The IRS and the Treasury intend to provide regulations that will address issues affecting foreign corporations with previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP). The regulations are in response to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97)

The IRS and the Treasury intend to provide regulations that will address issues affecting foreign corporations with previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP). The regulations are in response to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), and are intended to include rules for:

• the maintenance of PTEP in annual accounts and within certain groups;
• the ordering of PTEP upon distribution and reclassification; and
• the adjustment required when an income inclusion exceeds a foreign corporation's earnings and profits.

The IRS and Treasury intend to withdraw 2006 proposed regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of PTEP and associated basis adjustments ( NPRM REG-121509-00), and issue new proposed regulations under Code Sec. 959 and Code Sec. 961.

Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
Previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) are a foreign corporation's earnings and profits attributable to amounts which are or have been included in a U.S. shareholder's gross income under Code Sec. 951(a) or under Code Sec. 1248(a). Under the subpart F rules, a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is generally currently taxed on certain income earned by the CFC, and on certain earnings invested in U.S. property.

To prevent double taxation, Code Sec. 959 provides that earnings and profits of the foreign corporation that are attributable to the inclusion are excluded from gross income when actually distributed. An exclusion is also allowed when earnings and profits are attributable to amounts included in the U.S. shareholder’s gross income that would otherwise again be included in gross income under the rule for investment of earnings in U.S. property.

To determine the amount of an actual distribution that is not taxable because it represents previously taxed income upon an actual distribution by the CFC, the earnings distributed are treated as attributable in the following order:

• first, to retained earnings that were required in prior years to be included in income on account of investments in excess passive assets, together with the earnings in prior years that were required to be included in income on account of investments in U.S. property under Code Sec. 956, allocated to each category on a pro rata basis ( "section 959(c)(1) PTEP");
• next, to retained earnings that were required to be included in income as subpart F income ( "section 959(c)(2) PTEP"); and
• finally, to other earnings and profits ( "section 959(c)(3) E&P").

Changes made by the TCJA created the need to account for new groups of PTEP, because section 959(c)(2) PTEP may arise due to income inclusions under Code Secs. 951(a)(1)(A), 245A(e)(2), 951A(f)(1), 959(e), 964(e)(4), or 965(a), or by applying Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A). Those different groups of PTEP may be subject to different rules under Code Secs. 960, 965(g), 245A(e)(3), and 986(c).

In addition, Proposed Reg. § 1.960-3(c) establishes, for purposes of determining the amount of foreign income taxes deemed paid, a system of accounting for PTEP in annual accounts for each separate category of income ( "section 904 category") and further segregate each annual account among 10 PTEP groups.

Annual Accounts and Groups of Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that an annual account must be maintained and each annual PTEP account must be segregated into 16 PTEP groups in each section 904 category:

• reclassified section 965(a) PTEP;
• reclassified section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951(a)(1)(B) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951A PTEP;
• reclassified section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• reclassified section 959(e) PTEP;
• reclassified section 964(e)(4) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP;
• section 956A PTEP;
• section 965(a) PTEP;
• section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951A PTEP;
• section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• section 959(e) PTEP;
• section 964(e) PTEP; and
• section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP.

Section 959(c)(1) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (1) through (9), and section 959(c)(2) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (10) through (16). Once PTEP is assigned to a PTEP group within an annual PTEP account for the year of the income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1) or the year of application of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A), the PTEP will be maintained in an annual PTEP account with a year that corresponds to the year of the account from which the PTEP originated if PTEP is distributed or reclassified in a subsequent tax year.

Additionally, the new regulations are expected to provide that:

• to the extent a CFC has E&P in a PTEP group that is in more than one section 904 category, any distribution out of that PTEP group is made pro rata out of the earnings and profits in each such category;
• dollar basis must be tracked for each annual PTEP account, and, to the extent provided in the regulations, separately for each PTEP group within an annual account; and
• distributions from any PTEP group reduce the shareholder’s stock basis under Code Sec. 961(b)(1) without regard to how that basis was originally created.

The regulations also will provide transition rules for annual PTEP accounts maintained before the regulations’ applicability date.

Ordering of Earnings and Profits upon Distribution and Reclassification
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• a distribution will be a distribution of PTEP only to the extent it would have otherwise been a dividend under Code Sec. 316;
• a "last in, first out" approach will be required for sourcing distributions from annual PTEP accounts, subject to the special priority rule for PTEP arising due to Code Sec. 965;
• PTEP attributable to income inclusions under Code Sec. 965(a) or by reason of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) receive priority when determining the group of PTEP from which a distribution is made; and
• reclassifications of PTEP under Code Sec. 959(a)(2) will be sourced first from section 965(a) PTEP, then section 965(b) PTEP, and then, under a last-in, first-out approach, pro rata from the remaining section 959(c)(2) PTEP groups in each annual PTEP account, starting from the most recent annual PTEP account.

Adjustments Due to an Income Inclusion in Excess of Current Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• current E&P are first classified as section 959(c)(3) E&P, and then section 959(c)(3) E&P are reclassified as section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP, as appropriate, in full, which may result in creating or increasing a deficit in section 959(c)(3) E&P; and
• if a foreign corporation has a current-year deficit in E&P, that deficit will solely reduce the foreign corporation’s section 959(c)(3) E&P without affecting the amount of its section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP.

Application
The new regulations are expected to apply to tax years of U.S. shareholders and successors in interest ending after December 14, 2018, and to tax years of foreign corporations ending with or within the U.S. shareholders’ tax years. Before the regulations are issued, a shareholder can rely on the rules provided in the announcement notice if the shareholder and each related shareholder apply the rules consistently regarding the PTEP of all foreign corporations in which they own stock for all tax years beginning with the shareholder’s or related shareholder’s tax year that includes the tax year end of any such foreign corporation to which Code Sec. 965 applies.

The IRS has proposed regulations on the limitation on the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The IRS also has issued a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as real property trades or businesses solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B).

The IRS has proposed regulations on the limitation on the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The IRS also has issued a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as real property trades or businesses solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B).

Business Interest Limitation
For tax years beginning after 2017, the deduction of interest paid or incurred on debt properly allocable to a trade or business is limited to the sum of:

30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (but not less than zero);

the taxpayer’s business interest income (not including investment income); and

the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The proposed regulations provide general rules and definitions related to the limitation, as well as rules for calculating the limitation in consolidated group, partnership, and international contexts. The regulations affect taxpayers that have deductible business interest expense, other than certain small businesses, electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain utility businesses. The IRS is also withdrawing a prior notice of proposed rulemaking on the disallowance of a deduction for certain interest paid or accrued by a corporation under former Code Sec. 163(j).

The proposed regulations will generally be effective for tax years ending after the date the Treasury Decision adopting them as final is published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers can apply certain provisions to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, so long as the rules are consistently applied.

Safe Harbor
Further, in Rev. Proc. 2018-59, a safe harbor is provided allowing taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as electing real property trades or businesses not subject to the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest deduction limit. These include trades or businesses that are conducted in connection with the designing, building, managing, operating, or maintaining of certain core infrastructure projects for purposes of private activity bond financing proposals. If a taxpayer makes this election, the taxpayer must use the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to depreciate property. Taxpayers may apply the safe harbor to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Comments Requested
Public comments to the proposed regulations should be submitted no later than 60 days after the date that the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-106089-18).

A public hearing has been scheduled for February 25, 2019. It will be held on February 25, 2019, beginning at 10 a.m., in the Main IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.

A nonprofit corporation that operated a medical-marijuana dispensary legally under California law was not allowed to claim deductions for business expenses on its federal return. Code Sec. 280E, which prevents any trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances from deducting any business expenses, applied.

A nonprofit corporation that operated a medical-marijuana dispensary legally under California law was not allowed to claim deductions for business expenses on its federal return. Code Sec. 280E, which prevents any trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances from deducting any business expenses, applied.

Meaning of "Consists of"
The corporation argued that a business does not "consist of" drug trafficking within the meaning of Code Sec. 280E unless its activities relate exclusively with drug trafficking (i.e., selling marijuana). Since its dispensary offered services and goods to its clients other than the sale of medical marijuana, the corporation claimed that Code Sec. 280E does not apply to any of its activities.

The court rejected this argument, noting that it had previously considered and rejected the same argument in an earlier case involving a different taxpayer ( M. Olive, Dec. 59,146, aff’d, CA-9, 2015-2 ustc ¶50,377). Although the phrase "consists of" in common usage refers to an exhaustive or exclusive list, the court noted that the corporation’s interpretation would render Code Sec. 280E ineffective. For example, a drug dealer selling a single item that was not a controlled substance would not be covered by the provision. The court found that various dictionary definitions, certain usage in other Code Sections, and case law that considered the meaning of the phrase did not require an interpretation based on exclusiveness.

Non-Trafficking Trades or Businesses
Although Code Sec. 280E applied to deductions related to the corporation’s marijuana sales, the court had previously ruled that it does not apply to any separate, non-trafficking trades or businesses ( Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. (CHAMP), Dec. 56,935). The court considered whether any of the corporation’s non-trafficking activities were separate trades or businesses. According to the corporation, non-trafficking activities consisted of sales of products with no marijuana, therapeutic services, and brand development.

The court concluded that the sale of products other marijuana than at the corporation’s dispensaries was too closely linked to the sale of the marijuana itself to constitute a separate trade or business. The products generally related to the promotion or use of marijuana and were sold by the same staff that sold the marijuana. Similarly, free "holistic" services that were paid for with approximately one percent of the proceeds from its marijuana sales were not a separate trade or business. Finally, the corporation’s brand development activity was entirely entwined with the marijuana business and could not be treated as a separate enterprise.

Cost of Goods Sold
Although the corporation was not entitled to any business deductions, it was liable for tax only on its gross receipts as reduced by cost of goods sold. For purposes of determining cost of goods sold, the court determined that the corporation could not apply Code Sec. 263A to include indirect expenses. Code Sec. 263A(a)(2) specifically prohibits the capitalization of otherwise nondeductible costs, such as drug trafficking expenses. Therefore, only direct expenses (and a few specified indirect expenses) required to be included in cost of goods sold under the general rules of Code Sec. 471 could be taken into account. For purposes of applying Code Sec. 471, the corporation was considered a reseller rather a producer because it had no ownership in the plants from which the marijuana it sold was produced.

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

• business,
• medical, and
• charitable purposes.

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2019 Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rates for 2019 are:

• 58 cents per mile for business uses;
• 20 cents per mile for medical uses; and
• 14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2019
For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2018 is:

• $50,400 for passenger automobiles, and
• $50,400 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2019 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses
The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

• a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
• on active military duty, and
• moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses
For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

• members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
• state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
• performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2018-3, I.R.B. 2018-2, 285, as modified by Notice 2018-42, I.R.B. 2018-24, 750, is superseded.

The IRS has provided guidance and examples for calculating the nondeductible portion of parking expenses. In addition, the IRS has provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations to help such organizations determine how unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) will be increased by the nondeductible amount of such fringe benefit expenses paid or incurred.

The IRS has provided guidance and examples for calculating the nondeductible portion of parking expenses. In addition, the IRS has provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations to help such organizations determine how unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) will be increased by the nondeductible amount of such fringe benefit expenses paid or incurred.

The IRS also has provided transitional estimated tax penalty relief to tax-exempt organizations that offer qualified transportation fringe benefit expenses and were not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, last filing season.

Parking Fringe Expenses
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) added Code Sec. 274(a)(4) to preclude employers from deducting Code Sec. 132(f) qualified transportation fringe benefits expenses paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include van pools, transit passes, bicycle commuting, and qualified parking.

There are two types of calculations. The first is for cases where the employer pays a third party for the use of its parking lot for the employer’s employees. The second is for cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot.

Employer contracts with third party. When an employer contracts with a third party for the use of the parking lot, the disallowance under Code Sec. 274(a)(4) is generally the amount that the employer pays to the third party. However, if that monthly amount exceeds $260 an employee, the employer must treat the excess as additional compensation. Thus, the monthly amount in excess of $260 is excluded from the disallowance amount.

For example, if Employer A pays $300 per month for each of the employer’s ten employees to park, $31,200 (($260 x 10) x 12) is disallowed under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). The remaining $4,800 (($40 x 10) x 12) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) and remains deductible.

Employer owns or leases the parking lot. According to the IRS, until it issues further guidance, employers may use any reasonable method to calculate the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance in cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot. The IRS has provided a four-step reasonable method:

• Calculate the disallowance for reserved employee spots.
• Determine the primary use of the remaining spots (for the general public (over 50 percent) or for employees).
• Calculate the allowance for reserved nonemployee spots.
• Determine the remaining use and allocable expenses.

For example, an Employer E, owns a surface parking lot adjacent to its plant. E incurs $10,000 of total parking expenses. E’s parking lot has 500 spots that are used by its visitors and employees. E has 50 spots reserved for management and has approximately 400 employees parking in the lot in non-reserved spots during normal business hours on a typical business day. Additionally, E has 10 reserved nonemployee spots for visitors.

Step 1. Because E has 50 reserved spots for management, $1,000 ((50/500) x $10,000) is the amount of total parking expenses that is nondeductible for reserved employee spots.

Step 2. The primary use of the remainder of E’s parking lot is not to provide parking to the general public because 89% (400/450 = 89 percent) of the remaining parking spots in the lot are used by its employees. Therefore, expenses allocable to these spots are not excluded from the Code Sec. 274(a)(4)

Step 3. Because 2 percent (10/450) of E’s remaining parking lot spots are reserved nonemployee spots, the $200 allocable to those spots ($10,000 x 2 percent)) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance. That amount continues to be deductible.

Step 4. E must reasonably determine the employee use of the remaining parking spots during normal business hours on a typical business day and the expenses allocable to employee parking spots.

Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Increase Unrelated Business Taxable Income
TCJA added Code Sec. 512(a)(7), which requires exempt organizations to increase UBTI by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under Code Sec. 274 and which is paid or incurred after December 31, 2017, for any qualified transportation fringes and any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking.

The rules governing tax-exempt organizations mirror the rules for employers under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). Therefore, the expenses for a parking facility used in connection with qualified parking are treated as nondeductible qualified fringe benefit expenses. Thus, a tax-exempt organization must increase its UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) by the disallowed amount. In addition, until the IRS releases further guidance, a tax-exempt organization with only one unrelated trade or business can reduce the increase to UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) to the extent that the deductions directly connected with the carrying on of that unrelated trade or business exceed the gross income derived from such unrelated trade or business.

Estimated Tax Penalty Relief
An exempt organization may be subject to the unrelated business income tax under Code Sec. 511 at corporate rates. The organization reports its unrelated business income on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, if its gross income from unrelated business is $1,000 or more. Further, the organization must make quarterly estimated tax installment payments under Code Sec. 6655 if its estimated tax is expected to be $500 or more.

Code Sec. 6655 imposes an addition to tax for failure to make a sufficient and timely estimated income tax payment. To avoid the underpayment penalty, each installment generally must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the current year's tax return or of the actual tax if no return is filed (current-year safe harbor); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months (preceding-year safe harbor).

The IRS has recognized that Code Sec. 512(a)(7) may cause some exempt organizations to owe unrelated business income tax and have to pay estimated income tax for the first time. These organizations would not be able to use the preceding-year safe harbor, and may need more time to develop knowledge and processes to comply with estimated tax payment requirements.

In light of this, the IRS is waiving the addition to tax for failure to make estimated income tax payments for an exempt organization that:

• provides qualified transportation fringes to an employee for which estimated income tax payments, affected by changes made by TCJA to Code Sec. 274 and Code Sec. 512, would otherwise be required to be made on or before December 17, 2018;
• was not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for the tax year preceding the organization’s first tax year ending after December 31, 2017; and
• timely pays the amount reported for the tax year for which relief is granted.

Taxpayers that do not qualify for this relief can avoid an addition to tax for underpayment of estimated income tax if they meet one of the statutory safe harbor or exception provisions under Code Sec. 6654 or Code Sec. 6655.

To claim the waiver, the exempt organization must write "Notice 2018-100" on the top of its Form 990-T.

The IRS has released initial guidance on the new Code Sec. 83(i), added by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Code Sec. 83 generally provides for the federal income tax treatment of property transferred in connection with the performance of services. Code Sec. 83(i) allows certain employees to elect to defer recognition of income attributable to the receipt or vesting of qualified stock for up to five years.

The IRS has released initial guidance on the new Code Sec. 83(i), added by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Code Sec. 83 generally provides for the federal income tax treatment of property transferred in connection with the performance of services. Code Sec. 83(i) allows certain employees to elect to defer recognition of income attributable to the receipt or vesting of qualified stock for up to five years.

The guidance clarifies three key issues related to Code Sec. 83(i):

• the application of the requirement that eligible corporations must make grants to not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States;
• the application of federal income tax withholding to the deferred income related to the qualified stock; and
• the ability of an employer to opt out of permitting employees to elect the deferred tax treatment even if the requirements under Code Sec. 83(i) are otherwise met.

Code Sec. 83(i) applies to stock attributable to stock options exercised, or restricted stock units (RSUs) settled, after December 31, 2017. Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Eligible Corporations
Companies who wish to be eligible corporations and offer the Code Sec. 83(i) election must have a written plan under which, in such calendar year, not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States (or any possession of the United States) are granted stock options, or are granted RSUs, with the same rights and privileges to receive qualified stock.

The IRS clarifies that the determination of whether a corporation qualifies as an eligible corporation is made "with respect to any calendar year." Furthermore, to meet the 80-percent requirement, the corporation must have granted "in such calendar year" stock options to 80 percent of its employees or RSUs to 80 percent of its employees. So the determination that the corporation is an eligible corporation must be made on a calendar-year basis, and whether the corporation has satisfied the 80-percent requirement is based solely on the stock options or the RSUs granted in that calendar year to employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States. In calculating whether the 80 percent requirement is satisfied, the corporation must take into account the total number of individuals employed at any time during the year in question as well as the total number of employees receiving grants during the year.

Employment Taxes
Employment taxes include Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax, and federal income tax withholding. FICA and FUTA taxes related to deferral stock remain unaffected.

Deferral stock are considered wages under Code Sec. 3402. When the wages are treated as paid, the employer must make a reasonable estimate of the value of the stock and make deposits of the amount of income tax withholding liability based on that estimate. The wages are subject to withholding at the maximum rate of tax, and withholding is determined without regard to the employee’s Form W-4. By January 31 of the following year, the employer must determine the actual value of the deferral stock on the date it is includible in the employee’s income, and report that amount and the withholding on Form W-2 and Form 941. With respect to income tax withholding for the deferral stock that the employer pays from its own funds, the employer may recover that income tax withholding from the employee until April 1 of the year following the calendar year in which the wages were paid. An employer that fails to deduct and withhold federal income tax is liable for the payment of the tax whether or not the employer collects it from the employee.

Not Eligible Stock
Code Sec. 83(i) imposes a number of requirements and limitations that must be met for an election to be allowed. Although the election, if allowed, may be made by an employee, the corporation is responsible for creating the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election. If a corporation does not intend to create the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election, the terms of a stock option or RSU may provide that no election under Code Sec. 83(i) will be available with respect to stock received upon the exercise of the stock option or settlement of the RSU. This designation would inform employees that no Code Sec. 83(i) election may be made with respect to stock received upon exercise of the option or settlement of the RSU, even if the stock is qualified stock.

Highly anticipated foreign tax credit regulations have been issued that provide guidance on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Highly anticipated foreign tax credit regulations have been issued that provide guidance on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations address:

• allocation and apportionment of the deductions under Code Secs. 861 through 865, and adjustments to the foreign tax credit limitation under Code Sec. 904(b)(4);
• transition rules for overall foreign loss, separate limitation loss, and overall domestic loss accounts under Code Sec. 904(f) and (g), and for the carryover and carryback of unused foreign taxes under Code Sec. 904(c);
• addition of separate foreign tax credit limitation categories for foreign branch income and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), and other updates to the foreign tax credit limitation rules;
• calculation of the high-tax income exception from subpart F income;
• determination of the Code Sec. 960 deemed paid credits and the gross-up under Code Sec. 78; and
• the election under Code Sec. 965(n) not to apply the net operating loss deduction when calculating the Code Sec. 965 transition tax.

Deduction Allocation and Apportionment
The proposed regulations generally apply the existing approach of the expense allocation rules to income in the new Code Sec. 951A (GILTI) and foreign branch categories. The proposed regulations also provide for exempt income and exempt asset treatment for income in the GILTI category that is offset by the Code Sec. 250 deduction. This will reduce the amount of expenses apportioned to the GILTI category.

Rules are provided for the allocation and apportionment of the Code Sec. 250 deduction. A new rule addresses loans to partnerships by certain partners and their affiliates to prevent abusive borrowing arrangements that artificially increase foreign source income. Under the proposed regulations, interest income attributable to borrowing through a partnership is allocated across the foreign tax credit separate categories in the same manner as the associated interest expense.

The proposed allocation and apportionment regulations also revise the netting rule for controlled foreign corporations (CFCs), and provide rules for: valuing assets, characterizing stock for elections related to research and experimentation (R&E) expenses, and applying the Code Sec. 904(b)(4) adjustment.

Because the existing expense allocation rules have not been updated since 1988, the Treasury Department and IRS expect to reexamine existing approaches to allocating and apportioning expenses, including for example the rules for allocating interest, R&E expenses, stewardship and general and administrative expenses.

Limitations
The proposed regulations eliminate deadwood, and reflect statutory amendments made prior to the TCJA. New and transitional rules account for the separate categories for GILTI and foreign branch income. For example, foreign tax credit carryovers will by default remain in the general category, but taxpayers are allowed to allocate the transitional FTC carryovers to the foreign branch category. Also, the look-through rules are revised to clarify that nonpassive look-through payments cannot be assigned to a Code Sec. 951A category, and are generally assigned to the general category or the foreign branch category.

Additionally, changes are made to the rules relating to the passive category for high-taxed income, export financing income, and financial services income. Also addressed is the separate category for income resourced under a treaty, and rules for assigning the Code Sec. 78 gross-up and Code Sec. 986(c) gain or loss to a separate category.

Deemed Paid Tax Credits
The proposed regulations provide rules for determining a domestic corporation’s deemed paid taxes under Code Sec. 960, as revised by the TCJA. The proposed regulations treat a GILTI inclusion as a subpart F inclusion for purposes of Code Sec. 960(c). The proposed regulations also reflect the changes made by the TCJA to the Code Sec. 78 gross-up.

Proposed regulations provide much anticipated guidance on the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A and related reporting requirements. The regulations are proposed to apply generally to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, but taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are published.

Proposed regulations provide much anticipated guidance on the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A and related reporting requirements. The regulations are proposed to apply generally to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, but taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are published.

Code Sec. 59A was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) and imposes a tax on base erosion payments of taxpayers with substantial gross receipts. The tax is equal to the base erosion minimum tax amount for the tax year. The TCJA also added reporting obligations regarding the BEAT for 25-percent foreign-owned corporations subject to Code Sec. 6038A and foreign corporations subject to Code Sec. 6038C.

Proposed BEAT Rules
The proposed regulations generally provide rules for determining whether a taxpayer is an applicable taxpayer on which the BEAT may be imposed and rules for computing the taxpayer’s BEAT liability. In particular, the proposed regulations provide rules:

• for determining whether a taxpayer is an applicable taxpayer on which the BEAT may be imposed ( Proposed Reg. §1.59A-2);
• for determining the amount of base erosion payments (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-3(b));
• for determining base erosion tax benefits arising from base erosion payments (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-3(c));
• for determining the amount of modified taxable income, which is computed in part by reference to a taxpayer’s base erosion tax benefits and base erosion percentage of any net operating loss deduction (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-4);
• for computing the base erosion minimum tax amount, which is computed by reference to modified taxable income (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-5);
• for applying the proposed regulations to partnerships (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-7);
• that are specific to banks and registered securities dealers;
• that are specific to insurance companies;
• that disregard certain transactions having a principal purpose of avoiding Code Sec. 59A (anti-abuse rules) (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-9);
• regarding the general application of the BEAT to consolidated groups (Proposed Reg. § 1.1502-59A);
• addressing limitations on a loss corporation’s items under Code Secs. 382 and 383 in the context of the BEAT (Proposed Reg. § 1.383-1); and
• regarding reporting and record keeping requirements under Code Sec. 6038A.

Proposed Applicability Dates
Consistent with the Code Sec. 59A applicability date, the proposed regulations (other than the proposed reporting requirements for qualified derivatives payments (QDP)) are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, until final regulations are published, provided the taxpayer and all related parties consistently apply the proposed regulations for all those tax years that end before the finalization date.

The proposed reporting requirements for QDPs apply to tax years beginning one year after the final regulations are published. However, the simplified QDP reporting requirements are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Any provision that is finalized after June 22, 2019, will apply only to tax years ending on or after the date of filing of the proposed regulations in the Federal register.

The IRS will grant automatic consent to accounting method changes to comply with new Code Sec. 451(b), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). In addition, some taxpayers may make the accounting method change on their tax returns without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method. These procedures generally apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

The IRS will grant automatic consent to accounting method changes to comply with new Code Sec. 451(b), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). In addition, some taxpayers may make the accounting method change on their tax returns without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method. These procedures generally apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

All Events Test
Under Code Sec. 451(b), the date that an accrual basis taxpayer takes an item into account as revenue in its applicable financial statement (AFS) is also the deadline for treating the item as satisfying the all events test. This rule also applies to any portion of an item, any other financial statement identified by the IRS, and income from a debt instrument with original issue discount (OID).

Automatic Consent
The automatic consent procedures apply to a taxpayer with an AFS that:

• wants to change to a method of accounting that complies with Code Sec. 451(b); and/or
• for the year of the change, is not adopting Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) financial accounting standards for revenue recognition, titled "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)" that were announced on May 28, 2014.

For income from a debt instrument having OID, the Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment period for the change is six tax years (year of change plus the next five tax years). However, this applies only for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2018.

The automatic consent procedures do not apply to a taxpayer that wants to make a change to a method that adopts the FASB/IASB standard, or to a special accounting method as described in Code Sec. 451(b)(2).

Streamlined Procedure
For its first tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, a qualified taxpayer can change its accounting method to comply with Code Sec. 451(b) without filing a Form 3115. An eligible taxpayer must either:

• meet the Code Sec. 448(c) gross receipts test for a small business taxpayers (i.e., taxpayer’s average annual gross receipts for the three prior tax years cannot exceed $25 million); or
• be making the change to comply with Code Sec. 451(b)(1)(A) and/or (b)(4), and the Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment for each of the changes is zero.

These streamlined procedures do not apply to a taxpayer that wants to make a change to a method that adopts the FASB/IASB standard, or to a special accounting method as described in Code Sec. 451(b)(2), or certain other concurrent accounting method changes. Tax shelters also are not eligible.

The IRS warns that consent granted under the streamlined procedures is not a determination that the new accounting method is permissible, and that taxpayers using the streamlined change method do not receive audit protection.

The IRS has issued transition relief from the "once-in-always-in" condition for excluding part-time employees under Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B). Under the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, once an employee is eligible to make elective deferrals, the employee may not be excluded from making elective deferrals in any later exclusion year on the basis that he or she is a part-time employee.

The IRS has issued transition relief from the "once-in-always-in" condition for excluding part-time employees under Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B). Under the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, once an employee is eligible to make elective deferrals, the employee may not be excluded from making elective deferrals in any later exclusion year on the basis that he or she is a part-time employee.

Part-Time Employee Exclusion Conditions Under Final 403(b) Regulations
The Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued final regulations under Code Sec. 403(b) that were generally effective starting after 2008. Part of the final regulations include Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B), which covers the conditions that an employer must satisfy before excluding a part-time employee from the plan. The IRS parses the regulation to impose three separate conditions for an employee to be excluded—

• a "first-year" exclusion condition, under which the employer must reasonably expect the employee to work fewer than 1,000 hours during the employee’s first year of employment;
• a "preceding-year" exclusion condition, under which the employee must have actually worked fewer than 1,000 hours in the preceding 12-month period; and
• the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, under which the employee may be excluded under the part-time exclusion if and only if, in the employee’s first year of employment, the employee meets the first-year exclusion condition, and, in each exclusion year ending after the first year of employment, the employee has met the preceding-year exclusion condition.

The effect of the once-in-always-in exclusion condition is that once an employee does not meet the part-time exclusion conditions, whether in the initial year of employment or for any exclusion year, the employee may no longer be excluded from making elective deferrals under the part-time exclusion.

Employers Surprised by Once-In-Always-In Condition
Employers requested transition relief because many were unaware that the part-time exclusion included the once-in-always-in exclusion condition. Many employers applied the first-year exclusion condition for an employee’s first year, and applied the preceding-year exclusion condition separately for each succeeding exclusion year, but did not apply the once-in-always-in exclusion condition to prevent an employee who failed to meet either the first-year exclusion condition or the preceding-year exclusion condition from being excluded in all subsequent exclusion years.

Transition Relief for Once-In-Always-In Condition
The IRS is providing transition relief, including—

• operations relief for a transition period referred to as the "Relief Period";
• relief regarding plan language; and
• a fresh-start opportunity after the "Relief Period" ends.

The operations "Relief Period" begins with tax years beginning after December 31, 2008. For plans with exclusion years based on plan years, the "Relief Period" ends for all employees on the last day of the last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019. For plans with exclusion years based on employee anniversary years, the "Relief Period" ends, with respect to any employee, on the last day of that employee’s last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019.

The IRS has provided interim guidance for the 2019 calendar year on income tax withholding from wages and withholding from retirement and annuity distributions. In general, certain 2018 withholding rules provided in Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353, will remain in effect for the 2019 calendar year, with one exception.

The IRS has provided interim guidance for the 2019 calendar year on income tax withholding from wages and withholding from retirement and annuity distributions. In general, certain 2018 withholding rules provided in Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353, will remain in effect for the 2019 calendar year, with one exception.

The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to develop income tax withholding regulations to reflect changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), as well as other changes in the Code since the regulations were last amended, and certain miscellaneous changes consistent with current procedures.

Withholding Allowances
The IRS delayed the release of the 2018 Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, in order to reflect changes made by the TCJA, such as changes in itemized deductions available, increases in the child tax credit, the new credit for other dependents, and the suspension of personal exemption deductions. Notice 2018-14 provided relief for employers and employees affected by the delay.

In June, the IRS released a draft 2019 Form W-4 and instructions, which incorporated changes that were meant to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and make the withholding system more transparent. However, in response to stakeholders’ comments, the IRS later announced that the redesigned Form W-4 would be postponed until 2020. The IRS intends to release a 2019 Form W-4 before the end of 2018 that makes minimal changes to the 2018 Form W-4.

The 2019 Form W-4 and the computational procedures in IRS Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, will continue to use the term "withholding allowances" and related terminology to incorporate the withholding allowance factors specified in Code Sec. 3402(f) and the additional allowance items in Code Sec. 3402(m). Until further guidance is issued, references to a "withholding exemption" in the Code Sec. 3402 regulations and guidance will be applied as if they were referring to a withholding allowance.

Changes in Status
The guidance provides that if an employee experiences a change of status on or before April 30, 2019, that reduces the number of withholding allowances to which he or she is entitled, and if that change is solely due to the changes made by the TCJA, the employee generally must furnish a new Form W-4 to the employer by May 10, 2019. However, if an employee no longer reasonably expects to be entitled to a claimed number of allowances due to a change in personal circumstances that is not solely related to TCJA changes, the employee must furnish his or her employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change. Similarly, if an employee claims married filing status on Form W-4 but divorces his or her spouse, the employee must furnish the employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change.

Failure to Furnish
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to withdraw the regulations under Code Sec. 3401(e), and modify other regulations, so that an employee who fails to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as "single" but entitled to the number of withholding allowances determined under computational procedures provided in IRS Publication 15. Until further guidance is issued, however, employees who fail to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as single with zero withholding allowances.

Additional Allowances
Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may include his or her estimated Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction in determining whether he or she can claim the additional withholding allowance under Code Sec. 3402(m) on Form W-4.

Alternative Procedure
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to update the withholding regulations to explicitly allow employees to determine their Form W-4 entries by using the IRS withholding calculator ( www.irs.gov/W4App) or IRS Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax, instead of having to complete certain schedules included with the Form W-4. However, the regulations are expected to provide that an employee cannot use the withholding calculator if the calculator’s instructions state that it should not be used due to his or her individual tax situation. The employee will need to use Publication 505 instead.

Alternative Methods
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables under Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), due to this alternative procedure’s unintended complexity and burden.

Lock-In Letters
The IRS may issue a "lock-in letter" to an employer, which sets the maximum number of withholding allowances an employee may claim. If the employer no longer employs the employee, the employer must send a written response to the IRS office designated in the lock-in letter that the employee is not employed by the employer. The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the written response requirement. Pending further guidance, employers should not send a written response to the IRS under Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(iv).

Pension, Annuity Payments
The payor of certain periodic payments for pensions, annuities, and other deferred income generally must withhold tax from the payments as if they were wages, unless the individual payee elects not to have withholding apply. Before 2018, if a withholding certificate was not furnished to the payor, the withholding rate was determined by treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding exemptions. The TCJA amended this rule so that the rate "shall be determined under rules prescribed by the Secretary." The IRS has determined that, for 2019, withholding on periodic payments when no withholding certificate is in effect continues to be based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding allowances.

Comments Requested
The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on both the interim guidance and the guidance that should be provided in regulations. Comments must be received by January 25, 2019. Comments should be submitted to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov (include "Notice 2018-92" in the subject line of any electronic submission).

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

SALT Deduction

The SALT deduction limit is one of the most controversial temporarily enacted provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) signed into law last December. Under the TCJA, beginning in 2018 and running through 2025, taxpayers may not claim more than $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for all state and local sales, income and property taxes.

After the tax code overhaul, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (considered high-tax states) passed legislation that essentially allows taxpayers to circumvent the SALT deduction cap by making charitable contributions to state-run charitable organizations. Indeed, similar workarounds for private-school tuition already exists in other states.

"Congress limited the deduction for state and local taxes that predominantly benefited high-income earners to help pay for major tax cuts for American families,"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "The proposed rule will uphold that limitation by preventing attempts to convert tax payments into charitable contributions."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats, as with the TCJA, are mostly divided on the topic. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., praised the IRS proposal for aiming to prevent tax evasion. "These Treasury regulations rightly close the door on improper tax evasion schemes conjured up by state and local politicians who insist on brutally taxing local families and businesses," Brady said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are criticizing the regulations. "The Trump administration doubled down on its attack on the middle class," Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement. "The administration’s new regulations block affected states’ attempts to cope with this significant change and protect residents."

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

Several tax policy experts have criticized states’ efforts to circumvent the SALT deduction cap. Carl Davis, research director at the Democratic-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, has called the workarounds an "abuse" of the charitable giving deduction. "Anyone who wants a fair and transparent tax system should be cautiously optimistic that these rules will put an end…to the workaround provisions enacted by states more recently," Davis wrote in a recent op-ed about the proposed IRS guidance.

Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, has said that states’ strategies to re-characterize SALT payments were pursued to primarily help high-income taxpayers. Additionally, the top one percent of the wealthiest households would reap more than half of the benefit if the SALT cap were eliminated, according to an estimate from the Democratic-leaning Tax Policy Center.

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.

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) mandated a change from the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U). Official amounts for 2019 should be released by the IRS later in 2018.

Individual Tax Brackets

The projected bracket ranges for individuals in 2019 are as follows.

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $19,400
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $19,400 and up to $78,900
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $78,900 and up to $168,400
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $168,400 and up to $321,450
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $321,450 and up to $408,200
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $408,200 and up to $612,350
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $612,350

For heads of households:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $13,850
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $13,850 and up to $52,850
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $52,850 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For unmarried taxpayers:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For married taxpayers filing separately:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,725
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,725 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $306,175
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $306,175

For estates and trusts:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $2,600
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $2,600 and up to $9,300
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,300 and up to $12,750
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $12,750

Standard Deduction

TCJA also roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction. For 2019, the following standard deduction amounts are projected:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $24,400
For heads of households, $18,350
For unmarried taxpayers and well as married taxpayers filing separately, $12,200

AMT Exemptions

TCJA eliminated the AMT for corporations, and increased the exemption amounts, and the exemption phaseouts, for individuals. For 2019, the AMT exemption amounts are projected to be:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $111,700
For unmarried individuals and heads of households, $71,700
For married taxpayers filing separately, $55,850

Estate and Gift Tax

The following amounts related to transfer taxes (estate, generation-skipping, and gift taxes) are projected for 2019:

The gift tax annual exemption is projected to be $15,000 in 2019

The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion (increased under TCJA) is projected to be $11,400,000 for decedents dying in 2019

The exclusion for gifts made in 2019 to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen is projected to be $155,000 for 2019

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

The adoption credit for 2019 is projected to be $14,080 for 2019.

For 2019, the allowed Roth IRA contribution amount is projected to phase out for married taxpayers filing jointly with income between $193,000 and $203,000 For heads of household and unmarried filers, the projected phaseout range is between $122,000 to $137,000.

The maximum amount of deductible contributions that can be made to an IRA is projected to be $6,000 for 2019. The increased contribution amount for taxpayers age 50 and over will, therefore, be $7,000.

The deduction for traditional IRA contributions is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers whose income is greater than $103,000 if both spouses are covered by a retirement plan at work. If only one spouse is covered by a retirement plan at work, the phaseout is projected to begin when modified adjusted gross income reaches $193,000. For heads of household and unmarried filers who are covered by a retirement plan at work, the 2019 income phaseout range for deductible IRA contributions is projected to begin at $64,000.

For 2019, the $2,500 student loan interest deduction is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $140,000. For single taxpayers, the 2019 deduction is projected to begin to phase out at a MAGI level of over $70,000.

The amount of the 2019 foreign earned income exclusion under Code Sec. 911 is projected to be $105,900.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

Code Sec. 199A allows business owners to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships, partnerships, trusts, and S corporations. The deduction is one of the most high-profile pieces of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

In addition to providing general definitions and computational rules, the new guidance helps clarify several concepts that were of special interest to many taxpayers.

Trade or Business

The proposed regulations incorporate the Code Sec. 162 rules for determining what constitutes a trade or business. A taxpayer may have more than one trade or business, but a single trade or business generally cannot be conducted through more than one entity.

Taxpayers cannot use the grouping rules of the passive activity provisions of Code Sec. 469 to group multiple activities into a single business. However, a taxpayer may aggregate trades or businesses if:

• each trade or business is itself a trade or business;
• the same person or group owns a majority interest in each business to be aggregated;
• none of the aggregated trades or businesses can be a specified service trade or business; and
• the trades or businesses meet at least two of three factors which demonstrate that they are in fact part of a larger, integrated trade or business.

Specified Service Business

Income from a specified service business generally cannot be qualified business income, although this exclusion is phased in for lower-income taxpayers.

A new de minimis exception allows some business to escape being designated as a specified service trade or business (SSTB). A business qualifies for this de minimis exception if:

• gross receipts do not exceed $25 million, and less than 10 percent is attributable to services; or
• gross receipts exceed $25 million, and less than five percent is attributable to services.

The regulations largely adopt existing rules for what activities constitute a service. However, a business receives income because of an employee/owner’s reputation or skill only when the business is engaged in:

• endorsing products or services;
• licensing the use of an individual’s image, name, trademark, etc.; or
• receiving appearance fees.

In addition, the regulations try to limit attempts to spin-off parts of a service business into independent qualified businesses. Thus, a business that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to a related service business is part of that service business. Similarly, the portion of property or services that a business provides to a related service business is treated as a service business. Businesses are related if they have at least 50-percent common ownership.

Wages/Capital Limit

A higher-income taxpayer’s qualified business income may be reduced by the wages/capital limit. This limit is based on the taxpayer’s share of the business’s:

• W-2 wages that are allocable to QBI; and
• unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition.

The proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-34, provide detailed rules for determining the business’s W-2 wages. These rules generally follow the rules that applied to the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction.

The proposed regulations also address unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The regulations largely adopt the existing capitalization rules for determining unadjusted basis. However, "immediately after acquisition" is the date the business places the property in service. Thus, UBIA is generally the cost of the property as of the date the business places it in service.

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

• definitions;
• basic computations;
• loss carryovers;
• Puerto Rico businesses;
• coordination with other Code Sections;
• penalties;
• special basis rules;
• previously suspended losses and net operating losses;
• other exclusions from qualified business income;
• allocations of items that are not attributable to a single trade or business;
• anti-abuse rules;
• application to trusts and estates; and
• special rules for the related deduction for agricultural cooperatives.

Effective Dates

Taxpayers may generally rely on the proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64 until they are issued as final. The regulations and proposed revenue procedure will be effective for tax years ending after they are published as final. However:

• several proposed anti-abuse rules are proposed to apply to tax years ending after December 22, 2017;
• anti-abuse rules that apply specifically to the use of trusts are proposed to apply to tax years ending after August 9, 2018; and
• if a qualified business’s tax year begins before January 1, 2018, and ends after December 31, 2017, the taxpayer’s items are treated as having been incurred in the taxpayer’s tax year during which business’s tax year ends.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-107892-18). Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS also requests comments on the proposed revenue procedure for calculating W-2 wages, especially with respect to amounts paid for services in Puerto Rico. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov, with “ Notice 2018-64” in the subject line. These comments must also be received by September 24, 2018.