Newsletters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IRS and the Employee Benefits Security Administration are extending certain timeframes during the Outbreak Period for group health plans, disability and other welfare plans, pension plans, and participants and beneficiaries of these plans during the COVID-19 National Emergency. The beginning of the Outbreak Period is March 1, 2020. The end date is yet to be determined.

The IRS and the Employee Benefits Security Administration are extending certain timeframes during the Outbreak Period for group health plans, disability and other welfare plans, pension plans, and participants and beneficiaries of these plans during the COVID-19 National Emergency. The beginning of the Outbreak Period is March 1, 2020. The end date is yet to be determined.

Outbreak Period
Under the relief, all group health plans, disability and other employee welfare benefit plans, and employee pension benefit plans subject to ERISA or the IRC must disregard the period from March 1, 2020, until sixty days after the announced end of the National Emergency.

Affected Deadlines for Plan Participants
The following periods and dates for all plan participants, beneficiaries, qualified beneficiaries, or claimants:

• The 30-day period (or 60-day period, if applicable) to request special enrollment into any group plan under Code Sec. 9801(f) and ERISA Sec. 701(f);
• The 60-day election period for COBRA continuation coverage under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(5) and ERISA Sec. 605;
• The date for making COBRA premium payments under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) and (C), and ERISA Sec. 602(2)(C) and (3);
• The date for individuals to notify the plan of a qualifying event or determination of disability under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(6)(C) and ERISA Sec. 606(a)(3);
• The date within which claimants may file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination pursuant to 26 Reg. §54.9815–2719(d)(2)(i) and 29 CFR 2590.715–2719(d)(2)(i), and
• The date within which individuals may file a benefit claim under the plan’s claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503–1, and the date within which claimants may file an appeal of an adverse benefit determination under the plan’s claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503–1(h).

Affected Dates for Group Health Plans
With respect to group health plans, and their sponsors and administrators, the Outbreak Period shall be disregarded when determining the date for providing a COBRA election notice under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(6)(D) and ERISA section 606(c).

Due to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19), the IRS has provided increased flexibility with respect to:

• 2020 mid-year elections under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan related to employer-sponsored health coverage, health Flexible Spending Arrangements (health FSAs), and dependent care assistance programs; and
• grace periods to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

Due to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19), the IRS has provided increased flexibility with respect to:

• 2020 mid-year elections under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan related to employer-sponsored health coverage, health Flexible Spending Arrangements (health FSAs), and dependent care assistance programs; and
• grace periods to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

This relief is retroactive to January 1, 2020.

An employer that decides to amend one or more of its Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plans to provide for mid-year election changes for employer-sponsored health coverage, health FSAs, or dependent care assistance programs, or to provide for an extended period to apply unused amounts remaining in a health FSA or a dependent care assistance program to pay or reimburse medical care expenses or dependent care expenses in a manner consistent with this relief, must adopt a plan amendment on or before December 31, 2021, which may be effective retroactively to January 1, 2020.

Cafeteria Plan Elections
Qualified benefits provided under a cafeteria plan include employer-provided accident and health plans excludable under Code Secs. 105(b) and 106, health FSAs excludable under Code Secs. 105(b) and 106, and dependent care assistance programs excludable under Code Sec. 129. Elections regarding these benefits are generally irrevocable, and must be made prior to the first day of the plan year. However, a cafeteria plan may permit an employee to revoke an election during a period of coverage and make a new election under certain circumstances, such as if the employee experiences a change in status or there are significant changes in the cost of coverage.

During 2020, a cafeteria plan may also permit eligible employees to:

• with respect to employer-sponsored health coverage: (a) make a new election on a prospective basis, if the employee initially declined to elect employer-sponsored health coverage; (b) revoke an existing election and make a new election to enroll in different health coverage sponsored by the same employer on a prospective basis; and (c) revoke an existing election on a prospective basis, provided that the employee attests in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other health coverage not sponsored by the employer;
• revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election applicable to a health FSA on a prospective basis; and
• revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election regarding a dependent care assistance program on a prospective basis.

To accept an employee’s revocation of an existing election for employer-sponsored health coverage, the employer must receive from the employee an attestation in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other comprehensive health coverage not sponsored by the employer. The employer may rely on the written attestation provided by the employee, unless the employer has actual knowledge that the employee is not, or will not be, enrolled in other comprehensive health coverage not sponsored by the employer.

This relief may be applied retroactively to periods on or after January 1, 2020.

Health FSAs, Dependent Care Assistance
A cafeteria plan may permit the carryover of unused amounts remaining in a health FSA at the end of a plan year, subject to the carryover limit (currently $550). Additionally, cafeteria plan may permit a grace period to apply unused amounts (including amounts remaining in a health FSA or dependent care assistance program) at the end of a plan year to pay expenses incurred for those same qualified benefits during the period of up to two months and 15 days immediately following the end of the plan year. For a health FSA, a cafeteria plan may adopt a carryover or a grace period (or neither), but may not adopt both.

For unused amounts remaining in a health FSA or a dependent care assistance program at the end of a grace period or plan year ending in 2020, a cafeteria plan may permit employees to apply those unused amounts to pay or reimburse medical care expenses or dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020. For example, if an employer sponsors cafeteria plan with a health FSA that has a calendar year plan year and provides for a grace period ending on March 15 immediately following the end of each plan year, the employer may amend the plan to permit employees to apply unused amounts remaining in an employee’s health FSA as of March 15, 2020, to reimburse the employee for medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

This relief may be applied on or after January 1, 2020 and on or before December 31, 2020.

Impact of Health FSA Reimbursements
Code Sec. 223 permits eligible individuals to establish and contribute to health savings accounts (HSAs). With respect to any month, an eligible individual is any individual who:

• is covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) as of the first day of such month; and
• is not, while covered under an HDHP, covered under any health plan (a) which is not an HDHP, and (b) which provides coverage for any benefit which is covered under the HDHP.

An HDHP is a health plan that satisfies the minimum annual deductible requirement and maximum out-of-pocket expenses requirement under Code Sec. 223(c)(2)(A).

Coverage by a general purpose health FSA is coverage by a health plan that disqualifies an otherwise eligible individual from contributing to an HSA. Similarly, a telemedicine arrangement would generally disqualify an otherwise eligible individual from contributing to an HSA.

The government has previously provided relief for these issues. Notice 2020-15, I.R.B. 2020-14, 559, provides that a health plan that otherwise satisfies the requirements to be an HDHP will not fail to be an HDHP merely because the health plan provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19. Likewise, Section 3701 of the CARES Act amends Code Sec. 223(c) to provide a temporary safe harbor for providing coverage for telehealth and other remote care services.

The new relief clarifies that Notice 2020-15 may be applied retroactively to January 1, 2020. For example, an otherwise eligible individual with coverage under an HDHP who also received coverage beginning February 15, 2020, for telehealth and other remote care services under an arrangement that is not an HDHP will not be disqualified from contributing to an HSA during 2020.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that address changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations provide operational and definitional guidance on the deductibility of fines and penalties paid to governmental entities.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that address changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations provide operational and definitional guidance on the deductibility of fines and penalties paid to governmental entities.

TCJA Changes
Under amended Code Sec. 162(f), businesses may not deduct fines and penalties that are paid or incurred after December 21, 2017, due to the violation of a law or the investigation of a violation of law, if a government or similar entity is a complainant or investigator. Exceptions are available in certain cases where the payment was made for restitution, remediation, taxes due, or to come into compliance with a law.

In order for the exceptions to apply, the taxpayer must identify the payment as restitution or compliance in a court order or settlement agreement. In addition, Code Sec. 6050X requires that the officer or employee that has control over the suit or agreement, or the individual designated by the government or entity, must file a return with the IRS.

Establishing Restitution or Remediation
Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer can establish that a payment was made for restitution or remediation by providing documentary evidence showing:

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

The proposed regulations provide a list of documents that taxpayers can use to satisfy the establishment requirement. The regulations also clarify that reporting of the amount by a government or governmental entity under Code Sec. 6050X alone does not satisfy the establishment requirement.

Identification Requirement
According to Code Sec. 162(f)(2)(A), an order or agreement must identify the amount paid or incurred as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law. The proposed regulations state that an order or agreement should identify a payment by stating both (1) the nature of, or purpose for, each payment, and (2) the amount of each payment identified. Reporting of the amount by a government or governmental entity under Code Sec. 6050X does not satisfy the identification requirement.

Taxes and Interest
Under Code Sec. 162(f)(4), taxpayers may still deduct any taxes due, including any related interest on the taxes. However, the proposed regulations clarify that taxpayers may not deduct interest related to penalties.

Reporting Requirements
The proposed regulations provide appropriate officials with operational, administrative, and definitional rules for complying with statutory information reporting requirements with respect to Code Sec. 162(f). If the aggregate amount a payor is required to pay equals or exceeds the threshold amount under Proposed Reg. §1.6050X-1(g)(5), the appropriate official must file an information return with the IRS with respect to the amounts or incurred paid and any additional information required.

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

The proposed regulations also require that the appropriate official furnish a written statement to each payor with respect to which it is required to file an information return. The written statement must include the information that was reported on the information return, and a legend that identifies the statement as important tax information that is being furnished to the IRS. They can satisfy this requirement by providing a copy of Form 1098-F to the payor.

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

If there is a material change to the agreement, the proposed regulations require the appropriate official to update the IRS by filing a corrected Form 1098-F on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year. The proposed rules also require the appropriate official to furnish an amended written statement to the payor.

Definitions
The proposed regulations also define key terms and phrases for purposes of Code Sec. 162(f) and Code Sec. 6050X. These include "government," "governmental entity," "nongovernmental entity treated as a governmental entity," "restitution," "remediation of property," "amounts paid to come into compliance with a law," "appropriate official," "payor," and "threshold amount."

Effective Date
Proposed Reg. §1.162-21 is proposed to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations, but those rules do not apply to amounts paid or incurred under any order or agreement which became binding under applicable law before such date. Prior to the effective date, taxpayers may rely on Proposed Reg. §1.162-21, but only if they apply the rules in their entirety and in a consistent manner.

Proposed Reg. §1.6050X-1 is proposed to apply to orders and agreements that become binding under applicable law on or after January 1, 2022.

Comments
Taxpayers may submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for submitting comments and indicating IRS and REG-104591-18. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. Hard copy submissions must be addressed to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104591-18), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered only to the extent practicable.

A partnership was denied a charitable contribution deduction because it had entered in an conservation easement that violated the perpetuity requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) and its regulations. The Tax Court held that if there is a judicial extinguishment of an easement the donee receives a proportionate value of any proceeds.

A partnership was denied a charitable contribution deduction because it had entered in an conservation easement that violated the perpetuity requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) and its regulations. The Tax Court held that if there is a judicial extinguishment of an easement the donee receives a proportionate value of any proceeds.

Easement Deed
The taxpayer had donated a conservation easement to a land trust and claimed a charitable contribution deduction. The easement deed provided that if the conservation restriction were extinguished at some future date, the donee would receive a share of the proceeds equal to the fair market value (FMV) of the easement on the date the contribution was made. The deed further provided that the donee’s share as thus determined would be reduced by the value of any improvements made by the donor after granting the easement.

The taxpayer argued that Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6) does not say that the donee is entitled to a proportionate "share" of any proceeds upon extinguishment of the easement but proportionate "value." It argued this means fixed value, and because the regulation requires that the value be fixed as of the donation date, the donee was not entitled to any proceeds attributable to the value of post-donation improvements.

Windfall for Donees?
The IRS disallowed the deduction, contending that the extinguishment clause violated the requirements of Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court concurred with the IRS’s reasoning and held that the easement deed violated the "protected in perpetuity" requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5), as interpreted in Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6).

The court held that the donee’s share of the "proportionate value" as used in the regulation means a fraction of the proceeds from a judicial extinguishment, and not a fixed value.

The taxpayer argued that it was unfair for a donee to receive extinguishment proceeds attributable to the value of improvements made solely by the donor, because it would amount to an unintended charitable contribution for which it received no deduction. However, the Tax Court found that the purpose of the regulation is to avoid any windfalls to donors, not donees, if an easement was extinguished. The easement deed violated the regulation because the donee must be entitled to any proceeds from extinguishment or condemnation that were at least equal to the total proceeds multiplied by a fraction defined by the ratio of the FMV of the easement to the FMV of the unencumbered property determined as of the date of the easement deed.

The taxpayer was not liable for accuracy-related penalties, because it acted reasonably and in good faith. The partner was unfamiliar with the nuances of setting up a conservation easement and had relied on private letter rulings.

Regulation Valid
The taxpayer challenged the validity of Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6), which the Tax Court addressed in a concurrent opinion. The taxpayer contended the "proportionate value" approach to division of proceeds from a judicial extinguishment of the easement does not take into account the possibility of donor improvements. The Tax Court held that the regulation was properly promulgated, as it substantially revised the text regarding the proportionate value in response to comments and had only received one comment on the possibility of improvements. The court therefore found that the regulation was valid under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 553.

The Tax Court further relied on the two-part test given in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and held that the construction of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) as set forth in Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6) was valid. The Treasury exercised reasoned judgment by adhering to a simple rule that split sale proceeds in a direct proportional manner on the basis of a fraction determined as of the date the gift was made. Because the regulation as drafted ensures satisfaction of the statutory mandate that the conservation purpose be "protected in perpetuity," the regulation was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the Code.

The IRS has released proposed regulations clarifying that the following deductions allowed to an estate or non-grantor trust are not miscellaneous itemized deductions:

The IRS has released proposed regulations clarifying that the following deductions allowed to an estate or non-grantor trust are not miscellaneous itemized deductions:

• costs paid or incurred in connection with the administration of an estate or non-grantor trust that would not have been incurred if the property were not held in the estate or trust;
• the personal exemption of an estate or non-grantor trust;
• the distribution deduction for trusts distributing current income; and
• the distribution deduction for estates and trusts accumulating income.

These deductions are not affected by the suspension of the deductibility of miscellaneous itemized deductions for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026. The proposed regulations also provide guidance on determining the character, amount, and allocation of deductions in excess of gross income succeeded to by a beneficiary on the termination of an estate or non-grantor trust. Specifically, the proposed regulations clarify that the character of the deductions does not change when succeeded to by a beneficiary on termination of the estate or trust, and require the fiduciary to separately identify deductions that may be limited when claimed by the beneficiary. The proposed regulations affect estates, non-grantor trusts (including the S portion of an electing small business trust), and their beneficiaries.

Section 67(g)
Code Sec. 67(g), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA), prohibits individual taxpayers from claiming miscellaneous itemized deductions for any tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026. The Treasury Department and the IRS had issued Notice 2018-61, 2018-31 I.R.B. 278, announcing that proposed regulations would address the effect of Code Sec. 67(g) on the deductibility of certain expenses described in Code Sec. 67(b) and (e) incurred by estates and non-grantor trusts. The notice states that regulations would clarify that expenses described in Code Sec. 67(e) remain deductible in determining the adjusted gross income of an estate or non-grantor trust during the tax years in which Code Sec. 67(g) applies.

Notice 2018-61 requested comments regarding the effect of Code Sec. 67(g) on the ability of the beneficiary to deduct amounts comprising the Code Sec. 642(h)(2) excess deduction on the termination of an estate or trust considering Code Sec. 642(h) and Reg. §1.642(h)-2(a), and expressed the intent to address this issue in regulations. The Treasury Department and IRS also requested comments on whether the separate deductions comprising the Code Sec. 642(h)(2) excess deduction (such as Code Sec. 67(e) deductions) should be analyzed separately when applying Code Sec. 67.

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.