozens of expired or soon-to-be expired tax extenders, as well as for any other tax provisions that may crop up during lawmakers’ negotiations.

SFC Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced their bipartisan Tax Extenders and Disaster Relief bill (Sen. 617) earlier this year. Subsequently, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., introduced his version of a similarly named tax extenders bill (HR 3301). However, Neal’s bill—which proposes undoing certain provisions related to estate taxes under 2017 tax reform as a "pay for"—was immediately deemed a nonstarter by Senate Republicans.

Notably, Acuña observed that House Democrats may be viewing their tax extenders bill as an opening offer, providing leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation. "In today’s climate it seems that some of the signaling that’s taking place is that House Democrats are trying to position tax extenders as a Republican priority to build up leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation," Acuña said. "Once you have a tax title on a big bill, there is no limit as to which tax provisions could actually be included in the bill," she added.

Larger Tax Package Could Emerge
In that vein, there has been talk among lawmakers that a larger, catch-all tax package could emerge from these negotiations. Any tax package that is unveiled in the coming weeks must have significant bipartisan support to make it to the president’s desk. That said, amidst the new climate surrounding tax extenders on Capitol Hill. several lawmakers have alluded that bipartisan negotiations could result in any number of tax provisions being added to the anticipated tax package, including technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Staking Ground on Extenders
"Right now, what is happening is that parties are staking their ground," Acuña said. While Neal’s bill was largely seen on Capitol Hill as an opening bid to these negotiations, "no one opens with their best offer," Acuña said. However, "there is common ground with respect to tax extenders," she added.

Additionally, Acuña noted that these temporary tax provisions benefit a broad range of constituents. "They have been extended historically without fail for a reason. And it is because there has typically been general bipartisan support for extenders; there is a little bit of something for everyone" she said.

However, as for which tax extenders will be renewed this year, as well as retroactively or all together forgotten, Grassley recently indicated that all eligible provisions will likely make the cut. "I would expect that as of right now, if there is an extenders package there won’t be anything left out," Grassley told reporters.

When asked if Grassley was likely referring to all expired or soon-to-be expired tax incentives spanning from 2017 to 2019, Acuña told Wolters Kluwer "that would seem to be the case." While discussing the possibility of yet another temporary extension, Acuña noted that it is hard to make policy calls on a temporary tax extenders package.

"If you want a drama free negotiation on temporary extensions, it’s a clean date change. It is easier – you do not have a policy debate," she said. "If there is an opportunity for a tax title to be attached to a larger bill this year, it is infinitely harder to include changes that some Members of Congress will not like than it is to just do what has been done in the past and kick the can down the road by temporarily extending everything."

In looking ahead, deciding which temporary tax provisions get the axe is a policy call that is unlikely to be made this year and will not easily be done on a bipartisan basis, according to Acuña.

To Pay For or Not to Pay For
As for tax extenders’ cost, the issue of pay-fors has not generally been a longwinded discussion among lawmakers. "In the past, there have been very short-lived debates on whether to pay for them," Acuña said, adding that extenders generally have not been paid for. "It is hard to find a way to raise the kind of money needed to pay for a tax extenders bill that would be politically palatable for both sides of the aisle."

However, cost can be a leading issue when Congress creates these tax breaks on a temporary rather than permanent basis, Acuña explained. "In theory, everyone might agree that a tax incentive is excellent tax policy, but because of revenue constraints, Congress will not or cannot pay for it on a permanent basis—and that is usually where Congress lands in this temporary tax policy pickle."

Additionally, Acuna highlighted that many of the individual tax cuts under the TCJA were enacted temporarily through 2025 due to budgetary reasons. "A lot of the TCJA provisions gave life to new expiring provisions," Acuña noted. Likening the TCJA’s individual provisions to the long list of tax extenders currently awaiting possible renewal, Acuña noted that tax policy is not usually made temporary "because the members viewed the underlying tax policy as unsound but because of other constraints."

The End for Tax Extenders?
Many Republican and Democratic lawmakers’ have called for an end to tax extenders, citing to the annual year-end dash to renew temporary tax provisions as bad tax policy overall. Indeed, five taskforces comprised of bipartisan SFC members recently reviewed these tax extenders and largely agreed that temporary tax policy in general is less than ideal. While many House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress and those before it, have agreed that enacting permanent tax invectives is better policy than doing so temporarily, actually getting there remains a challenge, even if just procedurally.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

QBI Deduction and Rental Real Estate
Under Code Sec. 199A, certain noncorporate taxpayers can deduct up to 20 percent of the taxpayer’s QBI from each of the taxpayer's qualified trades or businesses, including those operated through a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. Certain relevant passthrough entities (RPEs) (partnerships, S corporations, trust funds) calculate the deduction and pass it along to their owners or beneficiaries. A qualified trade or business is generally any trade or business under Code Sec. 162, but not a specified service trade or business (SSTB) or a trade or business of performing services as an employee.

Rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property (i.e., rental activity) that is not a Code Sec. 162 trade or business is still treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if the property is rented or licensed to a trade or business conducted by the individual or a RPE which is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4 ( Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14)).

Earlier this year, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure with a safe harbor for treating a rental real estate enterprise as a trade or business under Code Sec. 199A ( Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740). The IRS has issued the new revenue procedure after considering public comments on Notice 2019-7.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise
The new safe harbor applies to a "rental real estate enterprise." This is an interest in real property held for the production of rents, and may consist of an interest in a single property or interests in multiple properties. The taxpayer or RPE must hold each interest directly or through a disregarded entity, and may either:

• treat each interest in similar property held for the production of rents as a separate rental real estate enterprise; or
• treat interests in all similar properties held for the production of rents as a single rental real estate enterprise.

Properties are similar if they are part of the same rental real estate category: either residential or commercial. Commercial real estate held for the production of rents can only be part of the same enterprise with other commercial real estate. Residential properties can only be part of the same enterprise with other residential properties.

A taxpayer or RPE that treats interests in similar properties as a single rental real estate enterprise must continue to treat interests in all similar properties, including newly acquired properties, as a single rental real estate enterprise if it continues to rely on the safe harbor. However, a taxpayer or RPE that chooses to treat its interest in each residential or commercial property as a separate rental real estate enterprise can choose to treat its interests in all similar commercial or all similar residential properties as a single rental real estate enterprise in a future year.

An interest in mixed-use property—a single building that combines residential and commercial units—can be treated as a single rental real estate enterprise, or bifurcated into separate residential and commercial interests. A mixed-use property interest that is treated as a single rental real estate enterprise cannot be treated as part of the same enterprise as other residential, commercial, or mixed-use property.

Safe Harbor Requirements
The safe harbor determination must be made annually. For a rental real estate enterprise to qualify for the safe harbor, all of the following requirements must be met during the tax year:

• Separate books and records are maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise. If an enterprise has more than one property, the requirement can be met if income and expense information statements for each property are maintained and then consolidated.
• For rental real estate enterprises in existence for less than four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year. For rental real estate enterprises in existence for at least four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
• The taxpayer maintains contemporaneous records (including time reports, logs, or similar documents) on the hours of all services performed, a description of all services performed, the dates when the services were performed, and who performed the services. For services performed by employees or independent contractors, the taxpayer may provide a description of the rental services, the amount of time generally spent performing the services, and the time, wage, or payment records for the employee or independent contractor. Records must be made available for inspection at the IRS's request. (The contemporaneous records requirement does not apply to tax years that begin before January 1, 2020.)
• For each tax year for which it relies on the safe harbor, the taxpayer or RPE must attach a statement to a timely filed original return (or an amended return for the 2018 tax year only) that includes: (i) a description (including the address and rental category) of all rental real estate properties in each rental real estate enterprise; (ii) a description (including the address and rental category) of rental real estate properties acquired and disposed of during the tax year; and (iii) a representation that the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2019-38 have been satisfied.

"Rental services" include, but are not limited to:

• advertising to rent or lease the real estate;
• negotiating and executing leases;
• verifying information contained in prospective tenant applications;
• collecting rent;
• daily operation, maintenance, and repair of the property, including purchasing materials and
• supplies;
• managing the real estate; and
• supervising employees and independent contractors.

Rental services does not include:

• financial or investment management activities, such as arranging financing;
• procuring property;
• studying and reviewing financial statements or reports on operations;
• improving property under Reg. §1.263(a)-3(d); or
• time spent traveling to and from the real estate.

If an enterprise fails to satisfy the safe harbor requirements, it can still be treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if it otherwise meets the trade or business definition in Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14).

Property Excluded From Safe Harbor
The safe harbor does not apply to:

• real estate used by the taxpayer (including an owner or beneficiary of an RPE) as a residence under Code Sec. 280A(d);
• real estate rented or leased under a triple net lease, which includes a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to pay for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities;
• real estate rented to a trade or business conducted by a taxpayer or an RPE that is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4(b)(1)(i); or
• the entire rental real estate interest, if any portion of it is treated as an SSTB under Reg. §1.199A-5(c)(2).

Effective Date
The safe harbor applies to tax years ending after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers and RPEs can rely on the prior safe harbor in Notice 2019-7 for the 2018 tax year.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency. Under the cryptocurrency guidance:

• a taxpayer does not have gross income from a "hard fork" of the taxpayer's cryptocurrency if the taxpayer does not receive units of a new cryptocurrency; and
• a taxpayer has ordinary income as a result of an "airdrop" of a new cryptocurrency following a hard fork if the taxpayer receives units of the new cryptocurrency.

The IRS has posted the FAQs on its website ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions).

Virtual Currency and Cryptocurrency
Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency.

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality.

Hard Forks and Air Drops
A hard fork occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger.

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. A hard fork followed by an airdrop results in the distribution of units of the new cryptocurrency to addresses containing the legacy cryptocurrency. Note, however, that a hard fork is not always followed by an airdrop.

Cryptocurrency from an airdrop generally is received on the date and at the time it is recorded on the distributed ledger. However, a taxpayer may constructively receive cryptocurrency prior to the airdrop being recorded on the distributed ledger. A taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency.

Gross Income
If the taxpayer did not receive units of new cryptocurrency from a hard fork, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth and does not have gross income as a result of the hard fork.

If the taxpayer receives units of new cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, the taxpayer received a new asset. Therefore, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth and has ordinary income in the year in which the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency. The taxpayer includes in gross income the fair market value of the cryptocurrency received. The taxpayer’s basis in the new cryptocurrency is the amount of income recognized.

Schedule 1, Form 1040 for 2019
A draft of the 2019 Form 1040, Schedule 1, "Additional Income and Adjustments to Income," includes a question which asks: "At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?" If an individual has engaged in any virtual currency transaction in 2019, he or she must check the “Yes” box next to the question.

If the taxpayer has disposed of any virtual currency that was held as a capital asset, he or she must use Form 8949 to figure the capital gain or loss and report it on Schedule D (Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR). If the taxpayer has received any virtual currency as compensation for services, or disposed of any virtual currency that he or she held for sale to customers in a trade or business, the taxpayer must report the income as he or she would report other income of the same type.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

In 2018, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit against the IRS and Treasury alleging that the SALT cap violates the federalism principles that undergird the U.S. Constitution. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on September 30 that the SALT cap is not an unconstitutional infringement of state power.

The states’ primary concern stemmed from the claim that the introduction of the SALT cap could impair each of the states’ ability to pursue its own preferred tax policies. However, the court noted that Congress lawfully enacted the SALT cap pursuant to its broad tax powers under Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that the cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others. However, the cap, like every other feature of the federal tax code, is a part of the landscape of federal law with which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers, according to Oetken. Because the states failed to plausibly allege that the cap, more so than any other major federal initiative, meaningfully constrains this decision-making process, the district court had no basis for concluding that the SALT cap is unconstitutionally coercive.

Background
In 2017, President Trump signed into law sweeping tax reform legislation informally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which made several substantial amendments to the federal tax code. Among other things, the TCJA placed an upper limit of $10,000 on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from their federal tax income to offset those sums they have paid toward certain state and local taxes (the "SALT cap"). As enacted, the SALT cap is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.

Democrats on Capitol Hill Prepare to Move SALT Cap Repeal Bill
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to move a SALT cap repeal bill when Congress returns from its two-week recess. Specifically, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. has proposed repealing the SALT cap and raising the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, where it previously sat. Additionally, Pascrell recently told reporters that House Democrats will likely propose a temporary repeal of the SALT cap as a "compromise."

At this time, however, any Democratic-backed measure to repeal or scale back the SALT cap is expected to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

• a partner’s share of a recourse liability of the partnership equals the partner’s share of the liability under the rules of Code Sec. 752 and the related regulations; and
• a partner’s share of a nonrecourse liability of the partnership is determined by applying the same percentage used to determine the partner’s share of the excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2)).

Executive Order Triggers Reversion Back to Prior Disguised Sale Rules
In October 2016, the IRS issued final and temporary regulations (707 Temporary Regulations) under which a partnership would determine all partnership liabilities for disguised sales purposes—both recourse and nonrecourse—by applying the same percentage used to determine a partner’s share of excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( T.D. 9788).

In April 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789) on reducing tax regulatory burdens. In response, the IRS identified the final and temporary regulations in T.D. 9788 as implicating some of those regulatory burdens. In turn, in 2018 Proposed Regulations, the IRS proposed to withdraw the 707 Temporary Regulations and reinstate the regulations under Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2) described above. Now, the IRS has adopted the 2018 Proposed Regulations, thereby reinstating the Prior 707 rules.

Treasury and the IRS will continue to study the merits of the approach in the 707 Temporary Regulations and other approaches, including the final regulations, to determine which results in the most appropriate treatment of liabilities in the context of disguised sales.

Effective Dates
The final regulations apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 4, 2019, the date that the 707 Temporary Regulations expire. However, partnerships and their partners may apply the final regulations to any transaction where all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, the applicable date of the 707 Temporary Regulations.

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

FINAL REGULATIONS: Written Binding Contract Rules
Constructed property. The proposed regulations provided that property manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract entered into prior to the manufacture, etc., of the property is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Thus, if the contract was entered into before September 28, 2017, the 100 bonus rate did not apply.

That rule was scrapped in response to negative feedback. Instead the final regulations provide that such property is treated as self-constructed property, and the contract is ignored for purposes of determining when the property is deemed acquired. The acquisition date is now the date that the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property as determined under rules similar to those that apply to 50 percent bonus property.

Acquisition date. The final regulations provide that the acquisition date of property acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the later of:

• the date on which the contract is entered into;
• the date on which the contract is enforceable under state law;
• if the contract has one or more cancellation periods, the date on which all cancellation periods end; or
• if the contract has one or more contingency clauses, the date on which all conditions subject to such clauses are satisfied.

Liquidated damage clause. When a contract has multiple damage provisions, the final regulations clarify that only the provision with the highest damages is taken into account in determining whether the contract limits damages.

Qualified Improvement Property
The IRS once again declined to make qualified improvement property placed in service after 2017 eligible for bonus depreciation. A legislative change is required to give this property its intended 15-year recovery period. With a 15-year recovery period, qualified improvement property will qualify for bonus depreciation under the general rule that allows bonus depreciation on property with an MACRS recovery period of 20 years or less.

Used Property
Predecessor defined. Property previously used by the taxpayer or a predecessor of a taxpayer does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the taxpayer or predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property. The final regulations define "predecessor" as:

• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies;
• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction in which the transferee’s basis in the asset is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the asset in the transferor’s hands;
• a partnership that is considered as continuing under Code Sec. 708(b)(2);
• the decedent in the case of an asset acquired by an estate; or
• a transferor of an asset to a trust.

Depreciable interest look back rule. The final regulations do not define a "depreciable interest" because this is a facts and circumstances issue. However, a five-year look back period is provided for determining whether a taxpayer or predecessor held a depreciable interest in property.

Substantially renovated property. If a taxpayer places substantially renovated property in service and the taxpayer or a predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property before it was substantially renovated, the taxpayer’s or predecessor’s prior depreciable interest does not prevent the taxpayer from claiming bonus depreciation. Property is substantially renovated if the cost of the used parts is not more than 20 percent of the total cost of the substantially renovated property, whether acquired or self-constructed.

Syndication transactions. A lessor who reacquires property in a syndication transaction is not treated as having a prior depreciable interest in the property.

Partnerships
The final regulations permit a partnership to claim bonus depreciation on the portion of a Code Sec. 743(b) basis increase that is attributable to built-in gain under Code Sec. 704(c), even if the partnership is using the remedial allocation method. An exception is provided for publicly traded partnerships that need to maintain fungibility for publicly traded partnership units.

If a partnership interest is acquired and disposed of during the same tax year, the bonus deduction is not allowed for any Code Sec. 743(b) adjustment arising from the initial acquisition. However, if a partnership interest is purchased and disposed of in a "step-in-the shoes" Code Sec. 168(i)(7) transaction in the same tax year, bonus on the section 743(b) adjustment is allowed. The section 743(b) adjustment is apportioned between the purchaser/transferor and the transferee.

The final regulations also clarify the treatment of qualified property transferred in a Code Sec. 721(a) transaction to a partnership in the same tax year that the qualified property is acquired by the transferor if the partnership has another partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the qualified property. In this situation, the qualified property is deemed placed in service by the transferor during that tax year, and the bonus deduction is allocated entirely to the transferor and not to the partnership. Thus, the contributing partner has contributed property with a zero basis to the partnership, and the contributed property is Code Sec. 704(c) property in the hands of the partnership.

Film, Television, and Theatrical Productions
The final regulations clarify that a used qualified film, television, or live theatrical production does not qualify for bonus depreciation. Also, the basis of a qualified film, television, or live theatrical production is reduced by the deduction claimed under Code Sec. 181 before computing the bonus deduction.

Using ADS
Using the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to determine the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s qualified business investment (under Code Sec. 250(b)(2)(B) or Code Sec. 951A(d)(3)) or the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s tangible assets for allocating business interests expense between excepted and non-excepted trades or businesses (under Code Sec. 163(j)) does not cause a taxpayer’s tangible property to be ineligible for bonus depreciation.

Public Utility Property
An example is added to clarify that the 100 percent bonus rate does not apply to self-constructed property of a regulated public utility if construction begins after September 27, 2017, and the property is placed in service in a tax year beginning after 2017.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, provided the taxpayer consistently applies all rules in the final regulations. Additionally, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations issued on August 8, 2018, to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, in tax years ending before the date of publication of the final regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Acquired and Self-Constructed Components
A taxpayer may elect to treat components of a larger self-constructed property that are acquired or self constructed after September 27, 2017, as eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate, even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger self-constructed began before September 28, 2017. The larger property must be eligible for bonus depreciation at the 50 percent rate.

Businesses With Floor Plan Financing
Property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the floor plan financing interest related to the indebtedness is taken into account under Code Sec. 163(j)(1)(C) in determining the allowable business interest deduction.

The proposals provide rules for determining whether interest in floor plan financing indebtedness has been taken into account during a tax year. In general, floor plan interest is not considered taken into account for a tax year if the sum of interest business income for the tax year and 30 percent of the adjusted taxable income for the tax year equals or exceeds business interest as defined in Code Sec. 163(j)(5). The proposals clarify that the determination of whether a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness has taken floor plan financing interest into account is made annually.

Leased Property
The proposals clarify that taxpayers leasing property to a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness or a rate-regulated utility may claim bonus depreciation. The taxpayer, however, may not be a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that prevents it from claiming bonus depreciation or a rate-regulated utility.

Used Property
Five-year lookback. A safe harbor provides that a taxpayer who disposes of property within 90 days after placing it in service did not hold a prior depreciable interest in the property. Consequently, the property is eligible for bonus depreciation if subsequently reacquired.

Partnerships. A taxpayer has a prior depreciable interest in a portion of property if the taxpayer was a partner in a partnership at any time the partnership owned the property. The amount of the prior depreciable interest is based on the partner’s total share of depreciation deductions with respect to the property.

Series of related transactions. Special rules in the original proposed regulations governing the treatment of a series of related transactions for purposes of the used property acquisition requirements are modified and expanded.

Consolidated groups. Significant clarifications to the rules governing the used property acquisition requirements for consolidated groups are also made.

Written Binding Contract Rules
Property not acquired pursuant to a contract. The acquisition date of property that is not acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the date on which the taxpayer paid or incurred more than 10 percent of the total cost of the property. The cost of land and preliminary activities are excluded from cost for this purpose.

Purchase of entities. Binding contract rules that apply to the purchase of an entity are proposed. The current binding contract rules only deal with purchases of assets.

A contract to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a trade or business, or to acquire an entity such as a corporation, a partnership, or a limited liability company, is binding if it is enforceable under state law against the parties to the contract. The presence of a condition outside the parties’ control (including, for example, regulatory agency approval) will not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. Further, the fact that insubstantial terms remain to be negotiated by the parties to the contract, or that customary conditions remain to be satisfied, does not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. This proposed rule also applies to a contract for the sale of the stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as a result of a deemed asset acquisition election under Code Sec. 338.

Long Production Property
The proposals provide rules for determining qualifying basis attributable to the manufacture, construction, or production of long production property and certain aircraft eligible for an extended placed in service deadline.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The mid-quarter convention applies to property placed in service during the tax year if 40 percent or more of the basis of the property was placed in service in the last three months of the tax year. The proposals clarify that the basis of property is not reduced by the 100 percent bonus allowance. This rule has always applied to 50 percent bonus property.

Effective Date of Proposals
In general, the proposed regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date the proposals are finalized. A taxpayer may rely on the proposals in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017.

Proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of income and deduction items in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would:

• simplify the application of Code Sec. 382;
• provide more certainty to taxpayers in determining built-in gains and losses for Code Sec. 382(h) purposes; and
• ensure that the application of certain law changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA) does not further complicate the application of Code Sec. 382(h).

Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are issued. When these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, it is expected that Notice 87-79, 1987-2 CB 387, Notice 90-27, 1990-1 CB 336, Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, and Notice 2018-30, 2018-21 I.R.B. 610, will be withdrawn and declared obsolete.

Built-in Gains and Losses
Generally, Code Sec. 382 imposes a value-based limitation (section 382 limitation) on the ability of a loss corporation to offset its taxable income in periods subsequent to an ownership change with losses attributable to periods prior to that ownership change.

Code Sec. 382(h) provides rules relating to the determination of a loss corporation’s built-in gains and losses as of the date of the ownership change (change date). In general, built-in gains recognized during the five-year period beginning on the change date (recognition period) allow a loss corporation to increase its section 382 limitation. Built-in losses recognized during the recognition period are subject to the loss corporation’s section 382 limitation.

Specifically, if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG), the section 382 limitation for any tax year ending during the recognition period is increased by the recognized built-in gain (RBIG) for the year, with cumulative increases limited to the amount of the NUBIG. If a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), the use of any recognized built-in loss (RBIL) during the recognition period is subject to the section 382 limitation.

IRS Guidance and TCJA
Notice 2003-65 provides interim guidance on the identification of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). This notice permits taxpayers to rely on safe harbor approaches for applying Code Sec. 382(h) to an ownership change prior to the effective date of temporary or final regulations issued under that provision.

Notice 2003-65 provides (i) a single safe harbor for computing the NUBIG or NUBIL of a loss corporation, based on principles underlying the calculation of net recognized built-in gain under Code Sec. 1374, and (ii) two safe harbors for the computation of a loss corporation’s RBIG or RBIL: the 1374 approach and the 338 approach.

The 1374 approach identifies RBIG and RBIL at the time of the disposition of a loss corporation’s assets during the recognition period. Generally, this approach relies on accrual method of accounting principles to identify built-in income and deduction items at the time of the ownership change, with certain exceptions.

In contrast, the 338 approach identifies items of RBIG and RBIL generally by comparing the loss corporation’s actual items of income, gain, deduction, and loss recognized during the recognition period with those that would have been recognized had an election under Code Sec. 338 (section 338 election) been made with respect to a hypothetical purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the loss corporation on the change date.

Taxpayers may rely on either the 338 approach or the 1374 approach until the IRS issues temporary or final regulations under Code Sec. 382(h). Compared to the 338 approach, the accrual-based 1374 approach is simpler to apply and administer and provides greater certainty for taxpayers.

Prior to the issuance of Notice 2003-65, the IRS had issued Notice 87-79 and Notice 90-27, which provided much more limited guidance regarding the determination of built-in gains and losses. After the TCJA, the IRS issued Notice 2018-30, which makes the 338 approach unavailable when computing items arising from bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k).

The law changes made by the TCJA created additional uncertainty regarding the application of Code Sec. 382 in general, and Notice 2003-65 in particular. Specifically, certain important changes under the TCJA could potentially compromise the mechanics of the 338 approach and further complicate its application.

1374 Approach
For purposes of computing NUBIG and NUBIL, the proposed regulations would adopt as mandatory the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65, with certain modifications. These modifications would include technical fixes to calculations involving cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income, deductions for contingent liabilities, and cost recovery deductions. Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that carryovers of Code Sec. 163(j) disallowed business interest are counted only once for purposes of Code Sec. 382.

The modifications to the existing NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach would ensure greater consistency between:

• amounts that are included in the NUBIG/NUBIL computation; and
• items that could become RBIG or RBIL during the recognition period.

Comment 
According to the IRS, the proposed regulations would modestly restrict net operating loss usage by reducing the amount that would qualify as RBIG, reducing the incentive to engage in inefficient, tax-motivated mergers and acquisitions.

NUBIG or NUBIL Computation
The proposed rules for the computation of NUBIG/NUBIL would capture a range of items that closely tracks the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor computation in Notice 2003-65. However, the component steps of the proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would be more explicit, as follows:

• The proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would first take into account the aggregate amount that would be realized in a hypothetical disposition of all of the loss corporation’s assets in two steps treated as taking place immediately before the ownership change:
  • —Step 1: the loss corporation would be treated as satisfying any inadequately secured nonrecourse liability by surrendering to each creditor the assets securing such debt.
  • —Step 2 : the loss corporation would be treated as selling all remaining assets pertinent to the NUBIG/NUBIL computation in a sale to an unrelated third party, with the hypothetical buyer assuming no amount of the seller’s liabilities.
  • That total hypothetical amount realized by the loss corporation pursuant to Steps 1 and 2, above, would be then decreased by (i) the sum of the loss corporation’s deductible liabilities (both fixed and contingent), and (ii) the loss corporation’s basis in its assets.
  • Finally, the decreased hypothetical total would be then increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following:
  • —(i) the net amount of the total RBIG and RBIL income and deduction items that could be recognized during the recognition period (excluding COD income); and
  • —(ii) the net amount of positive and negative section 481 adjustments that would be required to be included on the previously-described hypothetical disposal of all of the loss corporation’s assets.

The proposed regulations generally would not allow COD income to be included in the calculation of NUBIG/NUBIL, but would provide certain exceptions.

RBIG and RBIL Items
As mentioned above, the proposed regulations would apply a methodology for identifying RBIG or RBIL that closely tracks the accrual based 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65. However, the proposed regulations would significantly modify the 1374 approach to include as RBIL the amount of any deductible contingent liabilities paid or accrued during the recognition period, to the extent of the estimated value of those liabilities on the change date.

The proposed regulations also would add a rule clarifying that certain items do not constitute RBIG (such as dividends paid during the recognition period). In addition, limitations would be provided on the extent to which excluded COD income is treated as RBIG. Further, the proposed regulations would provide two different RBIG ceilings with regard to COD on recourse debt, and would provide special rules for COD income on nonrecourse debt.

Finally, rules would be provided for the interaction between Code Sec. 163(j) and Code Sec. 382. To eliminate the possibility of duplication of RBIL items, the proposed regulations would provide that Code Sec. 382 disallowed business interest carryforwards would not be treated as RBIL if such amounts were allowable as a deduction during the recognition period. The proposed regulations also would clarify the treatment of certain items allocated from a partnership.

Applicability Date
The regulations are proposed to be effective for ownership changes occurring after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers and their related parties may apply these proposed regulations to any ownership change occurring during a tax year with respect to which the period described in Code Sec. 6511(a) has not expired, so long as the taxpayers and all of their related parties consistently apply the rules of these proposed regulations to such ownership change and all subsequent ownership changes that occur before the applicability date of the final regulations.

Comments and Requests for Hearing
Written or electronic comments must be received by November 9, 2019. Written or electronic requests for a public hearing and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by November 9, 2019. Electronic submissions must be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-125710-18) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Treasury and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to its public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.

Hard copy submissions must be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125710-18), Room 5203, Post Office Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (indicate REG-125710-18), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The final regulations:

• reflect statutory changes affecting Code Sec. 401(k) plans, including changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123); and
• affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of plans that include cash or deferred arrangements or provide for employee or matching contributions.

Deemed Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need. The final regulations:

• add "primary beneficiary under the plan" as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
• modify the expense listed in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to provide that the limitations in Code Sec. 165(h)(5) do not apply for this purpose; and
• add to the list a new type of expense, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

Distribution Necessary to Satisfy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need, by:

• eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution; and
• eliminating any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.

In particular, the final regulations, like the proposed regulations, eliminate the safe harbor in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E), under which a distribution is deemed necessary to satisfy the financial need only if elective contributions and employee contributions are suspended for at least six months after a hardship distribution is made and, if available, nontaxable plan loans are taken before the hardship distribution is made.

Expanded Sources for Hardship Distributions
The final regulations modify existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3) to permit hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned.

Section 403(b) Plans
A hardship distribution of Code Sec. 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3). Accordingly, the preamble to the proposed regulations had stated that the new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Code Sec. 401(k) plan generally apply to Code Sec. 403(b) plans. Because this requirement is retained in the final regulations, at Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B), it applies to Code Sec. 403(b) plans.

Applicability Dates
The changes to the hardship distribution rules made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Plan Amendments
The Treasury Department and IRS expect that plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions to reflect the final regulations, and any such amendment must be effective for distributions beginning no later than January 1, 2020. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Rev. Proc. 2016-37, I.R.B. 2016-29,136.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

Year-by-Year Application
The proposed regulations provide that the AFS income inclusion rule generally applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS when the timing of income inclusion for one or more items of income is determined using the all events test. They further clarify that the AFS income inclusion rule applies only to taxpayers that have one or more AFS covering the entire tax year.

The AFS income inclusion rule applies on a year-by-year basis and, therefore, an accrual taxpayer with an AFS in one tax year that does not have an AFS in another tax year must apply the AFS income inclusion rule in the tax year that it has an AFS, and does not apply the rule in the tax year in which it does not have an AFS.

No Change to Income Tax Treatment
The proposed regulations also clarify that AFS income inclusion rule does not change the treatment of a transaction for federal income tax purposes:

• The treatment of a transaction or event in a tax year may be different for federal income tax and AFS purposes.
• The applicability of any exclusion provision, or the treatment of nonrecognition transactions, in the Code, the Income Tax Regulations, or other guidance does not change.

Partial Payment
The proposed regulations provide that an amount included in the transaction price for AFS purposes may not be treated as contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event if the taxpayer has been paid or has an equitable, contractual, or other right to partial payment for performance completed to date. Additionally, that transaction price may not be reduced for amounts subject to Code Sec. 461, including reward amounts in credit card transactions.

Special Methods and Multi-Year Contracts
The proposed regulations clarify that when a taxpayer uses a special method of accounting, the special method of accounting determines the timing of the income inclusion.

Proposed regulations also provide guidance for taxpayers with a financial reporting period that is different than the taxpayer’s tax year. The taxpayer must use one of three permissible methods in order to determine whether an item of income has been included in revenue on an AFS.

For a contract with multiple performance obligations, the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation equals the amount allocated to each performance obligation for purposes of including the item in revenue in the taxpayer's AFS. The proposed regulations clarify that a transaction price does not include amounts collected on behalf of third parties, or amounts that are contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event.

A taxpayer with a multi-year contract applies the all events test by applying a cumulative approach reflecting amounts previously included under Code Sec. 451 rather than an annualized approach.

Fees
Under the proposed regulations if the taxpayer does not treat a fee as discount or as an adjustment to the yield of a debt instrument over the life of the instrument (such as points) in its AFS, and the fee otherwise would be treated as creating or increasing original issue discount (OID) for federal income tax purposes (specified fee), then the rules in the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 451(b) apply before the rules in Code Secs. 1271 through Code Sec. 1275. Removing specified fees and specified credit card fees from the calculation of OID will permit taxpayers to apply only the rules of Code Sec. 451(b) to these fees, without also having to apply the rules relevant to OID.

The proposed section regulations would not apply to determine the time at which OID generally is includible in income.

Effective Date
The regulations are proposed generally to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, in the case of a specified fee, Proposed Reg. §1.451-3(i)(2) is proposed to apply for a taxpayer’s first tax year beginning one year after the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final is published in the Federal Register.

A taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations (other than the proposed regulations relating to specified fees) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 (after December 31, 2018, for specified credit card fees), as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in the proposed regulations for specified credit card fees; and (2) consistently applies the proposed regulations to all items of income during the tax year (other than specified fees).

Proposed regulations provide rules for accrual method taxpayers who receive advance payments. The proposed regulations include provisions affecting both taxpayers both with and without applicable financial statements (AFS), and describe and clarify the statutory requirements of Code Sec. 451(c).

Similar to Rev. Proc. 2004-34
The proposed regulations include many provisions similar to those of Rev. Proc. 2004-34, I.R.B. 2004-22, 991. For example the proposed regulations:

• provide a similar deferral method for non-AFS taxpayers;
• provide a list of items excluded from the definition of advance payment;
• provide rules consistent with Rev. Proc. 2004-34 to ensure the acceleration of an advance payment when a taxpayer dies or ceases to exist, or when a taxpayer’s obligation is satisfied or otherwise ends; and
• use the short tax year rules of Rev. Proc. 2004-34 for the AFS and non-AFS deferral methods
  The proposed regulations also provide additional definitions and clarifications.

Change in Accounting Method
The IRS intends to provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may change its method of accounting to use one of the deferral methods described in these proposed regulations. Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 2004-34, as described in Notice 2018-35, I.R.B. 2018-18, 520.

Effective Date
The proposed regulations are to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. Until the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register, a taxpayer may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in these proposed regulations, and (2) consistently applies these proposed regulations to all advance payments.

On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

Reworked IRS Reform Bill

The Senate approved the Taxpayer First Act by voice vote on June 13. The measure was unanimously approved in the House on June 10.

The reworked IRS reform bill, originally introduced in the last Congress, was revised in early June after the House passed a prior version in April. However, the original House-approved bill (HR 1957) was quickly doomed in the Senate because of controversy surrounding the IRS’s Free File program.

The provision codifying the IRS’s Free File program was removed from the original bill, and the measure was reintroduced as HR 3151. Congress then quickly sent it to the president’s desk.

Taxpayer First Act Provisions

The Taxpayer First Act aims to reform the IRS into a more taxpayer-friendly agency. It requires the IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy, as well as a plan to redesign the IRS’s structure, modernize its technology, and enhance its cyber security.

The measure also:

• codifies and enhances an independent Office of Appeals within the IRS;
• waives the application fee for an offer in compromise (OIC) by a low-income taxpayer;
• sets new electronic filing requirements;
• clarifies information available about low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs);
• codifies the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program;
• requires notice regarding the closure of taxpayer assistance centers (TACs);
• improves the IRS whistleblower program;
• modifies the private debt collection program;
• clarifies procedures for equitable relief from joint liability;
• establishes new safeguards on seizing funds believed to be structured to avoid the $10,000 financial reporting requirement; and
• modifies procedures for the issuance of summons and notice of third-party contacts by the IRS.

Hill Reaction

"This signing is the culmination of a lengthy, bipartisan process undertaken by the [House] Ways and Means Committee to implement pro-taxpayer reforms at the IRS for the first time in more than 20 years," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a July 1 statement. "New protections for low-income taxpayers, practical enforcement reforms, and upgraded assistance for taxpayers and small businesses will all now go into place."

Additionally, the House’s top Republican tax writer issued a statement after Trump signed the IRS reform legislation. "I’m proud that after three years of thoughtful bipartisan work, our bold package of reforms to the Internal Revenue Service are the law of the land," Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said on July 1. "Thank you to President Trump for signing this historic legislation, which is the biggest and boldest step in over 20 years to redesign and restructure the IRS into an agency with a singular mission – quality taxpayer service."

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

ACA Cadillac Tax Repeal

The Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Bill (HR 748) cleared the House on the evening of July 17 by a 419-to-6 vote. The bipartisan bill would repeal the 40 percent excise tax under the ACA known as the "Cadillac tax" on certain high-cost employer-sponsored health care plans.

Congress has repeatedly delayed the ACA’s "Cadillac" tax, which is currently set to go into effect in 2022. However, HR 748 would fully repeal the tax.

Although the measure has bipartisan support in the Senate, as for when it will get its legs in the upper chamber remains to be seen. Lately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., has been viewed on Capitol Hill as focusing more on moving nominations than considering tax bills.

HR 748’s Large Price Tag May Signal Hope for Tax Extenders

Notably, HR 748 dodged House Democrats’ "pay as you go" rules for tax legislation, thus carrying with it a large price tag with no offsets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the bill would cost the federal government more than $196 billion over 10 years.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has signaled that Democrats’ support for repealing the ACA’s "Cadillac"tax without pay-fors may signal a newly opened door for tax extenders. Grassley has consistently expressed that he is focused on addressing the previously and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders but has been waiting for the Democratic controlled House to send such a bill, noting that tax legislation must originate in the House.

However, House Democrats’ tax extenders bill, the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Bill of 2019 (HR 3301) would offset its costs by causing the GOP tax law’s increase in estate tax exemption amounts to sunset early at the beginning of 2023. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the estate tax provisions would expire at the start of 2026.

The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee last month but has not yet reached the House floor. Senate Republicans have called any proposal to repeal provisions under the TCJA a "nonstarter."

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The Treasury Department and the IRS had issued the temporary regulations ( T.D. 9766) to clarify that the rule that a disregarded entity is treated as a corporation for employment tax purposes does not apply to the self-employment tax treatment of any individuals who are partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity. The temporary regulations continued to explicitly provide that the owner of a disregarded entity who is treated as a sole proprietor for income tax purposes is subject to self-employment taxes. A notice of proposed rulemaking ( REG-114307-15) cross-referencing T.D. 9766was published on the same day.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations as amended. The corresponding temporary regulations are removed.

Disregarded Entity

These regulations affect partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity, and contain amendments to 26 CFR part 301. Generally, under Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(i) and except as otherwise provided, a business entity that has a single owner and is not a corporation under Reg. §301.7701-2(b)is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner (a disregarded entity). However, Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) treats a disregarded entity as a corporation for purposes of employment taxes imposed under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. This exception to the treatment of disregarded entities does not apply to taxes imposed under Subtitle A of the Code, including self-employment taxes.

Effective Date

These regulations are effective on July 2, 2019.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Why Truncate?

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-113) amended Code Sec. 6051(a)(2) by replacing the requirement that employers include employees’ SSNs on copies of Forms W-2 furnished to employees with a requirement to use an "identifying number for the employee."Because the SSN was no longer required to appear on Forms W-2 furnished to employees, the IRS published proposed regulations in 2017 to allow employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on those Forms W-2 ( REG-105004-16). The amendments were intended to aid employers’ efforts to protect employees from identity theft.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without substantive changes to the content of the rules.

SSN Truncation on Forms W-2

The final regulations permit employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on copies of:

• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid, employment taxes withheld, etc.;
• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance;
• Forms W-2 furnished to payees to report third-party sick pay; and
• Forms W-2c furnished to correct errors on Forms W-2.

The regulations do not apply to any other forms. Also, truncation is not mandatory; the regulations permit truncation but do not require it.

Under the general truncation rules, a TTIN cannot be used on a statement or document if a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions:

• specifically requires use of an SSN, IRS individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), IRS adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or IRS employer identification number (EIN); and
• does not specifically permit truncation.

For instance, an employer cannot truncate an employee’s SSN on copies of Forms W-2 filed with the Social Security Administration.

The IRS intends to incorporate the revised regulations into forms and instructions.

Effective Date; Applicability Date

The final regulations are effective on July 3, 2019, but when they apply varies. Reg. §31.6051-1, Reg. §31.6051-3, and Reg. §1.6052-2, as amended, apply for statements required to be filed and furnished under Code Sec. 6051 and Code Sec. 6052 after December 31, 2020. Reg. §31.6051-2, as amended, applies on July 3, 2019. Reg. §301.6109-4, as amended, applies to returns, statements, and other documents required to be filed or furnished after December 31, 2020.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

Partners and S shareholders who receive the credit (i.e., are the ultimate credit claimants) must make income inclusions in proportion to their share of the credit.

No Basis Increase for Partners and S Shareholders

The regulations resolve a contentious issue against taxpayers. They provide that a partner’s income inclusions are not treated as an item of partnership income under subchapter K. A similar rule applies to S corporations. Therefore, basis adjustment rules that would increase a partner’s outside basis or S shareholder’stock basis if the income inclusion amounts were treated as items of income do not apply. The IRS says its interpretation is appropriate because the investment credit and limitations on the investment credit are determined at the partner and S shareholder level.

Coordination With Recapture Rules

If a recapture event occurs an adjustment is made to the lessee’s (or ultimate claimant’s) gross income to account for any difference between the amounts that were included in income and the credit that is allowed after recapture. Special rules are provided when the amount of the unrecaptured credit exceeds the income inclusions and when the income inclusions exceed the unrecaptured credit.

Election to Accelerate Income Inclusion Upon Lease Termination

The lessee (or ultimate claimant) may make an irrevocable election to include in gross income any remaining income inclusion amounts in the tax year in which a lease terminates or is otherwise disposed of. If a partner or S shareholder disposes of its partnership or S corporation interest, the partner or S shareholder may also make an irrevocable election to include remaining inclusion amounts in income in the year of disposition. These elections may only be made if the recapture period has expired and a recapture event had not occurred during the recapture period.

Effective Date

The final regulations are effective on July 17, 2019 and apply to investment credit property placed in service on or after September 19, 2016.

Taxpayers may rely on two new pieces of IRS guidance for applying the Code Sec. 199A deduction to cooperatives and their patrons:

Taxpayers may rely on two new pieces of IRS guidance for applying the Code Sec. 199A deduction to cooperatives and their patrons:

• Proposed regulations provide detailed rules for coop patrons and specified cooperatives to calculate the deduction.

• A proposed revenue procedure provides three methods for specified cooperatives to calculate W-2 wages.

199A Deduction for Cooperatives and Patrons

The 199A deduction, also known as the pass-through deduction or the QBI deduction, generally allows individuals, estates and trusts to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships and pass-through entities. Since most coops are C corporations, they cannot claim the deduction. However, their members may receive patronage dividends that are included in QBI.

Despite these general rules, certain agricultural or horticultural coops, known as "specified cooperatives," can claim their own version of the a deduction under Code Sec. 199A(g). A specified coop can also pass through any portion of this deduction by making qualified payments to its patrons. The patrons must reduce their own QBI accordingly.

For specified coops, the 199A(g) deduction retains many of the rules that governed the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction before it was repealed at the end of 2017. For example, the 199A(g) deduction is based on the specified coop’s domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) and qualified production activities income (QPAI), rather than its QBI.

Sec. 199A Deduction for Coop Patrons in General

Under the proposed regulations, any coop patron’s QBI may include patronage dividends and an exempt coop’s non-patronage dividends that:

• are related to the patron’s trade or business,

• are qualified items of income, gain, deduction or loss at the coop level,

• are not from a specified service trade or business (SSTB), and

• are properly reported to the patron.

The proposed regulations provide detailed rules for how coops must report the required information to their patrons. However, the coop does not report any W-2 wages or unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The W-2/UBIA limit that can reduce QBI for higher-income taxpayers is calculated only at the patron level.

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction for Specified Cooperatives

Code Sec. 199A(g) allows specified coops to claim a 199A deduction and pass through any portion of it by making qualified payments to its members. However, as mentioned above, a specified coop’s deduction is largely based on the pre-2018 domestic production activities deduction (DPAD). This means that the 199A(g) deduction for specified coops is effectively separate from the general Code Sec. 199A(a) deduction for other taxpayers.

Since specified coop patrons might be able to claim both the general 199A(a) deduction and the passed-through portion of the coop’s 199A(a) deduction, they must reduce their 199A(a)deduction by nine percent of QBI (or if less, 50 percent of W-2 wages) that is allocable to the qualified payments from the specified coop.

The proposed regulations offer a safe harbor that patrons can use to calculate this reduction. The patron allocates aggregate business expenses and W-2 wages between qualified payments and other gross receipts by ratably apportioning them based on the ratio of qualified payments to total gross receipts in QBI.

The proposed regulations also define several terms that are relevant to the 199A(g) deduction for specified coops, including:

• Patron,

• Specified cooperative,

• Agricultural or horticultural products (though the IRS is also considering broader definitions), and

• In whole or significant part.

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction and DPAD

The proposed regulations also provide four steps to determine the amount of a specified coop’s 199A(g) deduction. A specified coop that is not tax-exempt must:

• separate patronage and non-patronage gross receipts and related deductions;

• identify patronage gross receipts that qualify as DPGR,

• use the patronage DPGR from step (3) to calculate QPAI, and

• calculate the 199A(g) deduction, which is generally nine percent of the lesser of QPAI from step (4), or taxable income

These last three steps are virtually identical to the pre-2018 DPAD rules.

A tax-exempt specified coop calculates two separate 199A(g) deductions: one based on gross receipts and related deductions from patronage sources, and one based on those items from non-patronage sources.

The proposed regulations also apply DPAD-types rules to:

• determine the coop’s DPGR,

• reduce a specified coop’s 199A(g) deduction to reflect oil-related QPAI, and

• pass through the deduction to patrons.

In addition, the proposed regulations provide special rules for partnerships and expanded affiliated groups (EAGs).

Specified Coops and W-2 Wages

Although the proposed regulations treat the 199A(g) deduction as largely independent from the general 199A(a) deduction, both deductions generally use the same rules for W-2 wages. However, under the proposed regulations, W-2 wages for the 199A(g) deduction cannot include wages paid with respect to employment in Puerto Rico.

As mentioned above, a wages/UBIA limit may reduce the 199A deduction for higher-income taxpayers. A proposed revenue procedure provides three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of the 199A(g) deduction:

• unmodified Box method

• modified Box 1 method

• tracking wages method.

These methods are largely identical to the methods provided in Rev. Proc. 2019-11, but are intended to better reflect changes that may be made in the underlying Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

Effective Dates for 199A Proposed Regulations and Revenue Procedure

The regulations are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after the date they are published as final. However, taxpayers may apply them in their entirely before that date.

The notice of the proposed revenue procedure is effective on June 18, 2019. Specified cooperatives may rely on the proposed procedure before it is published in its final form.

IRS Invites Comments on Proposed Rules for Sec. 199A

The IRS requests comments on the proposed regulations and the proposed revenue procedure. In particular, the IRS invites comments on the following elements:

• A coop’s reporting of W-2 wages and UBIA,

• The safe harbor for coop patrons,

• Definitions,

• A specified coop’s separation of patronage and non-patronage income,

• DPGR treatment of minor assembly and contract work, and

• W-2 wages and Puerto Rico.

Comments are due by August 19, 2019. They may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Comments on the proposed regs should reference "IRS REG-118425-18" and comments on the proposed revenue procedure should reference "Notice 2019-27".

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments have adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes. Regardless of state and local law, however, federal law controls when determining charitable deductions for federal income tax purposes.

Return Benefit

The final regulations generally adopt the rule in proposal regulations ( NPRM REG-112176-18) that the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). If a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to Code Sec. 170(c) entity, he or she must reduce any charitable contribution deduction for federal income tax purposes if he or she receives or expects to receive a SALT credit in return. A taxpayer is generally is not required to reduce the charitable deduction on account of its receipt of state or local tax deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce its charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive state or local tax deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

De Minimis Exception

The final regulations retain the de minimis exception that a taxpayer’s charitable deduction is not reduced if the SALT credits received as a return benefit do not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment. The 15-percent exception applies only if the sum of the taxpayer SALT credit received or excepted to receive does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s payment or of the fair market value of the property transferred.

Safe Harbor

The IRS has also issued Notice 2019-12 providing a safe harbor for certain individuals if any portion of a charitable contribution deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Under the safe harbor, any disallowed portion of the charitable deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164.

Eligible taxpayers can use the safe harbor to determine their SALT deduction on their tax-year 2018 return. Those who have already filed may be able to claim a greater SALT deduction by filing an amended return if they have not already claimed the $10,000 maximum amount ($5,000 if married filing separately).

Final regulations address the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provisions of Code Sec. 951A. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations published on October 10, 2018. The final regulations address open questions and comments received on the proposed regulations.

Final regulations address the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provisions of Code Sec. 951A. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations published on October 10, 2018. The final regulations address open questions and comments received on the proposed regulations.

Final regulations on the foreign tax credit also adopt proposed regulations published December 7, 2018. These rules were issued to ensure that the applicability dates coincide with the applicability dates of the Code sections to which they relate. The final foreign tax credit regulations also retain the basic structure and approach of the proposed regulations.

Also, a number of provisions were substantially revised.

Domestic Partnerships

The final regulations treat a domestic partnership as an entity for purposes of determining whether a U.S. person is a U.S. shareholder and whether a foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation (CFC). But the final rules treat a domestic partnership as an aggregate for purposes of determining whether and to what extent a partner of a domestic partnership has a GILTI inclusion.

Transfers During Qualified Period

The final regulations allow taxpayers to make an election that eliminates disqualified basis in property, by reducing a commensurate amount of adjusted basis in the property for all purposes of the Code.

Specified Tangible Property

A CFC may elect to use its non-ADS depreciation method for property acquired before enactment of the GILTI rules. A special rule requires depreciation of the salvage value: the portion of the basis in the property that would not be fully depreciated under the non-ADS depreciation method.

Anti-Abuse Rule

Under a "per se" rule in the proposed regulations, property was deemed to be held for the principal purpose of reducing a GILTI inclusion if held by the CFC for less than a 12-month period. The final regulations convert the per se rule to a rebuttable presumption. Under a second presumption, property held for more than 36 months is not subject to the rule. A safe harbor applies for certain transfers.

Foreign Tax Credit

The foreign tax credit proposed regulations contained a rule for determining the adjusted basis of the stock of the foreign corporation for purposes of allocating expenses to stock of certain foreign corporations. The final regulations provide that a taxpayer should not have an adjusted basis below zero in stock of a foreign corporation. A taxpayer’s adjusted basis may be reduced below zero as a result of an adjustment for earnings and profits deficits, as long as the adjustment for earnings and profits increased the adjusted basis of the foreign corporation above zero.

Applicability of Final Regs

The final GILTI regulations generally apply to tax years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 2017, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years of foreign corporations end.

Proposed Regulations

The Treasury Department and the IRS also issued proposed regulations on the treatment of domestic partnerships for determining amounts included in their partners' gross incomes under Code Sec. 951 with respect to CFCs owned by the partnership, and the GILTI treatment of gross income that is subject to a high rate of foreign tax under Code Sec. 951A.

The proposed regulations would affect U.S. persons that own stock of foreign corporations through domestic partnerships and U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations. The Treasury Department and the IRS request timely comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments.

Aggregate Treatment Adopted

To be consistent with the treatment of domestic partnerships under Code Sec. 951A, Treasury and the IRS determined that a domestic partnership should also generally be treated as an aggregate of its partners in determining stock owned under Code Sec. 958(a) for Code Sec. 951 purposes.

Expansion to Exclude Other High-Taxed Income

Treasury and the IRS also determined that the GILTI high tax exclusion should be expanded (on an elective basis) to include certain high-taxed income even if that income would not otherwise be foreign base company income (FBCI) or insurance income. Further, taxpayers should be allowed to elect to apply the Code Sec. 954(b)(4) exception (the "GILTI high tax exclusion") for certain classes of income that are subject to high foreign taxes.

Newly issued temporary regulations limit the application of the Code Sec. 245A participation dividends received deduction (the participation DRD) and the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) exception in certain situations that present an opportunity for tax avoidance. The temporary regulations also provide related information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038.

Newly issued temporary regulations limit the application of the Code Sec. 245A participation dividends received deduction (the participation DRD) and the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) exception in certain situations that present an opportunity for tax avoidance. The temporary regulations also provide related information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038.

Participation Exemption Regime

The transition to the participation exemption system introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97 (the Act) is effected through several interlocking provisions – Code Secs. 245A, 951A, and 965. All three provisions have different effective dates so there are periods in which some but not all of them apply. The participation exemption system operates alongside the subpart F regime.

Code Sec. 245A generally allows a domestic corporation a 100-percent dividends received deduction (a participation DRD) for the foreign-source portion of a dividend received after December 31, 2017, from a specified 10 percent-owned foreign corporation (an SFC). Generally, only earnings that are not taxed under the subpart F or the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime can, upon distribution, give rise to a dividend eligible for the participation DRD. Distribution of earnings and profits that is taxed under the subpart F or GILTI regime is a distribution of previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) that is not treated as a dividend and cannot qualify for the participation DRD. The participation DRD applies to distributions made after December 31, 2017.

The participation DRD does not apply to untaxed earnings of U.S. shareholders as of December 31, 2017. Instead, such earnings are subject to a transition tax under Code Sec. 965. For fiscal year CFCs, there is a gap period during which certain of their earnings may escape taxation.

Code Sec. 951A (the GILTI regime) taxes a U.S. shareholder on its global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI, with respect to its CFCs at a reduced rate. The GILTI regime applies in the first tax year of a CFC beginning after December 31, 2017.

Code Sec. 954 generally provides that a dividend received by a CFC is included in the CFC’s foreign personal holding company income (FPHCI). Under Code Sec. 954(c)(6), however, a dividend received by a CFC from a related CFC is not included in the CFC’s FPHCI if certain requirements are satisfied (the section 954(c)(6) exception).

Scope of the Temporary Regulations

The temporary regulations limit the availability of the participation DRD and the section 954(c)(6) exception in specific and narrow cases where the deduction or exception, respectively, effectively eliminates subpart F income or GILTI from the U.S. tax system. Specifically, the temporary regulations address transactions that have the effect of avoiding tax under Code Sec. 965, 951A, or 951by inappropriately converting income that should have been subject to U.S. tax into nontaxed income. The temporary regulations also include information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038 to facilitate administration of certain rules in the temporary regulations. The temporary regulations do not include general rules relating to dividends eligible for the participation DRD since those rules will be included in separate guidance.

Overview of the Temporary Regulations

Code Secs. 245A, 951A, and 965 generally act to tax foreign source income equivalently across taxpayers and sources so long as a U.S. shareholder owns the same amount of stock of a calendar year CFC throughout the CFC’s entire tax year. However, deviations from this condition potentially allow taxpayers to avoid tax by claiming a participation DRD in situations where otherwise identical income would be subject to U.S. tax. The following two situations may present such an opportunity for tax avoidance: (1) a U.S. corporation is the shareholder of a fiscal year CFC during 2018, or (2) a CFC pays a dividend and experiences a direct or indirect change in ownership during a tax year. The temporary regulations limit the application of the participation DRD in these situations.

With respect to the first situation, described above, as a result of a gap in the effective dates of these related international tax provisions, the difference between calendar year and fiscal year CFCs is significant and presents the potential for substantial tax avoidance when utilized to artificially generate earnings and profits in non-ordinary course transactions between related parties.

The temporary regulations refer to the portion of a dividend attributable to earnings and profits arising from such a transaction during this period as an "extraordinary disposition amount." An extraordinary disposition amount consists of certain earnings and profits resulting from transactions between related parties during the disqualified period. Although the period during which extraordinary dispositions may have occurred has passed, the regulations will potentially apply to any distributions of the associated earnings and profits after 2017.

In the second situation, described above, the participation DRD could facilitate the avoidance of the subpart F and GILTI regimes by allowing a U.S. shareholder to transfer, before the end of a CFC’s tax year, stock of the CFC to a new shareholder who will not be taxed on the CFC’s subpart F income or tested income.

The earnings and profits representing the portion of a dividend of a CFC attributable to subpart F income or tested income that, absent a transfer of the CFC stock pursuant to an extraordinary reduction, would have been subject to the subpart F or GILTI regimes are referred to as an "extraordinary reduction amount" in the temporary regulations. An extraordinary reduction amount consists of certain earnings and profits generated during a CFC’s tax year beginning after 2017 in which a domestic corporate U.S. shareholder reduces its ownership of the CFC by certain threshold amounts (e.g., a decrease in ownership of more than 10 percent). For this purpose, "certain earnings and profits" refers to income generally subject to inclusion under the subpart F or GILTI regimes.

Results similar to the ones described in the context of extraordinary disposition amounts and extraordinary reduction amounts can be achieved using the exemption from subpart F income under Code Sec. 954(c)(6) and lower-tier CFC dividends to upper-tier CFCs. Thus, the temporary regulations limit the application of the section 954(c)(6) exception in order to prevent similar results in circumstances in which a lower-tier CFC pays a dividend to another CFC, instead of directly to a U.S. shareholder.

Operation of the Temporary Rules

The temporary regulations do not permit the participation DRD for the portions of dividends made by CFCs that are attributable to ineligible amounts, which comprise extraordinary reduction amounts and 50 percent of any extraordinary disposition amounts.

To accomplish this, the temporary regulations disallow a deduction for transactions that have the effect of avoiding tax under Code Sec. 965, 951A, or 951. The extraordinary disposition rules accomplish this by denying the participation DRD for a narrowly and objectively defined class of earnings and profits generated by transactions undertaken in the disqualified period in circumstances that raise abuse concerns.

The extraordinary reduction rules accomplish this by denying the participation DRD for certain earnings distributed in the same year as reductions in ownership of CFC stock by a controlling Code Sec. 245A shareholder. The temporary regulations contain similar rules with respect to the section 954(c)(6) exception.

Information Reporting under Code Sec. 6038

Ineligible amounts, tiered extraordinary disposition amounts, and tiered extraordinary reduction amounts must be reported on the appropriate information reporting form in accordance with Code Sec. 6038. A transition rule mandates that taxpayers report the required information on the first return filed following the issuance of revised forms, instructions, or other guidance with respect to reporting such information. The transition rule also requires a corporation to report the information with respect to a predecessor corporation.

Applicability Dates

The rules in the temporary regulations relating to eligibility of distributions for the participation DRD apply to distributions occurring after December 31, 2017. The rules in the temporary regulations relating to the eligibility of dividends for the section 954(c)(6) exception also apply to distributions occurring after December 31, 2017, subject to a transition rule.

Senate tax writers on Capitol Hill continue to discuss bipartisan retirement savings bills as the House gears up for a vote on a related tax measure.

Senate tax writers on Capitol Hill continue to discuss bipartisan retirement savings bills as the House gears up for a vote on a related tax measure.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) held a May 14 hearing during which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle highlighted the importance of moving forward with retirement savings-related legislative efforts. While a number of related tax proposals have been introduced recently, SFC lawmakers paid particular focus to the bipartisan Retirement Enhancement Savings Bill, more commonly referred to as “RESA.”

“[T]his committee worked on a bipartisan basis to put together the [RESA],” SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said during opening statements. “Our bill is all about making it easier for employers -- particularly small businesses -- to offer retirement plans to their employees,” Wyden added. “Giving those small businesses an opportunity to band together and offer a common retirement plan is a simpler and more cost-effective way of helping more people save.”

House Vote Expected on Secure Bill

Notably, the Senate’s RESA bill has many similarities to the House’s Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Bill of 2019 (HR 1994). The bipartisan SECURE Bill is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote in the coming days.

“We’re on track to go to the House floor this month,” Kara Getz, chief tax counsel for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, DMass., has said. Getz, while speaking on May 10 at the American Bar Association (ABA) May Tax Meeting in Washington, D.C., said that the House bill is derived from a true “partnership” between Democrats and Republicans.

To that end, SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, alluded during the May 14 hearing that the Senate and House measures could soon be reconciled and enacted. “I’m hoping that the House will send its version of RESA over to us at some point this month,” Grassley said. “And, I’ll continue to work closely with Senator Wyden and other Committee members to reconcile the differences and get this important bill to the President.”

Additionally, Drew Crouch, senior tax counsel for the SFC minority, while speaking on May 10 at the ABA May Meeting, stated that there is a “high probability” the retirement bill(s) will be enacted this year. Crouch further emphasized this position by adding that that there is a “high chance retirement legislation will make it across the finish line,” in this Congress.

Retirement Savings 2.0

Meanwhile, House and Senate lawmakers are already working toward Retirement Savings “2.0,” Getz stated at the ABA May Meeting. House tax writers are “actively working on 2.0,” Getz said, adding that, “we would really like to markup a second retirement bill.”

Likewise, Grassley alluded to the Retirement Savings 2.0 initiative on May 14, noting in his
opening statement that the SFC hearing “marks the start of our work on the next round of retirement savings reforms.”

To that end, SFC members Rob Portman, R Ohio, and Ben Cardin, D-Md., on March 14 introduced
a 132-page bipartisan retirement savings tax bill. The Retirement Savings & Security Bill would
make several sweeping reforms to retirement savings.

President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to develop a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to develop a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

$2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

"There was goodwill in this meeting…which is a very good thing," Schumer told reporters at the White House on April 30 after meeting with Trump. "We agreed on a number – $2 trillion for infrastructure,"Schumer said. Further, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Schumer both praised Trump after the meeting for his bipartisan cooperation.

The president and Democratic leaders were to meet again to discuss how to pay for the infrastructure plan, Schumer said. At that time, Trump is expected to convey his ideas on funding, Schumer added. "This was a very, very good start…and we hope it will go to a constructive conclusion."

“Pay-Fors”

Additionally, Schumer told reporters at the White House that the infrastructure plan’s "pay-fors"remained undetermined. Notably, Schumer suggested from the Senate floor on April 29 rolling back part of Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law to fund infrastructure costs.

Generally, infrastructure is considered a bipartisan priority among lawmakers. However, reaching an agreement on how to pay for the reportedly $2 trillion infrastructure plan that is still in development is expected on Capitol Hill to be an arduous task. Namely, Democrats are expected to propose scaling back certain tax cuts under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) to foot the infrastructure bill, which is not likely to receive GOP support.

"That’s a non-starter" Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters at the U.S. Capitol on April 30. "This tax bill [TCJA] is what has generated this robust economy; the last thing we want to do is step on all of this growth…by repealing in effect what has generated all of this prosperity and low unemployment," McConnell said.

White House: Meeting Excellent, Productive

Meanwhile, the White House praised the April 30 infrastructure meeting between Trump and top congressional Democrats, calling it "excellent and productive," as noted in a statement released by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shortly after the meeting. Notably, however, the statement did not mention the $2 trillion figure allegedly agreed upon by Trump and Democratic congressional leadership.

"We will have another meeting in three weeks to discuss specific proposals and financing methods,"Sanders added. "The president looks forward to working together in a bipartisan way and getting things done for the American people."

Highly anticipated proposed regulations have been issued on the withholding required with respect to the disposition of certain partnership interests. The proposed regulations affect certain foreign persons that recognize gain or loss on the disposition of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and persons that acquire those interests. Also affected are partnerships that directly or indirectly have foreign partners.

Highly anticipated proposed regulations have been issued on the withholding required with respect to the disposition of certain partnership interests. The proposed regulations affect certain foreign persons that recognize gain or loss on the disposition of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and persons that acquire those interests. Also affected are partnerships that directly or indirectly have foreign partners.

Gain or loss from the disposition of a partnership interest is treated as income effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business, to the extent that there would have been effectively connected income to the foreign partner, if the partnership assets were sold under Code sec. 864(c)(8). The withholding rules of Code Sec. 1446(f) require 10 percent withholding on the amount realized on the disposition, absent certification that the transferor is not a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.

The proposed regulations are a companion to Proposed Reg. 1.864(c)(8)-1 issued in December 2018, on gain or loss by foreign persons on the disposition of a partnership interest.

Reporting, Withholding and Paying Tax

The proposed regulations provide rules for withholding, reporting and paying tax upon the disposition of a partnership interest in a partnership described in Code Sec. 864(c)(8) and Proposed Reg. 1.864(c)(8)-1. The proposed regulations adopt much of the temporary guidance issued in Notice 2018-29, I.R.B. 2018-16, 495, which looked to the rules for withholding on dispositions of U.S. real property interests by foreign persons in Code Sec. 1445.

The proposed regulations also:

• clarify the reporting rules for transfers of partnership interests under Code Sec. 6050(k),
• provide rules for implementing withholding by brokers on transfers of certain interests in publicly traded partnerships,
• make changes to withholding rules for distributions by publicly traded partnerships,
• make changes to reporting rules and procedures for adjusting withholding; and
• provide coordination rules to prevent overwithholding.

A transferee is required to report and pay any tax withheld by the 20th day after the date of the transfer. Form 8288, U.S. Withholding Tax Return for Dispositions by Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests, and Form 8288-A, Statement of Withholding on Dispositions by Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests.

The proposed regulations also provide rules that address a partnership’s requirement to withhold if the transferee fails to withhold.

General Rule and Exceptions

A transferee of a partnership interest must withhold a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount realized on any transfer of a partnership interest (other than certain publicly traded partnership interests), if the gain is treated as effectively connected income.

There are six exceptions to withholding under the proposed regulations:

• certification by transferor of non-foreign status,
• certification by transferor that no gain is realized on transfer by transferor,
• certification by partnership that effectively connected gain from the disposition would be less than 10 percent,
• certification by transferor that for prior three tax years its effectively connected taxable income for each year was less than 10 percent of its total distributive share of net partnership income for the year;
• certification by transferor that a nonrecognition provision applies, and
• certification by transferor that a treaty provision applies.

Publicly Traded Partnership Interests

The proposed regulations provide rules for withholding and reporting on the transfer of an interest in a publicly traded partnership (a PTP interest). The withholding obligation is generally limited to brokers that receive proceeds from the sale and act on behalf of the transferor. Once the proposed regulations are final, the suspension on withholding on a PTP interest in Notice 2018-08, I.R.B. 2018-7, 352, will end.

Notice Requirements

A foreign partner that transfers its partnership interest will need information from the partnership to compute its tax liability based on the deemed sale. Rules are provided that will facilitate the transfer of information between a foreign partner and partnership for purposes of Code Sec. 864(c)(8).

Proposed regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules.

Proposed regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules.

The proposed regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

Ownership Attribution

The proposed regulations provide specific rules for applying principles similar to those in the Code Sec. 958(b) constructive ownership rules when determining related person status under the foreign base company sales rules. Determining related person status is relevant for many purposes, including whether certain types of income can be characterized as subpart F foreign base company sales or service income.

A person is a related person with respect to a CFC if the person is:

• an individual who controls the CFC;
• an entity that controls or is controlled by the CFC; or
• an entity that is controlled by the same person that controls the CFC.

Under current Reg. §1.954-1(f), the Code Sec. 318(a)(3) downward attribution rules, which attribute ownership downward from the owner of an entity to an entity, apply by reference to the Code Sec. 958stock ownership rules. These rules are applied regardless of the size of the ownership interest in a partnership, estate or trust, but are applied to corporations based on a 50-percent or more ownership interest.

Based on concern that the downward attribution rules could produce inappropriate results, the proposed regulations provide that the downward attribution rule of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) and Reg. §1.958-2(d) will not apply for purposes of determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules.

This change does not preclude a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate from being treated as controlled by the same person or persons that control the CFC under other rules that remain applicable for the related person rules.

Additionally, an anti-abuse rule is provided with respect to the option attribution rule in Code Sec. 318(a)(4). The option attribution rule will not be applied to treat a person with an option as owning the stock or equity interest for purposes of the related person rule if the principal purpose of using the option was to cause a person to be treated as a related person.

The proposed regulations also incorporate a similar rule issued in Notice 2007-9, 2007-1 CB 401. The rule applies if the principal purpose for the use of an option is to qualify dividends, interest, rents or royalties paid by a foreign corporation for the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) CFC look-through exception from foreign personal holding company income. The rule is proposed to apply for tax years of CFCs beginning after December 31, 2006, and ending before the date that final regulation are published in the Federal Register, and for tax year of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Foreign Personal Holding Company Rules

The proposed regulations modify the foreign personal holding company rules on amounts paid or incurred by a CFC in connection with the CFC’s rental income and the active rents exception. Rents are excluded from foreign personal holding company income if they are:

• received from a person other than a related person; and
• from the active conduct of a trade or business.

If rents are from leasing property as a result of marketing activities, there must be a substantial marketing organization in order to meet the active trade or business test. Under a safe harbor, an organization is substantial if active leasing expenses equal or exceed 25 percent of adjusted leasing profit. If the CFC receives rents from property it does not own, the substantiality of the organization is determined net of those rent payments.

The propose regulations extend the rule to apply to royalties, in addition to rents. As a result, the substantiality of the organization is determined under the safe harbor, net of the rents or royalties paid or incurred by the lessor CFC, for the right to use the property (or a component part of the property) that generated the rental income.

Applicability Date

The proposed regulations are generally proposed to apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register, and for tax year of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Final regulations have been issued on transactions of U.S. taxpayers that have qualified business units (QBUs) with functional currency other than the U.S. dollar.

Final regulations have been issued on transactions of U.S. taxpayers that have qualified business units (QBUs) with functional currency other than the U.S. dollar. Specifically, the final regulations:

• cover combinations and separations of QBUs subject to Code Sec. 987 (Reg. 1.987-2 and Reg. 1. 987-4),
• cover recognition and deferral of foreign currency gain or loss with respect to a QBU subject to Code Sec. 987 in connection with certain QBU terminations and other transactions involving partnerships (Reg. 1. 987-12), and 
• withdraw Temporary regulations that determine a partner’s share of assets and liabilities of a Code Sec. 987 aggregate partnership (Temporary Reg. 1.987-7T). In general, the regulations prevent the selective recognition of Code Sec. 987 gain or loss.

Applicability Dates

The IRS declined to extend the applicability of these provisions. The final regulations retain the applicability dates of the temporary regulations, as extended by IRS guidance. The final regulations under Reg. 1.987-2 and Reg. 1. 987-4 generally apply to tax years beginning on or after the day that is three years after the first day of the first tax year following December 7, 2016. The final regulations under Reg. 1. 987-12 generally apply to any deferral event or outbound loss event that occurs on or after January 6, 2017.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

Immediate Expensing

The Restoring Investment in Improvements Act (HR 1869), sponsored by House tax writers Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., would allow restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders to immediately write off the cost of certain improvements. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, inadvertently excludes qualified improvement property (QIP) from the new 100 percent bonus depreciation provision.

The measure is a "small but critical fix for our job creators, and technical corrections like this are a normal part of the process when Congress enacts major reforms," Walorski said in a recent press release. "This bipartisan, commonsense bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses to unlock the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our nation’s economic growth."

Similarly, Panetta highlighted the negative impact that the loss of immediate expensing has caused many small businesses. "Our bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other businesses to make the improvements they need to keep their stores competitive and safe and plan for the future," he said.

Although the "retail glitch" measure has solid bipartisan support, Democrats in general have seemed hesitant to fix any errors in the GOP tax law. To that end, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has said he would like to hold a hearing on technical corrections for the TCJA. The committee’s March 27 hearing on the TCJA did not specifically address technical corrections.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

IRS Reform

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (HR 1957), as amended, cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by voice on April 2. The House and Senate both introduced the bicameral, bipartisan measure on March 28. If enacted, the bill would make numerous reforms to the IRS, some of which include modernizing antiquated information technology systems and enhancing taxpayer services and identity protections.

"With a new tax code, it is time for a new tax administrator," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 9 statement. "I applaud the House for passing the Taxpayer First Act—a bold step to redesign the IRS to be an agency with one singular mission: putting taxpayers first."

The IRS Reform bill has been "years in the making," Brady said on April 9, echoing a joint statement that he and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with other bipartisan tax writers recently issued. "The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have carefully and thoughtfully developed this legislation over several years, after numerous hearings and roundtables, in a bipartisan, bicameral manner," the lawmakers said.

AICPA Applauds Taxpayer First Act

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) issued an April 9 statement commending the House for passing HR 1957. "The AICPA appreciates the bipartisan recognition by members of the U.S. House of Representatives for bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st Century," Edward S. Karl, vice president of taxation, said in a statement on behalf of the AICPA. "The AICPA has long been interested in and active in working to find ways to modernize the IRS so that it can better serve the needs of taxpayers and tax practitioners."

Free File Alliance

However, the bipartisan, bicameral bill has not advanced without its share of criticism. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized a provision within the bill that would codify the Free File Alliance, which is an agreement between the IRS and certain tax preparation companies that includes the IRS being unable to directly assist in tax return preparation.

"Again and again in my service in the Senate I have battled the tax-preparation software industry to simplify filing taxes for the typical American," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an April 9 statement. "During the debate on the tax administration bill, my staff pushed back on a prohibition on the agency competing with private tax preparation services, and I will continue to push for my proposal for the pre-filed ‘simple’ return and the principle that a taxpayer should not have to use a private company to pay their taxes online," he added.

Looking Ahead

It remains unclear when the Senate will take up the Taxpayer First Act bill. However, the bill is presently expected on Capitol Hill to easily be approved in the Senate.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

The proposed regulations also withdraw and replace placeholder provisions in an earlier set of proposed regulations ( REG-115420-18). These concern:

• the definition of "substantially all"regulations
• transactions that can trigger includible gain;
• the timing and amount of deferred gain that is included;
• treatment of leased property used in the qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) business;
• use of QOZ business property in the QOZ;
• sourcing of income to the QOZ business; and
• the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets.

In addition, within a few months the IRS expects to address administrative rules for a QOF that fails to maintain the required 90-percent investment standard, as well as information reporting requirements.

Finally, the IRS expects to revise Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, for 2019 and subsequent tax years. These revisions may require additional information, including the employer identification number (EIN) for the QOF business, and the amounts invested by QOFs and QOZ businesses located in particular QOZs.

"Substantially All" for QOZ Business

The 2018 regulations provided that a trade or business satisfies the "substantially all" test for a QOZ business if at least 70 percent of its tangible property is qualified opportunity zone business property. The new proposed regulations generally extend this 70-percent threshold to the "substantially all" tests for use. However, in the holding period context, the "substantially all" threshold is 90 percent.

Original Use of Purchased Tangible Property

The proposed regulations generally provide that the "original use" of tangible property acquired by purchase by any person starts on the date when that person or a prior person:

• first places the property in service in the qualified opportunity zone for purposes of depreciation or amortization; or
• first uses the property in the qualified opportunity zone in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property’s owner.

Used tangible property will satisfy the original use requirement with respect to a QOZ so long as the property has not been previously used (that is, has not previously been used within that QOZ in a manner that would have allowed it to depreciated or amortized) by any taxpayer

In addition, a building or other structure that has been vacant for at least five years before being purchased by a QOF or QOZ business satisfies the original use requirement. Improvements made by a lessee to leased property satisfy the original use requirement and are considered purchased property for the amount of the unadjusted cost basis of the improvements.

Land can be treated as QOZ business property only if it is used in a trade or business of a QOF or QOZ business. The holding of land for investment does not give rise to a trade or business, and the land cannot be QOZ business property. Anti-abuse rules determine whether unimproved land can be qualifying property. However, other purchased real property generally must be substantially improved, determined on an asset-by-asset basis.

Leased Tangible Property in QOZ

Leased tangible property may be QOZ property if:

• the lease is entered into after 2017; and
• substantially all of the property’s use is in a QOZ during substantially all of the lease period.

However, the first-use requirement does not apply to leased tangible property. The leased property can generally also be acquired from a related person, though several conditions apply. The proposed regulations also provide methods for valuing the leased property.

QOZ Businesses

The proposed regulations:

• provide that in determining whether a substantial portion of intangible property of a QOZ is used in the active conduct of a trade or business, a substantial portion is at least 40 percent;
• address real property that straddles a QOZ;
• provide three safe harbors and a facts-and-circumstances test for determining whether a corporation or partnership derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business;
• define "trade or business" by reference to Code Sec. 162, except that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property used in a trade or business can also be the active conduct of a trade or business; and
• provide a safe harbor for working capital.

Other Business Rules

The proposed regulations also address:

• Section 1231 gains;
• relief regarding the 90 percent asset test, including relief for newly contributed assets and QOF reinvestments;
• the amount of an investment for purposes of the deferral election;
• inclusion events, the timing on basis adjustments, includible amounts, and special rules for partnerships and S corporations;
• gifts and bequests;
• exceptions for disregarded transfers and some nonrecognition transactions;
• distributions and contributions;
• consolidated return provisions;
• holding periods and tacking rules;
• anti-abuse rules;
• special rules for Indian tribes and tribally leased property.

Comments Requested; Public Hearing Scheduled

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for 10 am on July 9, 2019, at the New Carrollton Federal Building in Latnham, MD. Public comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120186-18).

The IRS has corrected Notice 2019-20, which provided a waiver of penalties under Code Secs. 6722(failure to furnish correct payee statements) and 6698 (failure to file partnership return) for certain partnerships that file and furnish Schedules K-1 to Form 1065 without reporting negative tax basis capital account information. The updated Notice extends the penalty waiver to Code Secs. 6038(b)and (c) and any other section of the Code, for partnerships that fail to file and furnish Schedules K-1 or any other form or statement to Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, for any penalty that arises solely as a result of failing to include negative tax basis capital account information.

The IRS has corrected Notice 2019-20, which provided a waiver of penalties under Code Secs. 6722(failure to furnish correct payee statements) and 6698 (failure to file partnership return) for certain partnerships that file and furnish Schedules K-1 to Form 1065 without reporting negative tax basis capital account information. The updated Notice extends the penalty waiver to Code Secs. 6038(b)and (c) and any other section of the Code, for partnerships that fail to file and furnish Schedules K-1 or any other form or statement to Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, for any penalty that arises solely as a result of failing to include negative tax basis capital account information.

The penalty relief applies only for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, but before January 1, 2019.

The IRS will waive the penalty only if both of the following conditions are met:

• the partner Schedules K-1 are timely filed (including extensions) with the IRS, timely furnished to the partners, and contain all other required information; and
• the person or partnership required to file the Schedule K-1 or other applicable form or statement files with the IRS, no later than one year after the original, unextended due date of the form to which the Schedule K-1 or other applicable form or statement must be attached, a schedule setting forth the information listed below for each partner for which negative tax basis capital account information is required.

The required schedule must state:

1. the partnership’s name and Employee Identification Number, if any, and Reference ID Number, if any;
2. the partner’s name, address, and taxpayer identification number; and
3. the amount of the partner’s tax basis capital account at the beginning and end of the tax year at issue.

The schedule should be captioned "Filed Under Notice 2019-20" and should accord with instructions and additional guidance provided by the IRS. The schedule should be sent to: 1973 North Rulon White Blvd., Ogden, UT 84404-7843, MS 4700, Attn: Ogden PTE.

The upper-tier controlled foreign corporation (CFC) partners of a domestic partnership were required to include in gross income their distributive share of income inclusions under subpart F from lower-tier CFCs, and increase earnings and profits (E&P) by the same amount. Regulations under Code Sec. 964provided preliminary steps for conforming a foreign corporation’s profit and loss statement to that of a domestic corporation. The general rules of Code Sec. 312 that governed earnings and profits computations of domestic corporations then applied.

The upper-tier controlled foreign corporation (CFC) partners of a domestic partnership were required to include in gross income their distributive share of income inclusions under subpart F from lower-tier CFCs, and increase earnings and profits (E&P) by the same amount. Regulations under Code Sec. 964provided preliminary steps for conforming a foreign corporation’s profit and loss statement to that of a domestic corporation. The general rules of Code Sec. 312 that governed earnings and profits computations of domestic corporations then applied.

Interaction Between 964 and 312

The rules in Code Sec. 964(a) provide that, with an exception for a depreciation rule in Code Sec. 312(k)(4), the earnings and profits of a foreign corporation are computed according to rules substantially similar to those that apply to domestic corporations, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. The Tax Court found that regulations reasonably could be read to include regulations under Code Sec. 312.

The Code Sec. 964 regulations required the following steps be taken before the Code Sec. 312 rules could be applied:

• preparation of a profit and loss statement;
• U.S. accounting adjustments; and
• tax adjustments.

The general rules of subpart F and Code Sec. 312applied because there were no specific rules covering the treatment of a CFC’s distributive share of partnership income, or subpart F income inclusions, specifically. Subpart F required upper-tier CFC partners to compute gross income as if they were domestic corporations. As partners in a domestic partnership, they were required to include their distributive shares of the partnership’s income, including subpart F income inclusions, from lower-tier foreign corporations.

Under the Code Sec. 312 regulations, E&P is determined by taking into account all items includible in gross income under Code Sec. 61. Because the inclusions under subpart F were included in gross income, E&P was increased by those amounts.

Dissenting Opinion

A dissenting opinion disagreed with the Tax Court’s conclusion that Code Sec. 964 incorporated the rules of Code Sec. 312 based on the reference to the depreciation rule. The dissent also disagreed with the Tax Court’s statement that Code Sec. 964 provided that the same general rules apply to E&P computations for domestic and foreign corporations because the statute referred to rules "substantially similar" to those applicable to domestic corporations.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations on the information reporting requirements under Code Secs. 101(a)(3) and 6050Y, added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). The regulations are to apply to reportable life insurance policy sales made, and reportable death benefits paid, after December 31, 2017. Transition relief applies until these regulations are finalized.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations on the information reporting requirements under Code Secs. 101(a)(3) and 6050Y, added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). The regulations are to apply to reportable life insurance policy sales made, and reportable death benefits paid, after December 31, 2017. Transition relief applies until these regulations are finalized.

Reportable Sales and Payments

New reporting requirements apply to reportable policy sales and payments of reportable death benefits occurring after December 31, 2017.

New Code Sec. 6050Y imposes information reporting obligations related to certain life insurance contract transactions, including reportable policy sales and payments of reportable death benefits. The proposed regulations specify how and when the information reporting obligations must be satisfied. They also provide definitions and rules governing the application of the information reporting obligations.

New Code Sec. 101(a)(3) defines "reportable policy sale" and provides rules for determining the amount of death benefits excluded from gross income following a reportable policy sale. The proposed regulations provide definitions and guidance for determining the amount of death benefits excluded.

Proposed Regulations

The proposed regulations respond to comments generated by the IRS’s pre-regulatory guidance in Notice 2018-41, I.R.B. 2018-20, 584, and provide clarifications.

Payments. The proposed regulations clarify that a reportable policy sale payment includes any amount of the recipient’s debt assumed by the acquirer in addition to cash and the fair market value of property. They also clarify that when an acquirer makes installments payments in more than one year, the acquirer reports the total amount of all payments in the year of the policy sale. The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether reportable policy sale payments should be defined to exclude payments of any ancillary costs and expenses. Comments are requested regarding the types of payments made by acquirers in reportable policy sales, the recipients of those payments, and existing reporting requirements applicable to those payments.

Reportable death benefits. Reporting requirements apply to any person that makes a payment of reportable death benefits during any tax year. The proposed regulations clarify that the amounts must be attributable to an interest in the life insurance contract that was transferred in a reportable policy sale. For instance, if the original policyholder of a life insurance contract transfers a 50 percent interest in the life insurance contract in a reportable policy sale, amounts paid due to the death of the insured that are attributable to the 50 percent interest retained by the original policyholder are not reportable death benefits.

Comments are requested as to whether reportable death benefits payment recipients should include, in addition to any person that receives reportable death benefits as a beneficiary under the life insurance contract, any person that receives reportable death benefits as the holder of an interest in the life insurance contract.

Payor. The proposed regulations define "payor" to mean any person making a payment of reportable death benefits, and "reportable death benefits payment recipient" to mean any person that receives reportable death benefits as a beneficiary under the life insurance contract or as the holder of an interest in the life insurance contract. However, comments are sought on whether "payor" should be defined the same as "issue," or should also include any holder of an interest in a life insurance contract that receives reportable death benefits attributable to that interest and is contractually obligated to pay part or all of the proceeds to the beneficial owner of the interest.

Unified reporting. The proposed regulations allow for unified reporting by the acquirers in a series of prearranged transfers of any interest in a life insurance contract. A series of prearranged transfers of an interest in a life insurance contract may include transfers in which one or more persons serve as intermediaries. Such intermediaries may acquire title or possession of an interest in a life insurance contract for state law purposes as nominee on behalf of another person or persons.

Deadlines. The proposed regulations provide that an acquirer must furnish any written statement required to be provided to a reportable policy sale payment recipient no later than February 15 of the year following the calendar year in which the reportable policy sale occurs. The proposed regulations adopt this deadline because a person may be both a reportable policy sale payment recipient and a seller regarding a reportable policy sale, and the deadline for an acquirer to furnish a written statement to a reportable policy sale payment recipient coordinates with the deadline for an issuer that receives a reportable policy sale statement (RPSS) to furnish a written statement to a seller. An acquirer must furnish an RPSS to the issuer by the later of (1) 20 days after the reportable policy sale, or (2) 5 days after the end of the applicable state law rescission period. However, if the later date is after January 15 of the year following the calendar year in which the reportable policy sale occurred, the RPSS must be furnished by January 15 of the year following the calendar year in which the reportable policy sale occurred.

A payor of reportable death benefits must furnish any written statement required to be provided to a reportable death benefits payment recipient no later than January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the reportable policy sale occurs. The proposed regulations use January 31 because it is generally the deadline for furnishing copies of Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., to recipients.

Forms 1099-LS and 1099-SB. The proposed regulations provide guidance to sellers of life insurance contracts in reporting gain. IRS Form 1099-LS, Reportable Life Insurance Sales, and Form 1099-SB, Seller’s Investment in Life Insurance Contract, provide specific instructions on these reporting requirements. The proposed regulations also provide guidance to payors of reportable death benefits (reportable on Form 1099-R) and how to calculate the amount of death benefits excluded from gross income.

Transition Relief

Transition relief applies for reportable policy sales and payments of reportable death benefits occurring after December 31, 2017, and before the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

For reportable policy sales,

• statements required to be furnished to issuers under Code Sec. 6050Y(a)(2) must be furnished by the later of the applicable deadline in the final regulations or 60 days after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register;
• returns required to be filed under Code Sec. 6050Y(a)(1) and (b)(1) and statements required to be furnished to payment recipients and sellers under Code Sec. 6050Y(a)(2) and (b)(2)must be filed or furnished by the later of the applicable deadline in the final regulations or 90 days after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register;

For payments of reportable death benefits, returns required to be filed under Code Sec. 6050Y(c)(1) and statements required to be furnished to payment recipients under Code Sec. 6050Y(c)(2) must be filed or furnished by the later of the applicable deadline in the final regulations or 90 days after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Comments. The IRS is seeking comments on a range of issues connected with these proposed regulations. Written or electronic comments must be received by May 9, 2019. A public hearing has been scheduled for June 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For more information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT" section of the preamble.

Nina E. Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), has announced her decision to retire this summer from the esteemed NTA position at the IRS. Olson has served as taxpayers’ "voice" within the IRS and before Congress for the last 18 years.

Nina E. Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA), has announced her decision to retire this summer from the esteemed NTA position at the IRS. Olson has served as taxpayers’ "voice" within the IRS and before Congress for the last 18 years.

Olson will retire from the position of NTA on July 31, 2019, according to a recent NTA Blog post. "I am making the announcement now because I want to prepare the Taxpayer Advocate Service for a smooth transition, and I want to participate in the selection of my successor," Olson wrote.

Critical and Priority Items Lists

Olson outlined the following "critical items" she wants to accomplish before retiring:

• publish new IRM chapters on Taxpayer Assistance Orders and Taxpayer Advocate Directives;
• finalize a regulation governing the operations of Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITC); and
• regain the ability to hire attorney-advisors.

Additionally, Olson has created a list of "priority items" for the IRS, which IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig requested. The list includes:

• developing an automated economic hardship risk indicator;
• developing mandatory employee training on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights;
• developing guidance and training on the identification and public disclosure of Program Manager Technical Advice (PMTA) memoranda; and
• designing rights-based notices of deficiency, collection due process hearing notices, and math error notices.

"Underlying all my actions and plans as the National Taxpayer Advocate has been a recognition that the Taxpayer Advocate Service is more than an organization – however independent – within a bureaucratic federal agency," Olson wrote. "The Taxpayer Advocate Service is a concept – an idea. It represents the proposition that taxpayers have rights and protections before the awesome taxation powers of the United States."

Final regulations relating to the low-income housing tax credit revise and clarify requirements that low-income housing agencies must follow when conducting physical inspections of low-income units and reviewing low-income certifications and other documentation. The regulations finalize previously issued temporary regulations (T.D. 9753, February 25, 2016).

Final regulations relating to the low-income housing tax credit revise and clarify requirements that low-income housing agencies must follow when conducting physical inspections of low-income units and reviewing low-income certifications and other documentation. The regulations finalize previously issued temporary regulations (T.D. 9753, February 25, 2016).

Sample Inspection Size

The final regulations require the agency to inspect no fewer units than the number specified in the "Low-Income Housing Credit Minimum Unit Sample Size Reference Chart." The reference chart can be found in Rev. Proc. 2016-15, I.R.B. 2016-11, 435, and is borrowed from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Real Estate Assessment Center Protocol (the REAC protocol). Previously, an agency was permitted to inspect 20 percent of the low-income housing units in the project if this was lesser than the number required by the reference chart. This change addresses a concern that limiting physical inspections to 20 percent of units in small projects is not sufficient to ensure overall compliance with habitability and low-income requirements.

All-Buildings Requirement

No change is made to the requirement that an agency must inspect all buildings in a low-income housing project by the end of the second calendar year after the year in which the last building in the project is placed in service unless a project inspection is conducted under the REAC protocol. Suggestions that the IRS dispense with the all-buildings requirement for agencies not using the REAC protocol were not adopted.

Reasonable Notice Time Frame Shortened

A building owner and tenants are allowed a maximum 15 day advance notice that a project will be inspected. The temporary regulations allowed a 30-day notice period. The particular units to be inspected may only be identified on the day of the inspection. The 15 day advance notice limit will also apply to reviews of low-income certifications.

Amendment of Agency’s Qualified Allocation Plan

The final regulations are effective on February 26, 2019. However, an agency only needs to amend it qualified allocation plan by December 31, 2020, to reflect the requirements in the final regulations.

Rev. Proc. 2016-15 is obsolete with respect to an agency as of the date that on which the agency amends its qualified allocation plan.

The Senate’s top Democratic tax writer is calling on the IRS and Treasury to further waive underpayment penalties for the 2018 tax year. Nearly 30 million taxpayers are expected to have underpaid taxes last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Senate’s top Democratic tax writer is calling on the IRS and Treasury to further waive underpayment penalties for the 2018 tax year. Nearly 30 million taxpayers are expected to have underpaid taxes last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Underpayment Penalty

The IRS announced in IRS News Release IR-2019-3 that it would waive the underpayment penalty for any taxpayer who paid at least 85 percent of their total tax liability during the 2018 tax year. The usual threshold is 90 percent. However, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the IRS should "do more."

"Instead of penalizing those who paid less than 90 percent of what they owed in 2018, now they’re penalizing those who paid less than 85 percent," Wyden said on February 7 from the Senate floor. "That was one small step in the right direction," he added.

Before the IRS’s news release, Wyden wrote to Treasury and the IRS urging the waiver of underpayment penalties for withholding errors related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Although the IRS did lower the penalty threshold for the 2018 tax year, Wyden stated on February 7 that "nobody should be penalized for the Trump administration’s mistakes on tax withholding."

Democrats are largely opposed to the TCJA as a whole, and claim that Republicans’ tax code overhaul was rushed. Thus, significant tax withholding errors and underpayments are expected to be incurred. "Change the penalty thresholds. Extend safe harbors. Whatever needs to happen," Wyden said.

Additionally, several Republicans have also voiced their concern about the expected increase in underpayment related to withholding. SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently urged the IRS to be "lenient" on underpayment penalties for 2018, as it is the first tax year since tax reform implementation.

AICPA

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has likewise urged Treasury and the IRS to provide more extensive penalty relief. "The substantial uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the TCJA and the updated federal tax withholding tables presented a challenge for many taxpayers in understanding and accounting for their tax liability," Annette Nellen, chair of the AICPA’s Tax Executive Committee said in a recent letter to Treasury and the IRS. The AICPA has recommended an 80 percent threshold for the underpayment penalty waiver.

Senators have introduced a bipartisan bill specifically tailored to reduce excise taxes and regulations for the U.S. craft beverage industry. The bill aims to promote job creation and permanently reduce certain taxes and compliance burdens.

Senators have introduced a bipartisan bill specifically tailored to reduce excise taxes and regulations for the U.S. craft beverage industry. The bill aims to promote job creation and permanently reduce certain taxes and compliance burdens.

Craft Beverage Tax Reform

The Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Bill of 2019 was introduced on February 6 by Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

"By modernizing burdensome rules and taxes for craft beverage producers, this legislation will level the playing field and allow these innovators to further grow and thrive," Wyden said in a press release. The comprehensive measure is supported by the entire craft beverage industry, according to a summary of the bill.

Generally, the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Bill of 2019 would implement the following provisions:

For Brewers:

• Reduce excise taxes to provide more cash flow to reinvest in personal business growth.
• Simplify rules for ingredient approval and brewery collaboration.

For Vintners:

• Expand the wine producer tax credit.
• Expand allowances for tax purposes on carbonation and alcohol content for certain wines.

For Distillers:

• Establish reduced excise taxes for small craft distilleries.
• Reduce restrictions on tax-free transfers of spirits between distillers.

The bill would also exempt beverage producers from certain capitalization rules for aged products.

"The craft beverage industry is driven by small businesses that support thousands of jobs and contribute billions in economic output," Blunt said in the press release.

As of February 6, the bill has 10 bipartisan cosponsors.

The IRS’s proposed 50-percent gross income locational rule on the active conduct of Opportunity Zone businesses is garnering criticism from stakeholders and lawmakers alike. The IRS released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-115420-18, for tax reform’s Opportunity Zone program last October.

The IRS’s proposed 50-percent gross income locational rule on the active conduct of Opportunity Zone businesses is garnering criticism from stakeholders and lawmakers alike. The IRS released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-115420-18, for tax reform’s Opportunity Zone program last October.

50-Percent Locational Rule

Many stakeholders have urged the IRS to reconsider its proposed rule requiring that at least 50-percent of gross income of a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ) business is derived from the active conduct of a trade or business within the QOZ. The IRS heard from several of these stakeholders at a full house public hearing on the proposed regulations held last week at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"[W]e’re concerned that manufacturing businesses, e-commerce enterprises, and others that have the potential to spur significant economic activity could be excluded inadvertently because of this rule," Stefan Pryor, Rhode Island Secretary of Commerce said at the hearing. Additionally, other stakeholders commented that the proposed rule would go against congressional intent.

Comment. There is no locational-related rule for gross income of QOZ businesses included in the law’s statutory language. However, the statutory language does provide a tangible property test to ensure qualifying businesses are predominantly located within the QOZ.

QOZ Business Congressional Intent

To that end, the bipartisan, bicameral tax writers who drafted the original QOZ bill language, too, have urged the IRS to remove the 50-percent gross income locational requirement.

The Opportunity Zone program was enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) in 2017. The program is housed under new Code Secs. 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2. Although not a single Democrat voted for the TCJA, the Opportunity Zone program was based on a bicameral measure sponsored by a group of bipartisan tax writers.

"Since many businesses derive income from the sale of goods and services outside of a single census tract, this would significantly limit the ability for local operating businesses to qualify for Opportunity Fund investment, contrary to congressional intent," the lawmakers wrote in a recent letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. "Even for those businesses who might qualify under this rule, it would impose immense new administrative burdens to track and report the location of each source of business income," they added.

Second Round of Proposed Regulations

Currently, the IRS is working on a second batch of proposed regulations for Opportunity Zones. Those proposed rules "hopefully will see the light of day shortly," Scott Dinwiddie, an IRS official in the Income Tax and Accounting division said at last week’s hearing.

The IRS has said that it is postponing its plan to discontinue faxing taxpayer transcripts. The IRS statement came on the heels of a letter sent earlier this week from bipartisan leaders of the Senate Finance Committee urging such a delay.

The IRS has said that it is postponing its plan to discontinue faxing taxpayer transcripts. The IRS statement came on the heels of a letter sent earlier this week from bipartisan leaders of the Senate Finance Committee urging such a delay.

IRS Cybersecurity

The IRS announced in IRS News Release IR-2018-256 last December that it would stop its tax transcript faxing service for individuals and businesses on February 4, 2019. The IRS cited to reasons of taxpayer security for the change in procedure. To that end, ceasing the IRS’s transcript faxing service would better prohibit cybercriminals from obtaining taxpayer data, according to the IRS.

Grassley, Wyden Urge Delay

SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., sent IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig a letter earlier this week expressing concern with the IRS’s original timeline for discontinuing the tax transcript faxing service. The bipartisan leaders did not ask the IRS to eliminate its plan to discontinue the particular service. However, they did encourage the IRS to extend the date of discontinuation for the sake of taxpayers and practitioners in light of the recent partial government shutdown, which included the IRS.

"[W]e encourage the IRS to delay its planned discontinuation of faxing taxpayer information until such time that the agency can reasonably resolve the legitimate concerns of the tax-practitioner community about alternatives to the IRS faxing taxpayer information," Grassley and Wyden wrote. "Of course, such a delay should not compromise the security or privacy of taxpayer information."

IRS Extends Transcript Faxing Service

The IRS’s Wage & Investment Division issued a January 30 statement stating that the IRS will extend its transcript faxing service beyond February 4. Additionally, the IRS said it is reviewing options for a new timeline and will provide taxpayers and practitioners advance notice of the new date.

New IRS guidance fills in several more pieces of the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction puzzle. Taxpayers can generally rely on all of these new final and proposed rules.

New IRS guidance fills in several more pieces of the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction puzzle. Taxpayers can generally rely on all of these new final and proposed rules.

Final Regulations

The final regulations in T.D. 98xx_1 largely adopt the proposed regulations in NPRM REG-107892-18 (August 16, 2018), but with substantial modifications.

Taxpayers are likely to be disappointed in one thing that did not change: all items treated as capital gain or loss, including Section 1231 gains and losses, are still excluded from qualified business income (QBI). Taxpayers should continue to apply the Section 1231 netting and recapture rules when calculating the Code Sec. 199A deduction.

However, the final regulations drop the rule that treated an incidental non-specified services trade or business (SSTB) as part of an SSTB if the businesses were commonly owned and shared expenses, and the non-SSTB’s gross receipts were no more than five percent of the business’s combined gross receipts.

The final regulations make several adjustments to the proposed regulations for estates and trusts. Most significantly, the final regulations remove the definition of "principal purpose" under the anti-abuse rule that allows the IRS to aggregate multiple trusts. The IRS is taking this issue under advisement. Also, in determining if a trust or estate has taxable income that exceeds the threshold amount, distributions are no longer excluded. Instead, the entity’s taxable income is determined after taking into account any distribution deduction under Code Sec. 651 or Code Sec. 661.

The final regulations retain the presumption that an employee continues to be an employee while doing the same work for the same employer. However, the regulations provide a new three-year look back rule, and allow the worker to rebut the presumption by showing records (such as contracts or partnership agreements) that corroborate the individual’s status as a non-employee.

Other changes of note include:

• Disallowed, limited or suspended losses must be used in order from the oldest to the newest, on a FIFO (first in, first out) basis.
• A relevant passthrough entity (RPE) can aggregate businesses.
• If an RPE fails to report an item, only that item is presumed to be zero; the missing information may be reported on an amended return.
• The S portion and non-S portion of an electing small business trust (ESBT) are treated as a single trust for purposes of determining the threshold amounts.

Proposed Regs for QBI, RICs, Trusts, Estates

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations in NPRM REG-134652-18, which cover three broad topics.

First, in calculating QBI, previously disallowed losses are treated as losses from a separate trade or business. If the losses relate to a publicly traded partnership (PTP), they must be treated as losses from a separate PTP. Attributes of the disallowed loss are determined in the year the loss is incurred.

Second, a RIC that receives qualified REIT dividends may pay Section 199A dividends. The IRS continues to consider permitting conduit treatment for qualified PTP income received by a RIC, and seeks public comment on this issue.

Finally, the proposed regulations also provide rules for charitable remainder unitrusts (and their beneficiaries), split-interest trusts, and separate shares.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise

The proposed revenue procedure set forth in Notice 2019-7 provides a safe harbor for a rental real estate enterprise to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A. RPEs can also use the safe harbor.

A rental real estate enterprise must satisfy three conditions to qualify for the safe harbor:

• Separate books and records must be maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise.
• At least 250 or more hours of rental services must be performed per year with respect to the rental enterprise. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, this test can be satisfied in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
• The taxpayer must maintain contemporaneous records of relevant items, including time reports, logs, or similar documents. (This requirement does not apply to tax years beginning in 2018.)

Relevant items include hours of all services performed, description of all services performed, dates on which such services were performed, and who performed the services.

W-2 Wages

Rev. Proc. 2019-11 allows taxpayers to use one of three methods to calculate W-2 wages for the passthrough deduction:

• the unmodified Box method;
• the modified Box 1 method; or
• the tracking wages method.

These methods were proposed in Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-35, 347. The unmodified Box method is simplest, but the other two methods are more accurate.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on the proposed regulations and the proposed safe harbor. The IRS must receive the comments and any requests for public hearing within 60 days after the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

The IRS has issued interim guidance on the excise tax payable by exempt organizations on remuneration in excess of $1 million and any excess parachute payments made to certain highly compensated current and former employees in the tax year. The excise tax imposed by Code Sec. 4960 is equal to the maximum corporate tax rate on income (currently 21 percent).

The IRS has issued interim guidance on the excise tax payable by exempt organizations on remuneration in excess of $1 million and any excess parachute payments made to certain highly compensated current and former employees in the tax year. The excise tax imposed by Code Sec. 4960 is equal to the maximum corporate tax rate on income (currently 21 percent).

Q&A on Section 4960

The current guidance is contained in a Question-and-Answer format. The interim guidance addresses:

• general application of Code Sec. 4960;
• applicable tax-exempt organizations and related organizations;
• covered employees;
• excess remuneration;
• medical and veterinary services;
• excess parachute payments;
• three-times-base-amount test for parachute payments;
• computation of excess parachute payments;
• reporting liability under Section 4960;
• miscellaneous issues; and
• the effective date.

Reliance

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 which will incorporate the interim guidance. Until future guidance is issued, taxpayers may rely on the rules in the interim guidance from December 22, 2017. Any future guidance will be prospective and will not apply to tax years beginning before the guidance is issued. Until additional guidance is issued, taxpayers may base their positions upon a good faith, reasonable interpretation of the statute and legislative history, where appropriate. Specifically, the positions reflected in the guidance constitute a good faith and reasonable interpretation.

Comments Requested

The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the topics addressed in the interim guidance and any other issues arising under Code Sec. 4960. Comments should be submitted no later than April 2, 2019.

The IRS has provided safe harbors for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a state or local tax (SALT) credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose. Proposed regulations that limit the charitable contribution deduction do not affect the deduction as a business expense.

The IRS has provided safe harbors for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a state or local tax (SALT) credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose. Proposed regulations that limit the charitable contribution deduction do not affect the deduction as a business expense.

Charitable Contributions and SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately). Some states and local governments have adopted or considered adopting laws that allowed individuals to receive a tax credit for contributions to funds controlled by the state and local government.

Under proposed regulations, however, an individual, estate, and trust generally must reduce the amount of any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit he or she receives or expects to receive for the transfer. A de minimis exception allows a taxpayer to disregard up to 15 percent of the payment or transfer to the charitable organization.

C Corporations

If a C corporation makes the charitable payment in exchange for a state and local tax credit, it may deduct the payment as an ordinary and necessary business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to receive.

Specified Pass-Through Entity

A specified pass-through entity may also deduct the payment as an ordinary and necessary business expense, but only if the SALT credit applies or is expected to apply to offset a SALT other than an income tax. A specified pass-through entity for this purpose is any business entity other than a C corporation that is regarded as separate from its owner for all federal income tax purposes (i.e., disregarded entity). The entity also must operate a trade or business within the meaning of Code Sec. 162 and be subject to SALT incurred in carrying on that trade or business that is imposed directly on the entity.

Effective Date

The safe harbors apply to any payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a SALT credit paid on or after January 1, 2018.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations for determining the inclusion under Code Sec. 965 of a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation with post-1986 accumulated deferred foreign income. Code Sec. 965 imposes a "transition tax" on the inclusion. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations, with certain changes.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations for determining the inclusion under Code Sec. 965 of a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation with post-1986 accumulated deferred foreign income. Code Sec. 965 imposes a "transition tax" on the inclusion. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations, with certain changes.

The final regulations generally apply beginning the last tax year of the foreign corporation that begins before January 1, 2018, and with respect to a U.S. person, beginning the tax year in or with which such tax year of the foreign corporation ends.

Note: The final regulations were published without a T.D. number. According to the IRS, a T.D. number will be assigned after the IRS resumes normal operations.

Controlled Domestic Partnerships

Certain controlled domestic partnerships may be treated as foreign partnerships for determining the section 958(a) U.S. shareholders of a specified foreign corporation owned by the controlled domestic partnership and the section 958(a) stock owned by the shareholders. The definition of controlled domestic partnership is revised to not be defined only with respect to a U.S. shareholder, so that the controlled foreign partnership is clearly treated as a foreign partnership for all partners if the rule applies.

Pro Rata Share

The definitions of pro rata share and section 958(a) U.S. shareholder inclusion year are modified. The final regulations will require a section 965(a)inclusion by a section 958(a) U.S. shareholder if the specified foreign corporation, whether or not it is a CFC, ceases to be a specified foreign corporation during its inclusion year.

Downward Attribution Rule

A special rule applies when determining downward attribution from a partner to a partnership where the partner has a de minimis interest in the partnership. The threshold for applying the special attribution rule for partnerships is increased from five to 10 percent, and is extended to trusts.

Basis Election Rules

The final regulations allow a taxpayer elect to increase its basis in the stock of its deferred foreign income corporations (DFICs) by the lesser of its section 965(b) previously taxed earnings and profits or the amount it can reduce the stock basis of its E&P deficit foreign corporations without recognizing gain. Within limits, a taxpayer may designate which stock of a DFIC is increased and by how much.

Exception from Anti-Abuse Rules

The final regulations provide an exception from the anti-abuse rules for certain incorporation transactions. The rules will not apply to disregard a transfer of stock of a specified foreign corporation by U.S. shareholder of a domestic corporation, if certain requirements are met. The section 965(a) inclusion amount with respect to the transferred stock of the specified foreign corporation must not be reduced, and the aggregate foreign cash position of both the transferor and the transferee is determined as if each had held the transferred stock of the specified foreign corporation owned by the other on each of the cash measurement dates.

Cash Position

Code Sec. 965 taxes foreign earnings of a domestic corporate U.S. shareholder at a 15.5-percent rate if held in cash, but only an 8-percent rate if held otherwise. Cash includes cash and cash equivalents. The final regulations provide a narrow exception from the definition of cash position for certain commodities held by a specified foreign corporation in the ordinary course of its trade or business, as well as for certain privately negotiated contracts to buy and sell these assets.

Election and Payment Rules

Under the final regulations, the signature requirement on an election statement is satisfied if the unsigned copy is attached to a timely-filed return of the person making the election, provided that the person retains the signed original in the manner specified.

Transition rules for filing transfer agreements have also been updated. If a triggering event or acceleration event occurs on or before December 31, 2018, the transfer agreement must be filed by January 31, 2019. Rules are added to address the death of an S corporation shareholder transferor. The final regulations also include modifications to certain requirements for the terms of a transfer agreement.

The final regulations provide that in the case of an additional liability reported on a return or amended return, any amount that is prorated to an installment, the due date of which has already passed, will be due with the return reporting the additional amount. The rule on deficiencies remains the same, and payment for a deficiency prorated to an installment, the due date of which has already passed, is due on notice and demand.

Total Net Tax Liability

A taxpayer may elect to defer the payment of its total net tax liability under Code Sec. 965(h) and (i). Total net tax liability under Code Sec. 965, which defines the portion of a taxpayer’s income tax eligible for deferral, is equal to the difference between a taxpayer’s net income tax with and without the application of Code Sec. 965. The final regulations will disregard effective repatriations taxed similarly to dividends under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B) resulting from investments in U.S. property under Code Sec. 956 when determining net income tax liability without the application of Code Sec. 965.

Consolidated Groups

The consolidated group aggregate foreign cash position is determined under the final regulations as if all members of the consolidated group that are section 958(a) U.S. shareholders of a specified foreign corporation are a single section 958(a) U.S. shareholder.

Obsolete Guidance

The following previous guidance is obsolete:

• Notice 2018-7, I.R.B. 2018-4, 317;
• Notice 2018-13, I.R.B. 2018-6 341, Secs. 1-4, 6;
• Notice 2018-26, I.R.B. 2018-16, 480, Secs. 1-5, 7; and
• Notice 2018-78, I.R.B. 2018-42, 604, Secs. 1-3, 5.

The IRS has issued its annual revisions to the general procedures for ruling requests, technical memoranda, determination letters, and user fees, as well as areas on which the Associate Chief Counsel offices will not rule. The revised procedures are generally effective January 2, 2019.

The IRS has issued its annual revisions to the general procedures for ruling requests, technical memoranda, determination letters, and user fees, as well as areas on which the Associate Chief Counsel offices will not rule. The revised procedures are generally effective January 2, 2019.

Rev. Proc. 2019-1

This procedure explains how the IRS provides advice to taxpayers in the form of letter rulings, closing agreements, determination letters and information letters, and orally on issues under the jurisdiction of the various Associate Chief Counsel offices. It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-1, I.R.B. 2018-1, 1. In addition to changes made throughout the guidance, significant changes in the new procedure include:

• Sections 1, 1.01, 3.07, 5.12, 5.14, 5.15, 6.08, 9.23, 10.07, 15.11, Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E have been amended to reflect the name change from "Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities)" to "Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes)."
• Section 5.15(3) has been removed to reflect the transfer of authority to waive excise tax under Code Sec. 4980F to the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements.
• Section 8.02 has been amended to remove the exception for changes in accounting methods or accounting periods from the 21-day notification rule.
  Appendix A (Schedule of User Fees) has been amended with increased user fees to match the increase in costs incurred by the IRS. The new user fee schedule is effective February 2, 2019.
• Appendix E (Church Plan Checklist) has been amended to add a new item 11 to reflect the requirement that an applicant include a representation as to whether an election under Reg. §1.410(d)-1 to apply certain provisions of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to the plan has ever been made.

Rev. Proc. 2019-2

This procedure explains when and how an Associate Office provides technical advice conveyed in a technical advice memorandum (TAM), as well as a taxpayer’s rights when a field office requests a TAM regarding a tax matter. It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-2, I.R.B. 2018-1, 106. Significant changes in the new procedure include:

• All references to Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) have been revised to read “Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes).” All references to “Appeals Policy” have been revised to read “Appeals Policy Planning Quality & Analysis.”
• Section 3.04 has been amended to delete the mandatory TAM requirement in qualified retirement plan matters in cases concerning proposed adverse letters or proposed revocation letters on collectively bargained plans.
• Section 14.02 has been amended to clarify that requests for relief under Code Sec. 7805(b) on the revocation or modification of determination letters and letter rulings issued by TE/GE are handled under the procedures in sections 23 and 29 of Rev. Proc. 2019-4, and section 12 of Rev. Proc. 2019-5.

Rev. Proc. 2019-3

This procedure provides a revised list of areas under the jurisdiction of certain Associate Chief Counsel offices for which letter rulings or determination letters will not be issued. (Lists of areas of nonissuance under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) and the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (relating to plans or plan amendments) are presented in separate revenue procedures.) It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-3, I.R.B. 2019-1, 130.

The following have been added to the list of issues for which advance rulings will not be issued:

• Gross Income. Whether an amount is not included in a taxpayer’s gross income under Code Sec. 61 because the taxpayer receives the amount subject to an unconditional obligation to repay the amount.
• Trade or Business Expenses. Whether a taxpayer is engaged in a trade or business. This area does not include a request for a ruling that relies on a representation from a taxpayer that the taxpayer is or is not engaged in a trade or business, or a request for a ruling that relies on factual information provided by the taxpayer evidencing the active conduct of a trade or business.
• Losses; Carryovers in Certain Corporate Acquisitions; Regulations. In determining whether a loss for worthless securities is subject to Code Sec. 165(g)(3), (i) whether the source of any gross receipts may be determined by reference to the source of gross receipts of a counter party to an intercompany transaction, as defined in Reg. §1.1502-13(b)(1) (e.g., an intercompany distribution to which Reg. §1.1502-13(f)(2) applies), other than an intercompany transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies, and (ii) in an intercompany transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies, whether the acquiring corporation takes into account historic gross receipts of the distributor or transferor corporation, if the intercompany transaction is part of a plan to claim a deduction for worthless securities under Code Sec. 165(g)(3).
• Treatment of multiple trusts. Whether two or more trusts shall be treated as one trust for purposes of subchapter J of chapter 1.
• Returns Relating to the Cancellation of Indebtedness by Certain Entities. Requests for a ruling that the creditor is not required to report a discharge that include as grounds for the request a dispute regarding the underlying liability.

The following issues have been modified:

• Special Rules for Exchanges Between Related Persons. Except in the case of (i) a transaction involving an exchange of undivided interests in different properties that results in each taxpayer holding either the entire interest in a single property or a larger undivided interest in any of the properties or (ii) a disposition of property in a nonrecognition transaction in which the taxpayer or the related party receives no cash or other property that results in gain recognition, whether a Code Sec. 1031(f) exchange involving related parties, or a subsequent disposition of property involved in the exchange, has as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of federal income tax, or is part of a transaction (or series of transactions) structured to avoid the purposes of Code Sec. 1031(f).

Rev. Proc. 2019-4

This procedure explains how the IRS provides advice to taxpayers on issues under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE) Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements Office, and details the types of advice available to taxpayers, and the manner in which the advice is requested and provided. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-4, I.R.B. 2018-1, 146. In addition to minor non-substantive changes, the following changes are made:

• Modifications to reflect Employee Plans Rulings and Agreement’s current practice of considering voluntary requests for closing agreements to resolve certain income or excise tax issues that are ineligible for resolution under the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).
• Letter ruling requests may not be submitted via facsimile transmission.
• A new category called "Other Circumstances" for which determination letters can be requested has been added.
• Code Secs. 414(b), (c) and (m) have been added to the list of sections for which a determination is not made when a determination letter is issued in accordance with the revenue procedure.
• For a plan to be reviewed for, and a determination letter relied upon with respect to, whether the terms of the plan satisfy one of the design-based safe harbors, the plan document must provide a definition of compensation that satisfies Reg. §1.414(s)-1(c).
• Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements will consider a request for an extension of time for making an election under Reg. §301.9100-3 to recharacterize annual contributions made to a Roth IRA. Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements will also consider recharacterization requests that relate to a conversion or rollover contribution to a Roth IRA but only if the rollover or conversion was made prior to January 1, 2018.
• SB/SE Exam will be notified if a request for an extension of time for making an election or other application for relief under Reg. §301.9100-3 is submitted when the return is under examination.
• Beginning April 1, 2019, VCP submissions and the applicable user fees must be made using www.pay.gov. Further, the payment of user fees for pre-approved plan submissions and letter ruling requests may not be made using www.pay.gov and such requests must still be accompanied by a check in the amount of the applicable user fee.
• Clarification has been provided regarding which forms must be submitted for VCP submissions made prior to April 1, 2019.
• User fee for Form 5310 will increase from $2,300 to $3,000 for submissions postmarked on or after July 1, 2019.

Rev. Proc. 2019-5

This procedure updates the procedures for organizations applying for, and the issuing of determination letters on, exempt status under Code Secs. 501and 521. These apply to exempt organizations other than those relating to pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, annuity, and employee stock ownership plans. The procedures also apply to revocation or modification of determination letters. In addition, the procedure provides guidance on the exhaustion of administrative remedies for declaratory judgment under Code Sec. 7428. Finally, new procedure provides guidance on applicable user fees for requesting determination letters. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-5, I.R.B. 2018-1, 233. Notable changes include:

• "Tax Exempt and Government Entities" was changed to "Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes" throughout the document to reflect the office’s name change.
• Section 2.02 was amended to add (6), which discusses Rev. Proc. 2018-15, I.R.B. 2018-9, 379.
• Section 2.03(1) was amended to clarify that a Code Sec. 501(c)(4) organization must submit a user fee along with its completed Form 8976.
• Section 3.02(4) was amended to clarify that the section only applies to an organization seeking to qualify under Code Sec. 501(c)(6).
• Sections 4, 15, and 18 were amended to reflect the new Form 1024-A.
• Section 4.09 was amended to clarify that a request for expedited handling of a determination letter will not be forwarded to the appropriate group for action unless the application is complete.
• Section 13 was amended throughout because Rev. Proc. 2018-32, I.R.B. 2018-23, 739, superseded Rev. Proc. 81-7, 1981-1 CB 621.
• Appendix A was amended to reflect the single user fee for non-1023-EZ exemption applications, and to reflect a change in the user fee for submissions postmarked on or after July 1, 2019, for advance approval of Code Sec. 4942(g)(2) set asides, Code Sec. 4945 advance approval of an organization’s grant making procedures, and Code Sec. 4945(f) advance approval of voter registration activities.

Rev. Proc. 2019-7

This procedure provides an updated list of subject areas under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) for which it will not issue advance letter rulings or determination letters, or will issue letters only if justified by unique and compelling circumstances. Section 4.01(01) related to Code Sec. 367(a) has been removed as obsolete. There are no other changes except renumbering to reflect the foregoing and updates to cross references and citations. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-7, I.R.B. 2018-1, 271

The IRS and the Treasury intend to provide regulations that will address issues affecting foreign corporations with previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP). The regulations are in response to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97)

The IRS and the Treasury intend to provide regulations that will address issues affecting foreign corporations with previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP). The regulations are in response to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), and are intended to include rules for:

• the maintenance of PTEP in annual accounts and within certain groups;
• the ordering of PTEP upon distribution and reclassification; and
• the adjustment required when an income inclusion exceeds a foreign corporation's earnings and profits.

The IRS and Treasury intend to withdraw 2006 proposed regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of PTEP and associated basis adjustments ( NPRM REG-121509-00), and issue new proposed regulations under Code Sec. 959 and Code Sec. 961.

Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
Previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) are a foreign corporation's earnings and profits attributable to amounts which are or have been included in a U.S. shareholder's gross income under Code Sec. 951(a) or under Code Sec. 1248(a). Under the subpart F rules, a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is generally currently taxed on certain income earned by the CFC, and on certain earnings invested in U.S. property.

To prevent double taxation, Code Sec. 959 provides that earnings and profits of the foreign corporation that are attributable to the inclusion are excluded from gross income when actually distributed. An exclusion is also allowed when earnings and profits are attributable to amounts included in the U.S. shareholder’s gross income that would otherwise again be included in gross income under the rule for investment of earnings in U.S. property.

To determine the amount of an actual distribution that is not taxable because it represents previously taxed income upon an actual distribution by the CFC, the earnings distributed are treated as attributable in the following order:

• first, to retained earnings that were required in prior years to be included in income on account of investments in excess passive assets, together with the earnings in prior years that were required to be included in income on account of investments in U.S. property under Code Sec. 956, allocated to each category on a pro rata basis ( "section 959(c)(1) PTEP");
• next, to retained earnings that were required to be included in income as subpart F income ( "section 959(c)(2) PTEP"); and
• finally, to other earnings and profits ( "section 959(c)(3) E&P").

Changes made by the TCJA created the need to account for new groups of PTEP, because section 959(c)(2) PTEP may arise due to income inclusions under Code Secs. 951(a)(1)(A), 245A(e)(2), 951A(f)(1), 959(e), 964(e)(4), or 965(a), or by applying Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A). Those different groups of PTEP may be subject to different rules under Code Secs. 960, 965(g), 245A(e)(3), and 986(c).

In addition, Proposed Reg. § 1.960-3(c) establishes, for purposes of determining the amount of foreign income taxes deemed paid, a system of accounting for PTEP in annual accounts for each separate category of income ( "section 904 category") and further segregate each annual account among 10 PTEP groups.

Annual Accounts and Groups of Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that an annual account must be maintained and each annual PTEP account must be segregated into 16 PTEP groups in each section 904 category:

• reclassified section 965(a) PTEP;
• reclassified section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951(a)(1)(B) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951A PTEP;
• reclassified section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• reclassified section 959(e) PTEP;
• reclassified section 964(e)(4) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP;
• section 956A PTEP;
• section 965(a) PTEP;
• section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951A PTEP;
• section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• section 959(e) PTEP;
• section 964(e) PTEP; and
• section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP.

Section 959(c)(1) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (1) through (9), and section 959(c)(2) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (10) through (16). Once PTEP is assigned to a PTEP group within an annual PTEP account for the year of the income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1) or the year of application of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A), the PTEP will be maintained in an annual PTEP account with a year that corresponds to the year of the account from which the PTEP originated if PTEP is distributed or reclassified in a subsequent tax year.

Additionally, the new regulations are expected to provide that:

• to the extent a CFC has E&P in a PTEP group that is in more than one section 904 category, any distribution out of that PTEP group is made pro rata out of the earnings and profits in each such category;
• dollar basis must be tracked for each annual PTEP account, and, to the extent provided in the regulations, separately for each PTEP group within an annual account; and
• distributions from any PTEP group reduce the shareholder’s stock basis under Code Sec. 961(b)(1) without regard to how that basis was originally created.

The regulations also will provide transition rules for annual PTEP accounts maintained before the regulations’ applicability date.

Ordering of Earnings and Profits upon Distribution and Reclassification
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• a distribution will be a distribution of PTEP only to the extent it would have otherwise been a dividend under Code Sec. 316;
• a "last in, first out" approach will be required for sourcing distributions from annual PTEP accounts, subject to the special priority rule for PTEP arising due to Code Sec. 965;
• PTEP attributable to income inclusions under Code Sec. 965(a) or by reason of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) receive priority when determining the group of PTEP from which a distribution is made; and
• reclassifications of PTEP under Code Sec. 959(a)(2) will be sourced first from section 965(a) PTEP, then section 965(b) PTEP, and then, under a last-in, first-out approach, pro rata from the remaining section 959(c)(2) PTEP groups in each annual PTEP account, starting from the most recent annual PTEP account.

Adjustments Due to an Income Inclusion in Excess of Current Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• current E&P are first classified as section 959(c)(3) E&P, and then section 959(c)(3) E&P are reclassified as section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP, as appropriate, in full, which may result in creating or increasing a deficit in section 959(c)(3) E&P; and
• if a foreign corporation has a current-year deficit in E&P, that deficit will solely reduce the foreign corporation’s section 959(c)(3) E&P without affecting the amount of its section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP.

Application
The new regulations are expected to apply to tax years of U.S. shareholders and successors in interest ending after December 14, 2018, and to tax years of foreign corporations ending with or within the U.S. shareholders’ tax years. Before the regulations are issued, a shareholder can rely on the rules provided in the announcement notice if the shareholder and each related shareholder apply the rules consistently regarding the PTEP of all foreign corporations in which they own stock for all tax years beginning with the shareholder’s or related shareholder’s tax year that includes the tax year end of any such foreign corporation to which Code Sec. 965 applies.

The IRS has proposed regulations on the limitation on the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The IRS also has issued a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as real property trades or businesses solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B).

The IRS has proposed regulations on the limitation on the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The IRS also has issued a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as real property trades or businesses solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B).

Business Interest Limitation
For tax years beginning after 2017, the deduction of interest paid or incurred on debt properly allocable to a trade or business is limited to the sum of:

30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (but not less than zero);

the taxpayer’s business interest income (not including investment income); and

the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The proposed regulations provide general rules and definitions related to the limitation, as well as rules for calculating the limitation in consolidated group, partnership, and international contexts. The regulations affect taxpayers that have deductible business interest expense, other than certain small businesses, electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain utility businesses. The IRS is also withdrawing a prior notice of proposed rulemaking on the disallowance of a deduction for certain interest paid or accrued by a corporation under former Code Sec. 163(j).

The proposed regulations will generally be effective for tax years ending after the date the Treasury Decision adopting them as final is published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers can apply certain provisions to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, so long as the rules are consistently applied.

Safe Harbor
Further, in Rev. Proc. 2018-59, a safe harbor is provided allowing taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as electing real property trades or businesses not subject to the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest deduction limit. These include trades or businesses that are conducted in connection with the designing, building, managing, operating, or maintaining of certain core infrastructure projects for purposes of private activity bond financing proposals. If a taxpayer makes this election, the taxpayer must use the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to depreciate property. Taxpayers may apply the safe harbor to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Comments Requested
Public comments to the proposed regulations should be submitted no later than 60 days after the date that the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-106089-18).

A public hearing has been scheduled for February 25, 2019. It will be held on February 25, 2019, beginning at 10 a.m., in the Main IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.

A nonprofit corporation that operated a medical-marijuana dispensary legally under California law was not allowed to claim deductions for business expenses on its federal return. Code Sec. 280E, which prevents any trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances from deducting any business expenses, applied.

A nonprofit corporation that operated a medical-marijuana dispensary legally under California law was not allowed to claim deductions for business expenses on its federal return. Code Sec. 280E, which prevents any trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances from deducting any business expenses, applied.

Meaning of "Consists of"
The corporation argued that a business does not "consist of" drug trafficking within the meaning of Code Sec. 280E unless its activities relate exclusively with drug trafficking (i.e., selling marijuana). Since its dispensary offered services and goods to its clients other than the sale of medical marijuana, the corporation claimed that Code Sec. 280E does not apply to any of its activities.

The court rejected this argument, noting that it had previously considered and rejected the same argument in an earlier case involving a different taxpayer ( M. Olive, Dec. 59,146, aff’d, CA-9, 2015-2 ustc ¶50,377). Although the phrase "consists of" in common usage refers to an exhaustive or exclusive list, the court noted that the corporation’s interpretation would render Code Sec. 280E ineffective. For example, a drug dealer selling a single item that was not a controlled substance would not be covered by the provision. The court found that various dictionary definitions, certain usage in other Code Sections, and case law that considered the meaning of the phrase did not require an interpretation based on exclusiveness.

Non-Trafficking Trades or Businesses
Although Code Sec. 280E applied to deductions related to the corporation’s marijuana sales, the court had previously ruled that it does not apply to any separate, non-trafficking trades or businesses ( Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. (CHAMP), Dec. 56,935). The court considered whether any of the corporation’s non-trafficking activities were separate trades or businesses. According to the corporation, non-trafficking activities consisted of sales of products with no marijuana, therapeutic services, and brand development.

The court concluded that the sale of products other marijuana than at the corporation’s dispensaries was too closely linked to the sale of the marijuana itself to constitute a separate trade or business. The products generally related to the promotion or use of marijuana and were sold by the same staff that sold the marijuana. Similarly, free "holistic" services that were paid for with approximately one percent of the proceeds from its marijuana sales were not a separate trade or business. Finally, the corporation’s brand development activity was entirely entwined with the marijuana business and could not be treated as a separate enterprise.

Cost of Goods Sold
Although the corporation was not entitled to any business deductions, it was liable for tax only on its gross receipts as reduced by cost of goods sold. For purposes of determining cost of goods sold, the court determined that the corporation could not apply Code Sec. 263A to include indirect expenses. Code Sec. 263A(a)(2) specifically prohibits the capitalization of otherwise nondeductible costs, such as drug trafficking expenses. Therefore, only direct expenses (and a few specified indirect expenses) required to be included in cost of goods sold under the general rules of Code Sec. 471 could be taken into account. For purposes of applying Code Sec. 471, the corporation was considered a reseller rather a producer because it had no ownership in the plants from which the marijuana it sold was produced.

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

• business,
• medical, and
• charitable purposes.

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2019 Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rates for 2019 are:

• 58 cents per mile for business uses;
• 20 cents per mile for medical uses; and
• 14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2019
For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2018 is:

• $50,400 for passenger automobiles, and
• $50,400 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2019 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses
The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

• a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
• on active military duty, and
• moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses
For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

• members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
• state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
• performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2018-3, I.R.B. 2018-2, 285, as modified by Notice 2018-42, I.R.B. 2018-24, 750, is superseded.

The IRS has provided guidance and examples for calculating the nondeductible portion of parking expenses. In addition, the IRS has provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations to help such organizations determine how unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) will be increased by the nondeductible amount of such fringe benefit expenses paid or incurred.

The IRS has provided guidance and examples for calculating the nondeductible portion of parking expenses. In addition, the IRS has provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations to help such organizations determine how unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) will be increased by the nondeductible amount of such fringe benefit expenses paid or incurred.

The IRS also has provided transitional estimated tax penalty relief to tax-exempt organizations that offer qualified transportation fringe benefit expenses and were not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, last filing season.

Parking Fringe Expenses
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) added Code Sec. 274(a)(4) to preclude employers from deducting Code Sec. 132(f) qualified transportation fringe benefits expenses paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include van pools, transit passes, bicycle commuting, and qualified parking.

There are two types of calculations. The first is for cases where the employer pays a third party for the use of its parking lot for the employer’s employees. The second is for cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot.

Employer contracts with third party. When an employer contracts with a third party for the use of the parking lot, the disallowance under Code Sec. 274(a)(4) is generally the amount that the employer pays to the third party. However, if that monthly amount exceeds $260 an employee, the employer must treat the excess as additional compensation. Thus, the monthly amount in excess of $260 is excluded from the disallowance amount.

For example, if Employer A pays $300 per month for each of the employer’s ten employees to park, $31,200 (($260 x 10) x 12) is disallowed under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). The remaining $4,800 (($40 x 10) x 12) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) and remains deductible.

Employer owns or leases the parking lot. According to the IRS, until it issues further guidance, employers may use any reasonable method to calculate the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance in cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot. The IRS has provided a four-step reasonable method:

• Calculate the disallowance for reserved employee spots.
• Determine the primary use of the remaining spots (for the general public (over 50 percent) or for employees).
• Calculate the allowance for reserved nonemployee spots.
• Determine the remaining use and allocable expenses.

For example, an Employer E, owns a surface parking lot adjacent to its plant. E incurs $10,000 of total parking expenses. E’s parking lot has 500 spots that are used by its visitors and employees. E has 50 spots reserved for management and has approximately 400 employees parking in the lot in non-reserved spots during normal business hours on a typical business day. Additionally, E has 10 reserved nonemployee spots for visitors.

Step 1. Because E has 50 reserved spots for management, $1,000 ((50/500) x $10,000) is the amount of total parking expenses that is nondeductible for reserved employee spots.

Step 2. The primary use of the remainder of E’s parking lot is not to provide parking to the general public because 89% (400/450 = 89 percent) of the remaining parking spots in the lot are used by its employees. Therefore, expenses allocable to these spots are not excluded from the Code Sec. 274(a)(4)

Step 3. Because 2 percent (10/450) of E’s remaining parking lot spots are reserved nonemployee spots, the $200 allocable to those spots ($10,000 x 2 percent)) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance. That amount continues to be deductible.

Step 4. E must reasonably determine the employee use of the remaining parking spots during normal business hours on a typical business day and the expenses allocable to employee parking spots.

Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Increase Unrelated Business Taxable Income
TCJA added Code Sec. 512(a)(7), which requires exempt organizations to increase UBTI by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under Code Sec. 274 and which is paid or incurred after December 31, 2017, for any qualified transportation fringes and any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking.

The rules governing tax-exempt organizations mirror the rules for employers under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). Therefore, the expenses for a parking facility used in connection with qualified parking are treated as nondeductible qualified fringe benefit expenses. Thus, a tax-exempt organization must increase its UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) by the disallowed amount. In addition, until the IRS releases further guidance, a tax-exempt organization with only one unrelated trade or business can reduce the increase to UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) to the extent that the deductions directly connected with the carrying on of that unrelated trade or business exceed the gross income derived from such unrelated trade or business.

Estimated Tax Penalty Relief
An exempt organization may be subject to the unrelated business income tax under Code Sec. 511 at corporate rates. The organization reports its unrelated business income on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, if its gross income from unrelated business is $1,000 or more. Further, the organization must make quarterly estimated tax installment payments under Code Sec. 6655 if its estimated tax is expected to be $500 or more.

Code Sec. 6655 imposes an addition to tax for failure to make a sufficient and timely estimated income tax payment. To avoid the underpayment penalty, each installment generally must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the current year's tax return or of the actual tax if no return is filed (current-year safe harbor); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months (preceding-year safe harbor).

The IRS has recognized that Code Sec. 512(a)(7) may cause some exempt organizations to owe unrelated business income tax and have to pay estimated income tax for the first time. These organizations would not be able to use the preceding-year safe harbor, and may need more time to develop knowledge and processes to comply with estimated tax payment requirements.

In light of this, the IRS is waiving the addition to tax for failure to make estimated income tax payments for an exempt organization that:

• provides qualified transportation fringes to an employee for which estimated income tax payments, affected by changes made by TCJA to Code Sec. 274 and Code Sec. 512, would otherwise be required to be made on or before December 17, 2018;
• was not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for the tax year preceding the organization’s first tax year ending after December 31, 2017; and
• timely pays the amount reported for the tax year for which relief is granted.

Taxpayers that do not qualify for this relief can avoid an addition to tax for underpayment of estimated income tax if they meet one of the statutory safe harbor or exception provisions under Code Sec. 6654 or Code Sec. 6655.

To claim the waiver, the exempt organization must write "Notice 2018-100" on the top of its Form 990-T.

Tax-Related Portion of the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act, Enrolled, as Signed by the President on October 24, 2018, P.L. 115-271

Tax-Related Portion of the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act, Enrolled, as Signed by the President on October 24, 2018, P.L. 115-271

President Donald Trump has signed bipartisan legislation, which expands a religious exemption for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. The exemption is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Religious Exemption

SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act ( HR 6) amends Code Sec. 5000A(d)(2)(a) to expand the religious conscience exemption for the ACA individual mandate. Individual taxpayers who rely solely on a religious method of healing for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs are exempt from the ACA mandate to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty.

Tax Reform

Additionally, last year’s tax reform legislation essentially repeals the ACA’s individual mandate. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) repeals the ACA’s shared responsibility payment for individuals failing to maintain minimum essential coverage effective January 1, 2019.

Congressional Republicans are looking to move forward with certain legislative tax efforts during Congress’s lame-duck session. The House’s top tax writer, who will hand the reins to Democrats next year, has reportedly outlined several tax measures that will be a priority when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., during the week of November 12. However, President Donald Trump’s recently touted 10-percent middle-income tax cut does not appear to be one of them.

Congressional Republicans are looking to move forward with certain legislative tax efforts during Congress’s lame-duck session. The House’s top tax writer, who will hand the reins to Democrats next year, has reportedly outlined several tax measures that will be a priority when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., during the week of November 12. However, President Donald Trump’s recently touted 10-percent middle-income tax cut does not appear to be one of them.

Democrats Take the House

Republicans will lose their one-party rule in Washington, D.C. in the 116th Congress beginning in January 2019. As a result of the November 6 midterm elections, Democrats will control the House during the next Congress, and Republicans will retain control of the Senate.

Currently, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Tex., serves as chairman of the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Republicans’ majority in both chambers of Congress enabled the GOP, in coordination with the Trump administration, to enact tax reform legislation last year. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) reportedly did not turn out to be as popular as they had hoped. The TCJA’s unpopularity is at least in part why Republicans lost vital seats in the House, according to several reports.

Lame-Duck

Before the turnover of power, however, Brady is reportedly gearing up to introduce a tax extenders measure during the lame-duck session, which would extend certain temporary or expired tax breaks. Generally, Democrats have been supportive of year-end tax extender legislation. At this time, the details of the tax-extender proposal remain unclear.

Additionally, Brady reportedly said on November 7 that a TCJA technical corrections bill with "minor changes" will move in the lame-duck session. Further, the Senate is expected to take up a House-approved retirement savings measure that is part of House Republicans’ "Tax Reform 2.0" efforts.

Looking Forward

House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., is expected to chair the committee in the 116th Congress. Neal has a fairly moderate tax-legislative record, and is considered on Capitol Hill to be "business-friendly." To that end, Neal has recently sponsored several retirement savings measures, which would enhance employer workplace savings accounts. Additionally, infrastructure and tax-related health care initiatives are expected to be a priority among House Democrats.

GOP Retains Senate

Republicans will continue to lead the Senate in the 116th Congress. While the GOP Senate majority may not be enough to approve additional GOP tax legislation, it is likely to prevent Democrats from repealing parts of the TCJA. However, it is expected on Capitol Hill that hearings will be held in both chambers’ tax writing committees to examine various provisions of the new tax law. Although a divided Congress can result in fewer tax bills being approved, successful legislation will likely be bipartisan.

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) top ranking Democrat has introduced a bill to restore a retirement savings program known as myRA that was terminated by Treasury last year. The myRA program was created by former President Obama through an Executive Order.

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) top ranking Democrat has introduced a bill to restore a retirement savings program known as myRA that was terminated by Treasury last year. The myRA program was created by former President Obama through an Executive Order.

Retirement Savings

"Cost-of-living is soaring with working families having less and less to save for their futures," SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a November 15 tweet. "Today, I’m introducing a bill to address this retirement crisis."

The Encouraging Americans to Save Bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ben Cardin, D-Md., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo. An earlier version of the bill, Sen. 2492, was introduced by Wyden in the 114th Congress that also aimed to expand the myRA program.

"The Encouraging Americans to Save [Bill] enhances retirement savings incentives by restructuring the existing, nonrefundable saver’s credit into a refundable, government matching contribution of up to $500 a year for middle-class workers who save through 401(k) type plans or IRAs, "Wyden’s November 15 press release noted. Additionally, the bill would restore the myRA program, which Treasury determined last year was too costly to continue.

myRA Program

The Obama-era myRA program was designed as a government-sponsored retirement savings program available to individuals without access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. Although the program was determined to have very little demand to warrant its high operating costs, Democrats attributed the low sign-up to the program still being in its infancy. However, Republicans criticized the program as an "executive overreach" that could not become successful based on its investments in little interest yielding Treasury bonds and posed certain risks to taxpayers and employees.

House

House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with Wyden, sent a letter last year to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urging Treasury to continue the myRA program. Neal is expected to become chairman of the House’s tax writing committee this coming January in the 116th Congress.

However, considering the Trump administration ended the program, it is seen as unlikely on Capitol Hill that Trump would support legislation to restore it. Moreover, Republicans will retain their majority-hold of the Senate in the next Congress, thus further limiting its chances of success.

A new, 10 percent middle-income tax cut is conditionally expected to be advanced in 2019, according to the House’s top tax writer. This timeline, although largely already expected on Capitol Hill, departs sharply from President Donald Trump’s original prediction that the measure would surface by November.

A new, 10 percent middle-income tax cut is conditionally expected to be advanced in 2019, according to the House’s top tax writer. This timeline, although largely already expected on Capitol Hill, departs sharply from President Donald Trump’s original prediction that the measure would surface by November.

Middle-Income Tax Cut

President Donald Trump announced on October 22 that a new 10 percent tax cut would soon be unveiled that will focus specifically on middle-income taxpayers. "President Trump is determined to provide further tax relief for middle-class families," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an October 23 statement. "We will continue to work with the White House and Treasury over the coming weeks to develop an additional 10 percent tax cut focused specifically on middle-class families and workers, to be advanced as Republicans retain the House and Senate," Brady added.

Comment. Notably, Brady is essentially highlighting in his statement that any such additional tax cut measure would require a Republican majority for congressional approval. As November midterm elections near, there is "talk" on Capitol Hill that Republicans may lose control of the House.

The additional 10 percent tax cut for middle-income taxpayers would aim to build upon the individual tax cuts enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). To that end, the House passed a "Tax Reform 2.0"package last month, which would make permanent the TCJA’s individual and small business tax credits. The TCJA’s individual tax cut provisions were enacted temporarily through 2025 in accordance with certain Senate budget rules. Although the TCJA did not receive one Democratic vote, the Tax Reform 2.0 package did clear the House with some bipartisan support.

New Congress, New Tax Cut

"We expect to advance this in the new session of Congress if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate," Brady, said of the tax cut in an October 26 televised interview. However, President Trump said a couple of days before that a " resolution" would be introduced for the tax cut by the week of October 29.

Democratic lawmakers have been criticizing Trump’s announcement as nothing more than politically-driven rhetoric ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. Several top congressional Democrats have voiced intent to repeal, at least in part, the TCJA enacted last December. While Republicans, on the other hand, want to continue building upon the TCJA’s tax cuts.

"What President Trump is looking at is a 10 percent cut focused on middle-class workers and families…he still believes middle-class families are the ones always in the squeeze," Brady said on October 26. "We’ve been working with the White House and the Treasury on some ideas about how best to do it," he added.

Net Neutral

Trump has predicted that the tax cut will be net neutral. A chief complaint of last year’s tax reform among Democrats is the TCJA estimated $1.4 trillion price tag over a 10-year budget window.

"If you speak to Brady and a group of people, we're putting in a tax reduction of 10 percent, which I think will be a net neutral because we're doing other things, which I don't have to explain now," Trump said. A spokesperson for Brady has reportedly said that cost measures for the tax cut will be addressed once the proposal has been scored.

Looking Ahead

At this time, it is considered likely on Capitol Hill that Republicans will retain control of the Senate, but several predictions continue to float that the GOP will lose its House majority. Republicans would likely need to retain control of both chambers for any chance of approving further individual tax cuts or making permanent those enacted under the TCJA.

Although, the House approved its "Tax Reform 2.0" package last month, which includes measures to make permanent the TCJA’s individual tax cuts and enhance various savings accounts and business innovation, the Senate has showed little interest in taking up the package as a whole before the end of the year. However, consideration of the retirement and savings measure in the lame-duck session remains a possibility.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig gave his first speech since being confirmed as the 49th chief of the Service at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) November 13 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C. "You’re going to see things [I do] and go, ‘I can’t believe he did that,’" Rettig said.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig gave his first speech since being confirmed as the 49th chief of the Service at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) November 13 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C. "You’re going to see things [I do] and go, ‘I can’t believe he did that,’" Rettig said.

Rettig, nominated by President Donald Trump last February and sworn in as IRS Commissioner on October 1, was a practicing tax attorney for over 30 years. "I’m not going to lose my tax edge," he told CPAs and other tax professionals.

Modernizing the IRS

Rettig, since being confirmed, has maintained that a top priority of the IRS is updating the Service’s technology. "We must work on our IT modernization efforts," Rettig said in a previous statement.

Additionally, Rettig discussed the IRS’s antiquated information technology (IT) systems and software at the AICPA event. "I can call Google…or All State and a recording…says, 'you are 14th in line, we can call you back, you won't lose your place in line," Rettig said. "We don't have those tools, we need those tools."

However, Rettig emphasized that the IRS’s employees should have pride in their roles, and that many IRS challenges are a result of constrained financial resources. IRS employees are "people who care,"Rettig said. Further, Rettig said he wants the IRS to gain taxpayers’ respect.

Additionally, in line with the IRS’s increased efforts toward transparency, Rettig said that employee training materials for last year’s tax reform will soon be posted to the IRS’s website. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) (P.L. 115-97) was enacted last December. Rettig is tasked with overseeing the new tax law’s implementation.

Tax Reform

A copy of Rettig’s prepared remarks for the AICPA event was provided to Wolters Kluwer by the IRS on November 14. Notably, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that Rettig "did not stick to the script." In an informal outline of areas on which Rettig intends to focus, "the top of the list is continuing to implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which contains the most sweeping tax changes in 30 years,"Rettig stated in the prepared remarks. "The IRS has already made great progress in this area, but more remains to be done."

IRS Guidance

The IRS is committed to helping taxpayers and tax professionals understand the new tax law changes, as well as file returns next year timely and accurately, Rettig noted. To that end, the IRS will continue to issue guidance this year related to tax reform, according to Rettig. "You can expect additional guidance in the next several weeks in a number of areas," he added, which include TCJA provisions related to the following:

• Opportunity Zones;
• the limitation on the business interest expense deduction; and
• the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT).

Additionally, the IRS will continue to update taxpayer forms and instructions related to new tax law provisions, Rettig noted. "We’re well on our way to having those completed in time for [the 2019] filing season."

The House has approved two tax bills that are part of Republicans’ three-pronged "Tax Reform 2.0" package. The two measures, approved by the House on September 27, focus on retirement savings and business innovation.

The House has approved two tax bills that are part of Republicans’ three-pronged "Tax Reform 2.0" package. The two measures, approved by the House on September 27, focus on retirement savings and business innovation.

The most controversial bill of the package, which would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December, was approved by the House on September 28 (see the following story in this Issue). At this time, the Senate is neither expected to vote on the Tax Reform package before midterm elections in November nor approve the Tax Reform 2.0 package in its entirety.

Tax Reform 2.0
The Tax Reform 2.0 package was approved by the House Way and Means Committee on September 13. The following three bills are included in the package:

• Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 (HR 6760);
• Family Savings Act of 2018 (HR 6757); and
• American Innovation Act of 2018 (HR 6756).

The House approved HR 6757 on September 27 by a 240-to-177 vote. HR 6756 was approved minutes later by a 260-to-156 vote.

Savings Accounts
HR 6757 proposes an expansion of certain savings incentives. Among other things, the bill would eliminate the age limit on individual retirement account (IRA) contributions. Additionally, it would create a Universal Savings Account (USA) to which individuals could contribute up to $2,500 annually. Withdrawals from USA accounts would be tax free. Tax-advantaged funds in USA accounts could be used for purposes other than retirement. Also, the bill would expand Code Sec. 529 plans to permit use for expenses related to trade schools, home schooling, and up to $10,000 in total distributions for student loan repayment.

Business Innovation
HR 6756 would improve the tax treatment of certain start-up business expenses. The bill would allow new businesses to write off up to $20,000 of start-up and organization expenditures. Additionally, HR 6756 would allow for a change in start-up ownership without triggering limits on certain tax benefits.

Democratic Criticism
Democrats remain united in their opposition of Republicans’ Tax Reform 2.0 efforts. The lack of Democratic support makes the package’s success in the Senate, at least in current form, highly unlikely.

At least 60 Democratic votes would be needed for approval. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that the Senate will not take up any bills in the package until the requisite votes are accounted for.

Specifically, Democrats criticize HR 6760 for extending TCJA provisions, a law that Democrats claim primarily benefits wealthy individuals and corporations. However, some Democratic support is expected in the Senate on the business innovation bill, HR 6756. There is talk on Capitol Hill that the bill could be approved by Congress in the lame duck session toward the end of the year.

White House
The Trump administration announced its support of the Tax Reform 2.0 package in a September 26 Statement of Administration Policy. The White House praised HR 6760 for "preventing a tax increase on millions of middle-income families and small businesses after 2025." Additionally, the Trump administration praised HR 6757, saying it would "assist start-up companies and entrepreneurs by allowing them to write off more costs associated with starting their new business and by allowing them to raise capital and expand without losing their previously accrued tax benefits."

The House has approved a tax bill that would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December. The controversial bill is part of Republican’s three-bill "Tax Reform 2.0" package, two of which cleared the House on September 27 (see the previous story in this Issue).

The House has approved a tax bill that would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December. The controversial bill is part of Republican’s three-bill "Tax Reform 2.0" package, two of which cleared the House on September 27 (see the previous story in this Issue).

Individual, Small Business Tax Cuts
The House approved the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 (HR 6760) on September 28 by a 220-to-191 vote. The bill would make permanent certain individual and small business tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

HR 6760 would make permanent certain TCJA individual tax cuts that are set to expire after 2025. These TCJA provisions were made temporary to comply with certain Senate budget rules applicable to the reconciliation process requiring only a simply GOP majority. Notably, these provisions include, among others:

• lower individual tax rates;
• a larger standard deduction;
• a $10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction; and
• a 20 percent deduction of business income for certain passthrough entities.

HR 6760 would reduce federal revenue by $631 billion over the next decade, according to a cost estimate by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), (JCX-79-18). However, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., highlighted the JCT’s findings particular to the bill’s macroeconomic effects. "Tax Reform 2.0 will permanently provide over $140 billion in annual tax relief for middle-class families, boost American GDP and investment, and create 1.1 million new jobs," Brady said in a statement, citing to the JCT report.

Democratic Support
Although the TCJA did not receive one Democratic vote, HR 6760, which extends many of the TCJA’s individual provisions, received three Democratic votes. Ten Republicans voted against the bill, all of whom hail from high-tax states and oppose the $10,000 annual cap on the SALT deduction.

Over 40 Democrats voted for the Family Savings Act of 2018 (HR 6757) and the American Innovation Act of 2018 (HR 6756), which focus on enhancing savings accounts and start-up business tax breaks. All three bills are now headed to the Senate, where the package is not expected to be considered before midterm elections in November. Additionally, the entire package is not expected to be approved by the Senate. However, it is considered likely on Capitol Hill that HR 6757, which promotes retirement and family savings, could be approved by the Senate in the lame-duck session.

"It’s encouraging to receive 44 Democratic votes in support of elements of Tax Reform 2.0," Brady said in a September 28 statement. "I’m confident that working with the Senate we can advance bipartisan bills to the President’s desk," he added.

Democratic Criticism
Although the Tax Reform 2.0 package did receive some Democratic support in the House, Democrats in both the House and Senate remain largely opposed to Republican efforts to extend the TCJA’s individual and small business tax cuts. Many Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations.

"The Republicans’ tax 2.0 legislation is another reckless tax cut for the wealthy that leaves behind average, hardworking families," Ways and Means Committee ranking member, Richard Neal, D-Mass., said on the House floor just prior to the HR 6760 vote. "In less than a year, House Republicans have handed out trillions of tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations," Neal added in a September 28 statement released after the 2.0 package cleared the chamber.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., praised the Tax Reform 2.0 package for propelling economic growth and helping middle income taxpayers. "On top of making lower rates for individuals and small businesses permanent, these bills create new savings options for families to plan for education and retirement,"Ryan said in a September 28 statement.

Looking Ahead
House lawmakers left Washington, D.C. on September 28 to begin campaigning ahead of midterm elections in November. The Senate is not expected to take up the Tax Reform 2.0 package, if at all, until later this fall.

As for whether any of the three bills will become law this year, Brady remains optimistic. "We had 41 Democratic votes in support of retirement savings and that innovation for start-ups. I think that has a very good chance, with bipartisan support of getting to the President’s desk this year," Brady said in a September 28 televised interview. "The [individual tax cuts] permanency bill, that’s separate, will go to the Senate after today. [Senate Majority] Leader Mitch McConnell, has made it clear – when he sees a path for 60 votes, he’ll bring it forward."

Stakeholders are urging the IRS to clarify its guidance on tax reform’s new passthrough deduction. The IRS held an October 16 public hearing on proposed rules for the new Code Sec. 199Apassthrough deduction at its headquarters in Washington D.C. The IRS released the proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, on August 8.

Stakeholders are urging the IRS to clarify its guidance on tax reform’s new passthrough deduction. The IRS held an October 16 public hearing on proposed rules for the new Code Sec. 199Apassthrough deduction at its headquarters in Washington D.C. The IRS released the proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, on August 8.

Over 20 stakeholders and practitioners spoke at the hearing. Additionally, over 300 comments on the proposed rules have been submitted to Treasury and the IRS.

Passthrough Deduction
The new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations, was enacted as part of tax reform legislation last December. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. The deduction is scheduled to sunset in 2026.

Rental Real Estate
Several speakers at the hearing asked the IRS for guidance clarifying whether rental real estate activities are eligible for the deduction. Additionally, Troy Lewis, testifying on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA), asked the IRS for guidance on specific circumstances in which rental real estate activities would not produce qualified trade or business income pursuant to the adopted Code Sec. 162 standard.

"Without further guidance clarifying when the rental of real estate would fail to rise to the level of a section 162 trade or business, unnecessary ambiguity exists that will likely create a divergence in practice," the AICPA said in its written comments. "Taxpayers are thus left to pursue their own interpretation of the rules under section 199A and the IRS will likely face greater complexity of administration."

Likewise, the Council for Electronic Revenue Communication Advancement (CERCA) submitted comments highlighting the uncertainty as to whether and when a rental property is generally considered a qualifying trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A deduction. Notably, CERCA referenced the preamble to the regulations that indicates taxpayers should look to existing case law to determine whether rental activities meet the Code Sec. 162 standard. However, existing case law does not consistently apply a set of factors that taxpayers could reliably apply as rules, according to CERCA.

Determining that all rental real estate is a trade or business for purposes of the deduction would significantly simplify the deduction, Iona Harrison said, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Realtors. Making such a determination would also simplify IRS administration, she added.

SSTB
Several speakers and a number of comment letters requested that the IRS clarify its definition of a specified service trade or business (SSTB). The SSTB limitation is one of the most controversial provisions of the deduction. SSTBs are considered a "trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, investing and investment management, trading, dealing in certain assets or any trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees," according to the IRS.

To that end, Major League Baseball (MLB) has pitched its assertion to the IRS that professional sports clubs are neither "personal services corporations" nor provide "services," as defined in Code Sec. 1202(e)(3)(A). The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, which governs the 30 MLB clubs, has asserted in written comments that the business of a professional sports club is not an SSTB under Code Sec. 199A. Thus, "its owners should be allowed the full 199A deduction," Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr. wrote in submitted comments.

Questions Remain
The October 16 public hearing served more as an opportunity for stakeholders to highlight issues rather than a forum for the IRS to provide answers. Treasury and the IRS are expected to consider hearing testimony and written comments when finalizing the rules. The regulations are expected to be finalized before the 2019 tax filing season.

Top Senate tax writers have introduced a bipartisan bill to prevent duplicative taxation on digital goods and services. The bill aims to establish a framework across multiple jurisdictions for taxation of digital goods and services, including electronic music, literature, and mobile apps, among other things.

Top Senate tax writers have introduced a bipartisan bill to prevent duplicative taxation on digital goods and services. The bill aims to establish a framework across multiple jurisdictions for taxation of digital goods and services, including electronic music, literature, and mobile apps, among other things.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act (Sen. 3581) was reintroduced on October 11 by Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and SFC member John Thune, R-S.D. A similar measure was previously introduced in 2015 by Thune and Wyden in the 114th Congress. A companion bill is expected to be reintroduced in the House.

Digital Marketplace
While the digital marketplace continues to evolve, federal law addressing taxation of digital goods and services "lags" behind, according to a joint press release issued by Thune and Wyden. "As a result, some consumers can be taxed multiple times on a single digitally delivered product or service by different tax jurisdictions," Thune said. "Our bipartisan legislation simply prevents this duplicative and discriminatory taxation, which will help ensure today’s digital economy isn’t held back unnecessarily and can continue to offer opportunities to entrepreneurs and consumers alike," Thune added.

"Preventing unfair taxes on music, books and other important goods and services benefits consumers and innovators alike," Wyden said. "This bipartisan legislation solves a 21st century tax riddle by establishing a comprehensive set of rules for states to follow."

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

Generally, the IRS does not release draft forms but has done so in this case as a "courtesy," the instructions state. "Do not rely on draft forms, instructions, and publications for filing,"the IRS wrote. Further, drafts of instructions and publications generally undergo some changes before being finalized, the IRS noted.

2018 Form 1040
Starting with the 2019 tax filing season, many taxpayers will be able to file federal income taxes on a new postcard-sized Form 1040. The IRS planned to finalize the new base 2018 Form 1040 this summer, an IRS spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer. "This early release is part of our standard process to invite stakeholder input into draft forms before finalizing them," the IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer after the official release of the draft 2018 Form 1040.

Shorter Form, Six Schedules
The new, two-sided Form 1040 is intended to replace and consolidate current Forms 1040, 1040A and 1040EZ. "This new approach will simplify the 1040 so that all 150 million taxpayers can use the same form," the IRS said.

The shortened form reflects many of the changes to the tax code enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Some of these changes include the higher standard deduction and the elimination of certain deductions and personal exemptions. The new form now has 23 lines, decreased from 79. However, there are now six separate schedules that some taxpayers who continue to itemize will need to include with their return.

House Republican tax writers have advanced a "Tax Reform 2.0" legislative package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.

The House Ways and Means Committee debated the GOP Tax Reform 2.0 three-bill package in a September 13 markup that ran almost seven hours. The package focuses on making permanent individual and small business tax cuts, and creating incentives for retirement savings and business innovation. The following three bills were approved along party lines:

• Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 ( HR 6760);
• Family Savings Act of 2018 ( HR 6757); and
• American Innovation Act of 2018 ( HR 6756).

Individual, Small Business Tax Cuts

HR 6757 would make permanent the individual and small business tax cuts that were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). These provisions were made temporary to comply with certain Senate budget rules applicable to the reconciliation process Republicans used to pass tax reform with only a simple GOP majority. Notable TCJA provisions that would be made permanent under HR 6750 include, among others:

• lowered individual income tax rates;
• 20-percent deduction of income for qualifying passthrough entities;
• $12,000 (individual) and $24,000 (married filing jointly) standard deduction; and
• $10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.

Family Savings and Business Innovation

HR 6757 aims to simplify certain rules for employer retirement plans, and eliminates the age limit on IRA contributions, among other things. Additionally, it would create a Universal Savings Account (USA), while also allowing tax-advantaged 529 Plans to be used for expenses related to trade schools, home schooling, and up to $10,000 in total distributions for repayment of student loans.

HR 6756 would improve the tax treatment of certain start-up businesses. The bill would allow new businesses to write off up to $20,000 of start-up and organization expenditures. Additionally, HR 6756 would allow for a change in start-up ownership without triggering limits on certain tax benefits.

JCT

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has estimated that all three bills will cost the federal government revenue. As noted in JCX-71-18, the JCT estimates that making permanent the individual and small business tax cuts under the TCJA, as proposed by HR 6750, would cost the federal government $631 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. Additionally, the JCT has estimated that HR 6756 and HR 6757, collectively, would cost approximately $26 billion in lost federal revenue over the next 10 years ( JCX-75-18, JCX-78-18).

Tax Reform 2.0’s Fate Uncertain

Tax Reform 2.0’s fate remains largely uncertain as it makes its way through the legislative process. While the measure is expected to garner enough Republican support in the House, despite certain GOP criticisms of the SALT deduction cap, it is not expected as a whole to fare well in the Senate. There is talk on Capitol Hill that Democrats could potentially support the retirement savings and business innovation bills in some form. However, it is considered unlikely that Democrats will support making permanent certain provisions of a law (the TCJA) for which not a single Democrat voted.

Charles P. "Chuck" Rettig was confirmed as the new IRS Commissioner on September 12. The Senate confirmed the nomination by a 64-to-33 vote. Rettig received both Democratic and Republican support.

Charles P. "Chuck" Rettig was confirmed as the new IRS Commissioner on September 12. The Senate confirmed the nomination by a 64-to-33 vote. Rettig received both Democratic and Republican support.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, praised Rettig, saying that he is both "qualified and ready" to lead the IRS. Although SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., previously said that Rettig is a "qualified nominee," he urged colleagues to oppose Rettig’s nomination. Wyden previously said he would only support Rettig’s nomination if he promised to reverse recent IRS guidance which limits Schedule B donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38).

Rettig will oversee implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). His term as IRS Commissioner will expire on November 12, 2022.

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

SALT Deduction

The SALT deduction limit is one of the most controversial temporarily enacted provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) signed into law last December. Under the TCJA, beginning in 2018 and running through 2025, taxpayers may not claim more than $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for all state and local sales, income and property taxes.

After the tax code overhaul, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (considered high-tax states) passed legislation that essentially allows taxpayers to circumvent the SALT deduction cap by making charitable contributions to state-run charitable organizations. Indeed, similar workarounds for private-school tuition already exists in other states.

"Congress limited the deduction for state and local taxes that predominantly benefited high-income earners to help pay for major tax cuts for American families,"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "The proposed rule will uphold that limitation by preventing attempts to convert tax payments into charitable contributions."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats, as with the TCJA, are mostly divided on the topic. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., praised the IRS proposal for aiming to prevent tax evasion. "These Treasury regulations rightly close the door on improper tax evasion schemes conjured up by state and local politicians who insist on brutally taxing local families and businesses," Brady said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are criticizing the regulations. "The Trump administration doubled down on its attack on the middle class," Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement. "The administration’s new regulations block affected states’ attempts to cope with this significant change and protect residents."

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

Several tax policy experts have criticized states’ efforts to circumvent the SALT deduction cap. Carl Davis, research director at the Democratic-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, has called the workarounds an "abuse" of the charitable giving deduction. "Anyone who wants a fair and transparent tax system should be cautiously optimistic that these rules will put an end…to the workaround provisions enacted by states more recently," Davis wrote in a recent op-ed about the proposed IRS guidance.

Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, has said that states’ strategies to re-characterize SALT payments were pursued to primarily help high-income taxpayers. Additionally, the top one percent of the wealthiest households would reap more than half of the benefit if the SALT cap were eliminated, according to an estimate from the Democratic-leaning Tax Policy Center.

The IRS has proposed to remove the Code Sec. 385 documentation regulations provided in Reg. §1.385-2. Although the proposed removal of the documentation rules will apply as of the date the proposed regulations are published as final in the Federal Register, taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations until the final regulations are published.

The IRS has proposed to remove the Code Sec. 385 documentation regulations provided in Reg. §1.385-2. Although the proposed removal of the documentation rules will apply as of the date the proposed regulations are published as final in the Federal Register, taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations until the final regulations are published.

The documentation regulations provide minimum documentation requirements that must be satisfied in order for certain related-party instruments to be treated as debt for federal tax purposes. They are part of final and temporary Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790, I.R.B. 2016-45, 540. In addition to the documentation requirements, the Section 385 regulations also include rules that recharacterize as equity certain debt issued in connection with distributions and acquisitions that do not result in new investment in the operations of the issuer. The Section 385 regulations apply generally to debt instruments issued by a domestic corporations (or its disregarded entity) and held by members of the domestic corporation’s expanded group.

Documentation Regulations

The documentation rules generally require large corporations to document related-party loans just as all businesses do when they borrow from unrelated lenders. Reg. §1.385-2 prescribes the nature of the documentation necessary to substantiate the tax treatment of related-party instruments as debt. Taxpayers must be able to provide written evidence of four indebtedness factors analogous to those found in third-party loans.

Compliance with the documentation rules does not establish that an interest is debt. Instead, it serves only to satisfy the minimum documentation for making the determination under general federal tax principles. If a debt instrument is reclassified as stock due to a failure to meet the documentation requirements, it is treated as stock for all federal tax purposes.

Corporations must document relevant transactions under these rules if they are part of expanded affiliated groups and:

• stock of any member of the group is publicly traded;
• one or more members have total assets that exceed $100 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements; or
• one or more members have annual total revenue that exceeds $50 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements.

The documentation regulations apply to relevant intercompany debt issued beginning in 2019, and require that the taxpayer’s documentation for a given tax year be prepared by the time the borrower’s return is filed.

Executive Order 13789

Executive Order 13789, issued on April 21, 2017 (E.O. 13789), instructs the Treasury Secretary to identify significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers, add undue complexity to the federal tax laws, or exceed the statutory authority of the IRS. The Treasury Secretary is instructed to take concrete actions to alleviate these burdens.

Based on E.O. 13789, the Treasury Department identified, among others, the Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790 as significant tax regulations that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers and/or add undue complexity to the federal tax laws ( Notice 2017-38, I.R.B. 2017-30, 147).

In light of further actions in connection with the required review of the Section 385 regulations, and in response to continued taxpayer concern, the IRS has delayed the applicability date of the documentation regulations for 12 months. As a result, the documentation requirements apply to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2019. As originally adopted, the final regulations applied to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018 ( Notice 2017-36, I.R.B. 2017-33, 208).

In a later report, the Treasury has proposed to revoke the current documentation rules and replace them with substantially simplified and streamlined documentation rules ( TDNR SM-0172, October 4, 2017; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Second Report to the President on Executive Order 13789, October 2, 2017).

Proposed Removal of Documentation Rules

The IRS has proposed to remove the documentation regulations after considering the comments received in connection with E.O. 13789, including with respect to Notice 2017-36 and Notice 2017-38. However, the IRS will continue to study the issues addressed by the documentation regulations, When the study is complete, the IRS may propose a modified version of the documentation regulations. The revised documentation rules:

• would be substantially simplified and streamlined to reduce the burden on U.S. corporations;
• would still require sufficient documentation and other information for tax administration purposes; and
• would be proposed with a prospective effective date to allow sufficient lead time for taxpayers to design and implement systems to comply with the revised requirements.

Comments

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 23, 2018. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-130244-17).

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

Code Sec. 199A allows business owners to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships, partnerships, trusts, and S corporations. The deduction is one of the most high-profile pieces of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

In addition to providing general definitions and computational rules, the new guidance helps clarify several concepts that were of special interest to many taxpayers.

Trade or Business

The proposed regulations incorporate the Code Sec. 162 rules for determining what constitutes a trade or business. A taxpayer may have more than one trade or business, but a single trade or business generally cannot be conducted through more than one entity.

Taxpayers cannot use the grouping rules of the passive activity provisions of Code Sec. 469 to group multiple activities into a single business. However, a taxpayer may aggregate trades or businesses if:

• each trade or business is itself a trade or business;
• the same person or group owns a majority interest in each business to be aggregated;
• none of the aggregated trades or businesses can be a specified service trade or business; and
• the trades or businesses meet at least two of three factors which demonstrate that they are in fact part of a larger, integrated trade or business.

Specified Service Business

Income from a specified service business generally cannot be qualified business income, although this exclusion is phased in for lower-income taxpayers.

A new de minimis exception allows some business to escape being designated as a specified service trade or business (SSTB). A business qualifies for this de minimis exception if:

• gross receipts do not exceed $25 million, and less than 10 percent is attributable to services; or
• gross receipts exceed $25 million, and less than five percent is attributable to services.

The regulations largely adopt existing rules for what activities constitute a service. However, a business receives income because of an employee/owner’s reputation or skill only when the business is engaged in:

• endorsing products or services;
• licensing the use of an individual’s image, name, trademark, etc.; or
• receiving appearance fees.

In addition, the regulations try to limit attempts to spin-off parts of a service business into independent qualified businesses. Thus, a business that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to a related service business is part of that service business. Similarly, the portion of property or services that a business provides to a related service business is treated as a service business. Businesses are related if they have at least 50-percent common ownership.

Wages/Capital Limit

A higher-income taxpayer’s qualified business income may be reduced by the wages/capital limit. This limit is based on the taxpayer’s share of the business’s:

• W-2 wages that are allocable to QBI; and
• unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition.

The proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-34, provide detailed rules for determining the business’s W-2 wages. These rules generally follow the rules that applied to the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction.

The proposed regulations also address unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The regulations largely adopt the existing capitalization rules for determining unadjusted basis. However, "immediately after acquisition" is the date the business places the property in service. Thus, UBIA is generally the cost of the property as of the date the business places it in service.

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

• definitions;
• basic computations;
• loss carryovers;
• Puerto Rico businesses;
• coordination with other Code Sections;
• penalties;
• special basis rules;
• previously suspended losses and net operating losses;
• other exclusions from qualified business income;
• allocations of items that are not attributable to a single trade or business;
• anti-abuse rules;
• application to trusts and estates; and
• special rules for the related deduction for agricultural cooperatives.

Effective Dates

Taxpayers may generally rely on the proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64 until they are issued as final. The regulations and proposed revenue procedure will be effective for tax years ending after they are published as final. However:

• several proposed anti-abuse rules are proposed to apply to tax years ending after December 22, 2017;
• anti-abuse rules that apply specifically to the use of trusts are proposed to apply to tax years ending after August 9, 2018; and
• if a qualified business’s tax year begins before January 1, 2018, and ends after December 31, 2017, the taxpayer’s items are treated as having been incurred in the taxpayer’s tax year during which business’s tax year ends.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-107892-18). Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS also requests comments on the proposed revenue procedure for calculating W-2 wages, especially with respect to amounts paid for services in Puerto Rico. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically to [email protected], with “ Notice 2018-64” in the subject line. These comments must also be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

A legislative package that would make permanent the pass-through deduction, as well as other individual tax cuts, is expected to move though the House this fall. However, the House’s legislative efforts are not expected, at this time, to pass muster in the more narrowly GOP-controlled Senate.

Criticism

Several Democratic lawmakers and tax policy experts have already started to weigh in on the proposed regulations, which were released on August 8 while Congress remained in its annual August recess. Democrats have criticized the new deduction for primarily benefiting the wealthy. Meanwhile, several tax policy experts have taken to Twitter to note that the deduction is overly complex and administratively burdensome.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has reportedly said that the proposed regulations "confirm that the fortunate few win," under the new tax law. "Tax planners are already scouring through the nearly 200 pages of regulations in search of new ways to keep wealthy clients from paying their fair share."

Compliance Burdens

The pass-through deduction could add 25 million hours to taxpayers’ annual reporting burden, according to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the IRS has estimated that gross reporting annualized costs to taxpayers will total approximately $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, the IRS has estimated that the compliance burden will vary between taxpayers, averaging between 30 minutes and 20 hours. The administrative burden on smaller pass-through entities is anticipated to be on the lower end of the estimate, according to the IRS.

Comment. Ryan Kelly, partner at Alston & Bird LLP, told Wolters Kluwer on August 13 that the IRS’s 25 million-hour estimate, whether accurate or not, suggests that there will be a significant increase in administrative compliance costs. "There is a real cost to tax compliance in lost time and productivity for taxpayers," Kelly said. However, Kelly predicted that taxpayers’ Code Sec. 199A compliance burden will eventually decrease. "Time will reveal the extent of taxpayers’ administrative burden to comply; however, it is likely that as time goes on the taxpayers’ compliance burden will fall as taxpayers, tax practitioners, and the Service all become more familiar with section 199A and how it is intended to operate."
Meanwhile, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees have both praised Treasury and the IRS for quickly releasing the much anticipated regulations. Additionally, several tax policy experts have also praised the proposed regulations for alleviating confusion, as well as taxpayer anxiety, about ambiguous provisions of the law.

"This first-ever 20 percent deduction for small businesses allows our local job creators to keep more of their money so they can hire, invest, and grow in their communities," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a statement. "These proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty and flexibility for Main Street businesses in this historic new small business deduction."

Improvements to the proposed regulations are expected in the coming months as stakeholders submit comments. A public hearing at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been scheduled for October 16. "Evolution of tax regulations is generally never a pretty process, but it is a necessary process that in this case will hopefully happen sooner rather than later," Kelly told Wolters Kluwer.

The House’s top tax writer has unveiled Republicans’ "Tax Reform 2.0" framework. The framework outlines three key focus areas:.

The House’s top tax writer has unveiled Republicans’ "Tax Reform 2.0" framework. The framework outlines three key focus areas:

• making permanent the individual and small business tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97);
• promoting family savings by streamlining retirement savings accounts and creating a new Universal Savings Account; and
• spurring business innovation by allowing new businesses to write off more initial start-up costs.

Tax Reform 2.0

The GOP’s tax reform "phase two" framework—otherwise known as "Tax Cuts 2.0"—was released by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex. on July 24. The outline is expected to be used for GOP "listening sessions" to be held among lawmakers.

Brady has said that making permanent the TCJA’s individual and small business tax cuts, enacted last December temporarily through 2025, will be the "centerpiece" of the next tax reform package. Further, Brady told reporters on July 24 that he anticipates Tax Reform 2.0 to move forward as three separate tax bills. A House vote on the package is expected sometime in September.

Preliminary Analysis

Republicans’ Tax Reform 2.0 framework is a "good start," according to a July 24 report released by the independent, yet widely-considered conservative-leaning, think tank Tax Foundation. The report praised the framework’s proposal to streamline retirement savings accounts and make permanent the TCJA’s individual tax cuts. Additionally, the Tax Foundation estimates that making permanent the individual tax cuts set to expire in 2026 would grow the U.S. economy by 2.2 percent while reducing federal revenue by $165 billion annually on a static basis.

Democrats Disagree

However, several Democratic lawmakers began issuing statements criticizing the Tax Reform 2.0 framework shortly after its release. Democrats have remained united in their disapproval of the TCJA, criticizing last year’s tax code overhaul for primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations.

"Republicans’ first tax bill exposed the party’s real priorities: big corporations and people at the top," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a July 24 statement. "This new framework is more of the same – it rewards the well-off and well-connected, fails to reinstate the state and local tax deduction, and leaves the middle class behind."

Corporate Tax Cuts

The Tax Reform 2.0 framework did not include a proposal to further reduce the corporate tax rate. President Trump has called for lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. The corporate tax rate was lowered from 35 to 21 percent last December under the TCJA. Brady previously told reporters that House Republicans and the White House are continuing discussions on the idea.

Tax Reform 3.0, 4.0

"Tax Reform 2.0 is a new commitment to improve the tax code each and every year for American families and local businesses," the framework says. Congress will examine the tax code each year to identify areas of needed improvement, according to the outline. Additionally, Brady has said he hopes to see a Tax Reform 3.0, 4.0, and so on.

Senate

At this time, the Tax Reform 2.0 package is not expected to clear the Senate in its entirety. It is thought on Capitol Hill that Democrats may support measures that focus on retirement and education savings and business innovation. However, several lawmakers view it as unlikely that Democrats would support a bill that makes permanent the individual tax cuts under the TCJA.

Brady has reportedly said that extending TCJA’s individual provisions would increase the deficit by $600 billion over 10 years but would be offset, at least in part, by beneficial economic factors. Several Senate Democrats and Republicans have said they would not vote for extending or creating tax cuts that increase the federal deficit.

The IRS faces numerous challenges, most of which are attributable to funding cuts, the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson told a Senate panel on July 26. "The IRS needs adequate funding to do its job effectively," Olson told lawmakers.

The IRS faces numerous challenges, most of which are attributable to funding cuts, the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson told a Senate panel on July 26. "The IRS needs adequate funding to do its job effectively," Olson told lawmakers.

IRS Funding

Olson, while testifying at a Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Taxation and IRS Oversight Subcommittee hearing, placed blame on both congressional appropriations and IRS management for the Service’s challenges. "While some of the IRS’s struggles can be addressed by better management, much of the IRS’s challenges are attributable to funding cuts," Olson said.

The IRS has simultaneously seen an increased workload and budget reduction of 20 percent when accounting for inflation between fiscal years 2010 and 2018, according to Olson. "Because of these reductions, the IRS does not have enough employees to answer the phones, to conduct outreach and education, or to provide basic taxpayer service," she added.

Further, Olson noted that the IRS answered only 29 percent of telephone calls received on the Accounts Management lines during this year’s filing season. Additionally, IRS compliance and enforcement efforts have also struggled, Olson said, adding that the audit rate is at its lowest level in "memory."

Likewise, Phyllis Jo Kubey, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Enrolled Agents, IRS Advisory Council, remarked on decreased IRS funding. "The agency is handicapped by budgeting that is not only insufficient to meet its large and growing portfolio, but also inefficiently structured," Kubey told lawmakers.

IRS Reform

The SFC subcommittee hearing came just days after the 20-year anniversary of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The House and Senate are currently working toward approving bipartisan legislation that would significantly reform the IRS for the first time in 20 years.

SFC Taxation and IRS Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., unveiled on July 26 the bipartisan Protecting Taxpayers Bill. The measure aims to reform a number of IRS functions and administrative practices, according to a joint press release issued the same day.

"It has been 20 years since the last significant IRS reform, and it is time to update the agency once again," Portman said in the press release. Similarly, Cardin praised the bill for including needed updates to modernize the IRS. "Americans of all income levels deserve a responsive, effective IRS, and the updates contained in this bipartisan bill will help keep the IRS on that path," Cardin said.

Additionally, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., recently introduced the bipartisan Taxpayer First Bill ( Sen. 3246). The measure would also reform certain administrative practices at the IRS.

To that end, the House approved its bipartisan IRS reform package, the Taxpayer First Bill ( HR 5444) last April. The House package contains several proposals, which would, among other things:

• establish a single point of contact for tax-related identity theft victims;
• expand the use of Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs); and
• require electronic filing for certain tax-exempt organizations

Path Forward

Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer that the House’s IRS reform proposals are a "welcomed step forward." Additionally, Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he will work with his "colleagues in Congress to find a path forward that reflects both the House and Senate views."

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Republicans are clarifying congressional intent of certain tax reform provisions. In an August 16 letter, GOP Senate tax writers called on Treasury and the IRS to issue tax reform guidance consistent with the clarifications.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Republicans are clarifying congressional intent of certain tax reform provisions. In an August 16 letter, GOP Senate tax writers called on Treasury and the IRS to issue tax reform guidance consistent with the clarifications.

The letter, addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter, identifies three sections of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) needing clarification:

• Section 13204 – qualified improvement property expensing;
• Section 13302 – net operating losses (NOLs) deduction; and
• Section 13307 – sexual misconduct settlement deduction.

Real Property Depreciation

Congressional intent for Section 13204 under the TCJA was to provide a 15-year modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) recovery period for qualified improvement property, the lawmakers wrote. Additionally, the letter states that the new law should also provide a 20-year alternative deprecation system (ADS) recovery period for qualified improvement property.

NOLs

The TCJA contains a typographical error in Section 13302. The law should state that the NOL carryforward and carryback modifications are effective for NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the lawmakers noted. Currently, the legislative text states the effective date is for tax years ending after December 31, 2017.

Attorney’s Fees

Generally, section 13307 of the TCJA denies a deduction for attorney’s fees related to a settlement or payment stemming from a sexual harassment/abuse nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Congressional intent was that attorney’s fees would not be subject to the rule prohibiting the deduction, the letter states.

Technical Corrections

SFC Republicans intend to introduce a technical corrections bill addressing other needed clarifications of the TCJA, the letter notes. The intended technical corrections bill is not expected to be a part of Republican "Tax Reform 2.0" efforts.

"While this letter focuses on these three important provisions, we are continuing a thorough review…to identify other instances in which the language as enacted may require regulatory guidance or technical corrections to reflect the intent of the Congress. After this review, we intend to introduce technical corrections legislation to address any items identified in the on-going review."

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) advanced President Donald Trump’s nomination of Charles Rettig for IRS Commissioner. The SFC approved the nomination on July 19 by a 14-to-13 party line vote.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) advanced President Donald Trump’s nomination of Charles Rettig for IRS Commissioner. The SFC approved the nomination on July 19 by a 14-to-13 party line vote.

Qualified Nominee

Several SFC Democrats and Republicans praised Rettig’s qualifications to serve as the next IRS Commissioner. SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that he is a "qualified nominee."

However, Democrats voted against his nomination in protest of new IRS guidance ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38, discussed later in this Issue) that limits donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations.

"The Trump administration has taken a qualified nominee and dumped him right into the middle of a dark money political firestorm of their own creation," Wyden said. Wyden announced the day before the vote that he would not support Rettig’s nomination unless Rettig committed to reversing the IRS’s new rules on certain Schedule B donor disclosures.

However, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, noted during the markup that the IRS reporting rules are unrelated to Rettig’s nomination. "I know that some of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction with new IRS reporting rules released recently and want to oppose the important appointment of an IRS commissioner because of these new rules, over which he had no control,"Hatch said. Hatch, praising Rettig’s qualifications, expressed confidence that Rettig, if confirmed, would "lead the IRS with integrity."

Next Steps

Rettig’s nomination now heads to the full Senate. If confirmed, Rettig will oversee the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Rettig previously told the committee that restoring taxpayer trust in the IRS would be a top goal as IRS Commissioner. "If I am privileged to serve as Commissioner, my overriding goal will be to strengthen and rebuild trust between the IRS, the American people, and their representatives in Congress," Rettig said. "That trust is critical to all that the IRS does."

President Donald Trump and House GOP tax writers discussed "Tax Cuts 2.0" in a July 17 meeting at the White House. The next round of tax cuts will focus primarily on the individual side of the tax code, both Trump and House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., reiterated to reporters at the White House before the meeting.

President Donald Trump and House GOP tax writers discussed "Tax Cuts 2.0" in a July 17 meeting at the White House. The next round of tax cuts will focus primarily on the individual side of the tax code, both Trump and House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., reiterated to reporters at the White House before the meeting.

Individual Tax Cuts

The discussion between Trump and several top House GOP tax writers was set to focus, in particular, on how to further strengthen the economy post-tax reform, Brady said. "We think the best place to start is with America’s middle class families and our small businesses," he added. Brady has said that making permanent the individual tax cuts that are set to expire in 2026 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) is a top priority for Republicans.

Corporate Tax Rate

Trump is also calling for lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. The corporate tax rate was lowered last December from 35 percent to 21 percent by the TCJA.

Brady told reporters earlier in the week of July 16 that discussions between House GOP tax writers and the White House were continuing on the possible proposal. While Brady did not openly commit to the notion of further lowering the corporate tax rate, he did tell reporters that he thinks the president is right that global competitors will likely respond in kind to last year’s tax reform.

Tax Cuts 2.0 Timeline

The House is expected to vote on the Tax Cuts 2.0 package in September, Brady told reporters at the White House on July 17. Additionally, Brady stated that he anticipates the "Senate setting a timetable, as well."

Brady’s estimated timeline for votes on the tax cuts package is in line with his statements in June that House GOP members will receive a legislative outline of the proposal this month. Further, a draft of the tax package is expected to be released publicly in August.

Senate

At this time, the Tax Cuts 2.0 package is not expected on Capitol Hill to fare well in the Senate. The package would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber.

"The GOP tax scam was a huge tax break for big corporations," Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said in a July 17 tweet. "We should reward work, not just wealth," she added. While Democrats remain outspoken against the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations, Republicans are hopeful for Democratic support, just prior to midterm elections, on a measure that focuses on individual tax cuts.

House Republicans and the Trump Administration are working together to craft a tax cut "2.0"outline, the House’s top tax writer has said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters during the week that House tax writers and the White House are currently working to finalize the "framework."

House Republicans and the Trump Administration are working together to craft a tax cut "2.0"outline, the House’s top tax writer has said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters during the week that House tax writers and the White House are currently working to finalize the "framework."

Tax Cuts 2.0

Additionally, Brady reiterated to reporters that he plans to hold listening sessions with other House Republicans to gather ideas for the tax package. The legislative outline is expected to be circulated among House lawmakers this month and released generally in August. A House floor vote on the package is anticipated this fall.

Individual Tax Cuts

The tax reform "phase two" package will focus on making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Extending the individual tax cuts will be the " centerpiece" of the next package, Brady has said.

Impact. "Making the TCJA’s expiring individual tax code changes permanent would result in a larger economy in the long run," the Tax Foundation said in a report released on July 10. According to the report, a "small, positive" economic impact is expected during 2019 through 2028. "In the long run, making all individual tax provisions permanent will lead to 2.2 percent higher long-run GDP, 0.9 percent higher wages, and 1.5 million more full-time equivalent jobs," the report said.

However, the economic boost would not arrive without being accompanied by an increased federal deficit, according to the report. "Making these provisions permanent will also increase the deficit, reducing federal revenues by $638 billion ($575 billion on a dynamic basis) over the 10-year budget window and in the long run, reduce federal revenue on an annual basis by $165 billion ($112 billion on a dynamic basis)."

Corporate Tax Cuts

Additionally, Republicans are "thinking about bringing the 21 percent [corporate tax rate] down to 20," President Trump said in a recent interview. The corporate tax rate was permanently lowered from 35 to 21 percent under the TCJA.

Senate

At this time, the prospect of the House’s tax cut 2.0 package clearing the Senate remains unlikely. Currently, the phase two measure would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber. Democrats have remained critical of the TCJA and are not expected on Capitol Hill to support legislative efforts to extend the new law’s provisions.

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) leading Democrat has released a report critiquing Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code. The report, focusing primarily on international tax reform, was released by SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on July 18.

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) leading Democrat has released a report critiquing Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code. The report, focusing primarily on international tax reform, was released by SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on July 18.

Criticism of GOP Tax Reform

The Democratic SFC report, "Trump’s Tax Law and International Tax: More Complexity, Loopholes and Incentives to Ship Jobs Overseas," criticizes a number of provisions enacted in last year’s tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) was signed into law by President Donald Trump last December.

"Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans continue to peddle the false promises outlined in this tax scam report," Wyden said in a July 18 press release. "Their new international tax regime instead rewards companies for investing overseas while hardworking Americans watch their wages fall."

The report focuses on five areas of international tax reform. According to the report, the new tax law makes the tax code more complicated and incentivizes corporations to move jobs overseas.

Tax Cuts 2.0

Meanwhile, Republicans on the other side of the Capitol continue to tout the positive economic effects of tax reform as they prepare to unveil their next tax cuts package. "Tax Cuts 2.0" will focus on making permanent tax cuts for individuals and passthrough entities, which were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the TCJA.

"It wasn’t that long ago that our economy was sluggish, paychecks were going nowhere, jobs were going overseas -- all that has changed," House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a July 18 televised interview in which he praised the TCJA. According to Brady, Congress and the White House are starting Tax Cuts 2.0 "right now."

"The President is all in," Brady said. Brady, along with several other House tax writers, met with Trump on the next round of tax reform in a July 17 meeting at the White House.

Homeowners will be hurt financially by last year’s tax reform, according to a new House Democratic staff report. The report alleges that real estate developers will primarily benefit from the new tax law at the expense of homeowners.

Homeowners will be hurt financially by last year’s tax reform, according to a new House Democratic staff report. The report alleges that real estate developers will primarily benefit from the new tax law at the expense of homeowners.

The Democratic staff report was released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., on July 5. The report highlights the effects of specific provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) on homeowners across the United States.

Home Equity Interest Deduction

Prior to the TCJA, homeowners could deduct interest on home equity loans up to $100,000, as noted in the report. However, the TCJA, enacted last December, retroactively prohibits homeowners from deducting interest on loans of any amount if used for any purpose other than home improvement. According to Cummings’ staff, many homeowners use home equity loans for a variety of reasons, such as medical emergencies or college education.

Real Estate Tax Breaks

The staff report highlights several TCJA provisions that could benefit real estate developers. Among these tax breaks includes the 20-percent deduction for passthrough business income for certain qualifying real estate companies. Additionally, the report notes that under the TCJA, real estate developers are exempt from the new 30-percent limitation on interest deducted by large businesses. Further, the report notes that TCJA exempts real estate from the repeal of favorable tax treatment of like-kind exchanges of business assets and provides a 20-percent deduction for dividends from qualified real estate investment trusts.

"For the first time, this new report shows how big the payoffs were to wealthy real estate developers – more than $66 billion over the next ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation," Cummings said in a statement. "They [Republicans] chose to take away a longstanding tax deduction that American families have relied on for decades while at the same time creating $66 billion in new tax breaks for real estate developers," he added.

In response to an inquiry about the report, a House Ways and Means Committee majority spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on July 6 that the Democratic staff report is a "partisan exercise." "Multiple reports from nonpartisan organizations show strong housing numbers for this year...tax reform allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on what is important to them. This all is good news for homeowners and those seeking to buy a home," the spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

The IRS expects to issue guidance on the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction in July, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said. Kautter outlined the timeline of various guidance proposals at the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation May Meeting in Washington, D.C.

The IRS expects to issue guidance on the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction in July, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said. Kautter outlined the timeline of various guidance proposals at the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation May Meeting in Washington, D.C.

Proposed Guidance
More specifically, the proposed guidance on the passthrough deduction is expected to be released by the end of July, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on May 15. "The goal of the guidance is to get things out that are complete," the IRS spokesperson said, reiterating Kautter. "But, it will not cover every question that taxpayers have," the spokesperson added.

Passthrough Deduction
The new passthrough deduction was enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) last December. The new law provides a 20-percent deduction for income from passthrough entities. The deduction is limited by certain controversial factors including business activities, wages paid by the business, and property values.

Questions Expected
Generally, Kautter anticipates initial follow-up questions from taxpayers and practitioners after the proposed guidance is released, the IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer. Kautter has said that it would be better to get the guidance out in "fairly good shape," to allow for public comment and input, rather than taking more time to draft the guidance internally, according to several reports. Kautter has reportedly said that not everyone may agree with that approach, but that a "better product" will likely be created because of it.

Congressional lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to focus on tax reform. Republicans and Democrats alike have been discussing the effects of tax reform, albeit reaching different conclusions.

Congressional lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to focus on tax reform. Republicans and Democrats alike have been discussing the effects of tax reform, albeit reaching different conclusions.

Tax Reform Hearings
The Ways and Means Committee held a hearing during the week of May 14, marking the first in a series of upcoming committee hearings on tax reform. The Ways and Means hearings are each expected to examine the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Small Businesses. Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., has announced the second tax reform hearing in the series is scheduled for May 23. The subcommittee hearing is expected to focus on the TCJA’s impact on small businesses.

Senate. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) examined early impressions of the TCJA in a hearing last month. SFC Chairman Hatch, R-Utah has indicated to Wolters Kluwer that he is also currently examining House proposals to reform the IRS.

TCJA Criticism
Meanwhile, Ways and Means Democrats remain united in their opposition against the new tax law. Ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., released a Democratic Progress Report which details areas in which Democrats believe the TCJA has fallen short.

The Republican tax law has not put the middle class first or provided relief for small businesses, the progress report notes. Rather, it has provided large " tax cuts to big corporations and wealthy executives," the report added.

Additionally, Democrats have criticized the TCJA for significantly adding to the federal deficit. Neal called the new law "fiscally irresponsible,"during a Ways and Means hearing held during the week of May 14.

However, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called Democratic tax policy ideas and criticisms of the TCJA "bizarre," during a May 17 press briefing. Democrats are in "denial" about the "thriving economy," according to Ryan.

"If you saw yesterday’s Ways and Means hearing, Democrats are still using the same old doom-and-gloom talk that they were using six months ago," Ryan said. "It was bizarre before, and it is even more bizarre now, when Democrats are openly calling for tax increases, which will do nothing but harm our economy," he added.

To that end, several House Democrats have called for raising the corporate tax rate, including certain Ways and Means members during the full committee hearing. Under the TCJA, the corporate tax rate was lowered from 35 to 21 percent.

Senate
Likewise, Senate Democrats across the Capitol have proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Additionally, in a proposal released by Senate Democrats in March, the top individual tax rate would be reinstated to 39.6 percent. Under the TCJA, the top individual tax rate was lowered to 37 percent. These tax rate increases would pay for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, according to the Democratic proposal.

Ways and Means Open Seat
In related news, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, may be eyeing a seat in the House’s tax writing committee. The House Steering Committee has recommended Wenstrup to serve as a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Wenstrup is a doctor, war veteran, and small business owner. He would replace Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., who resigned last month.

The IRS’s "Achilles’ heel" is using outdated software originating from the 1960s, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter told Senate lawmakers. Kautter and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified in a May 22 Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee hearing.

The IRS’s "Achilles’ heel" is using outdated software originating from the 1960s, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter told Senate lawmakers. Kautter and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified in a May 22 Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee hearing.

System Shut Down
2.3 million cyber attacks are launched against the IRS each day, one million of which are sophisticated, Kautter told Senate appropriators. Kautter and Mnuchin testified before the Subcommittee on the Trump Administration’s fiscal year (FY) 2019 Treasury and IRS budget request.

Underscoring the numerous cyber threats against the IRS is its antiquated technology systems currently in use, Kautter said. "59 percent of IRS hardware and 32 percent of IRS software is obsolete," Kautter told Senate appropriators.

Tax Day Glitch. However, the outdated technology at the IRS was not the cause of the partial system shut down that occurred this year on Tax Day, April 17. For eleven hours, certain taxpayers were unable to electronically submit payments through the IRS’s Direct Pay feature. The particular hardware that failed on Tax Day, however, is only a year-and-a-half old, Kautter said.

Five-Year Plan
The IRS and Treasury are currently crafting a new five-year plan to update the IRS’s information technology (IT) systems, both Kautter and Mnuchin testified. A preliminary draft of the plan is expected within 90 days, Mnuchin said.

"The IRS has not done a good job in the past with regard to its technology dollars," Kautter said. However, the leadership team at the IRS is new, energetic, and knowledgeable, and will thus render a different result, he added.

Tax Reform
Technology is the most time consuming and expensive aspect of tax reform implementation, according to Kautter. Additionally, Kautter expects that guidance on all major aspects of tax reform under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be out by fall. Recently, Kautter said that proposed guidance on the Code Sec. 199A pass-through deduction will be released in July.

Tax Gap
"In 2016, IRS estimated that the average annual gross tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid on time—was $458 billion for tax years 2008-2010," Subcommittee Chairman James Lankford, R-Okla. said during his opening statement. However, the tax gap is most attributable to the "cash" economy, Kautter told lawmakers.

"An individual taxpayer making more than $1 million a year is seven times more likely to be audited than a taxpayer making under $200,000 a year," Kautter said. "The problems with the tax gap tend to be in the cash economy."

Budget
The Trump Administration’s FY 2019 budget request proposes a total of $12.3 billion for Treasury’s operations and bureaus. The budget request proposes $11.135 billion in IRS funding. This figure for the IRS includes "savings and reductions" of $24.5 million compared to the FY 2018 enacted levels, according to Kautter.

The FY 2019 budget request allocates IRS funding for the following:

• taxpayer services: $2.24 billion;
• operations support: $4.16 billion;
• enforcement: $4.63 billion; and
• business systems modernization: $110 million.

The Treasury Department and the IRS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, issued a notice of clarification to more thoroughly explain their decision not to adopt recommendations made by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and certain other commenters regarding T.D. 9744. The challenged regulations govern the coverage of emergency services by group health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA’s copayment and coinsurance limitations.

The Treasury Department and the IRS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, issued a notice of clarification to more thoroughly explain their decision not to adopt recommendations made by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and certain other commenters regarding T.D. 9744. The challenged regulations govern the coverage of emergency services by group health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA’s copayment and coinsurance limitations.

The ACEP had sued the federal government over the final regulations, which were issued in 2015 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148). Among other things, ACEP argued that the federal government did not adequately respond to their public comments regarding the regulations. On August 31, 2017, the court sent the matter back to the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury to respond to the public comments from ACEP.

Greatest of Three Regulations
Under T.D. 9744, a plan or issuer satisfies the copayment and coinsurance limitations in the statute if it provides benefits for out-of-network emergency services in an amount equal to the greatest of three possible amounts:

• the amount negotiated with in-network providers for the emergency service furnished;
• the amount for the emergency service calculated using the same method the plan generally uses to determine payments for out-of-network services (such as the usual, customary, and reasonable charges), but substituting the in-network cost-sharing provisions for the out-of-network cost sharing provisions; or
• the amount that would be paid under Medicare for the emergency service.

Each of these amounts is calculated excluding any in-network copayment or coinsurance imposed with respect to the participant, beneficiary, or enrollee. This is sometimes referred to as the "Greatest of Three" or the "GOT" regulation because it sets a floor on the amount that nongrandfathered group health plans, and health insurance issuers offering nongrandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage, are required to pay for out-of-network emergency services under this provision at the greatest of the three listed amounts.

Clarification of Regulations
In their clarification, the departments state that the regulations provide a reasonable and transparent methodology to determine appropriate payments by nongrandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering nongrandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage for out-of-network emergency services. In addition, the departments maintain that ACEP and other commenters did not provide adequate information to support their assertion that the methods used for determining the minimum payment for out-of-network emergency services under the GOT regulation are not sufficiently transparent or reasonable.

The IRS has issued a new five-year strategic plan to guide its programs and operations and to help meet the changing needs of taxpayers and members of the tax community. "Providing service to taxpayers is a vital part of the IRS mission and the new Strategic Plan lays out a vision of ways to help improve our tax system," remarked IRS Acting Commissioner David Kautter.

The IRS has issued a new five-year strategic plan to guide its programs and operations and to help meet the changing needs of taxpayers and members of the tax community. "Providing service to taxpayers is a vital part of the IRS mission and the new Strategic Plan lays out a vision of ways to help improve our tax system," remarked IRS Acting Commissioner David Kautter.

The Fiscal Year 2018-2022 IRS Strategic Plan focuses on six goals aimed at improving customer service:

• empowering and enabling all taxpayers to meet their tax obligations;
• protecting the integrity of the tax system by encouraging compliance through administering and enforcing the tax code;
• proactively collaborating with external partners to improve tax administration;
• cultivating a well-equipped, diverse, flexible and engaged workforce;
• advancing data access, usability and analytics to inform decision-making and improve operational outcomes; and
• driving increased agility, efficiency, effectiveness and security in IRS operations.

The Service further urged taxpayers to be aware of their fundamental rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights when dealing with the IRS.

The House on April 18 approved the two largest bills of a bipartisan IRS reform package. On April 17, the House approved seven other bills, by voice vote, which are also part of the larger bipartisan package. Its aim is to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. The entire package of bills was approved by the Ways and Means Committee several weeks ago.

The House on April 18 approved the two largest bills of a bipartisan IRS reform package. On April 17, the House approved seven other bills, by voice vote, which are also part of the larger bipartisan package. Its aim is to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. The entire package of bills was approved by the Ways and Means Committee several weeks ago.

"Congress this week, the House this week, will undertake the first major reform of the IRS in more than two decades," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 17 leadership press briefing. "A new tax code really demands a new tax collector – and, Republicans and Democrats together, are launching reforms that create a ‘Taxpayer First’ IRS."

In an April 18 statement, Brady further remarked that "[w]ith this package, we are taking a monumental step in redesigning the IRS for first time in 20 years, refocusing the agency to live up to its mission of quality service, and reining in its enforcement powers to prevent future abuse."

IRS Reform
The Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444), which is the lead bill, passed by a 414-to-3 vote. HR 5444, proposes changes to the IRS’s appeals process and customer service programs, and would implement other organizational restructuring.

The 21st Century IRS Act (HR 5445) was approved 414-to-0. HR 5445 focuses primarily on improving cybersecurity and taxpayer identity protection, and modernizing IRS information technology.

In addition, the House approved seven bills by unanimous consent on April 17: HR 2901, HR 5440, HR 5438, HR 5446, HR 5437, HR 5439, and HR 5443. The measures include proposals to establish a single point of contact for tax-related identity theft victims, expand the use of Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs), and require electronic filing for certain tax-exempt organizations, among other things.

The IRS reform package has no effect on revenue, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) ( JCX-10-18).

Senate
How the IRS reform bills will fare in the Senate remains to be seen. Although Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, has commended the House’s efforts toward restructuring the IRS, no word has been released as for when the Senate will consider the measure.

The IRS provided an additional day for taxpayers to file and pay their taxes, following system issues that surfaced early on April 17. Individuals and businesses with a filing or payment due date of April 17 had until midnight on Wednesday, April 18, to file returns and pay taxes. Taxpayers did not need to take extra actions to receive the extra time.

The IRS provided an additional day for taxpayers to file and pay their taxes, following system issues that surfaced early on April 17. Individuals and businesses with a filing or payment due date of April 17 had until midnight on Wednesday, April 18, to file returns and pay taxes. Taxpayers did not need to take extra actions to receive the extra time.

System Issues
The IRS encountered system issues during the morning of Tuesday, April 17. While the system was down, taxpayers could file their tax returns electronically through software providers and Free File. Taxpayers using paper to file and pay their taxes at the deadline were not affected by the system issue.

"Currently [on April 17], certain IRS systems are experiencing technical difficulties. Taxpayers should continue filing their tax returns as they normally would," the IRS said in a statement sent to Wolters Kluwer on April 17.

"[T]he IRS apologizes for the inconvenience this system issue caused for taxpayers," said Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter. "The IRS appreciates everyone’s patience during this period. The extra time will help taxpayers affected by this situation."

One Day Extension
The IRS advised taxpayers to continue to file their taxes as normal. Returns filed and taxes paid before midnight on Wednesday, April 18—whether electronically or on paper—would be considered timely. In addition, automatic six-month extensions were available to taxpayers who needed additional time to file.

Up and Running Again
On April 18, the IRS informed taxpayers that the Service’s processing systems were fully back up and running, and that the system outage had been caused by a hardware issue. The IRS pointed out that as of 9 a.m. Eastern time on April 18, it had accepted more than 14 million tax submissions since processing systems reopened.

"IRS teams worked hard throughout the night," explained Kautter. "The overnight performance means that the IRS is current with all of the tax submissions, and no backlog remains."

The IRS reminded taxpayers that help, including automatic six-month extensions to file, was available at IRS.gov.

The White House and Republican lawmakers are continuing discussions focused on a second round of tax reform, according to President Trump’s top economic advisor. National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow said in an April 5 interview that Trump and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., spoke earlier in the week again about a "phase two" of tax reform

The White House and Republican lawmakers are continuing discussions focused on a second round of tax reform, according to President Trump’s top economic advisor. National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow said in an April 5 interview that Trump and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., spoke earlier in the week again about a "phase two" of tax reform

Trump and most GOP lawmakers are in agreement that full expensing for business investments and individual tax cuts should be made permanent, according to Kudlow. Those specific tax provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) are currently temporary. "I think you get more bang for the buck on these tax cuts if you do make it permanent," Kudlow said.

Likewise, Trump, while speaking at an April 5 roundtable event in West Virginia, touted the full expensing provision of the TCJA. "I think it’s going to be the greatest benefit of the whole bill," Trump said.

According to Kudlow, there are other ideas being discussed that could also become part of the plan, but he did not elaborate on specifics. "Perhaps, later this year we will see something more concrete," he said.

Looking Forward
Trump also spoke to the tax return filing process changes expected for next year. "Next April, you’re going to, in many cases, [file on] one page, one card…you’ll have a nice simple form next year," Trump said.

To that end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in an April 6 op-ed in Kentucky Today that the current tax return filing process, which includes "complicated paperwork," will soon come to an end. "As a result of the historic overhaul of the federal tax code, this is the last time that you will have to file under the outdated and expensive system that has held our country back for far too long," McConnell wrote.

Democratic Changes
Meanwhile, most Democratic lawmakers continue to criticize the tax law changes under the TCJA. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an April 6 statement that only corporations and the wealthy benefit from the new law. "Powerful special interests are reaping massive windfalls from the GOP tax scam," Pelosi said.

Earlier in the week, while speaking at a tax event in California, Pelosi reportedly said that Democrats would take a bipartisan approach toward revising the TCJA if they regain the House majority in 2019. According to Pelosi, Democrats are interested in creating a tax bill that creates growth and jobs while simultaneously reducing the deficit.

Certain proposed regulations issued by Treasury will now be subject to additional oversight by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Treasury and OMB released on April 12 specifies terms under which the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB will review future tax regulations.

Certain proposed regulations issued by Treasury will now be subject to additional oversight by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Treasury and OMB released on April 12 specifies terms under which the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB will review future tax regulations.

The MOA comes on the heels of recent debate on whether OMB should have increased oversight of Treasury’s tax-related regulations. While some lawmakers have argued for additional oversight of tax rules, others have expressed concern that more oversight will lead to delays in issuing guidance. The subject has been of particular focus on Capitol Hill as Treasury and the IRS prepare to implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) enacted in December 2017.

Previous MOA
A previous agreement adopted in 1983, and reaffirmed in 1993, allowed for OIRA review of some regulations but exempted most tax rules. "The MOA announced today replaces the 1983 agreement with a new review process tailored to tax regulations—it focuses on reducing regulatory burdens while providing timely guidance to taxpayers," according to a Treasury Department news release. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney both praised the MOA in a joint news release, for ensuring clarity and transparency for taxpayers.

Generally, OIRA will have 45 days to review submissions from Treasury, according to the MOA. However, to allow for timely implementation of the TCJA, the Treasury secretary or deputy secretary, with the approval of the OIRA administrator, may designate certain tax rules for expedited release.

Increased Oversight
Under the terms of the MOA, tax rules will be subject to OIRA review if they interfere with an action taken by another agency, raise novel legal or policy issues, or have an annual nonrevenue effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

"There may be perfectly good reasons for adding an additional layer of review to finalize Treasury regulations," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of federal legislative and regulatory services in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, told Wolters Kluwer on April 13. "But speeding up implementation of the new tax law is not one of them. The practical effect of this is that taxpayers will have to wait longer for Treasury to issue interpretations of the new law."

The IRS is already working on implementing tax reform, according to IRS Acting Commissioner David Kautter. Speaking at a Tax Executives Institute event in Washington, D.C., Kautter discussed current IRS efforts toward implementing tax law changes under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS is already working on implementing tax reform, according to IRS Acting Commissioner David Kautter. Speaking at a Tax Executives Institute event in Washington, D.C., Kautter discussed current IRS efforts toward implementing tax law changes under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act represents the most sweeping change to U.S. tax law since 1986," Kautter said according to his prepared remarks, which were provided to Wolters Kluwer by the IRS. He added that the new law will "involve creating or changing a large number of forms and publications, updating scores of tax processing systems, retraining our workforce and educating the taxpaying public about the changes."

TRIO
The IRS in January created the Tax Reform Implementation Office (TRIO). The TRIO is responsible for establishing and monitoring implementation action plans and ensuring communication with external and internal stakeholders, among other things, according to Kautter. "The TRIO is our tax reform linchpin," he said.

IRS Funding
The IRS was provided $320 million specifically for the implementation of tax reform in the omnibus government spending package that President Trump signed on March 23 ( P.L. 115-141). According to Kautter, more than 70 percent of the IRS funding for tax reform will go toward reprogramming IRS IT systems. Additionally, new forms will need to be developed at a cost of approximately $75,000 per form, and the IRS estimates about 450 products (including forms, instructions and publications) need to be revised. Most of these products need to be updated by the 2019 filing season, which is a "tall order," Kautter said. Additionally, over 1,000 new employees will need to be hired for taxpayer services and for tax reform implementation across the Service, including within the Office of Chief Counsel.

Outreach
The IRS cannot wait for taxpayers to call about the new tax law’s requirements, according to Kautter. "The IRS also needs to be proactive, and provide education and outreach to help taxpayers, tax professionals and other industry partners understand how the law applies to them, and prepare them for the 2019 tax filing season," Kautter said.

The IRS’s Communications and Liaison operation is preparing to start education outreach to increase public awareness of the new tax law’s provisions. The IRS will be conducting events across the country for both taxpayers and tax professionals, according to Kautter. "This summer, the IRS will again be conducting its Nationwide Tax Forums for tax professionals in five cities around the country, where the new tax law will take center stage," he said.

Section 199A
Formal published guidance such as regulations and notices, as well as "soft guidance"including press releases and frequently asked questions, will need to be issued to explain various tax provisions under the new law, according to Kautter. A particular area in "critical"need for guidance is the Code Sec. 199A deduction for qualified business income of pass-through entities, Kautter said, calling it a "challenging" area. While Kautter could not provide a specific time frame for when to expect the guidance, he said the IRS is working to develop the guidance as "quickly and expeditiously as possible."

Just hours before government funding was set to expire, President Trump on March 23 signed the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, averting a government shutdown. The $1.3 trillion fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending package, which provides funding for the government and federal agencies through September 30, contains several tax provisions and increased IRS funding.

Just hours before government funding was set to expire, President Trump on March 23 signed the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, averting a government shutdown. The $1.3 trillion fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending package, which provides funding for the government and federal agencies through September 30, contains several tax provisions and increased IRS funding.

The House approved the spending bill by a 256-to-167 vote on March 22. The Senate cleared the measure by a 65-to-32 vote.

Grain Glitch
The so-called "grain glitch" addressed within the omnibus package aims to fix an unintended consequence in the "pass-through" income deduction. The deduction is provided in new Code Sec. 199A, which was enacted last December as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Before the fix, grain and other agricultural products sold to cooperatives received a tax advantage because those sales were deductible from a farmer’s gross sales. Sales to companies other than cooperatives were deductible only from net business income. The inadvertent advantage had been given to cooperatives as part of a drafting error, according to several Republican lawmakers.

The appropriations bill repeals the provision in Code Sec. 199A that allowed farmers to deduct 20 percent of their gross sales to cooperatives. As modified, the deduction is now limited to 20 percent of farmers’ net income, excluding capital gains. "This legislation restores the competitive balance in the agricultural marketplace by leveling the tax burden on independent and cooperative farming businesses," Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said in a March 22 statement. The bill also modifies the deduction that is allowed to agricultural or horticultural cooperatives.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Although Democrats have previously expressed an unwillingness to help Republicans correct issues within the new tax law, the parties agreed to the grain glitch fix in exchange for an expansion of the low-income house tax credit. The expansion is also included in the spending bill.

"This is the first increase in over a decade," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wa., said on March 22. "Nearly $3 billion is a good start towards tackling the housing crisis in our cities and rural communities," she added. Cantwell spearheaded the efforts among Democrats for the credit’s expansion.

Technical Corrections
Numerous other technical corrections to previous tax bills spanning from 2004-2016 were included in the spending bill, none of which specifically address the TCJA. Included among the fixes are technical corrections to the partnership audit rules.

IRS Funding
The legislation provides the IRS with $11.43 billion in funding, close to $196 million more than currently enacted levels. $320 million is allocated specifically for implementation of the TCJA. The Trump administration had requested $397 million for implementation of the new tax law. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the increased resources would provide an update to antiquated telephone systems and technology.

White House
President Trump rattled Capitol Hill on March 23 when he announced just hours before government funding was set to expire that he may not sign the government spending bill. Although Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said on March 22 that the President would sign the omnibus package, President Trump took to Twitter on March 23 to suggest otherwise. "I am considering a veto of the omnibus spending bill…," Trump said in a tweet.

While Trump did, in fact, wind up signing the spending bill, which tops 2,200 pages, he told reporters at the White House that he was "unhappy" to do so. Trump criticized the $1.3 trillion omnibus package for being the second largest in history. "I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old," Trump said.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has renewed its call for immediate guidance on new Code Sec. 199A. The AICPA highlighted questions about qualified business income (QBI) of pass-through income under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). "Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity regarding QBI in order to comply with their 2018 tax obligations," the AICPA said in a February 21 letter to the Service.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has renewed its call for immediate guidance on new Code Sec. 199A. The AICPA highlighted questions about qualified business income (QBI) of pass-through income under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). "Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity regarding QBI in order to comply with their 2018 tax obligations," the AICPA said in a February 21 letter to the Service.

New Deduction
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created Code Sec. 199A. The deduction is temporary and begins this year.

Generally, qualified taxpayers may deduct up to 20 percent of domestic QBI from a partnership, S corporation or sole proprietorship. Congress put in place a limitation based on wages paid, or on wages paid plus a capital element, among other requirements. Certain service trades or businesses generally may not take advantage of the deduction but there are exceptions.

Almost immediately after passage of the new tax law, the AICPA and other tax professional groups urged on the IRS to move quickly on guidance. Recently, the National Society of Accountants (NSA) reported that the IRS would issue guidance on Code Sec. 199A this summer.

Immediate Concern
The AICPA identified several areas of immediate concern. They are:

• Definition of Code Sec. 199A qualified business income.
• Aggregation method for calculation of QBI of pass-through businesses.
• Deductible amount of QBI for a pass-through entity with business in net loss.
• Qualification of wages paid by an employee leasing company.
• Application of Code Sec. 199A to an owner of a fiscal year pass-through entity ending in 2018.
• Availability of deduction for Electing Small Business Trusts (ESBTs).

Services
The AICPA asked the IRS to describe what activities are included in the definition of a services trade or business. "The guidance should clarify that the definition of the term ‘accounting services’ includes any services associated with the determination of tax liabilities including preparation, tax planning, cost segregation services, services rendered with respect to tax credits and deductions, and similar consultative services,"the AICPA told the Service.

A top House tax writer has confirmed that House Republicans and the Trump administration are working on a second phase of tax reform this year. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an interview that the Trump administration and House Republicans "think more can be done."

A top House tax writer has confirmed that House Republicans and the Trump administration are working on a second phase of tax reform this year. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an interview that the Trump administration and House Republicans "think more can be done."

A Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on March 15 that "there are opportunities in making individual tax cuts permanent, increasing innovation, [and] encouraging household savings."Confirmation that House GOP tax writers are mulling additional tax changes to the tax code comes just days after President Trump announced that he and House Republicans are very serious about working on a “phase-two” of tax reform. Trump quipped that Brady is the "king of tax cuts."

Individual Tax Cuts
Among expected changes, in particular, the temporary individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) could be made permanent, a Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer. For budgetary reasons, the cuts to individual tax rates and benefits were not made permanent under the new law. "While the tax cuts for families were long-term, they are not yet permanent, so we’re going to address issues like that," Brady said.

Criticism
Democratic lawmakers remain largely united in their criticisms of the TCJA. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the new tax law in a March 15 news conference for "giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent, ultimately raising taxes for 86 million middle-class families while contending that it's a middle-class tax cut."

To that end, across the U.S. Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer has said Democrats would be reluctant to work with Republicans in making any fixes to the new tax law unless Republicans would be willing to address Democrats’ concerns with the law, as well. "We don't have much of an inclination, unless they want to open up other parts of the tax bill that we think need changes, to just help them clean up the mess they made," Schumer said.

Looking Forward
"Mainstream optimism is at record levels, our economy is really gaining momentum and booming in a big way," Brady said. "We’re always looking to improve the tax code," he said, adding that lawmakers are currently considering new ideas for tax reform. "We think there are some good ones." Lawmakers will not combine additional tax reform measures with technical corrections to the existing TCJA, according to Brady, emphasizing that any significant changes to come will be new ideas.

The House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee held a March 14 hearing in which lawmakers and stakeholders examined the future of various temporary tax extenders post-tax reform. Over 30 tax breaks, which included energy and fuel credits, among others, were retroactively extended for the 2017 tax year in the Bipartisan Budget Act ( P.L. 115-123) enacted in February.

The House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee held a March 14 hearing in which lawmakers and stakeholders examined the future of various temporary tax extenders post-tax reform. Over 30 tax breaks, which included energy and fuel credits, among others, were retroactively extended for the 2017 tax year in the Bipartisan Budget Act ( P.L. 115-123) enacted in February.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have varying views on specific temporary tax provisions, but in general, seem to have largely been in agreement that year-end tax extenders are not good policy. New to the discussion, however, is whether such provisions are worthwhile now that business tax rates have been lowered along with full and immediate expensing under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New Path Forward
The Ways and Means Committee is "charting a new path forward on temporary tax provisions,"Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in his opening statement. "Temporary measures are rarely good tax policy."

According to Brady, numerous tax extenders only exist because of the previously outdated tax code and high tax rates. But now that tax reform has been enacted, these temporary tax breaks may serve less of a purpose. "Starting now, we’re going to apply a rigorous test to these temporary provisions,"Brady said.

To that end, Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said that any temporary tax provision determined as no longer necessary post-tax reform should be eliminated. And, as for those that continue to serve an important role and enhance tax reform, permanence should be considered.

Tax Policy Subcommittee ranking member Lloyd Doggett, D-Tex., also weighing in on the issue, said that any temporary tax provisions that will remain need to be paid for moving forward. Additionally, Doggett criticized Republicans for not holding enough hearings on the TCJA, as well as the specific tax extenders currently under review. Doing so, he added, would enable needed discussion on relevancy as well as pay-fors.

Panels
Witnesses at the hearing were grouped into four panels, three of which consisted of several representatives from various industries including fuel, energy, and real estate. The other included witnesses from several think tanks and research organizations.

Generally, industry stakeholders argued that many of these temporary tax breaks remain important, even after tax reform. Buchanan, however, repeatedly asked witnesses why additional incentives were needed after tax cuts and full expensing were provided through tax reform under the TCJA. Several Republican lawmakers, including Buchanan, stated that tax provisions only add to the uncertainty of the tax system.

Several industry witnesses argued, in essence, that not all tax extenders are created equally and should thus be evaluated individually. Barry Grooms, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, told lawmakers that the tax exclusion for forgiven mortgage debt is unique and should be made a permanent part of our tax law. "Since it was first added to the Internal Revenue Code in 2007, this provision has provided much-needed financial relief for millions of distressed households,"Grooms testified. This exclusion makes the tax system fairer, Grooms added, stating that it provides assistance to families experiencing hardships.

Policy
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told lawmakers that tax extenders are generally poor policy and that most should be allowed to sunset. According to MacGuineas, not only do tax extenders add to the federal deficit, the temporary nature of tax extenders makes it difficult for businesses and individuals to plan and invest. "To be sure, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for temporary tax policy – to respond to a natural disaster or economic downturn, to test effectiveness, or to provide transition relief – but most of the tax extenders are temporary simply to hide their budgetary cost," MacGuineas testifed.

Likewise, David Burton, senior fellow in economic policy at The Heritage Foundation, spoke to the costliness of tax extenders. Burton testified that 13 energy tax extenders are unwarranted. "At roughly $53 billion over ten years, the revenue lost from these provisions is substantial," Burton included in his written testimony. Additionally, Burton told lawmakers that tax extenders make the tax system less fair.

Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, criticized Congress for not addressing tax extenders in the TCJA. Furthermore, Hanlon told lawmakers that tax extenders not only make the tax code more unstable and add to the federal deficit, but also complicate the IRS’s job during filing season.

"Congress should have ended the gimmicky routine on tax extenders long ago, and certainly should have done so in legislation that was billed as a once-in-a-generation tax reform," Hanlon testified. "But, better late than never."

The IRS has released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to address a taxpayer’s filing obligations and payment requirements with respect to the Code Sec. 965 transition tax, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 115-97). The instructions in the FAQs are for filing 2017 returns with an amount of Code Sec. 965 tax. Failure to follow the FAQs could result in difficulties in processing the returns. Taxpayers who are required to file electronically are asked to wait until April 2, 2018, to file returns so that the IRS can make system changes.

The IRS has released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to address a taxpayer’s filing obligations and payment requirements with respect to the Code Sec. 965 transition tax, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 115-97). The instructions in the FAQs are for filing 2017 returns with an amount of Code Sec. 965 tax. Failure to follow the FAQs could result in difficulties in processing the returns. Taxpayers who are required to file electronically are asked to wait until April 2, 2018, to file returns so that the IRS can make system changes.

In general, Code Sec. 965 imposes a one-time tax on the untaxed post-1986 foreign earnings of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. shareholders by deeming the earnings to be repatriated. The foreign earnings held in the form of cash and cash equivalents are taxed at a 15.5 percent rate, and remaining earnings are taxed at an 8 percent rate. The taxpayer may elect to pay the tax in installments over eight years.

Amounts must be reported by a U.S. shareholders of deferred foreign income corporation (DFIC) or by a direct or indirect partner in a domestic partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of another passthrough entity that is a U.S. shareholder of a DFIC.

The Appendix to Q&A 2 contains a table that describes, separately for individuals and entities, how items should be reported on the 2017 tax return. For example, an individual reports the Code Sec. 965(a) amount on Form 1040, Line 21, with the notation SEC 965 on the dotted line to the left of the Line.

A person with income under Code Sec. 965 is required to include with its return an IRC 965 Transition Tax Statement, signed under penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format with the filename 965 tax. A Model statement is provided. Adequate records must be kept supporting the Code Sec. 965 inclusion amount, the deduction under Code Sec. 965(c), the net tax liability under Code Sec. 965, and any other underlying calculations of these amounts.

The FAQs provide details on how to make the multiple Code Sec. 965 elections, including the election to pay the tax in installments over eight years. For each election, a statement must be attached to the return and signed under the penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format.

Form 5471 must also be filed with the 2017 return of a U.S. shareholder of a specified foreign corporation, regardless of whether the specified foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation. A statement containing information about the Code Sec. 965(a) inclusion must be attached to the Schedule K-1s of domestic partnerships, S corporations, or other passthrough entities.

Tax must be paid in two separate payments. One payment will reflect the tax owed, without Code Sec. 965. The second payment is the Code Sec. 965 payment. Both payments must be made by the due date of the applicable return (without extensions). Additional details for paying the tax are provided in the FAQs.

Persons who have already filed a 2017 tax return should consider filing an amended return based on the information in these FAQs and Appendices.

President Trump on February 9 signed the Bipartisan Budget Act into law after a brief government shutdown occurred overnight. The legislation contains tax provisions in addition to a continuing resolution to fund the government and federal agencies through March 23. The House approved this new law in the early morning hours of February 9, by a 240-to-186 vote. The Senate approved the bipartisan measure a few hours earlier, by a 71-to-28 vote.

President Trump on February 9 signed the Bipartisan Budget Act into law after a brief government shutdown occurred overnight. The legislation contains tax provisions in addition to a continuing resolution to fund the government and federal agencies through March 23. The House approved this new law in the early morning hours of February 9, by a 240-to-186 vote. The Senate approved the bipartisan measure a few hours earlier, by a 71-to-28 vote.

Take away. The Bipartisan Budget Act contains a significant number of tax provisions, including disaster tax relief and the extension of over 30 expired tax breaks. The majority of the tax relief included in the legislation applies for the 2017 tax year only. The full impact of these retroactive changes on the current filing season remains to be fully assessed. The IRS issued a statement on February 9 statement, saying that it was beginning to determine next steps. “The IRS will provide additional information as quickly as possible for affected taxpayers and the tax community,“ the Service indicated.

Comment

While many economists and lawmakers argue retroactive tax extenders are unfavorable tax policy, others contend that these tax breaks were included in the Bipartisan Budget Act because they had been relied upon and expected for the 2017 tax year but were squeezed out of year-end consideration by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. A House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that "[j]ob creators and families expected these extenders—in a pre-tax reform world—would be taken care of in a similar fashion as Congress has done for years." Moving forward, however, the committee is planning hearings to determine how and if tax extenders fit in post-tax reform years, the spokesperson added.

Extenders

Highlight of some of the tax extender provisions with more widespread impact than others are as follows (and are extended through 2017 only unless noted):

• Exclusion from gross income of discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness;
• Mortgage insurance premiums treated as qualified residence interest;
• Above the line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses;
• Election to expense mine safety equipment;
• Special expensing rules for certain productions;
• Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico;
• Special rule relating to qualified timber gain;
• Empowerment zone tax incentives;
• Credit for nonbusiness energy property;
• Credit for nonresidential energy property (extended through 2021 and modified);
• Credit for new qualified fuel cell motor vehicles;
• Credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property;
• Credit for 2-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles;
• Second generation biofuel producer credit;
• Biodiesel and renewable diesel incentives;
• Credits with respect to facilities producing energy from certain renewable resources;
• Credit for energy-efficient new homes;
• Energy credit (extended through 2021 and modified);
• Special allowance for second generation biofuel plant property;
• Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction; and
• Carbon dioxide sequestration credit (enhanced, modified and generally extended through 2023).

Disaster relief

The Bipartisan Budget Act also established disaster tax relief for individuals and businesses impacted by California wildfires. Such relief includes but is not limited to allowing certain access to retirement funds, temporarily suspending the limit on charitable contribution deductions, allowing deductions for personal casualty disaster losses and a tax credit for employee retention. The Act also includes changes to the Opportunity Zones rules for Puerto Rico, originally included in the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act." Additionally, tax relief is extended for areas affected by hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.

Additional tax provisions

A number of new tax provisions were included in the legislation, as well as modifications to existing tax provisions. These include modifications of the rules relating to whistleblower awards, user fees on installment agreements, and hardship distributions and withdrawals from deferred accounts. The Act also mandates the creation of a new version of Form 1040, similar to a Form 1040EZ, for seniors, for tax years beginning after February 9, 2018 (the 2019 tax year for calendar year taxpayers). An additional provision of note is the requirement that for the excise tax on investment income of private colleges and universities to apply, the 500 students must be "tuition-paying." This requirement was included in the original version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but was removed at the last minute to comply with budget reconciliation rules.

Comment

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that extending the expired tax breaks will cost the federal government over $15 billion. The disaster relief will add $456 million to the deficit in addition to relief that has already been provided.

The Treasury Department has proposed repealing 298 regulations. According to the Treasury, the targeted rules are unnecessary, duplicative or obsolete. In addition, the Treasury proposed to amend another 79 regulations to reflect the repeal.

The Treasury Department has proposed repealing 298 regulations. According to the Treasury, the targeted rules are unnecessary, duplicative or obsolete. In addition, the Treasury proposed to amend another 79 regulations to reflect the repeal.

Take away. "We continue our work to ensure that our tax regulatory system promotes economic growth," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "These 298 regulations serve no useful purpose to taxpayers and we have proposed eliminating them. I look forward to continuing to build on our efforts to make the regulatory system more efficient and effective."

Background

The Treasury began reviewing IRS regulations in response to two Executive Order (EO) issued in 2017. The first EO directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force. In addition, each Regulatory Reform Task Force was directed to review existing regulations to determine which, among other things, were outdated, unnecessary or ineffective.

The second EO directed the Treasury to review all significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016. Accordingly, on June 22, 2017, the Treasury issued an interim report identifying eight regulations to be revised or withdrawn. On October 2, 2017, the Treasury issued a second report noting that the IRS Office of Chief Counsel had identified over 200 regulations for potential repeal.

Executive review

Treasury did not describe to what extent, if any, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reviewing tax regulations. Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a regulatory action is "significant" if it is likely to result in a rule that: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affects the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with another agency’s actions taken or planned; (3) materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues.

Comment

Two senior GOP senators recently asked if some tax regs continue to be exempt from OIRA review based on an agreement between the Treasury Department and OMB. Generally, the agreement, dating back to 1983, "exempts regulations issued by IRS from further analysis and review unless [the regulations] were legislative and major.”

Unnecessary, obsolete regulations

The regulations to be repealed fall into three categories: (1) Regulations interpreting Code provisions that have been repealed; (2) Regulations interpreting significantly revised Code provisions that do not reflect the revisions; and (3) Regulations that are no longer applicable.

Moreover, removal is unrelated to the substance of rules they contain. Therefore, there is no negative inference regarding the stated rules. The IRS proposes to remove these regulations from the CFR solely because they have no current or future applicability. In addition, the IRS’s repeal of these regulations is not intended to alter any nonregulatory guidance that cites to or relies upon them.

Further, the Treasury proposes to amend 79 existing regulations to remove cross-references to the 298 repealed regulations. According to the Treasury, these amendments will streamline and reduce the volume of regulations taxpayers need to review and increase clarity of the tax law. These regulations will be repealed as of the date the Treasury decision adopting these proposals is published in the Federal Register.

Treasury requested comments on the proposal. Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by May 14, 2018.

The Trump administration on February 12 released its much-anticipated fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget request, "Efficient, Effective, Accountable An American Budget." The administration’s proposal calls for IRS funding that focuses additional resources on enforcement and cybersecurity. Coming off passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, this year’s budget recommendations contain only a handful of additional tax proposals when compared to some prior-year budget requests.

The Trump administration on February 12 released its much-anticipated fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget request, "Efficient, Effective, Accountable An American Budget." The administration’s proposal calls for IRS funding that focuses additional resources on enforcement and cybersecurity. Coming off passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, this year’s budget recommendations contain only a handful of additional tax proposals when compared to some prior-year budget requests.

Take away. Presidential budget requests are not binding; rather, the requests offer a legislative proposal for congressional lawmakers to consider. A Treasury Department "Green Book" that traditional outlines an administration’s revenue proposals for the coming year is not expected this year in light of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s recent passage. Some practitioners have expressed concern that not enough resources in the proposed budget would be allocated toward providing guidance to fully implement the new law.

IRS

The administration’s budget proposal breaks its IRS funding request into four parts. The administration proposes allocating $11.1 billion in base funding, $2.3 billion for key tax filing and compliance initiatives, and $110 million for IT modernization efforts. Additionally, funding is requested to expand and strengthen tax enforcement.

Comment

"These additional investments over the next 10 years are estimated to generate approximately $44 billion in additional revenue at a cost of $15 billion, yielding a net savings of $29 billion over 10 years," the proposal states.

Tax provisions

In addition to IRS funding, the administration’s 2019 budget requests certain tax changes. These changes, among others, would include provisions to provide more oversight of paid tax preparers, require valid Social Security numbers when claiming the earned income and child tax credits, allow the IRS more flexibility in correcting errors on tax returns that seek refunds, allow Medicare recipients with high-deductible plans to make tax-deductible contributions to health savings accounts, and, as part of the administration’s infrastructure plan, expand by $6 billion the use of tax-exempt private activity bonds.

The Treasury and IRS have released their second quarter update to the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan. The updated 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan now reflects 29 additional projects, including 18 projects that have become near term priorities as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017.

The Treasury and IRS have released their second quarter update to the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan. The updated 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan now reflects 29 additional projects, including 18 projects that have become near term priorities as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017.

Take away. As in the past but make more urgent by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the IRS intends to update it cumulative 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan to consider comments received from taxpayers and tax practitioners relating to additional projects and to respond to developments arising during the plan year.

Response to new law

Part 1 of the updated Priority Guidance Plan, "Initial implementation fo Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)," contains plans for guidance on 18 targeted areas, including the following:

• Code Sec. 45S business credits with respect to wages paid to qualifying employees during family and medical leave;
• Application of the effective date provisions under Code Sec. 162(m) to the elimination of the exceptions for commissions and performance-based compensation from the definition of compensation subject to the deduction limit;
• Fines and penalties under Code Sec. 162(f) and new Code Sec. 6050X;
• Computational, definitional, and other matters under new Code Sec. 163(j) on the deduction of business interest;
• Bonus depreciation under new Code Sec. 168(k);
• Computational, definitional, and anti-avoidance matters under the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction;
• Adopting new small business accounting method changes under Code Sec. 263A, 448, 460 and 471;
• Implementing changes to Code Sec. 529 college savings plans;
• Implementing changes to Code Sec. 1361 regarding electing small business trusts;
• Computation of estate and gift taxes to reflect changes in the basic exclusion amount; and
• Withholding under Code Secs. 3402 and 3401 and optional flat rate withholding.

IRS resources

Although IRS officials have said that its updated list is not exclusive, they have emphasized that the items on the list will be its first order of business, which it hopes to get through by July. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin predicted in mid-January 12 that the IRS will hire more employees to implement the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: "Our number one issue is implementing the new tax law," Mnuchin said.

New proposed regulations under the centralized partnership audit regime address how and when partnerships and their partners adjust tax attributes to take into account partnerships’ payment adjustments. They also provide, among other additions and clarifications to earlier proposed regs, rules to adjust basis and capital accounts if the partnership adjustment is a change to an item of gain, loss, amortization or depreciation.

New proposed regulations under the centralized partnership audit regime address how and when partnerships and their partners adjust tax attributes to take into account partnerships’ payment adjustments. They also provide, among other additions and clarifications to earlier proposed regs, rules to adjust basis and capital accounts if the partnership adjustment is a change to an item of gain, loss, amortization or depreciation.

Take away. "These proposed regulations layer additional complexity onto two sets of already complicated regulations: partnership allocations are under Code Sec. 704(b)and previously issued regulations interpreting the Centralized Partnership Audit Regime," Michael Grace, Esq., consulting counsel, Wiley Rein LLP, and former IRS pass-throughs attorney, told Wolters Kluwer. For example, under these proposed regulations, Grace observes that tax professionals must distinguish two categories of allocations under Code Sec. 704(b) that may result from a Centralized Partnership Audit:

• Items the allocations of which can have substantial economic effect, but only if the items are allocated as these regulations prescribe; and

• Allocations (including allocations of newly defined "notional items") that cannot have substantial economic effect but nevertheless will be deemed to accord with the partners’ interests in the partnership if allocated as these regulations require.

Background

The new centralized partnership audit regime, put into place under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), generally must be applied to audits of partnership returns filed for the 2018 tax years and thereafter. Their implementation generally looks to assessment at the partnership level, leaving the partnership to collect from existing partners, but with certain exceptions. In proposed regs that were issued in June 2017 (NPRM REG-136118-15), the IRS acknowledged that more guidance was necessary. In November, the IRS issued proposed regs on how certain international rules operate within the framework of the new centralized partnership audit regime (NPRM REG-119337-17). In December, the IRS issued proposed regs on the operation of the "push-out" rules for partner/partnership liability in tiered structures (NPRM REG-120232-17).

Imputed underpayments

When a positive partnership adjustment is taken into account in determining an imputed underpayment, Code Sec. 6225 does not provide for any item of taxable income to be allocated to partners. Instead, calculations are made at the partnership level, with the partnership paying the liability in the form of an imputed underpayment arising in the year of the audit adjustment. If, however, there are no adjustments to outside basis that reflect partnership adjustments that caused the imputed underpayment, a partner could effectively be taxed twice on the same income—once indirectly on the payment of the imputed underpayment, and again on a disposition of the partnership interest or a distribution of cash by the partnership. To prevent effective double taxation or other distortions in these cases, the new proposed regs provide for adjustment to a partner’s basis in its interest, and certain other tax attributes that depend on basis.

No imputed underpayment

The new proposed regs provide that an allocation of an item arising from a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment will not be deemed to have substantial economic effect ( Prop. Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(xiii)). It will, nevertheless, be deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership if it is allocated in the manner in which the item would have been allocated in the reviewed year under the Code Sec. 704 regulations. taking into account the Code Sec. 704 successor rules.

"Push-out" elections

Code Sec. 6226(b) describes how partnership adjustments are taken in account by the reviewed year partners if a partnership makes a "push-out" election under Code Sec. 6226(a). Under Code Sec. 6226(b)(1), each partner’s tax is increased by the aggregate of the adjustment amounts determined under Code Sec. 6226(b)(2).

The new proposed regs provide that the reviewed year partners or affected partners must take into account items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit with respect to their share of the partnership adjustments as reflected on statements relating to pushed-out items in the reporting year ( Prop. Reg. §301.6226-4(b)). Partnerships adjust tax attributes affected by reason of a pushed-out item in the reviewed year.

Code Sec. 704(b)

An allocation of a pushed-out item does not have substantial economic effect under Code Sec. 704, since the allocation relates to two different tax years (that is, while generally determined with respect to the reviewed year, notional items are taken into account in the adjustment year). Nevertheless, the proposed regs provide that the allocation of such an item will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership if it is allocated in the adjustment year in the manner in which the item would have been allocated under the rules of Code Sec. 704(b) in the reviewed year, followed by any subsequent tax years, concluding with the adjustment year ( Prop. Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(xiv)).

Burdens of partnership underpayments

Under the new regulations, persons who were not partners in a reviewed year may be allocated some of a partnership’s payment to the IRS. If the "reviewed year partner" to whom the payment generally would be allocated is no longer around, then the payment instead must be allocated to that partner’s "successor."

The 2018 filing season for 2017 tax-year returns officially launched on January 27. On the other end of the filing season, taxpayers have two additional days to file their 2017 returns: the traditional April 15 filing deadline moves to April 17 this year. Some early filers, however, may find their refunds delayed if they are claiming the additional child tax credit (ACTC) and/or the earned income tax credit (EITC).

The 2018 filing season for 2017 tax-year returns officially launched on January 27. On the other end of the filing season, taxpayers have two additional days to file their 2017 returns: the traditional April 15 filing deadline moves to April 17 this year. Some early filers, however, may find their refunds delayed if they are claiming the additional child tax credit (ACTC) and/or the earned income tax credit (EITC).

Unlike some past years, the IRS goes into the filing season without having to make too many changes to the Tax Code. The heavy haul will come this year, as the IRS implements the countless changes to the Tax Code in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen recently said that he worries the agency will have adequate resources – personnel and monetary – to push out the necessary guidance for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. "It’s a challenge," Koskinen said.

Comment. The January 27 launch comes just a few days before the mandatory January 31 deadline for employers to file certain information returns. Forms W-2 and W-3, electronic and paper, are due to the Social Security Administration by January 31. Forms 1099-MISC, box 7 (for non-employee compensation) are due to IRS by January 31.

Filing deadline

April 15 falls on a Sunday this year. As a result, the filing deadline moves to Monday, April 16. However, April 16 is a holiday – Emancipation Day – in the District of Columbia. This moves the filing deadline to Tuesday, April 17.

Comment. Legal holidays in the District of Columbia affect the filing deadline not only in the District of Columbia but across the nation.

Refunds

Tax laws do not allow the IRS to issue immediate refunds to taxpayers claiming the ATC and/or EITC. The IRS predicted that refunds related to be the ACTC and/or EITC will be deposited in taxpayer accounts or on debit cards starting February 27, 2018, approximately one month after the launch of the filing season. Taxpayers will need to choose direct deposit, the IRS explained, to get refunds deposited as quickly as possible.

As in past years, the IRS predicts that nine out of 10 refunds will be issued in fewer than 21 days. The agency reminded taxpayers that many financial institutions do not process payments on weekends or holidays. This can result in further delays.

Comment. Presidents’ Day falls on Monday, February 19. Many financial institutions will be closed over the three-day weekend, a reason the IRS gives for the late date for some refunds when compared to last year.

Scams

The start of the filing season also brings an uptick in refund fraud. Criminals file fraudulent returns early in the filing season before taxpayers file their legitimate returns. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) recently cautioned taxpayers to be on "high alert" for identity theft and refund fraud.

Much-anticipated withholding tables for 2018 have been posted by the IRS. While the new withholding tables are designed to work with existing Forms W-4, the agency encouraged taxpayers to use its online withholding calculator to make adjustments if necessary. New Forms W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, will be released for 2019 withholding; withholding for 2018 will adapt to existing Forms W-4 already submitted by employees. Based upon the specific impact of the new tax law on their situations, some employees may wish to file a revised Form W-4 to supplement revisions to the withholding tables already being made by the IRS.

Much-anticipated withholding tables for 2018 have been posted by the IRS. While the new withholding tables are designed to work with existing Forms W-4, the agency encouraged taxpayers to use its online withholding calculator to make adjustments if necessary. New Forms W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, will be released for 2019 withholding; withholding for 2018 will adapt to existing Forms W-4 already submitted by employees. Based upon the specific impact of the new tax law on their situations, some employees may wish to file a revised Form W-4 to supplement revisions to the withholding tables already being made by the IRS.

The IRS’s online withholding calculator is being reprogramed for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. IRS officials told reporters in Washington, D.C that the updated withholding calculator is expected to be online in February. The guidance also sets the rates at 22 percent for optional flat-rate withholding on supplemental wages below $1 million, at 37 percent on supplemental wages on $1 million and above, and 24 percent for backup withholding.

Background

The amount withheld from an employee's wages is determined in part by the number of withholding exemptions and allowances the employee claims. For each exemption or allowance claimed, an amount equal to one personal exemption, prorated to the payroll period, is subtracted from the total amount of wages paid. This reduced amount, rather than the total wage amount, is subject to withholding.

A withholding table shows employers and payroll service providers how much federal tax to withhold from employee paychecks, given each employee’s wages, marital status and the number of withholding allowances claimed. Employees provide their employers with Form W-4 so employers can withhold the correct amount of federal tax.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act overhauls the Tax Code. The new law lowers individual income tax rates, revises the child tax credit, repeals the personal exemption deduction, and makes countless other changes.

Withholding for 2018

For 2018, the amount of one withholding allowance on an annual basis increases to $4,150. The amount of one withholding allowance on an annual basis for 2017 was $4,050.

For 2018, the withholding allowance amounts by payroll period are:

• Weekly: $79.80
• Biweekly: $159.60
• Semimonthly: $172.90
• Monthly: $345.80
• Quarterly: $1,037.50
• Semiannually: $2,075
• Daily or miscellaneous (each day of payroll period): $16

The IRS instructed employers and payroll service providers to start using the new withholding tables as soon as possible, but no later than February 15, 2018. Until employers and payroll service providers implement the revised withholding tables, they should continue to use the 2017 tables, the IRS added.

Form W-4

Taxpayers will not need to complete new Forms W-4 immediately. "The new withholding tables are designed to minimize taxpayer burden as much as possible and will work with Forms W-4 that workers have already filed with their employers to claim withholding allowances," the IRS explained. Further, transition rules temporarily permit employees to claim exemption from withholding for 2018 by using 2017 Form W-4. The deadline to claim exemption from income tax withholding in either case has been extended to February 28, 2018.

In the meantime, taxpayers should check their withholding, the IRS recommended. "Taxpayers who itemize their deductions, couples with multiple jobs or individuals with more than one job are encouraged to review their situation," the IRS explained.

Comment. "The new withholding guidance, developed jointly by Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and the IRS, was constructed to work within the constraints of the existing payroll withholding system in order to deliver the benefits of the tax cuts as soon as possible, to as many Americans as possible, and with as little disruption as possible," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters in Washington, D.C. "The withholding tables are designed to work with the Forms W-4 that workers have already filed with their employers. This will minimize burden on taxpayers and employers," he predicted.

Comment. Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, has asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the new withholding tables and determine if the tables "would result in the systematic underwithholding of federal taxes from employee paychecks." Wyden and other Democrats in Congress have voiced concerns that the White House is "politically interfering with the development of the 2018 withholding tables."

Supplemental wages

An employee may receive, in addition to regular wage payments, supplemental wages. If supplemental wages are paid concurrently (for example, in a single payment) with regular wages, and the employer does not specify the amount of each, the supplemental wages are combined with the regular wages for the pay period for purposes of determining the proper withholding amount. If the supplemental wages are not paid concurrently with regular wages, or if they are paid concurrently but the employer specifies the amount of each, two different methods of calculating the amount of withholding on the supplemental wages are available. If supplemental wages exceed $1 million during the calendar year, the excess is subject to withholding at 37 percent, effective this year, the IRS explained.

Comment. Examples of supplemental wages include bonuses, commissions, overtime pay, wages paid under reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangements, dismissal pay, vacation pay, back pay, and nonqualified deferred compensation. Other types of supplemental wages include payments for unused accumulated leave and separate payments representing sick pay and regular wages.

President Trump signed legislation on January 22 to delay the medical device excise tax, the health insurance provider fee and the excise tax on high-dollar health plans. All three taxes were delayed in a temporary funding bill.

President Trump signed legislation on January 22 to delay the medical device excise tax, the health insurance provider fee and the excise tax on high-dollar health plans. All three taxes were delayed in a temporary funding bill.

ACA Taxes

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created all three of these taxes. Since passage of the ACA, many stakeholders and lawmakers have called for their repeal or delay. Several years ago, Congress delayed the three taxes. Delays of the medical device tax and the health insurance provider fee expired after. The “Cadillac tax” on high-dollar employer plans had been scheduled to be imposed starting in 2020.

The new year brought renewed calls for further delays, especially the medical device tax. Without another delay, taxpayers would be liable for the first payment under the medical device tax before the end of this month.

Comment. Manufacturers or importers of medical devices are responsible for paying the excise tax. The excise tax is reported on Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return. Semi-monthly deposits are generally required if tax liability exceeds $2,500 for the quarter. This payment would have been due January 29.

Further Delays

Under the new law, all three ACA taxes are again delayed. The medical device tax is suspended for 2018 and 2019. The health insurance provider fee is delayed for one more year. The excise tax on high-dollar health plans will now take effect in 2022.

"We applaud Congress for delaying the excise tax on high-dollar health plans, James Klein, President, American Benefits Council, said. “We will continue efforts to fully repeal this tax and appreciate that Congress has passed this two-year delay as a down payment for full repeal," Klein added.

The excise tax on high-dollar health plans has supporters. “The tax is a really important health policy and fiscal policy. Could be reformed or replaced with an alternative instrument. But should not be delayed yet again,” Jason Furman, Past Chair, President’s Council of Economic Advisors, tweeted.

Extenders

Now that Congress has delayed the three ACA taxes, some lawmakers are looking to attach a package of “extenders” to the next funding bill. A number of extenders expired after 2016, including the higher education tuition and fees deduction, the Indian employment credit, and incentives for biodiesel and alternative fuels.

The funding bill runs through February 8 but the Affordable Care Act extensions/delays won’t change. Lawmakers will need to pass another temporary or long-term funding bill to keep the IRS and the federal government open after February 8.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not directly change the tax rate on capital gains: they remain at 0, 10, 15 and 20 percent, respectively (with the 25- and 28-percent rates also reserved for the same special situations). However, changes within the new law impact both when the favorable rates are applied and the level to which to may be enjoyed.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not directly change the tax rate on capital gains: they remain at 0, 10, 15 and 20 percent, respectively (with the 25- and 28-percent rates also reserved for the same special situations). However, changes within the new law impact both when the favorable rates are applied and the level to which to may be enjoyed.

Capital gains rates

The maximum rates on net capital gain and qualified dividends are generally retained after 2017 and are 0 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. The breakpoints between the zero- and 15-percent rates ("15-percent breakpoint") and the 15- and 20-percent rates ("20-percent breakpoint") are generally the same amounts as the breakpoints under prior law, except the breakpoints are indexed using the new C-CPI-U factor in tax years beginning after 2018. For 2018:

• the 15-percent breakpoint is $77,200 for joint returns and surviving spouses (one-half of this amount ($38,600) for married taxpayers filing separately), $51,700 for heads of household, $2,600 for estates and trusts, and $38,600 for other unmarried individuals; and
• The 20-percent breakpoint is $479,000 for joint returns and surviving spouses (one-half of this amount for married taxpayers filing separately), $452,400 for heads of household, $12,700 for estates and trusts, and $425,800 for other unmarried individuals.

“Zero” rate. In the case of an individual (including an estate or trust) with adjusted net capital gain, to the extent the gain would not result in taxable income exceeding the 15-percent breakpoint, such gain is not taxed.

Comment. The breakpoints are not aligned with the new general income tax rate brackets. For example, alignment for joint filers would have the 15-percent breakpoint at $77,400 rather than $77,200; and, more significantly, 20 percent at $600,000 rather than at $479,000. Instead, they continue the alignment themselves more closely to the prior-law rate brackets.

Comment. As under prior law, unrecaptured section 1250 gain generally is taxed at a maximum rate of 25 percent, and 28-percent rate gain is taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. In addition, an individual, estate, or trust also remains subject to the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income (NII tax).

Kiddie tax

Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the "kiddie tax" is simplified by effectively applying ordinary and capital gains rates applicable to trusts and estates to the net unearned income of a child. A child’s "kiddie tax" is no longer affected by the tax situation of his or her parent or the unearned income of any siblings.

Taxable income attributable to net unearned income is taxed according to the brackets applicable to trusts and estates, with respect to both ordinary income and income taxed at preferential rates. For 2018, that means that the 15-percent capital gain rate starts at $2,600 and rising to 20 percent when $12,700 is reached.

Carried interest

Capital gain passed through to fund managers via a partnership profits interest (carried interest) in exchange for investment management services must meet an extended three-year holding period to qualify for long-term capital gain treatment. Under new Code 1061(a), if a taxpayer holds an applicable partnership interest at any time during the tax year, this rule treats carried interest as short-term capital gain—taxed at ordinary income rates— based on a three-year holding period instead of the usual one-year period.

SSBIC rollovers

For sales after 2017, the new law repeals the election to defer recognition of capital gain realized on the sale of publicly traded securities if the taxpayer used the sale proceeds to purchase common stock or a partnership interest in a specialized small business investment company (SSBIC). Prior to 2018 under former Code Sec. 1044, C corporations and individuals could elect to defer recognition of capital gain realized on the sale of publicly traded securities if the taxpayer used the sales proceeds within 60 days to purchase common stock or a partnership interest in a specialized small business investment company (SSBIC).

Like-kind exchanges

Like-kind exchanges have often been used to defer taxable gains. Going forward, like-kind exchanges are allowed only for real property after 2017 (Code Sec. 1031(a)(1)). Like-kind exchanges are no longer available for depreciable tangible personal property, and intangible and nondepreciable personal property after 2017. Gain on those assets will no longer be allowed to be deferred.

Code Sec. 199A deduction

The concept of capital gain is intertwined within the new passthrough deduction for partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships under Code Sec. 199A in several ways. A noncorporate taxpayer can claim a Code Sec. 199A deduction for a tax year for the sum of—

(1)

the lesser of —

(a) the taxpayer’s "combined qualified business income amount"; or

(b) 20 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s taxable income over the sum of (i) the taxpayer’s net capital gain under Code Sec. 1(h) and (ii) the taxpayer’s aggregate qualified cooperative dividends; plus

(2)

the lesser of —

(a) 20 percent of the taxpayer’s aggregate qualified cooperative dividends; or

(b) the taxpayer’s taxable income minus the taxpayer’s net capital gain (Code Sec. 199A(a), as added by the 2017 Tax Cuts Act).

Comment. As a result, the Code Sec. 199A deduction cannot be more than the taxpayer’s taxable income reduced by net capital gain for the tax year, making monitoring of capital gains a “must” for some taxpayers.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases bonus depreciation rate to 100 percent for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The rate phases down thereafter. Used property, films, television shows, and theatrical productions are eligible for bonus depreciation. Property used by rate-regulated utilities, and property of certain motor vehicle, boat, and farm machinery retail and lease businesses that use floor financing indebtedness, is excluded from bonus depreciation.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases bonus depreciation rate to 100 percent for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The rate phases down thereafter. Used property, films, television shows, and theatrical productions are eligible for bonus depreciation. Property used by rate-regulated utilities, and property of certain motor vehicle, boat, and farm machinery retail and lease businesses that use floor financing indebtedness, are excluded from bonus depreciation.

Timing Details

The 50-percent bonus depreciation rate applicable before the new law took effect has been increased to 100 percent for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The 100-percent allowance continues for five years, after which it is then phased down by 20 percent per calendar year for property placed in service after 2022. In general, the bonus depreciation percentage rates are as follows:

• 100 percent for property placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023;
• 80 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2022, and before January 1, 2024;
• 60 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2023, and before January 1, 2025;
• 40 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2026;
• 20 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2025, and before January 1, 2027;
• 0 percent (bonus expires) for property placed in service after December 31, 2026.

Property acquired before September 28, 2017. Property acquired before September 28, 2017, is subject to the 50-percent rate if placed in service in 2017, a 40-percent rate if placed in service in 2018, and a 30-percent rate if placed in service in 2019. Property acquired before September 28, 2017, and placed in service after 2019 is not eligible for bonus depreciation. However, in the case of longer production property (LPP) and noncommercial aircraft (NCA), each of these placed-in-service dates is extended one year. Thus, a 50 percent rate applies to LPP and NCA acquired before September 28, 2017 and placed in service in 2017 or 2018, a 40 percent rate applies if such property is placed in service in 2019, and a 30 percent rate applies if such property is placed in service in 2020. They continue to apply to property acquired before the September 28, 2017, cut-off date set by Congress.

The IRS has released the 2018 optional standard mileage rates to be used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, moving and charitable purposes. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car, van, pickup of panel truck will be:

• 54.5 cents per mile for business miles driven (up from 53.5 cents in 2017);
• 18 cents per mile for medical and moving expenses (up from 17 cents in 2017); and
• 14 cents per mile for miles driven for charitable purposes (permanently set by statute at 14 cents).

Comment. A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate after using a depreciation method under Code Sec. 168 or after claiming the Code Sec. 179 deduction for that vehicle. A taxpayer may not use the business rate for more than four vehicles at a time. As a result, business owners have a choice for their vehicles: take the standard mileage rate, or “itemize” each part of the expense (gas, tolls, insurance, etc., and depreciation).

The IRS has released the 2018 optional standard mileage rates to be used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, moving and charitable purposes. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car, van, pickup or panel truck will be:

• 54.5 cents per mile for business miles driven (up from 53.5 cents in 2017);
• 18 cents per mile for medical and moving expenses (up from 17 cents in 2017); and
• 14 cents per mile for miles driven for charitable purposes (permanently set by statute at 14 cents).

Comment. A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate after using a depreciation method under Code Sec. 168 or after claiming the Code Sec. 179 deduction for that vehicle. A taxpayer may not use the business rate for more than four vehicles at a time. As a result, business owners have a choice for their vehicles: take the standard mileage rate, or “itemize” each part of the expense (gas, tolls, insurance, etc., and depreciation).

New depreciation limits under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The new “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump raises the cap placed on depreciation write-offs of business-use vehicles. The new caps will be:

• $10,000 for the first year a vehicle is placed in service (up from a current level of $3,160);
• $16,000 for the second year (up from $5,100); $9,600 for the third year (up from $3,050); and
• $5,760 for each subsequent year (up from $1,875) until costs are fully recovered.

For passengers autos eligible for bonus first-year depreciation, that maximum first-year bonus depreciation allowance remains at $8,000 (raising the first-year write-off to $18,000). The new, higher limits only apply to vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2017.

Comment. For vehicles placed in service in 2018, the preceding caps will apply to all types of vehicles. However, the IRS figures inflation adjustments differently for (1) trucks (including SUVs treated as trucks) and vans and (2) regular passenger cars. Thus, beginning in 2019 when these figures are first adjusted for inflation, separate inflation adjusted caps will be provided for (1) trucks (including SUVs) and vans and for (2) regular passenger cars.

Also, the $25,000 section 179 expensing limit on certain heavy SUVs is inflation-adjusted after 2018. The $25,000 limit applies to a sport utility vehicle, a truck with an interior cargo bed length less than six feet, or a van that seats fewer than 10 persons behind the driver’s seat if the vehicle is exempt form the Code Sec. 280F annual depreciation caps because it has a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 6,000 pounds or is otherwise exempt.

For a discussion of what’s best for your business situation, please contact our offices. 

January 1, 2018 not only brings a new year, it brings a new federal Tax Code. The just-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes sweeping changes to the nation’s tax laws. Many of these changes take effect January 1. Everyone – especially individuals and business owners – needs to review their tax strategies for the new law. The changes are huge. However, many changes are temporary, especially for individuals.

January 1, 2018 not only brings a new year, it brings a new federal Tax Code. The just-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes sweeping changes to the nation’s tax laws. Many of these changes take effect January 1. Everyone – especially individuals and business owners – needs to review their tax strategies for the new law. The changes are huge. However, many changes are temporary, especially for individuals.

Individuals

Individuals who work for wages will see the impact of the new law on their paychecks. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sets forth seven individual tax rates: 10, 12, 22, 24, 32, 35, and 37 percent. Before 2018, these rates were 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, and 39.6 percent. Because the tax rates have changed for 2018, federal income tax withholding also must change.

The IRS has promised to publish new withholding tables as soon as possible. Most likely, the IRS will post the new withholding tables this month. After the IRS posts the new withholding tables, employers will likely have a transition period. Based on past changes to the tax laws, workers can generally expect to see the impact of the new law on their pay checks in February. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

The IRS also is expected to revise Form W-4. The new law repeals the deduction for personal exemptions after 2017.

Business entities 

Perhaps nowhere else does the new law turn traditional tax planning on its head more than choice of business entity. Business owners need to immediately start thinking about how they want to structure their business in 2018 and beyond.

For corporations, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowers the corporate tax rate to 21 percent effective January 1, 2018. This change is permanent.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also changes the tax treatment of pass-through businesses. These are partnerships, S corporations and others, which have been extremely popular choice of business entity in recent years. Very broadly, and the rules here are complex, the new law allows deductions for qualified business income of pass-throughs up to a certain percentage. This change is temporary and is scheduled to expire after 2025.

Business owners need to reevaluate their choice of entity. The corporate form may be more attractive for some business owners. The pass-through form may be less attractive. Adding complexity to the mix is the new law’s rules for certain businesses, such as law firms, and other professions. Please contact our office and we can discuss in detail these important changes.

Deductions and credits

Individuals who itemized deductions in past years may find that may no longer be the case under the new law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act temporarily increases the standard deduction (up to $24,000 for married couples filing a joint return and $12,000 for single individuals). The new law also places limits on the deduction for state and local taxes. Individuals may deduct state and local income, sales, property taxes up to $10,000. Gone are the days of an unlimited deduction for state and local taxes. This change is effective for 2018 and is scheduled to expire after 2025. Other popular deductions also are changed, including the medical expense deduction and the moving expense deduction.

Although the new law repeals the deduction for personal exemptions, it does enhance the child tax credit. The child tax credit increases from $1,000 to $2,000. The refundable portion also increases. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also creates a $500 credit for non-child dependents. These enhancements are temporary, scheduled to expire after 2025.

Alternative Minimum Tax

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does not repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for individuals. Early on, AMT repeal seemed almost certain. However, Congress needed to keep the AMT because it raises significant revenues. The new law does increase the AMT exemption amounts.

What’s not in the new law?

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does not change the tax rates for capital gains and dividends. Also left unchanged are the many reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

The new law also does not repeal the Affordable Care Act’s taxes. The net investment income (NII) tax and the additional Medicare tax are left unchanged. This is also true for the ACA’s medical device tax, health insurance provider fee and excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans. The new law also does not repeal the ACA’s shared responsibility payment for employers (it does effectively repeal the individual shared responsibility requirement).

IRS Guidance

Keep in mind that the new law leaves a lot of the details to the Treasury Department and the IRS to flesh-out. Guidance from the IRS may take some time. As discussed, payroll guidance seems to be the first item on the agency’s agenda. Guidance for the new tax treatment of pass-throughs also is likely to be high on its agenda. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

The start of a New Year presents a time to reflect on the past 12 months and, based on what has gone before, predict what may happen next. Here is a list of the top 10 developments from 2017 that may prove particularly important as we move forward into the New Year:

The start of a New Year presents a time to reflect on the past 12 months and, based on what has gone before, predict what may happen next. Here is a list of the top 10 developments from 2017 that may prove particularly important as we move forward into the New Year:

#1: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

A sweeping rewrite of the nation’s tax laws passed Congress in late 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanently lowers the corporate tax rate, and temporarily lowers the individual tax rates. Shareholders, partners and sole proprietors are poised to reap unprecedented rate cuts due to new pass-through rules. The Act also temporarily enhances the child tax credit, the medical expense deduction, bonus depreciation, small business expensing, and more. Lawmakers, however, did not repeal the federal estate or the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for individuals, although they did add temporary sweeteners to these provisions. For more details and analysis, see the special Briefing, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

#2: Regulatory Resets and Reform

Since taking office, President Trump has issued several Executive Orders (EO) on regulations. EO 13789 directed the Treasury Department to review all significant tax regulations issued since January 1, 2016. In July, the Treasury Department identified eight recent tax regulations for reevaluation. The Treasury Department later withdrew two regs: Proposed Regulations under Section 2704 on Restrictions on Liquidation of an Interest for Estate, Gift and Generation-Skipping Transfer Taxes (REG-163113-02) and Proposed Regulations under Section 103 on Definition of Political Subdivision (REG-129067-15).

#3: Audit Coverage

The IRS’s latest Data Book, released in 2017, showed that the IRS audited 0.7 percent of all individual income tax returns in calendar year (CY) 2015, an all-time low. Approximately two-thirds of those individual audits were correspondence audits and one-third were field audits. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) later reported that the IRS examined one of every 143 individual income tax returns in fiscal year (FY) 2016. This reflected a 16 percent decline compared to FY 2015, according to TIGTA. The IRS examined one in 17 returns in FY 2016 with more than $1 million in income, which, according to TIGTA, represented a decline of 29 percent compared to FY 2015.

#4: Health Care

After dominating the first half of the 2017 news cycle, Congressional efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act eventually failed when the Senate Republicans’ "skinny repeal" legislation, the Health Care Freedom Bill, failed during a dramatic past-midnight vote on July 28. However, Republican efforts returned and were partially effective as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the individual mandate by making the payment amount $0. In the meantime, however, the 3.8 percent net investment income tax (NII tax), and its “companion” 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax on compensation, which were enacted as part of the Affordable care Act, have not yet been repealed.

#5: The Gig or Sharing Economy

The IRS is taking notice of the gig, or sharing, economy. The Service opened a Sharing Economy Tax Center on its website, and is educating agents on relevant examination techniques. Activities in the sharing economy can vary and can range from selling goods online, advertising or other revenue from a website or blog, creating a crowdfunding site, short-term renting out a residence, or driving others for hire. More of these activities have come to the attention of the IRS as new Form 1099-K reporting requirements emerge for online and credit card transactions, as well as the use of Form 1099-MISC by large facilitators for service or goods providers.

#6: Cybersecurity

2017 saw the IRS reporting that it finally is turning the tide against fraudulent claims for refunds. The Service is working closely with software providers and using se IT to more closely monitoring patterns in filed tax returns. Delaying 2017 refunds for taxpayers claiming the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit also saw results. But while the situation surrounding refund-fraud is improving, it is far from eliminated, the IRS has emphasized.

#7: Virtual Currency

Bitcoin has become the virtual currency of-choice worldwide in just a short period of time. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in September in Congress to allow consumers to make small purchases with virtual currency (also known as cryptocurrency currency) of up to $600 without needing to satisfy current reporting requirements (the Cryptocurrency Tax Act of 2017). Meanwhile, many stakeholders said that IRS policy needs updating.

#8: Partnership Audit Rules

The new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. These rules dramatically change the way that audit adjustments are imposed on the partnership and its partners. With an estimated one million-plus partners under the U.S. tax system, the importance of the centralized partnership audit regime cannot be underplayed. Partnerships and their partners, if they have not done so, should review partnership agreements to address these new issues.

#9: Bonus Depreciation/Section 179 Expensing

Because of their widespread applicability to businesses, especially those that are capital intensive, the new enhanced write-offs permitted under the new bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act deserves special mention. The new law increases the 50-percent "bonus depreciation" allowance to 100 percent for property placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023 (January 1, 2024, for longer production period property and certain aircraft). A 20-percent phase-down schedule would then kick in. It also removes the requirement that the original use of qualified property must commence with the taxpayer, thus allowing bonus depreciation on the purchase of used property.

The section 179 dollar limitation is increased to $1 million and the investment limitation is increased to $2.5 million for tax years beginning after 2017. The definition of qualified real property eligible for expensing is redefined to include improvements to the interior of any nonresidential real property (“qualified improvement property”), as well as roofs, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning property, fire protection and alarm systems, and security systems installed on such property. What’s more, the exclusion from expensing for property used in connecting with lodging facilities, such as residential rental property, is eliminated.

#10: Disaster Relief

President Trump signed the Disaster Tax Relief Act in September. The new law provides targeted and temporary tax relief to victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. The IRS also postponed certain tax deadlines for affected taxpayers. The IRS response to the various wildfires that have ravaged parts of California has been equally as expansive. And in December, the IRS issued safe harbor methods of calculating casualty and theft loss deductions (Rev. Proc. 2018-8, Rev. Proc. 2018-9).

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act modifies Section 529 qualified tuition plans to allow the plans to distribute up to $10,000 in tuition expenses incurred during the tax year for designated beneficiaries enrolled at a public, private, or religious elementary or secondary school. Section 529 plans used to only be allowed for college tuition, up to full tuition amounts. That provision for college tuition remains the same.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act modifies Section 529 qualified tuition plans to allow the plans to distribute up to $10,000 in tuition expenses incurred during the tax year for designated beneficiaries enrolled at a public, private, or religious elementary or secondary school. Section 529 plans used to only be allowed for college tuition, up to full tuition amounts. That provision for college tuition remains the same.

Although contributions are not tax deductible for federal tax purposes, funds within a Section 529 plan can accumulate tax-free within the plan until they are distributed tax-free to the educational institution for the child-beneficiary. The new $10,000 limitation applies on a per-student, not per-account basis. As a result, if an individual is a designated beneficiary of multiple accounts, a maximum of $10,000 in distributions will be free of income tax, regardless of whether the funds are distributed from multiple accounts. Some state plans provide a limited deduction against state income taxes for contributions to Section 529 plans. They may also provide caps on contributions.

The expansion of Section 529 plans to cover elementary and secondary school education applies to distributions made after December 31, 2017. Since existing Section 529 set up for a child-beneficiary’s college education may now be redirected earlier to primary and secondary tuition, parents, grandparents and other contributors will need to decide how best to manage each child’s combined accounts: whether amounts needed to cover college tuition should accumulate tax-free until those years, or whether they should be used earlier. Generally, if contributions are limited either by a donor’s financial resources or by state caps, use for college tuition will allow a greater amount to accumulate tax-free. If projected accumulated contributions can cover more than college tuition, then using remaining Section 529 balances for secondary and even elementary school may make sense.

These expanded rules are still young, however, with expected IRS regulations and other guidance overlaid onto the basic law under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sure to come. But although the tax-free growth benefits of any Section 529 plans have a long-term perspective, giving some thought to how these expanded Section 529 plans might be used in your family situation might start soon. Please contact our offices for further details.

Yes, conversions from regular (traditional) tax-deferred individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs are still allowed after enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, in some instances, such Roth conversions are more beneficial than they were prior to 2018, since the tax rates on all income, including conversion income, are now lower. However, the special rule that allows a contribution to one type of an IRA to be recharacterized as a contribution to the other type of IRA will no longer apply to a conversion contribution to a Roth IRA after 2017.

Yes, conversions from regular (traditional) tax-deferred individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs are still allowed after enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, in some instances, such Roth conversions are more beneficial than they were prior to 2018, since the tax rates on all income, including conversion income, are now lower. However, the special rule that allows a contribution to one type of an IRA to be recharacterized as a contribution to the other type of IRA will no longer apply to a conversion contribution to a Roth IRA after 2017.

Note, however, that recharacterization is still permitted with respect to other contributions. For example, an individual may make a contribution for a year to a Roth IRA and, before the due date for the individual’s income tax return for that year, recharacterize it as a contribution to a traditional IRA. The provision is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Comment. Earlier versions of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act enacted by both the House and Senate eliminated recharacterization entirely. The provision was narrowed considerably in the reconciled version to target only conversions to Roth IRAs. So, for example, an individual may still make a contribution for a year to a Roth IRA and, before the due date for the individual’s income tax return for that year, recharacterize it as a contribution to a traditional IRA. In addition, an individual may still make a contribution to a traditional IRA and convert the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, but the individual is precluded from later unwinding the conversion through a recharacterization.

Tax reform discussions continue on Capitol Hill with legislation expected to be released very soon. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate appear to be aiming for a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code. President Trump and Republicans in Congress have set out an ambitious schedule of passing a tax reform bill before year-end. 

Tax reform discussions continue on Capitol Hill with legislation expected to be released very soon. GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate appear to be aiming for a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code. President Trump and Republicans in Congress have set out an ambitious schedule of passing a tax reform bill before year-end. 

Tax reform

Although the specifics are not yet known, a GOP tax bill is expected to lower the individual and corporate tax rates and eliminate many tax credits and deductions. The corporate tax rate could be lowered to 20 percent (or in the 20s), the individual tax rates are expected to cap at 35 percent (although a higher rate may be retained), and the list of eliminated credits and deductions is likely to be lengthy. There is also talk of a lower rate for pass-through businesses.

The current Tax Code contains hundreds of credits and deductions, targeted to individuals, businesses and taxpayers of all types. These tax preferences touch on almost every activity. In past years, proposals to repeal tax preferences have met stiff resistance from the taxpayers they benefit.

The Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress appear to support keeping the home mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction for individuals. The research credit is one business incentive that also appears to have support from the White House. Almost every other tax preference could be a candidate for repeal.

The GOP tax bill could also repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the federal estate tax. The federal gift tax, however, does not appear to be on the chopping block.

Without bill language, it is nearly impossible to envision the components of a GOP tax bill. Left unanswered, at least for now, are some important questions. Will the GOP tax bill be retroactive to January 1, 2017? Will the GOP tax bill expire after 10 years, as some tax bills have in the past? Our office will monitor developments and keep you posted.

Filing season

At this time, it is unclear if any tax law changes would be retroactive to January 1, 2017. If they are, the IRS may have to delay the start of the 2018 filing season. The filing season typically starts in mid-January. The IRS programs its return processing systems for existing tax laws. If the tax laws change, the IRS needs to revise its processing systems and that takes time. Our office will keep you posted.

More tax legislation

While the details of a GOP tax bill take shape, some stand-alone tax bills have been introduced in Congress. They include bills that:

• Exempt more taxpayers from the Affordable Care Act’s individual shared responsibility requirement
• Permit non-itemizers to take above-the-line deductions for charitable contributions.
• Delay the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance provider fee.
• Make taxpayers in Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC).
• Create a tax credit for renewable chemicals.
• Treat Native American nations the same as states for certain federal tax purposes.
• Create “Move America” bonds for infrastructure improvements.
• Expand tax-free distributions from IRAs for charitable purposes.

Lawmakers have a short window between now and year-end to pass any tax bills. Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax legislation.

Year-end tax planning can provide most taxpayers with a good way to lower a tax bill that will otherwise be waiting for them when they file their 2017 tax return in 2018. Since tax liability is primarily keyed to each calendar tax year, once December 31, 2017 passes, your 2017 tax liability for the most part – good or bad – will mostly be set in stone.

Year-end tax planning can provide most taxpayers with a good way to lower a tax bill that will otherwise be waiting for them when they file their 2017 tax return in 2018. Since tax liability is primarily keyed to each calendar tax year, once December 31, 2017 passes, your 2017 tax liability for the most part – good or bad – will mostly be set in stone.

Year-end 2017 presents a unique set of challenges for many taxpayers because of current efforts by Congress and the Trump Administration to enact tax reform legislation, the scope of which has not been seen since 1986, according to supporters. Whether this ambitious plan will be successful by the end of this year remains uncertain; but the reasons to prepare to maximize any benefits if it does happen are indisputable. Both talk of lower tax rates, and fewer deductions, requires careful monitoring at this time, with “contingency” plans ready to go before year-end should these changes occur.

Tax reform, although important, is not the only reason to engage in year-end tax planning this year. Other changes in the tax law, made by the IRS and the courts, have already taken place in 2017. Opportunities and pitfalls within these recent changes–as they impact each taxpayer’s unique situation—should not be overlooked. This particularly rings true as we approach year-end 2017.

Data gathering. Year-end planning – with or without the prospect of tax reform-- should start with data collection and a review of prior year returns. This includes losses or other carryovers, estimated tax installments, and items that were unusual. Conversations about next year should include discussions of any plans for significant purchases or dispositions, as well as any possible life cycle events.

Bunching strategies. Certain items are deductible only to the extent they exceed an adjusted gross income (AGI) floor; for example, aggregate miscellaneous itemized deductions are deductible only to the extent they exceed two percent of the taxpayer's AGI. Thus, year-end and new-year tax planning might consider ways to bunch AGI-sensitive expenditures in a single year, so that particular deductions exceed their applicable floors and the taxpayer's total itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction.

Life-cycle changes. External influences such as changes in the tax law, however, may be only part of the reason for taking some action before year’s end. Changes in your personal and financial circumstances – marriage, divorce, a newborn, a change in employment, a new business venture, investment successes and downturns – may require a change-in-course tax-wise since last year. As with any ‘life-cycle” change, your tax return for this year may look entirely different from what it looked like for 2016. Accounting for that difference now, before year-end 2017 closes, should be an integral part of your year-end planning.

Timing rules. Effective year-end tax planning by its nature requires the correct execution of specific timing rules under the tax code. Due especially to the current uncertainties surrounding tax reform, taxpayers must be particularly nimble and prepared to implement timing strategies well into December.

• For businesses, the IRS and the courts generally require use of the accrual method whenever inventories are used. For an accrual-basis taxpayer, the right to receive income, rather than actual receipt, determines the year of inclusion in income.
• Under the cash receipts and disbursements method (cash method), all items constituting income, whether in the form of cash, property, or services, must generally be included in income for the tax year in which the items are actually or constructively received; and deductions are generally taken into account for the tax year in which actually paid.

The cash method, which is required to be used by almost all individual taxpayers, generally allows a cash-basis taxpayer to exercise some control over the year of income or deduction by accelerating or deferring receipts and payments. Thus, timing, and the skilled use of timing rules to accelerate and defer certain income or deductions, is the linchpin of year-end tax planning. For example, timing year-end bonuses or year-end tax payments, or timing sales of investment properties to maximize capital gains benefits should be considered. So, too, sometimes fairly sophisticated “like-kind exchange,” “installment sale” or “placed in service” rules for business or investment properties come into play.

In other situations, however, implementation of more basic concepts are just as useful. For example, taxpayers can write a check or charge an item by credit card in one year and have it count as a deduction in that year, even though the check is not drawn on the bank until the following year; or a credit card statement is not sent and paid until the following year.

Please feel free to contact this office for a more customized look at what year-end tax planning can do for you this year.

As the 2018 filing season nears, the IRS is reminding taxpayers that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains on the books. The ACA’s reporting requirements for individuals have not been changed by Congress. At the same time, the Trump Administration has proposed administrative changes to the ACA, which could expand health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), the use of short-term, limited duration health insurance, and association health plans.

As the 2018 filing season nears, the IRS is reminding taxpayers that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains on the books. The ACA’s reporting requirements for individuals have not been changed by Congress. At the same time, the Trump Administration has proposed administrative changes to the ACA, which could expand health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), the use of short-term, limited duration health insurance, and association health plans.

Health coverage status

The ACA generally requires individuals to have minimum essential health coverage or make a shared responsibility payment, unless exempt. Most employer coverage as well as Medicare, Medicaid and coverage through the ACA Health Insurance Marketplace is minimum essential coverage. Individuals with minimum essential coverage merely check a box on their federal income tax return to report their health coverage status. Individuals who need to make a shared responsibility payment do so when they file their federal income tax returns.

Since passage of the ACA, the IRS has accepted returns that fail to report health coverage status. These are known as “silent returns.” Last year, the IRS announced that it would not accept these “silent returns.” However, the IRS later reversed course and accepted them for processing.

Now, the IRS is warning taxpayers that returns failing to report health coverage status will be rejected next year. This means the IRS will not accept 2017 returns for processing until the taxpayer reports his or her health coverage status on the return. “The IRS has determined that it is more burdensome for taxpayers to allow them to file an incomplete tax return and then have to manage follow-up letters and potentially amend their return,” the agency explained. If you have any questions about reporting health coverage status, please contact our office.

HRAs

President Trump has proposed to expand health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). HRAs are funded by employer contributions on a pre-tax basis. The funds are not included in an employee’s gross income. In addition, employees do not claim an income tax deduction for any medical expenses that are reimbursed using HRA dollars. Traditionally, HRAs have been popular with small employers. However, current rules under the ACA limit their use.

The President has directed the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL) and Treasury, to consider expanding employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees The President also instructed the departments to consider allowing HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.

Short-term coverage

President Trump also proposed that the departments revisit the rules for short-term, limited-duration insurance plans. These plans are generally sold as transitional coverage, for example, to individuals seeking to cover periods of unemployment or other gaps between coverage.  The coverage is for a limited time, such as three months. The President instructed the departments to consider allowing short-term limited duration insurance to cover longer periods. Individuals could also be permitted to renew their short-term, limited duration coverage.

Association health plans

Additionally, President Trump directed the departments to explore expanding association health plans (AHPs). The departments should consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.

Legislation

In recent weeks, several ACA-related bills have been introduced in Congress. One bill would delay for two more years the ACA’s health insurance provider fee. Another proposal would expand the availability of catastrophic health plans in the ACA Marketplace. The same bill would continue ACA cost-sharing reduction payments for several more years. Another proposal would exempt more individuals from the shared responsibility requirement.

The administrative changes proposed by the White House to the ACA will take time to be enacted. Our office will keep you posted of developments. In the meantime, please contact our office if you have any questions about the ACA.

Holiday gifts made to customers are generally deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses as long as the taxpayer can demonstrate that such gifts maintain or improve customer goodwill. Such gifts must bear a direct relationship to the taxpayer's business and must be made with a reasonable expectation of a financial return commensurate with the amount of the gift. However, the $25 annual limitation per recipient on deductibility is applicable to holiday gifts, unless a statutory exceptions applies.

Holiday gifts made to customers are generally deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses as long as the taxpayer can demonstrate that such gifts maintain or improve customer goodwill. Such gifts must bear a direct relationship to the taxpayer's business and must be made with a reasonable expectation of a financial return commensurate with the amount of the gift. However, the $25 annual limitation per recipient on deductibility is applicable to holiday gifts, unless a statutory exceptions applies.

Holiday turkeys and other holiday distributions of nominal value made by an employer to employees to promote goodwill are treated as tax-free gifts to those employees instead of taxable compensation. If the employer gives cash, gift certificates or similar items of readily convertible cash value, however, the value of those gifts is considered additional compensation regardless of the amount.  Butif holiday gift certificates given by an employer to its employees are redeemable only for merchandise and were not convertible to cash, they may be considered tax-free gifts.

Employers can give items worth a "nominal amount" without fear that the IRS will tax the employee. Gifts of items worth more, or a gift of any amount of cash, risks the IRS taking the view that the gift belongs in the employee's gross income. What constitutes a nominal amount is not crystal clear, but keeping a gift under $25 is erring on the safe side. It also assures a situation in which the employer can deduct the expense of the gift while not having it taxable to the employee.

For purposes of federal tax, employers must withhold and pay FICA taxes (7.65%) if they paid a household employee cash wages of at least $2,000 in 2016 or in 2017 ($2,100 in 2018). Employers must pay FUTA tax (6%) if they paid total cash wages of at least $1,000 in a calendar quarter to household employees. A homeowner may be an “employer” to a housekeeper; or, if enough evidence is shown, merely a recipient of services by an independent contractor or self-employed individual.

Nanny tax. For purposes of federal tax, employers must withhold and pay FICA taxes (7.65%) if they paid a household employee cash wages of at least $2,000 in 2016 or in 2017 ($2,100 in 2018). Employers must pay FUTA tax (6%) if they paid total cash wages of at least $1,000 in a calendar quarter to household employees. A homeowner may be an “employer” to a housekeeper; or, if enough evidence is shown, merely a recipient of services by an independent contractor or self-employed individual.

“Employer” status. If you pay someone to come to your home and care for your dependent or spouse, you may be a household employer. If you are a household employer, you will need an employer identification number (EIN) and you may have to pay employment taxes. If the individual who works in your home is self-employed and you do not direct him or her on specific tasks, you aren't liable as an employer – a difficult hurdle to overcome in the case of childcare. Usually, you aren't a household employer if the person who cares for your dependent or spouse does so at his or her home or place of business.

If you use a placement agency that exercises control over what work is done and how it will be done by a baby-sitter or companion who works in your home, the worker isn't your employee. This control could include providing rules of conduct and appearance and requiring regular reports. In this case, you don't have to pay employment taxes. But, if an agency merely gives you a list of sitters and you hire one from that list, and pay the sitter directly, the sitter may be your employee.

Employer responsibilities. If you have a household employee, you may be subject to:

• Social security and Medicare taxes,
• Federal unemployment tax, and
• Federal income tax withholding.

Social security and Medicare taxes are generally withheld from the employee's pay and matched by the employer. Federal unemployment (FUTA) tax is paid by the employer only and provides for payments of unemployment compensation to workers who have lost their jobs. Federal income tax is withheld from the employee's total pay if the employee asks you to do so and you agree.

An employer must report and pay required employment taxes for household employees on Schedule H of the employer’s Form 1040 or Form 1040A. While withheld amounts do not have to be deposited on a monthly basis, the employer does need an employer identification number (EIN) to include on the employee’s Form W-2 and the employer’s Schedule H. To obtain an EIN, an employer should complete Form SS-4.

An employer must increase either his or her quarterly estimated tax payments or the income tax withholding on his or her own wages in order to satisfy employment tax obligations with respect to household employees. Failure to withhold results in liability for the penalty for underpayment of estimated tax.

Child and dependent care credit. A credit is allowed for a portion of qualifying child or dependent care expenses paid for the purpose of allowing the taxpayer, and the taxpayer's spouse if filing a joint return, to be gainfully employed. The Social Security “Nanny” Taxes you pay on wages for qualifying child and dependent care services are themselves considered work-related expenses for purposes of this credit.

Tax writers in Congress are set to begin debating and writing tax reform legislation. On September 27, the White House and GOP leaders in Congress released a framework for tax reform. The framework sets out broad principles for tax reform, leaving the details to the two tax-writing committees: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. How quickly lawmakers will write and pass tax legislation is unclear. What is clear is that tax reform is definitely one of the top issues on Congress’ Fall agenda.

Tax writers in Congress are set to begin debating and writing tax reform legislation. On September 27, the White House and GOP leaders in Congress released a framework for tax reform. The framework sets out broad principles for tax reform, leaving the details to the two tax-writing committees: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. How quickly lawmakers will write and pass tax legislation is unclear. What is clear is that tax reform is definitely one of the top issues on Congress’ Fall agenda.

Individuals

The GOP framework proposes consolidating the current seven individual tax rates into three: 12, 25 and 35 percent. However, the framework leaves open the possibility of an additional top rate “to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

For individuals, the GOP framework also proposes to:

• Eliminate the alternative minimum tax
• Roughly double the standard deduction
• Repeal the federal estate tax
• Preserve the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions
• Eliminate most other itemized deductions
• Repeal the personal exemption for dependents
• Retain tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security

Family incentives

Family incentives have traditionally garnered bipartisan support in Congress and the GOP framework includes several. The child tax credit, for example, currently phases out when incomes reach certain levels. The GOP framework calls for increasing the income levels for the credit to unspecified amounts.   Another proposal would create a new non-refundable $500 credit for non-child dependents. The details would be left to the tax-writing committees.

Businesses

One pillar of the GOP framework is a corporate tax rate cut. The framework calls for a 20 percent corporate tax rate, down from the current 35 percent rate. Businesses that operate as passthroughs, such as S corporations, would have a maximum tax rate of 25 percent, subject to unspecified limitations to prevent abuses.

Other business proposals include:

• Enhanced expensing
• Limiting the deduction for net interest expenses by C corporations
• Eliminating the Code Sec. 199 deduction
• Preserving the research and development credit and tax preferences for low-income housing
• Reforming certain international taxation rules

Drafting legislation

After the GOP framework was released, the chairs of the tax writing committees said their committees would begin drafting legislation. The Ways and Means Committee is made up of 24 Republicans and 16 Democrats. Republicans also have a majority on the Senate Finance Committee but only by two votes (14 to 12). This narrow vote margin is likely to influence any tax bill out of the Senate Finance Committee. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Extenders

A number of popular but temporary tax incentives have expired. Unless extended, these “extenders” will not be available to taxpayers when they file their 2017 returns in 2018. They include:

• Tax exclusion for canceled mortgage debt
• Mortgage insurance premium deductibility
• Higher education tuition deduction
• Special expensing rules for film, television, and theatrical productions
• Seven-year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes

Other tax bills

Several tax-related bills may be taken up by either the House or Senate, including:

• RESPECT Act, passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate, would limit the IRS’s ability to seize assets related to structured transactions
• FY 2018 IRS budget bill, passed by the House and waiting for a vote in Senate, which would fund the IRS for FY 2018

Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax reform, the extenders or other tax bills.

As millions of Americans recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress is debating disaster tax relief. The relief would enhance the casualty loss rules, relax some retirement savings rules, and make other temporary changes to the tax laws, all intended to help victims of these recent disasters. At press time, a package of temporary disaster tax relief measures is pending in the House. The timeline for Senate action, however, is unclear.

As millions of Americans recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress is debating disaster tax relief. The relief would enhance the casualty loss rules, relax some retirement savings rules, and make other temporary changes to the tax laws, all intended to help victims of these recent disasters. At press time, a package of temporary disaster tax relief measures is pending in the House. The timeline for Senate action, however, is unclear.

Tax relief

In past years, after disasters similar to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress passed disaster tax relief measures. After Hurricane Katrina, far-reaching disaster tax relief was passed by Congress, which benefited businesses and individuals. In 2008, lawmakers passed a national disaster tax relief law. However, that law was temporary. After Hurricane Sandy several years ago, disaster tax relief was introduced in Congress but ultimately was not passed. Now, Congress is revisiting disaster tax relief.

Targeted tax relief

The House bill is the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2017. The bill provides targeted tax relief to victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. Unlike national disaster tax relief, discussed below, the measures in the House bill are temporary.

Included in the House bill is language to:

• Enhance the deduction for personal casualty losses
• Allow penalty-free access to retirement funds
• Encourage charitable giving
• Provide a tax credit to qualified employers
• Allow taxpayers to use prior year income for EITC and child tax credit

At press time, a similar disaster tax relief bill has not been introduced in the Senate. Reports have surfaced that the Senate Finance Committee may unveil some proposals in the near future. These proposals could mirror some or all of the ones in the House bill.

National disaster tax relief bill

In September, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Tom Reed, R-New York, introduced the National Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2017. Their bill aims to create disaster tax relief not just for victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, but victims of all disasters. The lawmakers modeled their 2017 bill on previous national disaster tax relief acts, including the legislation passed in 2008.

Like the House-passed temporary disaster tax relief bill, the National Disaster Tax Relief Act would relax the casualty loss rules. The National Disaster Tax Relief Act would also provide a temporary five-year net operating loss (NOL) carryback for qualified natural disaster losses; allow an affected business taxpayer to deduct certain qualified disaster cleanup expenses; and increase temporarily the limits that an affected business taxpayer could expense for qualifying Code Sec. 179 property.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about disaster tax relief.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

Staffing

"Examination is a vitally important aspect of maintaining a voluntary tax compliance system because 85 percent of the Gross Tax Gap is comprised of underreported tax on timely filed returns," TIGTA reported. Although hiring increased in FY 2016, it did not make up for recent attrition and retirements, TIGTA found. Examination staffing in FY 2016 reached a 20-year low with 8,847 employees, a decrease of four percent from FY 2015 (9,189 employees) and 23 percent lower than FY 2012 (11,432 employees).

Overall, the number of IRS full-time employees has declined by some 14 percent since FY 2012. The decline in the number of employees is likely to continue, TIGTA predicted. Approximately 22 percent of full-time permanent employees in the IRS are eligible to retire, and the IRS expects this number to increase to 34 percent by 2019, TIGTA found. "Should this loss of staffing be realized, the gap created by the loss of knowledge and experience has the potential to materially affect the administration and enforcement of tax laws," TIGTA reported.

Audit coverage

Individuals. TIGTA reported that the IRS examined one of every 143 individual income tax returns in FY 2016. This reflected a 16 percent decline compared to FY 2015 and 30 percent fewer examinations than the five-year high reported in FY 2012. The IRS examined one in 17 returns in FY 2016 with more than $1 million in income, which, according to TIGTA, is a decline of 29 percent compared to FY 2015.

Corporations and S corps. TIGTA found that fewer corporate tax returns were examined during FY 2016 than any year since FY 2004. The number of S corp examinations fell 15 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016 (one in every 295 S corp returns in FY 2016 compared to one in every 248 S corp returns in FY 2015).

Partnerships. Partnership examinations also declined, TIGTA found. The number of partnership returns examined decreased 24 percent from FY 2015 to 14,645 in FY 2016. "Due to a focus on partnership examinations in FY 2015, one of every 196 returns filed were examined; however, this number decreased to one of every 263 returns being examined in FY 2016," TIGTA reported.

TIGTA Ref. No. 2017-30-072

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

Background

A qualified business during a tax year may elect to apply a portion of its research credit against the 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on the employer’s wage payments to employees. This payroll credit for research expenditures is limited to the lesser of: (a) the research credit for the tax year; (b) $250,000; or (c) the amount of the business credit for the tax year, including the research credit that may be carried forward to the tax year immediately after the election year.

Schedule B. Chief Counsel explained that if an employer is a semiweekly schedule depositor, it must complete Schedule B (Form 941), Report of Tax Liability for Semiweekly Schedule Depositors, and attach it to Form 941. Schedule B is also referred to as Record of Federal Tax Liability (ROFTL) for semiweekly schedule depositors. The IRS uses this information to determine if the employer made its federal employment tax deposits on time. Current Instructions for Schedule B describe the payroll tax credit.

Payroll credit

Employers, Chief Counsel explained, know the maximum amount of payroll tax credit potentially available for a quarter at the beginning of the quarter. This is because the return reflecting the payroll tax credit election on Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, must have been filed before the quarter begins in which the employer can claim credit. However, the amount of the credit that is allowed for the quarter is limited to the employer Social Security tax on wages paid to the employer's employees during the quarter.

Therefore, as the employer makes payments of wages from the beginning of the quarter for which the payroll tax credit is taken, the employer can take the payroll tax credit into account for purposes of the Schedule B and for purposes of deposit liability on the Form 941 or other employment tax return, provided the employer later files Form 8974, "Qualified Small Business Payroll Tax Credit for Increasing Research Activities," Chief Counsel explained.

Further, the payroll tax credit should be taken against deposit liabilities and reflected on Schedule B as the employer incurs liability for employer Social Security tax on wages paid in the quarter to which it applies, beginning with the first payment of wages in the quarter. "It would be counter to the purpose of the payroll tax credit to allow it as a credit only when the employer files its Form 941 for the quarter claiming the credit and not as the employer is paying wages during the quarter subject to employer Social Security tax," Chief Counsel stated.

Deadline opportunity: The IRS also recently announced that it would allow start-up companies to make the payroll tax credit election on an amended return for the 2016 tax year, but as long as the amended return is filed by December 31, 2017.

Yes, however, there are special timing rules for foreign adoptions. These rules differ from the timing rules for domestic adoptions and impact when you may claim qualified adoption expenses.

Yes, however, there are special timing rules for foreign adoptions. These rules differ from the timing rules for domestic adoptions and impact when you may claim qualified adoption expenses.

The Tax Code provides a nonrefundable credit for qualified adoption expenses. The credit is subject to income limitations, which means that some taxpayers may not qualify for it. Generally, the credit covers adoption expenses such as fees, court costs, traveling expenses, and other expenses directly related to the adoption.

The Tax Code also distinguishes between domestic and foreign adoptions. This distinction is important due to timing rules. The IRS has explained that a domestic adoption is the adoption of a U.S. child, an eligible child who is a citizen or resident of the U.S. or its possessions before the adoption effort begins. Qualified adoption expenses paid before the year the adoption becomes final are allowable as a credit for the tax year following the year of payment, even if the adoption is never finalized and even if an eligible child was never identified.

A foreign adoption is the adoption of an eligible child who is not yet a citizen or resident of the U.S. or its possessions before the adoption effort begins. Qualified adoption expenses paid before and during the year are allowable as a credit for the year when the adoption becomes final.

Let’s look at an example. Julia pays qualified adoption expenses of $2,000 in 2015, $3,000 in 2016 and $4,000 in 2017 related to the adoption of Marisa, who is not a U.S. citizen or resident. The adoption becomes final on September 5, 2017. Because the adoption is foreign and not domestics, Julia may claim all $9,000 in expenses on her 2017 federal income tax return.

After an adoption becomes final, qualified adoption expenses paid during or after the year of finality are allowable as a credit for the year of payment, whether the adoption is foreign or domestic. In our example, Julia pays an additional $1,000 in qualified adoption expenses in 2018. Julia may claim the $1,000 in expenses on her 2018 return.

The adoption credit is just one personal tax preference that could be modified if Congress passes a tax reform bill. Under current law, as described above, there is a distinction between domestic and foreign adoptions. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the adoption credit and how it may help offset the expenses of an adoption, whether domestic or foreign.

House and Senate lawmakers have started their August recess, leaving pending tax legislation for after Labor Day. In past years, September has been a busy month for tax legislation and this year is likely to be the same. Before leaving Capitol Hill, lawmakers took actions in several areas related to tax reform.

House and Senate lawmakers have started their August recess, leaving pending tax legislation for after Labor Day. In past years, September has been a busy month for tax legislation and this year is likely to be the same. Before leaving Capitol Hill, lawmakers took actions in several areas related to tax reform.

House action

In the House, the  Budget Committee approved along party lines a fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget resolution. The resolution calls for:

• Simplifying the tax code to promote fairness for American families and businesses;
• Lowering tax rates for individuals and consolidating the seven tax brackets into fewer brackets;
• Repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT); and
• Reducing the corporate tax rate.

The budget resolution does not set out specific tax changes or include legislative language. Rather, according to GOP leaders in the House, the budget resolution will serve as the vehicle for tax legislation at a future date.  House Budget Committee Chair Diane Black, R-Tennessee, predicted that tax reform will be "deficit neutral" and will "reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code." Budget Committee Ranking Member John Yarmuth, D-Kentucky, said that the resolution "adopts the worst extremes of the President's proposals by cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of everyone else."

Administration discussions

Since May, White House and Treasury Department officials have been meeting with business leaders, representatives of business and taxpayer groups, and other stakeholders in "listening sessions" about changes to the tax code. In July, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, after meeting with representatives from the agriculture sector, predicted that tax reform "would be done this year." Mnuchin said that "tax reform is one of our most important areas of focus.”

Bipartisan bills

Meanwhile, some stand-along tax bills have either passed committee or have been introduced. In July, the House Ways and Means Committee approved bipartisan legislation to overhaul the IRS's forfeiture authority. The Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Bill (HR 1843) was sponsored by Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee Chair Peter Roskam, R-Illinois, and Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, D-New York. The RESPECT Act generally prohibits the IRS from seizing funds relating to a structuring transaction unless the  property to be seized is from an illegal source.

In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee may take up a bipartisan bill to encourage retirement savings by enhancing growth of S corporations owned by employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). The Promotion and Expansion of Private Employee Ownership Bill was introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas. The lawmakers explained that their bill would amend the tax code to eliminate barriers that business owners face in establishing or expanding S corporation ESOPs. Similar bipartisan legislation is pending in the House.

Other pending tax bills include:

• HR 3068, which would enhance the research tax credit for domestic manufacturers.
• HR 3126, which would provide a tax credit to individuals for legal expenses paid  to establish guardianship of a family member with disabilities.
• HR 3138, which would generally treat Native American governments in the same manner as state governments for certain federal tax purposes.

Treasury tax position

The Treasury Department's top tax professional is the assistant secretary for tax policy. That position has been vacant since January 20. In July, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously approved President Trump’s nomination of David Kautter to serve as Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy. "This position is particularly important in the current environment as the administration is engaging with Congress on comprehensive tax reform," SFC Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. Ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said "it’s my hope that Mr. Kautter can help to bring Democrats and Republicans together." Kautter has worked at several major accounting firms over the past 30 years.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax legislation.

The IRS remains focused on an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away: the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Recently, the IRS issued still another fact sheet “reminding” employers about the importance of correctly classifying workers for purposes of federal employment taxes (FS-2017-9). Generally, employers must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to employees. They are lifted of these obligations entirely for independent contractors, with usually the only IRS-related responsibility being information reporting on amounts of $600 or more paid to a contractor.

The IRS remains focused on an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away: the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Recently, the IRS issued still another fact sheet “reminding” employers about the importance of correctly classifying workers for purposes of federal employment taxes (FS-2017-9). Generally, employers must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to employees. They are lifted of these obligations entirely for independent contractors, with usually the only IRS-related responsibility being information reporting on amounts of $600 or more paid to a contractor.

Weighing the factors

Whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor depends on a number of considerations that fall into three categories: behavioral control, financial control and the type of relationship between the worker and the service recipient. Within these categories, the IRS has identified 20 factors that can be used to determine whether an individual is an independent contractor or effectively an "employee."  

The determination of independent contractor versus employee status is based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the relationship. None of the identified factors is determinative. In addition, not all factors are present in all employee or independent contractor relationships. Frequently, the relationship of a worker is clear cut using these factors; but sometimes a worker can fall into a gray area.

The Form SS-8 route

An employer who is unsure of how to classify its workers can file a Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding. There is no fee for requesting a worker classification determination. Because worker classification has become such a “hot” audit trigger, many employers opt for the Form SS-8 route, particularly because penalties on top of back employment taxes can result from a classification misstep.

Other relief

After emphasizing in its latest Fact Sheet that employee misclassification as independent contractors exposes the employer to employment tax liability, the IRS also highlighted two ways to escape or ameliorate liability, even for an after-the-fact classification: “Section 530 relief” and relief under the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program.

Section 530 relief: An employer that has a reasonable basis for classifying its workers as independent contractors may be entitled to special relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. "Section 530 relief" protects taxpayers who have consistently treated workers as independent contractors and have a reasonable basis for doing so. The rule covers workers who are common law employees, but it does not cover certain third-party-arranged technical service workers.

A reasonable basis for classification for purposes of Section 530 relief generally includes an employer's treatment of the individual based on any of the following:

• judicial precedent, published rulings, technical advice to the employer or a letter ruling to the employer;
• a past examination of the taxpayer by the IRS in which there was no assessment attributable to the treatment for employment tax purposes of individuals holding positions substantially similar to the position held by this individual; or
• long-standing recognized practice of a significant segment of the industry in which the individual was engaged.

Voluntary Classification Settlement Program.  Entry into the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VSCP) can provide an opportunity to reclassify workers as employees for future tax periods, with partial relief from federal employment taxes. Under the program, the employer:

• Agrees to prospectively treat the class of workers as employees for future tax periods;
• Will pay 10 percent of the employment tax liability that may have been due on compensation paid to the workers for the most recent tax year, determined under reduced rates;
• Will not be subject to an employment tax audit with respect to the worker classification of the workers being reclassified under the VCSP for prior years; and
• Will not be liable for any interest or penalties on the liability.

Under the VCSP, an employer may reclassify some or all of their workers. Once reclassified, all workers in the same class must be treated as employees for employment tax purposes.

Worker initiative

The IRS also makes it clear in its latest Fact Sheet on employee misclassification that action on its part may take place not only based on an employer-based initiative; workers can also have indirect input on whether an audit will take place. “Workers who believe an employer improperly classified them as independent contractors may use Form 8919, Uncollected Social Security and Medicare Tax on Wages, to figure and report the employee’s share of uncollected social security and Medicare taxes,” the IRS Fact Sheet concludes.

If you have any concerns surrounding possible worker misclassification within your business, please feel free to contact this office for a more targeted discussion.

A recent Tax Court decision and pending tax reform proposals have intersected in highlighting how stock sales can be timed for maximum tax advantage. The taxpayer in the recent case (Turan, TC Memo. 2017-141) failed to convince the Tax Court that he timely made an election with his broker to use the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method to set his cost-per-share cost basis for determining capital gains and losses on his stock trades on shares of the same company. As a result, he was required to calculate the capital gain or loss on his stock trades using the firm’s first-in-first-out (FIFO) “default” method, which, in his case, yielded a significant increase in tax liability for the year.

A recent Tax Court decision and pending tax reform proposals have intersected in highlighting how stock sales can be timed for maximum tax advantage. The taxpayer in the recent case (Turan, TC Memo. 2017-141) failed to convince the Tax Court that he timely made an election with his broker to use the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method to set his cost-per-share cost basis for determining capital gains and losses on his stock trades on shares of the same company. As a result, he was required to calculate the capital gain or loss on his stock trades using the firm’s first-in-first-out (FIFO) “default” method, which, in his case, yielded a significant increase in tax liability for the year.

Timing stock trades to maximize the tax advantage of long- and short-term capital gains and losses has always made sense, particularly as a year-end planning technique. This year, tax reform may make such strategies considerably more lucrative. If tax rates are suddenly set lower, either retroactively for this year or, more probably, starting January 1, 2018, managing stock basis becomes more significant. As a result, investors should consider carefully whether they may be better off tax-wise to give their brokers specific instructions in certain cases not to use the default FIFO method when selling certain holdings of the same company purchased at different times.

General FIFO rule

If a taxpayer purchases identical shares of stock at different prices or on different dates and then sells only part of the stock, the basis and holding period of the shares sold are determined on a FIFO basis unless the specific shares sold are adequately identified. The date of acquisition for purposes of the FIFO rule is determined by reference to the holding period of the securities for capital gain or loss purposes, including any prior holding period that has been tacked on.

Comment. Securities in a margin or other account with a broker are considered sold in the order in which they were purchased, not the order in which they were placed in the account. The FIFO rule is applied by allocating the earliest lots acquired to the securities sold rather than to the securities removed from the brokerage account but still owned.

Alternate identification

When the securities to be sold are specifically identifiable, FIFO does not apply for purposes of allocating basis. The identity of securities sold or otherwise transferred generally is determined by the certificates actually delivered to the transferee.

Planning Tip: Thus, taxpayers who have records showing the cost and holding period of securities represented by separate certificates can control the amount of gain or loss realized by selecting the certificates to be transferred.

A standing order or instruction to a broker is treated as adequate identification. The instructions need not be in writing. Sufficient instruction to a broker or other agent of the particular securities to be sold or transferred does not require designation by certificate number; any designation that specifically identifies the securities to be transferred is adequate. Orders to sell the highest priced shares, shares with the highest cost basis, or the shares purchased at a certain price or on a specific date have been ruled acceptable.

Broker reporting

A broker is required to report the customer’s basis in securities sold, classifying the gain as short or long term. Identification of the securities is made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution. Clarifying instructions before the sale takes place, or immediately thereafter, is important since a broker is obligated to report to the IRS on Form 1099-B. Once the report is sent to the IRS, changing basis is more likely to raise a red flag with the IRS.

Please contact this office if you need to discuss a strategy of tax selling that is more specific to your portfolio and Congress’s plans for tax reform.

Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting is part of a larger initiative by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) known as the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. CbC reporting generally impacts large multi-national businesses. Because CbC is part of BEPS it is important to be familiar with the core concepts.

Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting is part of a larger initiative by the  Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) known as the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. CbC reporting generally impacts large multi-national businesses. Because CbC is part of BEPS it is important to be familiar with the core concepts.

BEPS

The BEPS project is designed to curb tax avoidance. "No single rule or provision is the root cause of base erosion," the OECD has explained. "It is the interplay among different rules that generate base erosion and profit shifting: domestic laws and rules, international standards, and the lack of data and information."

As part of BEPS, the OECD recommended that jurisdictions adopt CbC reporting by multinational groups to report their business activity for each country where they operate. The U.S. has signed on.

IRS regulations

The IRS issued regulations last year. The "ultimate parent entity" of a multinational entity (MNE) generally must file a CbC report with the IRS. The MNE group must include at least one business entity organized in, or be a tax resident of, a jurisdiction outside the U.S., and must have revenues of $850 million or more for its preceding annual accounting period. 

Special form

The IRS is developing a special form for CbC reporting. This is Form  8975, Country-by-Country Report. Currently, Form 8975 is in draft form.

Form 8975 is to be used to report a U.S. multinational entity (MNE) group’s income, taxes paid, and other indicators of economic activity on a country-by-country basis. The reporting period covered by Form 8975 is the period of the ultimate parent’s annual applicable financial statement that ends with or within the parent’s tax year, or, if the parent does not prepare an annual applicable financial statement, the ultimate parent’s tax year.

The IRS generally will make the reports available to tax authorities. However, there will be limits on disclosure. The IRS has explained that the data captured by Form 8975 will be used for "high-level assessment of transfer pricing, and other base erosion and profit shifting tax risks, and for economic and statistical analysis." 

Filing period

Beginning on September 1, 2017, Form 8975 may be filed for a reporting period with the income tax return for the tax year of the ultimate parent of the U.S. MNE with or within which the reporting period ends. In Revenue Procedure 2017-23, the IRS allowed U.S. ultimate parents to file Form 8975 for periods beginning after January 1, 2016, and prior to the required reporting period. 

Other developments 

Recently, a group of lawmakers in Congress asked the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to look at country-by-country reporting. The lawmakers recommended that FASB "require multinational corporations to disclose their income, assets, number of employees, and taxes paid on an annual, country-by-country basis.”

If you have any questions about CbC reporting, please contact our office.

An eligible taxpayer can deduct qualified interest on a qualified student loan for an eligible student's qualified educational expenses at an eligible institution. The amount of the deduction is limited, and it is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds certain thresholds.

An eligible taxpayer can deduct qualified interest on a qualified student loan for an eligible student's qualified educational expenses at an eligible institution. The amount of the deduction is limited, and it is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds certain thresholds.

The maximum deduction allowed for educational loan interest is $2,500. This amount is not adjusted for inflation.  For tax years beginning in 2017, the $2,500 maximum deduction for interest paid on qualified education loans is reduced when modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds $65,000 ($135,000 for joint returns), and is completely eliminated when modified AGI reaches $80,000 ($165,000 for joint returns).

Planning tip: Some taxpayers may choose to take out a home equity loan to pay off their student debt. Use of a home-equity loan of up to $100,000 principal is allowed for purposes other than home improvement or purchase. Interest up to that amount is fully deduction, as an itemized mortgage interest deduction.

Student loan interest is an “above-the-line” deduction; the taxpayer need not itemize. 

Eligible student. An eligible student for purposes of eligible debt is a student enrolled in a college degree, certificate or other program, including a program of study abroad approved for credit at an institution of higher learning where the student is enrolled, and leading to a recognized educational credential at an eligible educational institution. The student must also carry at least one half of the normal full-time workload for the course of study being pursued during at least one academic period beginning during the tax year.

Student loan interest is not deductible if a dependency exemption is allowed for the taxpayer on someone else's return. Thus, if parents take a dependency exemption for a student who is the only person legally obligated to pay interest on a qualified loan, neither the parents nor the student is entitled to deduct any interest paid by the student during the time he is claimed as a dependent. A student may deduct interest paid in years after the student has ceased to be a dependent. 

Legal obligation. The taxpayer claiming the deduction must be legally obligated to make the interest payments. Thus, a parent who had signed for the student loan and is liable personally for its payment may deduct interest paid on the loan.

If a third party who is not legally obligated makes an interest payment on behalf of a taxpayer who is legally obligated, the taxpayer is treated as receiving the payment from the third party and using it to pay the interest. For instance, if an employer makes an interest payment on behalf of the employee, and the payment is included in the employee's income as compensation, the employee can deduct the payment. Similarly, if a parent pays interest on behalf of a non-dependent borrower, the borrower may deduct the interest.

No. The IRS continues to treat virtual currency as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, last year, a government watchdog, and this year, a group of lawmakers, urged the IRS to clarify its virtual currency guidance.

No. The IRS continues to treat virtual currency as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, last year, a government watchdog, and this year, a group of lawmakers, urged the IRS to clarify its virtual currency guidance.

The IRS has described virtual currency as a “digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value.” Virtual currency is sometimes referred to as “cryptocurrency” or “digital currency.” Virtual currency does not have legal tender status in the U.S., even though many people use virtual currency. “Real” currency, such as the U.S. dollar, is defined by the Treasury Department as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country designated as legal tender and circulates and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."

Virtual currency may have an equivalent value in real currency. This type of virtual currency is referred to as “convertible” virtual currency. “Bitcoin” is an example of a convertible virtual currency. Bitcoin can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars and other real or virtual currencies.

The growth in virtual currency has brought tax questions. In 2014, the IRS announced that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes.  General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.  The IRS explained that:

• Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
• Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply.  Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
• The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
• A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property. 

Since the IRS issued guidance in 2014, the agency has been largely quiet on the subject of virtual currency. The IRS did state, in court documents filed in a lawsuit this year, that less than 1,000 individual income tax returns in 2015 reported using a transaction using virtual currency.

Last year, a government watchdog, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), recommended that the IRS revisit virtual currency.  TITGA noted the growing use of virtual currency. “However, some virtual currencies are also popular because the identity of the parties involved is generally anonymous, leading to a greater possibility of their use in illegal transactions,” TIGTA cautioned.

In June, several lawmakers asked the IRS to describe the agency’s virtual currency strategy. The lawmakers also asked the agency what outreach and education it has done for stakeholders. In their letter, the lawmakers directed the IRS to reply to their questions. As of the date this article was prepared, the lawmakers have not released the agency’s response, if there was a reply.

If you have any questions about the federal tax treatment of virtual currency, please contact our office.

Every year, millions of post-secondary students access the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). This year, the DRT is unavailable for FAFSA filers because of cybersecurity concerns. The information needed to complete the FAFSA can be found on a previously filed federal income tax return.

Every year, millions of post-secondary students access the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). This year, the DRT is unavailable for FAFSA filers because of cybersecurity concerns. The information needed to complete the FAFSA can be found on a previously filed federal income tax return.

FAFSA

To apply for federal student aid, an individual must complete and submit the FAFSA. He or she will automatically be considered for federal student aid. In addition, the individual's post-secondary institution may use his or her FAFSA information to determine eligibility for nonfederal aid. The DRT provides tax data that automatically fills in information for part of the FAFSA form.

Individuals who plan to attend post-secondary schools from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 must submit the 2017-2018 FAFSA. Individuals will need tax information from 2015 to complete the 2017-2018 FAFSA.

Suspicious activity

Earlier this year, the IRS reported that cybercriminals may have tried to obtain tax information through the DRT. The agency's security filters identified fraudulent returns using information obtained from the DRT. According to the IRS, as many as 100,000 taxpayer accounts may have been compromised through the DRT by cyberthieves. In response, the IRS took the DRT offline.

Work-around

FAFSA filers can manually provide their tax return information, the IRS has instructed. Our office can help you prepare a FAFSA while the DRT is offline.

FAFSA filers can also use the IRS's online Get Transcript Tool. Individuals can obtain a Tax Return Transcript, which reflects most line items including adjusted gross income (AGI) from the original tax return filed, along with any forms and schedules. This transcript is only available for the current tax year and returns processed during the prior three years. Individuals can also obtain a Tax Account Transcript, which reflects basic data such as return type, marital status, adjusted gross income, taxable income and all payment types. This transcript is available for the current tax year and up to 10 prior years. Keep in mind that a transcript is not a photocopy of the return. A transcript can be confusing to read. Again, please contact our office for assistance.

Income-driven repayment plan

The DRT also provides tax data that automatically fills in information for the income-driven repayment (IDR) plan application for federal student loan borrowers. The DRT is online for DRT applications.

Since taking office in January, President Trump has called for comprehensive tax reform. The President’s recently released fiscal year (FY) 2018 outlines some of his key tax reform principles. At the same time, White House officials said that more tax reform details will be released in coming weeks. These details are expected to describe rate cuts for individuals and businesses, new incentives for child and elder care, elimination of certain deductions and credits, and more.

Since taking office in January, President Trump has called for comprehensive tax reform. The President’s recently released fiscal year (FY) 2018 outlines some of his key tax reform principles. At the same time, White House officials said that more tax reform details will be released in coming weeks. These details are expected to describe rate cuts for individuals and businesses, new incentives for child and elder care, elimination of certain deductions and credits, and more. 

Note. The President’s budget is a blueprint for Congressional action. “This is the message from the President to the Congress and says, look, here are my priorities in terms of where I want to spend more; here's what I think should be spent; here's where the big-ticket items are,” White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters in Washington, D.C. at a news conference unveiling the FY 2018 budget proposals.

Tax measures

The President’s FY 2018 budget highlights a number of tax reform proposals, leaving details for later. The President called for tax reform that lowers individual tax rates, expands the standard deduction, and protects homeownership, charitable giving and retirement saving. The FY 2018 budget also urges Congress to repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the federal estate tax and the net investment income (NII) tax.

The President’s FY 2018 also highlights some business tax proposals, including lower rates for corporations and other business entities. To offset the cost of lower rates, unspecified business tax expenditures would be repealed.

Note. Federal law requires that every budget list all tax expenditures.  Generally, a tax expenditure is any item that causes a loss of revenue due to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability. The FY 2018 budget lists more than 160 tax expenditures.

Health care and taxes

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created the NII tax and a number of other new taxes. The President’s budget assumes the ACA will be repealed and replaced with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). As passed by the House in April, the ACHA repeals the NII tax, the additional Medicare tax, the excise tax on medical devices, and more. The Senate is currently debating the AHCA.

Funding the IRS

Earlier this year, President Trump proposed to reduce the IRS’s funding and his FY 2018 budget reflects that. However, in past years, Congress has restored some of the proposed funding cuts to the IRS. Last year, Congress gave the IRS an additional $290 million with instructions to use the funds for taxpayer services and to curb tax-related identity theft.

Additionally, President Trump proposed giving the IRS more authority to correct errors on taxpayer returns. The FY 2018 budget also urges Congress to expressly grant the IRS authority to regulate return preparers.

Family leave

President Trump also proposed to create a new benefit within the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. This new benefit would provide up to six weeks paid leave to mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents.

If you have any questions about the President’s FY 2018 budget, please contact our office. Our office will keep you posted of developments as Congress begins to debate the President’s proposals and more details are released by the White House.

The future of the Affordable Care Act and its associated taxes has moved to the Senate following passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House in April. Traditionally, legislation moves more slowly in the Senate than in the House, which means that any ACA repeal and replacement bill may be weeks if not months away.

The future of the Affordable Care Act and its associated taxes has moved to the Senate following passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House in April. Traditionally, legislation moves more slowly in the Senate than in the House, which means that any ACA repeal and replacement bill may be weeks if not months away. 

Note. At the time this article was prepared, few details have emerged about discussions in the Senate on the ACA’s taxes. Some senators have predicted that the Senate will write its own ACA repeal and replacement bill. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, issued in late May, scored the House-passed AHCA as eventually causing 23 million fewer individuals to be covered, a number that may prompt the Senate to move further away from the House bill. It is also unclear if a Senate bill would repeal all or some of the ACA’s taxes. A Senate bill could also make other changes to the ACA, such as changes to the individual and employer shared responsibility requirements and the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit.

Health care taxes

As approved by the House, the AHCA repeals nearly all of the ACA’s taxes and delays the ones it does not repeal immediately. The House-passed version of the AHCA repeals the net investment income (NII) tax, the excise tax on medical devices, and the health insurance provider fee, among others, retroactively to the start of 2017. Further, the House-passed version of the AHCA delays the ACA’s excise tax on high-dollar health plans.

Whether the Senate will go along with repealing all or some of the ACA’s taxes is unclear. Some GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee had previously called for immediate repeal of the additional Medicare tax. Other Republican senators called for immediate repeal of the medical device excise tax. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Code Sec. 36B credit

Individuals who obtain health insurance through the ACA Marketplace may qualify for a tax credit to help offset the cost of coverage. The House-passed version of the AHCA also revises the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The amount of the credit would vary depending on the taxpayer’s age, among other modifications. Again, it is unclear if the Senate will adopt these changes to the credit or make its own revisions.

Other provisions

An ACA repeal and replacement bill in the Senate also is expected to address, among other things,

• Individual and employer shared responsibility requirements
• Health savings accounts
• Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance credit
• Branded prescription drug fee
• Medical expense deduction
• Minimum essential health benefits

Other health care bills

Just before Congress’ Memorial Day recess, the House Ways and Means Committee approved several bills related to the House version of the AHCA. One bill would allow individuals who have certain types of COBRA coverage to claim the revised Code Sec. 36B credit. Another bill would disallow advance payments of the credit unless the recipient is a citizen or national of the U.S. or an alien lawfully present in the U.S.

Administrative actions

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Labor (DOL) and the IRS administer different parts of the ACA. In May, HHS announced that changes to the direct enrollment process for the ACA Marketplace. HHS also announced that online enrollment for the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) would be through an agent or broker.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about health care and taxes.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost. 

Meals and entertainment directly connected to business. To be considered directly connected to business, the meal or entertainment event must meet three conditions:

• It must have been scheduled with more than a general expectation of deriving future income or a specific business benefit from the event. In other words, a meal or dinner date arranged for general goodwill purposes does not qualify.
• A business meeting, negotiation, or transaction must actually occur during the meal or entertainment, or immediately preceding and following it. In other words, business actually must be discussed.
• The main character of the event, considering the facts and circumstances, is the active conduct of your company's trade or business.

For example, an executive employee who treats a client to a golf game in order to discuss the general parameters of a business deal in an informal atmosphere is engaged in entertainment that is directly connected to business. So is a manager who discusses sensitive business plans with a subordinate over lunch at an off-premises restaurant.

Applicable limitations. In general, only 50 percent of expenses incurred for entertainment and meal expenses is deductible. A limited exception applies to entertainment or on-premise meals provided to employees.

Expenses with respect to entertainment facilities generally are not deductible at all. A facility includes any item of personal or real property owned, rented, or used by a taxpayer if it is used during the tax year for or in connection with entertainment. They include yachts, hunting lodges, fishing camps, swimming pools, tennis courts, bowling alleys, automobiles, airplanes, apartments, hotel suites and homes in vacation resorts.

Country club dues are not deductible (although the meals purchased with business clients at the club are, up to the 50 percent limit). Deductions for skyboxes or other private luxury boxes at sporting events are limited to the face value of a nonluxury box seat ticket multiplied by the number of seats in the box.

Record-keeping requirements. Even if a meal or entertainment expense qualifies as a business expense, none of the cost is deductible unless strict and detailed substantiation and recordkeeping requirements are met to the letter.

Please contact our offices for assistance on how to comply with these requirements at minimum cost and expense, and how your business’s typical meal and entertainment expenses fare under the deduction rules.

As “hurricane season” officially begins, the IRS has released a number a tax tips, reminders and other advice to help taxpayers weather the storm of natural disasters and similar emergencies. The underlying theme for all IRS "tax tips" is that recordkeeping has generally become easier in the digital age. However, it remains the primary responsibility of the taxpayer to preserve adequate records whether or not caused by a disaster.

As “hurricane season” officially begins, the IRS has released a number a tax tips, reminders and other advice to help taxpayers weather the storm of natural disasters and similar emergencies. The underlying theme for all IRS "tax tips" is that recordkeeping has generally become easier in the digital age. However, it remains the primary responsibility of the taxpayer to preserve adequate records whether or not caused by a disaster. 

Bottom line: Although the IRS will often extend filing deadlines and generally offer "hot line" accessibility, the "burden of proof" on substantiation and other requirements found within the tax laws is ultimately placed upon the taxpayer’s shoulders. 

Preparation Checklist

The IRS advises taxpayers to consider taking the following steps, among others, to better prepare for hurricanes and other emergencies:

Emergency plans. Personal and business situations change over time, as do preparedness needs. An emergency plan, both at home and in business, whether for safety or to prepare for insurance claims and tax contingencies, should be updated annually.

Digital copies of key documents. The IRS advises that taxpayers should keep a duplicate set of key documents including bank statements, tax returns, identifications and insurance policies in a safe place, away from the original set. The IRS observes that maintaining an additional set of records should be easier these days, with many financial institutions providing statements and documents electronically and on secure internet sites. Even if the original records are only provided on paper, the IRS suggests scanning them into an electronic format.

Taxpayers should also photograph or videotape the contents of their residences, especially items of higher value. The IRS disaster loss workbooks and Publication 584 can help taxpayers compile a room-by-room list of belongings. A photographic record can help taxpayers prove the fair market value of items for insurance and casualty loss claims. Ideally, photos should be stored outside the area of the home or office.

Payroll providers. The IRS suggests that employers who use payroll service providers should ask the provider if it has a fiduciary bond in place. It notes that the bond could protect the employer in the event of default by the payroll service provider.

IRS data storage. Back copies of previously-filed tax returns and all attachments, including Forms W-2, can be requested by filing Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return. Alternatively, transcripts showing most line items on these returns can be ordered through the Get Transcript tool available on the IRS website, or by calling 1-800-908-9946 or by using Form 4506T-EZ, "Short Form Request for Individual Tax Return Transcript" or Form 4506-T, " Request for Transcript of Tax Return."

Individuals, trusts, estates, personal service corporations and closely held C corporations may only deduct passive activities losses from passive activity income. The rules do not apply to S corporations and partnerships but do apply to their respective shareholders and partners. In general, limited partners are not deemed to materially participate in partnership activities. Thus, a limited partner's share of partnership income is passive income. However, general partners or acting general partners may hold limited partnership interests and materially participate in the partnership.

Individuals, trusts, estates, personal service corporations and closely held C corporations may only deduct passive activities losses from passive activity income. The rules do not apply to S corporations and partnerships but do apply to their respective shareholders and partners. In general, limited partners are not deemed to materially participate in partnership activities. Thus, a limited partner's share of partnership income is passive income. However, general partners or acting general partners may hold limited partnership interests and materially participate in the partnership.

Closely held C corporations and personal service corporations are treated as materially participating in an activity if shareholders owning 50 percent or more by value of the outstanding stock materially participate in the activity. Closely held C corporations can also satisfy the material participation standard under an alternative rule based on the participation of full-time employees in the activity.

A passive activity is trade or business activity in which the taxpayer does not materially participate. A passive activity is any activity that involves the conduct of a trade or business in which the taxpayer does not materially participate. Passive activities generally include rental activities, regardless of whether the taxpayer materially participates in the activity. A taxpayer's rental real estate activity is not a passive activity, however, if the taxpayer (1) materially participates in the activity, and (2) performs qualifying services in real property trades or businesses. A facts and circumstances test applies in determining whether other activities are combined or treated as separate for purposes of the passive loss rules.

Individuals who own and actively participate in the management of rental real estate may offset up to $25,000 of passive activity loss from rental real estate against active income in any tax year. The offset amount is reduced by 50 percent of the amount by which the taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, phasing out completely at $150,000 of adjusted gross income. More liberal rules apply to the offset of rehabilitation and low income housing credits.

Deductions and credits that are disallowed under passive activity rules may be carried forward and used as passive activity deductions and credits in succeeding years. Remaining passive activity deductions are deductible against nonpassive income when taxpayer disposes of the passive activity. Passive activity credits may only be applied to taxes on passive income.

A major exception to the definition of a passive activity is a working interest in any oil and gas property that the taxpayer holds directly or through an entity that does not limit the taxpayer's liability for the interest, regardless of whether the taxpayer materially participates in the activity.

A taxpayer's passive activity loss for the tax year is disallowed and is carried forward until the taxpayer has available passive activity income. Passive activity loss is the amount by which passive activity deductions from all passive activities exceed passive activity gross income from all passive activities for the tax year.

For more on passive activity losses, please contact our office.

President Trump on April 26^th, just before his “100 days” in office, unveiled his highly-anticipated tax reform outline –the “2017 Tax Reform for Economic Growth and American Jobs.” The outline calls for dramatic tax cuts and simplification: lower individual tax rates under a three-bracket structure, doubling the standard deduction, and more than halving the corporate tax rate; along with changing the tax treatment of pass-through businesses, expanding child and dependent incentives, and more. Both the alternative minimum tax and the federal estate tax would be eliminated. The White House proposal does not include spending and tax incentives for infrastructure; nor a controversial “border tax.”

President Trump on April 26^th, just before his “100 days” in office, unveiled his highly-anticipated tax reform outline –the “2017 Tax Reform for Economic Growth and American Jobs.” The outline calls for dramatic tax cuts and simplification: lower individual tax rates under a three-bracket structure, doubling the standard deduction, and more than halving the corporate tax rate; along with changing the tax treatment of pass-through businesses, expanding child and dependent incentives, and more. Both the alternative minimum tax and the federal estate tax would be eliminated. The White House proposal does not include spending and tax incentives for infrastructure; nor a controversial “border tax.”

According to White House officials, the President’s proposals set out broad principles with specifics to be hammered-out in coming weeks. Actual “bill language” with details is now expected sometime in June now that the President has thrown his support officially to tax reform.

Individuals

For individuals, the White House proposed consolidating and reducing the tax rates to 10, 25 and 35 percent. Cohn said that no income brackets have yet been developed for the proposed lower rates. The proposal also calls for doubling the standard deduction. "Married couples would have a $24,000 standard deduction," National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said at a White House briefing. He predicted that doubling the standard deduction would simplify tax filing for millions of Americans.

Along with repealing the federal estate tax, the AMT and the NII tax, the proposal calls for abolishing nearly all individual credits and deductions." The plan eliminates all individual deductions except mortgage interest and charitable deductions," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has stated. The plan also calls for unspecific tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses.

The White House plan apparently keeps the current framework for capital gains and dividend taxes. However, it would repeal the 3.8-percent NII tax. "The president looks at [the NII tax] as being a tax on capital," Cohn said.

Businesses

During the campaign, President Trump proposed to reduce the corporate tax rate and cut taxes on small businesses. The plan does both, Cohn and Mnuchin said. The corporate tax rate would fall to 15 percent. "Small and mid-size businesses will be eligible for the 15-percent rate,"  Mnuchin said, referring to partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships in which income is currently passed through to their owners at individual income tax rates. "We will make sure that there are mechanisms in place to prevent wealthy people from taking advantage of the rules for small businesses," he added.

The proposal would also move the U.S. to a territorial tax regime. "A territorial system means U.S. companies will pay tax on income related to the U.S.," Mnuchin said. "U.S. companies will not be subject to worldwide income tax," he added.

Not included in the proposal is so-called border adjustability. House Republicans have promoted a border adjustment tax as a way to pay for tax reform. Mnuchin predicted that the president’s plan would "pay for itself" but did not elaborate how. "Lots and lots of details will go into how it will pay for itself. This will pay for itself with growth and closing loopholes," he said.

Another business proposal would provide for a one-time, reduced tax rate on earnings repatriated to the U.S. The White House has not said yet what the rate would be but predicted it would be a "very competitive rate."

The Treasury Department is to undertake a review and re-evaluation of tax regulations issued by the IRS since January 1, 2016. President Trump signed an Executive Order 13789 (“Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens”) ordering this action on April 21. Following its review and re-evaluation, the Treasury Department will make recommendations.

The Treasury Department is to undertake a review and re-evaluation of tax regulations issued by the IRS since January 1, 2016. President Trump signed an Executive Order 13789 (“Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens”) ordering this action on April 21. Following its review and re-evaluation, the Treasury Department will make recommendations.

Tax regulations

The IRS typically issues many regulations every year. Some regulations are permanent, others are temporary, and others are proposed. IRS regulations touch every taxpayer, including individuals, businesses, and tax-exempt organizations. When the IRS proposes a regulation, it invites public comments. The federal government maintains a website where individuals can review proposed regulations and make comments. Frequently, the IRS will hold a hearing at which stakeholders and taxpayers can share their concerns about proposed regulations. All regulatory documents are published in the Federal Register.

President’s instructions

Under President Trump’s April 21 Executive Order, the Treasury Department is to identity tax regulations that:

• Impose an undue financial burden on taxpayers;
• Add undue complexity to federal tax laws; or
• Exceed the statutory authority of the IRS.

The Treasury Department is to make an initial report within 60 days. After that, Treasury will recommend what actions to take, which may include delaying, suspending or modifying regulations. The second report is due within 150 days. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

IRS guidance plan

At the same time the President announced his Executive Order, the IRS requested public input on its new Priority Guidance Plan. The Priority Guidance Plan identifies guidance projects that are high on the agency’s agenda. Generally, these projects cover a wide range of taxpayers and tax administration. In its announcement, the IRS noted that “input is of particular importance because of Executive Order 13771.”

Executive Order 13771 was signed by President Trump in January. The Executive Order generally instructs federal agencies to remove two existing regulations for every new regulation proposed. Since January, the pace of IRS guidance has slowed. Indeed, the IRS has not issued any regulations since January 20, 2017. The IRS has posted new frequently asked questions (FAQs) and has updated some existing FAQs on its website. The agency also has released several revenue procedures. These are official statements of a particular procedure.

Additionally, the IRS has continued to issue private letter rulings. IRS Chief Counsel has posted advice memoranda. IRS officials also continue to testify at Congressional hearings and speak at trade and industry events.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has characterized these items as “sub-regulatory” guidance. They appear to be outside the scope of Executive Order 13771. Additionally, a federal agency may determine that a regulation is outside the scope of the Executive Order. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made this determination for regulations under the Affordable Care Act released in April.

If you have any questions about the President’s executive orders, please contact our office.

The IRS processed more than 128 million returns and issued some 97 million refunds without hitting any major roadblocks by the end of the filing season. As in past years, the vast majority of returns were filed electronically. Likewise, most refunds were deposited electronically. Although the filing season has ended for most individuals, millions are on extensions.

The IRS processed more than 128 million returns and issued some 97 million refunds without hitting any major roadblocks by the end of the filing season. As in past years, the vast majority of returns were filed electronically. Likewise, most refunds were deposited electronically. Although the filing season has ended for most individuals, millions are on extensions.

Returns

The IRS always expects a rush of last-minute filers and this filing season was no exception. A few days before April 18, the IRS reported that it expected to receive some 17 million returns before the filing deadline. Overall, the IRS received approximately 135 million returns during the filing season. This reflects a decrease of roughly one percent compared to the same time last year. Millions more will be filed by October 16, 2017, when taxpayers on extensions must file their returns.

The IRS predicted that some 12 million taxpayers would request extensions of time to file their 2016 returns. The IRS reminded taxpayers that an extension of time to file is not an extension of time to pay any tax due. Penalties and interest accrue on unfiled returns if taxes are not paid by April 18. There is no penalty for filing a late return after the tax deadline if the taxpayer receives a refund.

Refunds

By the end of the filing season, the IRS reported it had issued some 97 million refunds. The average refund is $2,763, compared to $2,711 at this time last year, the agency reported.

Some early filers experienced delayed refunds this year. A law passed in late 2015 took effect for the first time this filing season. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH Act) generally required the IRS to hold refunds on earned income tax credit (EITC) and additional child tax credit (ACTC) returns until February 15. After February 15, the IRS released these refunds.

Cybercrime

Tax-related identity theft surges during the filing season. Although the IRS has not yet released any figures, the agency has claimed to have done a better job curbing cybercrime. The IRS has partnered with the tax preparation industry and tax professionals to enhance e-filing security and safeguards. Many of these measures are behind the scenes.

One online tool was compromised by cybercriminals. The IRS took the Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) offline in March. The DRT is used by individuals completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The IRS has reported that the DRT will remain offline until security features are improved.

Looking ahead

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen is in the last year of his five-year term. Koskinen has said that he hopes to complete his term, which ends in November, but recognized that he serves at the pleasure of the President. Speaking in Washington, D.C. in April, Koskinen recommended that Congress quickly approve his successor to ensure the smooth running of the agency.

If you have any questions about the filing season, please contact our office.

Audit coverage rates are at low levels, the IRS has reported. According to the IRS, the audit coverage rate for individuals fell 16 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016. The 0.7 percent audit coverage rate for individuals was the lowest coverage rate in more than a decade, the agency added.

Audit coverage rates are at low levels, the IRS has reported. According to the IRS, the audit coverage rate for individuals fell 16 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016. The 0.7 percent audit coverage rate for individuals was the lowest coverage rate in more than a decade, the agency added.

Selection Process

The raw audit numbers, of course, do not answer the more specific question regarding “my chances of being audited by the IRS.” The IRS does very little random selection of returns for being audited these days. Computer analysis flags certain suspect items but, there again, randomly.  For example, taking the home office deduction increases a taxpayer’s odds of an audit on the item, but odds remain that it still will not be pulled for audit. Another “audit trigger” is not reporting income for which an information return (Form 1099-MISC, for example) has been generated.

Audit campaigns. The IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) Division has revealed new corporate compliance campaigns. The campaigns, as explained by LB&I, offer "a holistic response to an item of either known or potential compliance risks." Whether "audit campaigns" will be initiated within the other major IRS divisions in part will depend upon the success of the LB&I division's rollout. So far, IRS leadership appears optimistic over its prospects.

The campaigns currently address:

• Code Sec. 48C energy credit;
• Offshore voluntary disclosure program declines and withdrawals;
• Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deductions;
• Micro-captive insurance;
• Related-party transactions;
• Deferred variable annuity reserves and life insurance reserves;
• Basket transactions;
• Completed contract method of accounting;
• TEFRA linkage plan strategy;
• S corporation losses claimed in excess of basis;
• Repatriation;
• Form 1120-F Nonfiler.

Automatic Underreporter Program. The IRS reported that the Automatic Underreporter Program continues to generate significant revenues. The agency closed more than 3.5 million cases under the Automatic Underreporter Program, generating some $6.8 billion in additional assessments. Further, the IRS closed nearly 400,000 cases under the Automatic Substitute for Return Program, generating some $600 million in additional assessments.

Comment. Intertwined with audit selection are the shrinking resources available to the IRS to conduct audits. President Trump has proposed a $239 million reduction in the IRS's budget for fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Audit Coverage Stats

Individuals. The audit coverage rate for individuals for FY 2016 was 0.7 percent. The audit coverage rate increased for higher income taxpayers: 1.7 percent for returns reporting more than $200,000 in income and 5.8 percent for returns reporting more than $1 million in income. Nearly 800,000 of individual audits in FY 2015 were correspondence audits. Some 240,000 were field audits. In total, the IRS audited roughly 1.03 million of the nearly 148 million individual returns filed.

Corporations. The audit coverage rate for corporations (excluding S corps) for FY 2016 was 1.1 percent. Here, more audits were field audits than correspondence exams. Some 19,000 were field audits and roughly 1,800 were correspondence audits.

Partnerships and S corps. For partnerships, the audit coverage rate for FY 2016 was 0.4 percent. The IRS audited roughly 15,000 of the 3.9 million partnership returns received. The audit coverage rate for S corps for FY 2016 was 0.3 percent. Of the approximately 4 million S corp returns received, the IRS selected some 16,000 for audit.

Although the employee may end up with the same amount whether something is designated a tip or a service charge, the IRS reporting requirements for the employer do differ. Basically, any amount required to be paid by a customer rather than at the customer’s discretion is considered a service charge by the IRS.

Although the employee may end up with the same amount whether something is designated a tip or a service charge, the IRS reporting requirements for the employer do differ. Basically, any amount required to be paid by a customer rather than at the customer’s discretion is considered a service charge by the IRS.

Tips

Tips are optional payments received by employees and determined by customers. Tips include cash; tips made through a credit card or other electronic payment; the value of noncash tips; and tips paid through tip splitting.

Tips include:

• Cash tips received directly from customers.
• Tips from customers who leave a tip through electronic settlement or payment. This includes a credit card, debit card, gift card, or any other electronic payment method.
• The value of any noncash tips, such as tickets, or other items of value.
• Tip amounts received from other employees paid out through tip pools or tip splitting, or other formal or informal tip sharing arrangements.

Employees are required to report cash tips to their employers except tips from any month that total less than $20. Employers are required to retain employee tip records and credit card tip designations, withhold employee income taxes and the employee share of social security and Medicare taxes and report this information to the IRS.

Both directly and indirectly tipped employees must report tips to their employer.

A “directly tipped employee” is any employee who receives tips directly from customers, including one who, after receiving the tips, turns all of them over to a tip pool. Examples of directly tipped employees are waiters, waitresses, bartenders and hairstylists.

An “indirectly tipped employee” is a tipped employee who does not normally receive tips directly from customers. Examples of indirectly tipped employees are bussers, service bartenders, cooks and salon shampooers.

Tips reported to the employer by the employee must be included in Box 1 (Wages, tips, other compensation), Box 5 (Medicare wages and tips), and Box 7 (Social Security tips) of the employee's Form W-2 , Wage and Tax Statement. Enter the amount of any uncollected social security tax and Medicare tax in Box 12 of Form W-2.

Service charges

Tips must be made free from compulsion; the customer must have the unrestricted right to determine the amount; the payment may not be subject to employer policy; and the customer has the right to determine who receives the payment. Service charges do not have any of these qualities and are generally reported as regular wages to employees. So-called “automatic gratuities” and any amount imposed on the customer by the employer are service charges, not tips.

Examples of service charges commonly added to a customer's check include:

• Large dining party automatic gratuity
• Banquet event fee
• Cruise trip package fee
• Hotel room service charge
• Bottle service charge (nightclubs, restaurants)

Service charges are generally wages, and they are reported to the employee and the IRS in a manner similar to other wages. On the other hand, special rules apply to both employers and employees for reporting tips. Employers should make sure they know the difference and how they report each to the IRS.

Generally, service charges are reported as non-tip wages paid to the employee. Some employers keep a portion of the service charges. Only the amounts distributed to employees are non-tip wages to those employees.

Lawmakers continue to debate comprehensive tax reform, aiming for a package to clear Congress and be signed into law by the President before summer. At the same time a “mini” tax reform package in an Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal and replacement plan appears to have stalled in Congress.

Lawmakers continue to debate comprehensive tax reform, aiming for a package to clear Congress and be signed into law by the President before summer. At the same time a “mini” tax reform package in an Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal and replacement plan appears to have stalled in Congress.

Tax reform

Tax reform for individuals and businesses is being driven by two proposals: ones made by President Trump during the campaign last year and ones set out by the House GOP (known as the GOP blueprint). In many areas, the two find common ground, including consolidation and a reduction in the income tax rates for individuals, a cut in the corporate tax rate, elimination of the federal estate tax, and abolishment of the alternative minimum tax (AMT). President Trump has also called for new tax incentives for child and elder care.

The chief tax writer in the House, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has predicted that a comprehensive tax reform package will pass the House before summer. The top tax writer in the Senate, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has indicated that the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, is likely to develop its own tax proposals. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that the pace of tax reform in the Senate will depend on the make-up of the House’s tax package.

Closely-related to tax reform is infrastructure spending. In January, President Trump called on Congress to support a $1 trillion spending initiative for highways, bridges, and other developments. White House officials indicated that tax credits of some type would be part of the proposal. In March, a senior GOP lawmaker indicated that infrastructure spending could be part of a federal aviation bill this year. Infrastructure spending is an area where there may be bipartisan support.

Health care

At the eleventh hour, House republicans pulled their ACA repeal and replacement plan (the American Health Care Act (ACHA)) from the House floor. The ACHA would have repealed the ACA’s tax measures including the,

• Net investment income (NII) tax
• Additional Medicare tax
• Excise tax on certain medical devices
• Excise tax on tanning services

The excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans (also known as the “Cadillac plan” tax) would have been delayed. The medical expense deduction would have been returned to its pre-ACA parameters. In place of the premium assistance tax credit, the ACHA would have provided a new tax credit generally based on an individual’s age.

For now, ACA repeal and replacement appears to have been moved to the back burner in the House. The statute remains in place. There could, however, be some changes to regulations under the ACA.

If you have any questions about tax reform, health care reform or any federal legislative developments, please contact our office.

The IRS has released the inflation-adjusted limitations on depreciation deductions for business-use passenger automobiles, light trucks, and vans first placed in service during calendar year 2017. All limitations are inflation-adjusted based upon October 2016 CPI amounts, with rounding conventions that account for almost all 2016 limits remaining the same for 2017 (only the third-year limitation for light trucks and vans rose, from $3,350 to $3,450 in 2017).

The IRS has released the inflation-adjusted limitations on depreciation deductions for business-use passenger automobiles, light trucks, and vans first placed in service during calendar year 2017. All limitations are inflation-adjusted based upon October 2016 CPI amounts, with rounding conventions that account for almost all 2016 limits remaining the same for 2017 (only the third-year limitation for light trucks and vans rose, from $3,350 to $3,450 in 2017).

Comment. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) has allowed for 50 percent bonus depreciation where applicable through 2017. For both passenger automobiles and light trucks and vans, that amount raises first-year depreciation by $8,000. The bonus rate is scheduled to drop to 40 percent for property placed in service in 2018 and to 30 percent for 2019, before sunsetting entirely unless changed by Congress.

Automobiles/light trucks/vans

For passenger automobiles that are not trucks and vans first placed in service in 2017, the depreciation limitations under Code Sec. 280F for the first three years are $3,160 ($11,160 with