Newsletters

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 Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, "Moving Forward Framework"; House Ways and Means Committee, January 29 hearing witnesses’ testimony

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, "Moving Forward Framework"; House Ways and Means Committee, January 29 hearing witnesses’ testimony

House Democrats on January 29 unveiled their framework for a $760 billion infrastructure plan. Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing the same day to examine proposals for funding infrastructure and various "tools" within the Tax Code to encourage investment.

Democratic Infrastructure Framework
Notably, House Democrats’ infrastructure framework, which also contains proposals related to climate change, is considered on Capitol Hill as an opening bid. It is not legislative text, and it does not include any specificities on how to fund infrastructure.

"I think it is really important that we not volunteer a revenue stream until the administration reaches an agreement with us," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a January 29 news conference. President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have both expressed a readiness to move forward on infrastructure.

Ways and Means Infrastructure Hearing
Among some of the funding proposals presented during the January 29 hearing, Neal emphasized his preference for tax-preferred bonds. "Tax-preferred bonds are one of our most powerful tools. When we invest in infrastructure, it results in a significant economic multiplier," Neal said in his opening statement at the hearing. To that end, some witnesses also testified in support of reinstating a program known as Build American Bonds (BABs) on a permanent basis to help finance infrastructure. Neal likewise expressed his support for reinstating BABs.

Additionally, some Democratic lawmakers have discussed raising taxes to help fund infrastructure, namely the federal gas excise tax. Although the move would be met with resistance by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Republicans are particularly vocal in their opposition. The last gas tax increase occurred in 1993.

"Workers who are driving used cars shouldn’t be paying higher taxes at the pump so that the wealthy can claim a tax credit for their $75,000 electric vehicles," ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said during the hearing. "Both will drive on roads and bridges but only the blue-collar worker will pay any taxes to maintain them."

Looking Ahead
Although infrastructure is indeed a priority among congressional tax writers and the Trump administration, the Democratic framework is largely seen as a campaign-related proposal ahead of the 2020 elections, quite similar to Republicans’ talk of "Tax Cuts 2.0." While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the U.S. Capitol are certainly eager to address these tax-related issues, it remains to be seen if requisite bipartisan agreement will be reached during an election year and a shortened legislative calendar.

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.

Taxpayers claiming the low-income housing credit should apply the "average income" minimum set aside test by reference to the "very low-income" limits calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for purposes of determining eligibility under the HUD Section 8 program. HUD determinations for very low-income housing families are currently used to calculate the low-income housing credit income limits under the alternate "20-50" and "40-60" minimum set-aside tests.

Taxpayers claiming the low-income housing credit should apply the "average income" minimum set aside test by reference to the "very low-income" limits calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for purposes of determining eligibility under the HUD Section 8 program. HUD determinations for very low-income housing families are currently used to calculate the low-income housing credit income limits under the alternate "20-50" and "40-60" minimum set-aside tests.

Rev. Rul. 89-24, 1994-2 C.B. 5, as modified and superseded in part by Rev. Rul. 94-57, 1994-2 C.B. 5, is amplified.

Average Income Test
A taxpayer claiming the low-income housing credit under Code Sec. 42 must elect to satisfy one of three minimum-set aside tests:

• the "20-50" test, under which at least 20 percent of the residential units in the project must be both rent-restricted and occupied by tenants whose gross income is 50 percent or less of the area median gross income (AMGI);
• the "40-60" test, under which at least 40 percent of the residential units in the project must be both rent-restricted and occupied by tenants whose gross income is 60 percent or less of AMGI; or
• the "average income" test under Code Sec. 42(g)(1)(C), which was added by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-141).

The average income test is satisfied if 40 percent or more of the residential units in the project (25 percent or more in the case of a project located in a high cost housing area) are both rent-restricted and occupied by tenants whose income does not exceed the imputed income limitation designated by the taxpayer with respect to the respective unit. The imputed income limitation for any unit must be 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 percent of AMGI. The average of the designated imputed income limitations may not exceed 60 percent of AMGI.

Application of HUD Calculation
HUD uses three different principal income level calculation categories:

• "low-income," which is limited at 80 percent of AMGI;
• "very low-income," which is limited at 50 percent of AMGI; and
• "extremely low-income," which is limited at the higher of 30 percent of AMGI or the “Federal Poverty Level.”

Under the IRS guidance, HUD’s "very low-income" calculation, as adjusted for family size and consistent with the methods provided in Rev. Rul. 89-24, is used as the basis for determining the full range of percentage-based income limits under the new average-income set-aside test.

Specifically, the income attributable to a family in a unit may not exceed an applicable percentage of the HUD income limit for a very low income family of the same size in accordance with the following schedule for the percentage-based imputed income limit chosen for the unit within the 20 through 80 percent range:

• 20 percent limit: 40 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 30 percent limit: 60 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 40 percent limit: 80 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 50 percent limit: 100 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 60 percent limit: 120 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 70 percent limit: 140 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size;
• 80 percent limit: 160 percent or less of the income limit for a very low-income family of the same size.

A list of income limits released by HUD may be relied upon until 45 days after HUD releases a new list of income limits, or HUD’s effective date for the list expires.

Prospective Application
Special relief is provided to a taxpayer who receives a low-income housing credit allocation prior to February 18, 2020. The taxpayer must have unambiguously indicated in its application that it will elect the average-income set aside test, and also specified a dollar amount as an expected designated imputed income limitation for a unit that is higher than allowed by the new guidance. If the dollar amount is reasonable it may be relied upon for the entire compliance period of the building, and is also used to determine whether the tenant initially meets the income limitation for the unit.

Final regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The regulations provide transition rules for certain employers. The final regulations are effective on February 5, 2020, the date of publication in the Federal Register.

TCJA Increased Maximum Vehicle Values
Before the Tax Cuts and Job Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the maximum base fair market value of a vehicle for use of the fleet-average valuation rule was $16,500, as adjusted annually for inflation (in 2017: $21,100 for a passenger automobile, and $23,300 for a truck or van). The pre-TCJA maximum base fair market value of a vehicle for use of the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule was $12,800, as adjusted annually for inflation (in 2017: $15,900 for a passenger automobile, and $17,800 for a truck or van). The TCJA increased these amounts to $50,000, adjusted for inflation.

To implement the changes, the IRS issued Notice 2019-8, I.R.B. 2019-3, 354, to provide interim guidance for 2018 on new procedures for calculating the price inflation adjustments to the maximum vehicle values for use with the fleet-average valuation rule in Reg. §1.61-21(d) and the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule in Reg. §1.61-21(e) using amended Code Sec. 280F(d)(7). In Notice 2019-34. I.R.B. 2019-22, 1257, the IRS provided (among other things) that the inflation-adjusted maximum value of an employer-provided vehicle (including cars, vans, and trucks) first made available to employees for personal use in calendar year 2019 for which the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule or the fleet-average valuation rule may be used is $50,400. This guidance also provided information about the manner in which the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to publish the maximum vehicle value in the future.

In August 2019, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published that was consistent with Notice 2019-8 and Notice 2019-34 and reflected changes made by TCJA to the depreciation limitations in Code Sec. 280F. The final regulations update the fleet-average and vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rules to conform to the changes made by the TCJA.

Trucks and Vans Not Separately Valued
Before the TCJA, inflation adjustments were determined using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which contained both a new car and a new truck component. Accordingly, separate inflation adjustments were released for cars using the car component of the CPI, and for trucks and vans using the truck component of the CPI.

Under the TCJA, the price inflation amount for automobiles (including trucks and vans) is calculated using both the CPI automobile component and the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) automobile component. There is no separate C-CPI-U component for trucks and vans. As a result, the IRS will publish only one maximum value of a vehicle for use with the fleet-average and vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rules.

Transition Rules
Consistent with Notice 2019-34 and the proposed regulations, the final regulations provide several transition rules.

For the Fleet-Average Valuation Rule: If an employer did not qualify to use the fleet-average valuation rule prior to January 1, 2018, because the automobile’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted maximum value requirement for the year the automobile was first made available to the employee for personal use, the employer may adopt the fleet-average valuation rule for 2018 or 2019, provided the fair market value of the automobile does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

For the Vehicle Cents-Per-Mile Valuation Rule: An employer that did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for a vehicle first made available to an employee for personal use before calendar year 2018, may first adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year for the vehicle if:

• the employer did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the vehicle was first used by the employee for personal use; and
• the vehicle’s fair market value does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Similarly, if the commuting valuation rule ( Reg. §1.61-21(f)) was utilized when the vehicle was first used by an employee for personal use, the employer may adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year if:

• the employer did not qualify to switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule on the first day on which the commuting valuation rule was not used because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the commuting valuation rule was first not used; and
• the fair market value of the vehicle does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

An employer that adopts the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule must continue to use the rule for all subsequent years in which the vehicle qualifies for use of the rule. However, the employer may use the commuting valuation rule for the vehicle for any year during which use of the vehicle qualifies for the commuting valuation rule.

The IRS has provided guidance on qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is a refundable tax credit that is intended to be a financial boost for families with low to moderate incomes.

The IRS has provided guidance on qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC is a refundable tax credit that is intended to be a financial boost for families with low to moderate incomes.

Due to changes in marital, parental or financial status, millions of workers may qualify for EITC for the first time this year. The IRS urges individuals who (1) work for someone else or have their own businesses or farm, and (2) earned $55,952 or less in 2019, to see if they qualify by using the "EITC Assistant" on the IRS’s website ( https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/use-the-eitc-assistant).

Taxpayers must file a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and attach a completed Schedule EIC, Earned Income Credit Qualifying Child Information, to the tax return for a qualifying child, in order to claim EITC. A taxpayer must have a valid Social Security number for themselves, their spouses if they are filing a joint return, and each qualifying child before they file their return.

The IRS expects most EITC-related refunds to be available in taxpayers’ bank accounts or on debit cards by the first week of March, if they choose direct deposit and there are no other issues with their tax return.

Eligibility for EITC
In order to qualify, the worker must have earned income an adjusted gross income with certain limits and meet certain basic rules. The worker also must meet the rules for those without a qualifying child, or must have a child who meets all the qualifying child rules. Only one person can use a particular child to claim the EITC, if that child meets the rules to be a qualifying child for more than one person. Under a special rule, those who receive combat pay may choose to count it as taxable income for the purposes of EITC; this may or may not increase the amount of EITC.

Credit Limits for 2019
For tax year 2019, those who qualify for EITC can get a credit up to:

• $529 with no qualifying children,
• $3,526 with one qualifying child,
• $5,828 with two qualifying children, and
• $6,557 with three or more qualifying children.

Free Tax Help
Since EITC is complex and many special rules apply, the IRS encourages workers to do their taxes using the IRS Free File program, by choosing a trusted tax professional, or at a local free tax preparation site. The IRS also reminds taxpayers that they are always be responsible for the accuracy of their own tax return, even if someone else may have prepared it, because filing a tax return with an error on the EITC claim could have lasting impacts.

The IRS has proposed regulations with guidance for employers on withholding federal income tax from employee’s wages.

The IRS has proposed regulations with guidance for employers on withholding federal income tax from employee’s wages. The proposed regulations:

• implement recent changes made to Code Secs. 3401 and 3402 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• reflect the redesigned 2020 Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Certificate, and the related wage withholding tables and computational procedures published in IRS Pub. 15-T, Federal Income Tax Withholding Methods.

TCJA Changes
The TCJA made many Code amendments affecting income tax withholding on wages. Among other things, the TCJA:

• repealed the rule that, for purposes collecting income tax at source on wages, the "number of withholding exemptions claimed" meant the number of withholding exemptions claimed in a withholding exemption certificate in effect, except that if no such certificate was in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed was considered zero;
• permanently modified the wage withholding rules and replaced "withholding exemptions" with a "withholding allowance" prorated to the payroll period, to reflect the reductions in the personal exemption amount to zero due to the temporarily repeal of the personal and dependency exemption deduction for tax years 2018–2025;
• changed the list of factors on which the withholding allowance is based, and entitled an employee to take into account the number of individuals for which the employee expects to take an income tax credit for other dependents, instead of the number of individuals for whom the employee reasonably expects to claim an personal and dependency exemption deduction;
• changed an employee’s entitlement to take into account the standard deduction from an amount generally equal to one withholding exemption to the standard deduction allowable to the employee (one-half of the standard deduction for a married employee whose spouse is an employee receiving wages subject to withholding);
• added a provision that the employee’s withholding allowance also takes into account whether the employee has withholding allowance certificates in effect for more than one employer;
• added the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income deduction to the list of deductions that an employee may take into account in determining the additional withholding allowance that the employee is entitled to claim on Form W-4;
• struck references to payments made under certain divorce or separation instruments; and
• changed the rules for withholding from periodic payments under Code Sec. 3405(a) when no withholding allowance certificate has been furnished.

IRS Guidance
After the TCJA was enacted, the IRS issued guidance for 2018 and 2019 to implement the changes (e.g., 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 also released a draft 2019 Form W-4 and instructions, which made significant changes intended to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and to make the withholding system more transparent for employees. In response to comments received, Treasury and the IRS postponed implementing the redesigned form until 2020. The final redesigned 2020 Form W-4 was released on December 4, 2019, and was then rereleased on December 31, 2019, to reflect the amendment to the medical expense deduction threshold for 2020 made by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94).

In 2019, the IRS also released drafts of IRS Pub. 15-T, which provided percentage method tables, wage bracket withholding tables, and other computational procedures for employers to use to compute withholding for the 2020 calendar year. IRS Pub. 15-T was finalized and released on December 24, 2019. Withholding tables previously published in IRS Pub. 15, (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, IRS Pub. 15-A, Employer’s Supplemental Tax Guide, and IRS Pub. 51, Agricultural Employer’s Tax Guide, are now published in IRS Pub. 15-T. The IRS also discontinued publishing several other withholding tables in 2020.

Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations incorporate the TCJA changes to Code Secs. 3401 and 3402, and provide flexible and administrable rules for wage withholding that work with both the 2020 Form W-4 and the related tables and computational procedures described in IRS Pub. 15-T, as well as Forms W-4 and related tables and computational procedures provided in 2019 and earlier years. The proposed regulations are generally compatible with the income tax withholding system in effect for 2019, as well as the system in effect for 2020, and may be relied on by employers for withholding until final regulations are published.

W-4 Issues
An employee is not required to furnish a new Form W-4 solely because of the form’s redesign, regardless of when the employee’s Form W-4 currently in effect was furnished. Similarly, an employer must generally continue to compute the amount of tax to be withheld from an employee’s wages based on a valid Form W-4 furnished by the employee regardless of when the employee furnished the Form W-4.

The 2020 IRS Pub. 15-T provides guidance on how employers will withhold income tax using Forms W-4 furnished and in effect on or before December 31, 2019. An employer can ask all employees who were first paid wages before 2020 to furnish a 2020 Form W-4, but if it does, the employer should explain that:

• employees are not required to furnish a new Form W-4; and
• if the employee does not furnish a 2020 Form W-4, the tax to be withheld from the employee’s wages will continue to be based on the last valid Form W-4 previously furnished.

Similar to the current regulations, the proposed regulations generally provide that Forms W-4 that took effect under prior law generally remain in effect until another Form W-4 is furnished. There are special rules regarding when a Form W-4 furnished by an employee subject to a "lock-in letter" stops being effective.

Periodic Payments
The proposed regulations do not address withholding under Code Sec. 3405(a) on periodic payments from pensions, annuities, or certain other deferred income. Instead, Notice 2020-3 describes the withholding rules for the 2020 calendar year.

Proposed Applicability Date
The proposed regulations are generally proposed to apply on the date that a Treasury Decision adopting them as final regulations is published in the Federal Register. Taxpayers may rely on the rules set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking until that date. However, Proposed Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g) is proposed to apply on February 13, 2020 (i.e., the date the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register), Proposed Reg. §31.3402(f)(5)-1(a)(3) is proposed to apply on March 16, 2020 (i.e., 30 days after the date the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register), and a proposed removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b) relating to the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables is proposed to apply on and after January 1, 2020. Except for the removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), taxpayers may choose to apply the rules on or after January 1, 2020.

Comments and Requests for Hearing
Before the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, the IRS will consider any electronic and written comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of its date, time, and place will be published in the Federal Register.

Electronic submissions are made via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-132741-17) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Treasury Department and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to their public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy. Send hard copy submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132741-17), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

All comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 13, 2020.

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.