Newsletters

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.

Effective July 17, 2019, the list of preventive care benefits that can be provided by a high deductible health plan (HDHP) without a deductible or with a deductible below the applicable minimum deductible is expanded. The list now includes certain cost effective medical care services and prescription drugs for certain chronic conditions.

Effective July 17, 2019, the list of preventive care benefits that can be provided by a high deductible health plan (HDHP) without a deductible or with a deductible below the applicable minimum deductible is expanded. The list now includes certain cost effective medical care services and prescription drugs for certain chronic conditions.

HDHPs and Health Savings Accounts

Individuals covered by an HDHP generally may establish and deduct contributions to a Health Savings Account (HSA). To qualify as an HDHP, a plan may not provide benefits for any year until the minimum deductible for that year is satisfied. However, an HDHP is not required to have a deductible for preventive care.

Current Rule for Chronic Conditions

Under the existing rule, preventive care generally does not include any service or benefit intended to treat an existing illness, injury, or condition. As a result, the cost barriers for care have resulted in some individuals diagnosed with certain chronic conditions failing to get effective and necessary care that would prevent making the chronic condition worse. Failure to address chronic conditions can lead to amputation, blindness, heart attacks, and strokes that require considerably more extensive medical intervention.

Treatments for Chronic Care as Preventive Care

The following medical care services are now classified as preventive care for someone with that chronic condition:

• angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for individuals diagnosed with congestive heart failure, diabetes, or coronary artery disease;
• anti-resorptive therapy for individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia;
• blood pressure monitor for individuals diagnosed with hypertension;
• peak flow meter for individuals diagnosed with asthma;
• inhaled corticosteroids for individuals diagnosed with asthma;
• glucometer for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• hemoglobin A1c testing for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• insulin and other glucose lowering agents for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• retinopathy screening for individuals diagnosed with diabetes; and
• statins for individuals diagnosed with heart disease and/or diabetes.

The continuity safe harbor placed-in-service date deadlines for the investment tax energy credit (Code Sec. 48) and the renewable electricity production credit (Code Sec. 45(a)) may be tolled if a construction delay is caused by national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense (DOD).

The continuity safe harbor placed-in-service date deadlines for the investment tax energy credit (Code Sec. 48) and the renewable electricity production credit (Code Sec. 45(a)) may be tolled if a construction delay is caused by national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense (DOD).

Background

In general, the energy credit may only be claimed if construction on a qualified facility begins before January 1, 2022. In the case of the production credit, construction must begin before January 1, 2017 (January 1, 2020 for a wind facility). Once construction begins, taxpayers are required to make continuous progress toward completion under either a continuous construction test or a continuous efforts test. These tests are deemed satisfied under the continuity safe harbor if the facility is placed in service within four calendar years after the calendar year in which construction begins.

Tolling Requirements

A construction deadline in the continuity safe harbor is tolled if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

• one or more necessary government permits or approvals for construction have been issued;
• construction has begun;
• the DOD provides written notice that the construction plan should be modified in the interest of national security;
• the plan is modified in a way that is acceptable to the DOD to mitigate the national security concerns; and
• as a result of the plan modification, new or additional permits or licenses must be obtained which will delay the placed-in-service date of the facility or energy property.

Tolling Period

The tolling period of the continuity safe harbor begins on the day the DOD provides written notice that the plan of construction requires modification to meet national security concerns.

The tolling period ends when one of the following events occurs:

• all new or additional permits or licenses are obtained;
• written confirmation is received that all of the required new or additional permits or licenses will not be issued; or
• the relevant federal or state authorities are notified in writing that the modification to the plan will no longer be pursued.

The maximum length of the tolling period is four years.

No Rulings

The IRS will not issue private letter rulings or determination letters regarding the application of the tolling provision or the beginning of construction requirement.

Modified Rulings

Notice 2013-29, 2013-1 C.B. 1085, Notice 2013-60, 2013-2 C.B. 431, Notice 2014-46, 2014-2 C.B. 520, Notice 2015-25, 2015-13 I.R.B. 814, Notice 2016-31, 2016-23 I.R.B. 1025, Notice 2017-4, 2017-4 I.R.B. 541, and Notice 2018-59, 2018-28 I.R.B. 196, are modified.

The Treasury and IRS have issued proposed regulations on provisions dealing with passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). Proposed regulations published on April 25, 2015, also have been withdrawn ( NPRM REG-108214-15).

The Treasury and IRS have issued proposed regulations on provisions dealing with passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). Proposed regulations published on April 25, 2015, also have been withdrawn ( NPRM REG-108214-15).

U.S. persons who own interests in PFICs are subject to rules that limit deferral on passive income earned by foreign corporations ( Code Sec. 1291– Code Sec. 1298). In general, a PFIC is a foreign corporation that in any given year:

• has income that is 75 percent or more passive income (income test); or
• owns, on average, assets that are 50 percent or more passive-income-producing (asset test).

The proposed regulations provide general guidance regarding PFICs, and guidance on the PFIC insurance exception. Specifically, the proposed regulations cover:

• the determination of ownership in a PFIC, and the treatment of certain income received or accrued by a foreign corporation and assets held by a foreign corporation under Code Sec. 1297;
• rules for determining whether a U.S. person that directly or indirectly holds stock in a PFIC is treated as a PFIC shareholder, and whether a foreign corporation is a PFIC; and
• whether a foreign insurance company is a qualifying insurance company (QIC) under Code Sec. 1297(f), and the amounts of income and assets that a QIC can exclude under the PFIC insurance exception.

General Guidance

The proposed regulations specify that, in applying the asset test, the period over which the average percentage is calculated is at least quarterly. However, taxpayers are allowed to use a shorter period, such as a monthly of daily measurement of asset values.

The proposed regulations address attribution of ownership under the look-through subsidiary rules of Code Sec. 1297(c) for determining PFIC status. These rules treat a foreign corporation (FC1) that owns 25 percent or more of another foreign corporation (FC2) as owning and earning a proportional amount of the other foreign corporation’s income and assets. The proposed regulations allow attribution from FC2 to FC1, if FC1 has a greater than 50 percent ownership interest in FC2.

The proposed regulation also provide a partnership look-through rule for the treatment of a partnership interest owned by a foreign corporation, for purposes of determining whether the foreign corporation is a PFIC. Under the rule, the same 25 percent ownership threshold applies to partnership interests as is applied to interests in corporations.

PFIC Insurance Exception

The income of a QIC derived in the active conduct of a trade or business is not treated as passive income for purposes of determining whether a corporation is a PFIC. The QIC test is based on the ratio of the foreign insurance company’s "applicable insurance liabilities" to total assets. Applicable insurance liabilities are the smallest of:

• insurance liabilities on the company’s most recent applicable financial statement (AFS);
• liabilities required by local law or regulation; or
• as provided under Treasury regulations.

Current law allows a foreign corporation to use a local AFS if it does not do financial reporting based on the rigorous and widely-accepted U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or international financial reporting standards (IFRS).

The proposed regulations provide a special rule for foreign corporations that change their method of preparing their AFS by ceasing to prepare this statement under either U.S. GAAP or IFRS without a non-federal tax business purpose for the change. The foreign corporation must continue to prepare its AFS under either U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Failing to do so will mean the foreign corporation has no applicable insurance liabilities for the QIC test.

Additionally, if an AFS is prepared under local accounting standards that do not require discounting unpaid losses and other loss reserves on an economically reasonable basis, AFS insurance liabilities must be reduced under U.S. GAAP or IFRS discounting principles.

Applicability Date

The proposed regulations are proposed to apply to tax years of U.S. persons that are shareholders in certain foreign corporations beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations in the Federal Register.

Until the regulations are final:

• taxpayers may choose to apply the proposed regulations (other than Proposed Reg. §1.1297-4and Proposed Reg. §1.1297-5) for open tax years;
• U.S persons and shareholders in certain foreign corporations may apply Proposed Reg. §1.1297-4 and Proposed Reg. §1.1297-5, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017; and
• taxpayers may rely on Notice 88-22, 1988-1 CB 489, providing guidance on the income and asset tests.

Comments

Written or electronic comments and requests for public hearing must be received by September 9, 2019. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105474-18), 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105474-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-105474-18).

Proposed regulations would provide an exception to the unified plan rule for multiple employer plans (MEPs). The purpose is to reduce the risk of plan disqualification due to noncompliance by other participating employers. The regulations would apply on or after the publication date of final regulations in the Federal Register. They cannot be relied upon until then. Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 1, 2019.

Proposed regulations would provide an exception to the unified plan rule for multiple employer plans (MEPs). The purpose is to reduce the risk of plan disqualification due to noncompliance by other participating employers. The regulations would apply on or after the publication date of final regulations in the Federal Register. They cannot be relied upon until then. Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 1, 2019.

Multiple Employer Plans

A MEP is a single plan with adopted by multiple unrelated employers. Multiple employer plans under Code Sec. 413(c) can be structured either as:

• an open MEP where an organization with employees takes the lead by establishing the plan for its own employees, and has other unrelated employers join the plan as co-sponsors;
• a closed MEP in which a group or association of employers that meets a commonality requirement takes the lead in establishing the plan, and members are free to adopt it.

Open MEPs are often established by organizations that specialize in providing benefits for smaller employers (typically, 401(k) plans). Note that MEPs are distinct from union multiemployer plans governed by Code Sec. 413(b), but share some of the same rules.

Under the unified plan rule in the current regulations for both MEPs and multiemployer plans, a qualification or operational failure by one employer can result in a total plan failure for all participating employers. The administration is trying to change that, to encourage MEP participation.

Proposed Exception

Under the proposed regulations, an eligible defined contribution MEP would qualify for an exception to the unified plan rule. The exception turns on the ability of the MEP plan administrator under the terms of the plan to spin off the assets and account balances attributable to employees of a noncompliant participating employer into a separate plan and then termination of that plan. A spinoff could be either a spinoff initiated by the unresponsive participating employer and implemented by the plan administrator, or a spinoff-termination implemented by the plan administrator.

The exception would be available if the participating employer is responsible for a qualification failure that it is unable or unwilling to correct. It would also be available if the participating employer is nonresponsive to the plan administrator’s reasonable and timely requests for information or for action.

Exception Requirements

Under the proposed exception, a defined contribution MEP would not be disqualified on account of a participating employer failure if the following conditions are satisfied:

• the MEP satisfies certain eligibility requirements, including established practices and procedures to promote compliance and a requirement to adopt relevant plan language;
• the MEP plan administrator provides notice and an opportunity for the unresponsive participating employer to take remedial action;
• the administrator implements a spinoff in the event the unresponsive participating employer fails to take appropriate remedial action; and
• the administrator complies with any information request by the IRS or a representative of the spun-off plan made in connection with an IRS examination of the spun-off plan, including an information request related to the unresponsive participating employer’s participation in the MEP for years prior to the spinoff.

Participating employer failures would include known compliance failures, as well as failure to provide information to the MEP plan administrator so that the administrator can determine whether there is an actual plan or operational failure.

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.

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New IRS Commissioner
"I am honored, privileged and most humbled by the opportunity to serve with you as Commissioner," Rettig said in an internal IRS message obtained by Wolters Kluwer on October 2. "The foundation of my becoming Commissioner is a deep appreciation for the IRS, its workforce and our country."

The Senate confirmed Rettig’s nomination for IRS Commissioner by a 64-to-33 bipartisan vote. The Senate Finance Committee advanced Rettig’s nomination in July. President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Rettig last February.

IRS Priorities Moving Forward
Rettig outlined several IRS priorities in his message to IRS employees. Those priorities include, among others, implementing tax reform, balancing taxpayer service with tax enforcement, and deterring tax fraud.

"I know the Service has many challenges…I also know we must continue rebuilding trust with taxpayers while implementing the once-in-a-generation tax reform bill passed by Congress in December," Rettig said. "We must work on our IT modernization efforts," he added.

Additionally, while the IRS has been working toward moving more taxpayer services online, notably, Rettig emphasized the importance of providing personalized service to taxpayers. "Providing high-quality, personalized service is a critical component in helping taxpayers understand and comply with their filing and reporting obligations,"Rettig wrote.

Rettig’s term as the 49th IRS Commissioner is scheduled to expire on November 12, 2022. John Koskinen’s term as IRS Commissioner ended in November 2017. David Kautter, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at Treasury, has been serving as acting IRS Commissioner in the interim.

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.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction and its recently-released proposed regulations, REG-107892-18. 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.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction and its recently-released proposed regulations, REG-107892-18. 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.

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: How do the proposed regulations provide both limitations and flexibility regarding the available election to aggregate trades or businesses?

Joshua Wu: Treasury agreed with various comments that some level of aggregation should be permitted to account for the legal, economic and other non-tax reasons that taxpayers operate a single business across multiple entities. Permissive aggregation allows taxpayers the benefit of combining trades or businesses for applying the W-2 wage limitation, potentially resulting in a higher limit. Under Proposed Reg. §1.199A-4, aggregation is allowed but not required. To use this method, the business must (1) qualify as a trade or business, (2) have common ownership, (3) not be a SSTB, and (4) demonstrate that the businesses are part of a larger, integrated trade or business (for individuals and trusts). The proposed regulations give businesses the benefits of electing aggregation without having to restructure the businesses from a legal standpoint. Businesses failing to qualify under the above test will have to consider whether a legal restructuring would be possible.

Wolters Kluwer: How does Notice 2018-64 Methods for Calculating W-2 Wages for Purposes of Section 199A, which accompanied the release of the proposed regulations, coordinate with aggregation?

Joshua Wu: Notice 2018-64 contains a proposed revenue procedure with guidance on three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of section 199A. The Unmodified Box method uses the lesser of totals in Box 1 of Forms W-2 or Box 5 (Medicare wages). The Modified Box 1 method takes the total amounts in Box 1 of Forms W-2 minus amounts not wages for income withholding purposes, and adding total amounts in Box 12 (deferrals). The Tracking wages method is the most complex and tracks total wages subject to income tax withholding. The calculation method is dependent on the group of Forms W-2 included in the computation and, thus, will vary depending upon whether businesses are aggregated under §1.199A-4 or not. Taxpayers with businesses generating little or no Medicare wages may consider aggregating with businesses that report significant wages in Box 1 that are still subject to income tax withholding. Under the Modified Box 1 method, that may result in a higher wage limitation.

Crack & Pack

Wolters Kluwer: What noteworthy anti-abuse safeguards did the proposed regulations seek to establish? How do the rules address "cracking" or "crack and pack" strategies?

Joshua Wu: Treasury included some anti-abuse provisions in the proposed regulations. One area that Treasury noted was the use of multiple non-grantor trusts to avoid the income threshold limitations on the 199A deduction. Taxpayers could theoretically use multiple non-grantor trusts to increase the 199A deduction by taking advantage of each trust’s separate threshold amount. The proposed regulations, under the authority of 643(f), provide that two or more trusts will be aggregated and treated as a single trust if such trusts have substantially the same grantor(s) and substantially the same primary beneficiary or beneficiaries, and if a principal purpose is to avoid tax. The proposed regulations have a presumption of a principal purpose of avoiding tax if the structure results in a significant tax benefit, unless there is a significant non-tax purpose that could not have been achieved without the creation of the trusts.

Another anti-abuse issue relates to the "crack and pack" strategies. These strategies involve a business that is limited in its 199A deduction because it is an SSTB spinning off some of its business or assets to an entity that is not an SSTB and could claim the 199A deduction. For example, a law firm that owns its building could transfer the building to a separate entity and lease it back. The law firm is an SSTB and, thus, is subject to the 199A limitations. However, the real estate entity is not an SSTB and can generate a 199A deduction (based on the rental income) for the law partners. The proposed regulations provide that a SSTB includes any business with 50 percent common ownership (direct or indirect) that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to an excluded trade or business. Also, if a trade or business shares 50 percent or more common ownership with an SSTB, to the extent that trade or business provides property or services to the commonly-owned SSTB, the portion of the property or services provided to the SSTB will be treated as an SSTB. The proposed regulations provide an example of a dentist who owns a dental practice and also owns an office building. The dentist rents half the building to the dental practice and half to unrelated persons. Under [Proposed Reg.] §1.199A-5(c)(2), the renting of half of the building to the dental practice will be treated as an SSTB.

Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: Generally, what industries can be seen as "winners" and "losers" in light of the proposed regulations?

Joshua Wu: The most obvious "losers" in the proposed regulations are the specified services businesses (e.g., lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc.) who are further limited by the anti-abuse provisions in arranging their affairs to try and benefit from 199A. On the other hand, certain specific service providers benefit from the proposed regulations. For example, health clubs or spas are exempt from the SSTB limitation. Additionally, broadcasters of performing arts, real estate agents, real estate brokers, loan officers, ticket brokers, and art brokers are all exempt from the SSTB limitation.

Wolters Kluwer: What areas of the Code Sec. 199A provision stand out as most complex when calculating the deduction, and how does this complexity vary among taxpayers?

Joshua Wu: With respect to calculating the deduction, one complex area is planning to maximize the W-2 wages limitation. Because compensation as W-2 wages can reduce QBI, and potentially the 199A deduction, determining the efficient equilibrium point between having enough W-2 wages to limit the impact of the wage limitation, while preserving QBI, will be a fact-driven complex planning issue that must be determined by each taxpayer. Another area of complexity will be how taxpayers track losses which may reduce future QBI and, thus, the 199A deduction. The proposed regulations provide that losses disallowed for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, are not taken into account for purposes of computing QBI in a later taxable year. Taxpayers will be left to track pre-2018 and post-2018 losses and determine if a loss in a particular tax year reduces QBI or not.

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

Wolters Kluwer: An IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that the IRS did not expect the proposed regulations to answer all questions surrounding the deduction. Indeed, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said that stakeholder feedback would help finalize the regulations. What significant questions remain unanswered for taxpayers and tax practitioners, and has additional uncertainty been created with the release of the IRS guidance?

Joshua Wu: On the whole, the proposed regulations did a good job addressing the most important areas of Section 199A. However, there are many areas where additional guidance would be helpful. Such guidance may be in the form of additional regulations or other administrative pathways. For example, the proposed regulations did not address the differing treatment between a taxpayer operating as a sole proprietor versus an S corporation. Wages paid to an S corporation shareholder boosts the W-2 limitation but are not considered QBI. Thus, with the same underlying facts, the 199Adeduction may vary between taxpayers operating as a sole proprietor versus those operating as an S corporation.

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

Wolters Kluwer: In what ways do you see the passthrough deduction rules changing when the final regulations are released?

Joshua Wu: I suspect that the core components of the proposed regulations will not change significantly. However, I would not be surprised if Treasury were to include more specific examples with respect to real estate and whether certain types of activity constitute a trade or business. Additionally, the proposed regulations will likely generate comments and questions from various industry groups related to the SSTB definitions and specific types of services (e.g., do trustees and executors fall under the legal services definition). Treasury may change the definitions of SSTBs in response to comments and clarify definitions for industry groups.

Tax Reform 2.0

Wolters Kluwer: The White House and congressional Republicans are currently moving forward on legislative efforts known as "Tax Reform 2.0." The legislative package proposes making permanent the passthrough deduction. How does the impermanence of this deduction currently impact taxpayers? (Note: On September 13, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up a three-bill Tax Reform 2.0 package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.)

Joshua Wu: The 199A deduction has a significant impact on the choice of entity question for businesses. With the 21 percent corporate rate, we have seen many taxpayers considering restructuring away from passthrough entities to a C corporation structure. The 199A deduction is a large consideration in whether to restructure or not, but its limited effective time does raise questions about the cost effectiveness of planning to obtain the 199A deduction where the benefit will sunset in eight years.

Key Takeways

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners should remind clients who may benefit from the 199A deduction to keep detailed records of any losses for each line of business, as this may impact the calculation of QBI in the future. Practitioners should also help clients examine the whole of their activity to define their "trades or businesses." This will be essential to calculating the 199A deduction and planning to maximize any such deduction. Finally, practitioners should remember that some of the information that may be necessary to determine a 199A deduction may not be in their client’s possession. Practitioners need to plan in advance with their clients regarding how information about each trade or business will be obtained (e.g., how will a limited partner in a partnership obtain information regarding the partnership’s W-2 wages and/or UBIA of qualified property).

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners and taxpayers should remember that the regulations are only proposed and may change before they become final. Any planning undertaken this year should carefully weigh the economic costs and be rooted in the statutory language of 199A. It will be some time before case law helps clarify the nuances of Section 199A, and claiming the deduction allows the IRS to more easily impose the substantial understatement penalty if a taxpayer gets it wrong.