The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

During an April 21, 2022, hearing of the subcommittee, Rettig noted updated tax gap figures for the three-year period of 2012-2014, along with projections through 2019, will be released this summer. However, those projections do not account for the growth in cryptocurrency, which could be widening the tax gap beyond the current calculations and projections.

"What is not in those estimates is virtual currencies, and there is over a $2 trillion market cap for virtual currencies," Rettig testified before the committee. "Last year, there was over $14 trillion in transactions in virtual currencies and the United States, if you view relative GDP, is somewhere between 35 and 43 percent of that $14 trillion."

He said that knowledge generated from John Doe summons activity in these space reveals "that the compliance issues in the virtual currency space are significantly low."

"The tax gap estimates that the IRS prepares are based on information that the IRS is able to determine, not information that we know is out there but we are not able to determine," Rettig said, adding that the agency is trying to get more information about virtual currencies through adding questions on the Form 1040, first on Schedule L and then moving it to page one of the Form 1040 last year "to try to enhance compliance."

He added that the agency is looking to get more into that area.

The comments on the tax gap and the need to be able to tackle compliance in the cryptocurrency space underscores the agency’s need for more funding as requested in the White House budget request for fiscal year 2023.

In his written testimony submitted to the committee, Rettig noted that the agency "can no longer audit a respectable percentage of large corporations, and we are often limited in the issues reviewed among those we do audit. These corporations can afford to spend large amounts on legal counsel, drag out proceedings and bury the government in paper. We are, quite simply, ‘outgunned’ in our efforts to assure a high degree of compliance for these taxpayers."

He wrote that it is "unacceptable" that corporations and the wealthiest individuals have such an advantage to push back on the nation’s tax administrator.

"We must receive the resources to hire and train more specialists across a wide range of complex areas to assist with audits of entities (taxable, pass-through and tax-exempt) and individuals (financial products; engineering; digital assets; cross-border activities; estate and gift planning; family offices; foundations; and many others)," his written testimony states.

Rettig wrote that the agency current has fewer than 2,000 revenue officers, "the lowest number of field collection personnel since the 1970s," to handle more than 100,000 collection cases in active inventory.

He continued: "In addition to our active inventory, we have over 1.5 million cases (more than 500,000 of which are considered high priority) awaiting assignment to these same 2,000 revenue officers. We have classified roughly 85 percent of those cases as high priority, many of which involve delinquent business employment taxes."

The lack of funding is also hampering criminal investigations.

"Much like other operating divisions in the IRS, CI is close to its lowest staffing level in the past 30 years. With fewer agents, we have fewer cases and fewer successful convictions," he stated in the written testimony.

Much of this also is compounded by the ancient IT infrastructure at the agency, another reason Rettig advocated during the hearing for more funding.

"Limited IT resources preclude us from building adequate solutions for efficiently matching or reconciling data from multiple sources," he wrote. "As a result, we are often left with manual processes to analyze reporting information we receive."

Retting specifically highlighted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which Congress enacted in 2010 but, according to Retting, has yet to appropriate the funding necessary for its implementation.

"This situation is compounded by the fact that when we do detect potential non-compliance or fraudulent behavior through manually generated FATCA reports, we seldom have sufficient funding to pursue the information and ensure proper compliance," he wrote. "We have an acute need for additional personnel with specialized training to follow cross-border money flows. They will help ensure tax compliance by improving our capacity to detect unreported accounts and income generated by those accounts, as well as the sources of assets in offshore accounts."

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

"With respect to our current 2022 filing season, we are off to a healthy start in terms of tax processing and the operation of our IT systems," Rettig told members of the Senate Finance Committee during an April 7 hearing to discuss the White House budget request and update the panel on the current tax filing season. "Through April 1, we have processed more than 89 million returns and issued more than 63 million refunds totaling more than $204 billion."

Getting that backlog cleared has been bolstered in part by a direct hiring authority given to the agency in the recent passage of the fiscal year 2022 omnibus budget, Rettig told the committee.

The effectiveness of that hiring authority was highlighted in his written testimony submitted prior to the hearing, where Rettig stated that in-person and virtual job fairs near processing facilities in Austin, Kansas City, and Ogden, Utah, attracted eligible applicants for more than 5,000 vacancies and "we have been able to make more than 2,500 conditional offers at the conclusion of the interviews."

Rettig said the direct hiring authority is only related to those lower paygrade processing/customer service positions and the agency is going to ask Congress to expand that authority, although he did not specify what types of positions would be hired as part of that expansion.

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

• Myth 1: Calling the IRS or visiting an IRS office speeds up a refund. The best way to check the status of a refund is online through the “Where’s My Refund?” tool. Taxpayers can also call the automated refund hotline at 800-829-1954.

• Myth 2: Taxpayers need to wait for their 2020 return to be processed before filing their 2021 return. Taxpayers generally will not need to wait for their 2020 return to be fully processed to file their 2021 tax returns. They should file when they are ready. Individuals with unprocessed 2020 tax returns, should enter zero dollars for last year's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on their 2021 tax return when filing electronically.

• Myth 3: Taxpayers can get a refund date by ordering a tax transcript. Ordering a tax transcript will not inform taxpayers of the timing of their tax refund, nor will it speed up a refund being processed. Taxpayers can use a transcript to validate past income and tax filing status for mortgage, student and small business loan applications and to help with tax preparation.

• Myth 4: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because there is no deposit date yet. While the IRS issues most refunds in less than 21 days, it is possible a refund may take longer for a variety of reasons. Delays can be caused by simple errors including an incomplete return, transposed numbers, or when a tax return is affected by identity theft or fraud.

• Myth 5: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because a refund amount is less than expected. Different factors can cause a tax refund to be larger or smaller than expected. The IRS will mail the taxpayer a letter of explanation if these adjustments are made.

• Myth 6: Calling a tax professional will provide a better refund date. Contacting a tax professional will not speed up a refund. Tax professionals cannot move up a refund date nor do they have access to any special information that will provide a more accurate refund date.

• Myth 7: Getting a refund this year means there is no need to adjust tax withholding for 2022. Taxpayers should continually check their withholding and adjust accordingly. Adjusting tax withholding with an employer is easy and using the Tax Withholding Estimator tool can help taxpayers determine if they are withholding the right amount from their paycheck.

As of the week ending April 1, the IRS has sent out more than 63 million refunds worth over $204 billion. The IRS reminded taxpayers the easiest way to check on a refund is the "Where’s My Refund?" tool. This tool can be used to check the status of a tax return within 24 hours after a taxpayer receives their e-file acceptance notification. Taxpayers should only call the IRS tax help hotline to talk to a representative if it has been more than 21 days since their tax return was e-filed, or more than six weeks since mailing their return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return. A manual review may be necessary when a return has errors, is incomplete or is affected by identity theft or fraud. Other returns can also take longer to process, including when a return needs a correction to the Child Tax Credit amount or includes a Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, which could take up to 14 weeks to process. The fastest way to get a tax refund is by filing electronically and choosing direct deposit. Taxpayers who don’t have a bank account can find out more on how to open an account at an FDIC-Insured bank or the National Credit Union Locator Tool.

Further, the IRS cautioned taxpayers not to rely on receiving a refund by a certain date, especially when making major purchases or paying bills. Taxpayers should also take into consideration the time it takes for a financial institution to post the refund to an account or to receive it by mail. Before filing, taxpayers should make IRS.gov their first stop to find online tools to help get the information they need to file. To check the status of a refund, taxpayers should use the Where’s My Refund? tool on IRS.gov. The IRS will contact taxpayers by mail when more information is needed to process a return. IRS representatives can only research the status of a refund if it has been: 21 days or more since it was filed electronically; six weeks or more since a return was mailed; or when the Where's My Refund? tool tells the taxpayer to contact the IRS.

Additionally, taxpayers whose tax returns from 2020 have not yet been processed should still file their 2021 tax returns by the April due date or request an extension to file. Those filing electronically in this group need their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from their most recent tax return. Those waiting on their 2020 tax return to be processed should enter zero dollars for last year's AGI on the 2021 tax return. When self-preparing a tax return and filing electronically, taxpayers must sign and validate the electronic tax return by entering their prior-year AGI or prior-year Self-Select PIN (SSP). Those who electronically filed last year may have created a five-digit SSP. Generally, tax software automatically enters the information for returning customers. Taxpayers who are using a software product for the first time may have to enter this information.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002. For tax years 2002 through 2021, the limit was $250 per year. The limit will rise in $50 increments in future years based on inflation adjustments. For 2022, if an eligible educator is married and files a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $600 but not more than $300 for each spouse.

Educators can claim this deduction even if they take the standard deduction. Eligible educators include anyone who is a kindergarten through grade 12 teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide in a school for at least 900 hours during the school year. Both public- and private-school educators qualify. Educators can deduct the unreimbursed cost of:

• books, supplies, and other materials used in the classroom;
• equipment, including computer equipment, software, and services;
• COVID-19 protective items to stop the spread of the disease in the classroom; and
• professional development courses related to the curriculum they teach or the students they teach.

Qualified expenses do not include expenses for homeschooling or nonathletic supplies for courses in health or physical education. The IRS also reminded educators that for tax year 2021, the deduction limit is $250. If they are married and file a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $500 but not more than $250 for each spouse.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

To correct the annual maintenance certification of the investment standard, taxpayers should file an amended return or an administrative adjustment request (AAR). If an entity that receives the letter fails to act, the IRS may refer its tax account for examination. Additionally, taxpayers may receive Letter 6502, Reporting Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments, or Letter 6503, Annual Reporting Of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. These letters notify them that they may not have properly followed the instructions for Form 8997, Initial and Annual Statement of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. This may happen if it appears that they may not have properly followed the requirements to maintain their qualifying investment in a QOF with the filing of the form.

Finally, if these taxpayers intend to maintain a qualifying investment in a QOF, they can file an amended return or an AAR with a properly completed Form 8997 attached. Failure to act will mean those who received the letter may not have a qualifying investment in a QOF and the IRS may refer their tax accounts for examination.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022. These information returns include:

• Form 1099-B, Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions
• Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distributions
• Form 1099-G, Certain Government Payments
• Form 1099-INT, Interest Income
• Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions
• Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income
• Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation
• Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount
• Form 1099-PATR, Taxable Distributions Received from Cooperatives
• Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings

These notices inform payers that the information return is missing a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), has an incorrect name or a combination of both. Each notice has a list of payees or the persons receiving certain types of income payments with identified TIN issues. Taxpayers need to compare the accounts listed on the notice with their account records and correct or update their records, if necessary. This can also include correcting backup withholding on payments made to payees. The notices also inform payers that they are responsible for backup withholding. Payments reported on these information returns are subject to backup withholding if:

• The payer does not have the payee’s TIN when making the reportable payments.
• The payee does not certify their TIN as required for reportable interest, dividend, broker and barter exchange accounts.
• The IRS notifies the payer that the payee furnished an incorrect TIN and the payee does not certify its TIN as required.
• The IRS notifies the payer to begin backup withholding because the payee did not report all of its interest and dividends on its tax return.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

Background

Section 2202 of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA), P.L. 116-25, amended Code Sec. 6103(a)(3) and (c) to limit redisclosures and uses of return information received pursuant to the staxpayer consent exception. Code Sec. 6103(c), as amended by the TFA, explicitly prohibits designees from using return information for any reason other than the express purpose for which the taxpayer grants consent and from redisclosing return information without the taxpayer’s express permission or request. Further, Code Sec. 6103(a)(3), as amended by the TFA, imposes disclosure restrictions on all recipients of return information under Code Sec. 6103(c). The TFA did not amend Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6), or Code Sec. 6103(a) with respect to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6).

Disclosure Restrictions

The IRS cited seven situations where disclosure restrictions of Code Sec. 6103(a) would or would not be applicable with regard to returns or return information received as a result of disclosure under:

• Code Sec. 6103(c) with the consent of the taxpayer (taxpayer consent exception),
• Code Sec. 6103(e) as a person having a material interest, but not under Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) relating to disclosures to certain shareholders (material interest exception), or
• Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) for investigative purposes (investigative disclosure exception).

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Rul. 2004-53, I.R.B. 2004-23, has been modified and superseded.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

Relief Provided

The countries for which the eligibility requirements have been waived for 2021 are Iraq, Burma, Chad, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Accordingly, an individual who left the following countries beginning on the specified date will be treated as a qualified individual with respect to the period during which that individual was present in, or was a bona fide resident of the country: (1) Iraq on or after January 19, 2021; (2) Burma on or after March 30, 2021; Chad on or after April 17, 2021; (4) Afghanistan on or after April 27, 2021, and; (5) Ethiopia on or after November 5, 2021. Individuals who left the above mentioned countries must establish a reasonable expectation that he or she would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) but for those adverse conditions. Further, individuals who established residency, or were first physically present in Iraq, after January 19, 2021, are not eligible for the waiver. Taxpayers who need assistance on how to claim the exclusion, or how to file an amended return, should consult the section under the heading "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion" at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad; consult the section under the heading How to Get Tax Help at the same web address; or contact a local IRS office.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

Nonjurisdictional Nature of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court analyzed the text of Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) and stated that the only contention is whether the provision limits the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to petitions filed within the 30-day timeframe. The taxpayer contended that it referred only to the immediately preceding phrase of the provision: a "petition [to] the Tax Court for review of such determination." and so the filing deadline was independent of the jurisdictional grant. The IRS, on the contrary, argued that "such matter" referred to the entire first clause of the sentence, which includes the deadline and granting jurisdiction only over petitions filed within that time. However, the Supreme Court held the nature of the filing deadline to be nonjurisdictional because the IRS failed to satisfy the clear-statement rule of the jurisdictional condition. It also stated that where multiple plausible interpretations exist, it is difficult to make the case that the jurisdictional reading is clear. Moreover, Code Sec. 6330(e)(1)’s clear statement—that "[t]he Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction . . . to enjoin any action or proceeding unless a timely appeal has been filed"—highlighted the lack of such jurisdictional clarity in Code Sec. 6330(d)(1).

Equitable Tolling of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to decide whether the taxpayer was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline. However, the Supreme Court did emphasize that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) did not expressly prohibit equitable tolling, and its 30-day time limit was directed at the taxpayer, not the court. Further, the deadline mentioned in the provision was not written in an emphatic form or with detailed and technical language, nor was it reiterated multiple times. The IRS’ argument that tolling the Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) deadline would create much more uncertainty, was rejected. The Supreme Court concluded that the possibility of equitable tolling for relatively small number of petitions would not appreciably add to the uncertainty already present in the process.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

Report Findings

GAO found that the IRS faced multiple challenges and struggled to respond to an unprecedented workload that included delivering COVID-19 relief. The IRS began the 2021 filing season with a backlog of 8 million individual and business returns from the prior year. The IRS reduced the backlog of prior year returns, but in December 2021, had about 10.5 million returns to process from 2021. The IRS suspended and reviewed 35 million returns with errors primarily due to new or modified tax credits. GAO found that some categories of errors occur each year, however, the IRS does not assess the underlying causes of taxpayer errors on returns. Additionally, the IRS paid nearly $14 billion in refund interest in the last 7 fiscal years, with $3.3 billion paid in fiscal year 2021. However, the IRS does not identify, monitor, and mitigate issues contributing to refund interest payments.

Recommendations

GAO made six recommendations, including that the IRS should assess reasons for tax return errors and refund interest payments and take action to reduce them; modernize its “Where's My Refund” application; address its backlog of correspondence; and assess its in-person service model. The IRS agreed with four recommendations and disagreed with two. The IRS said its process for analyzing errors is robust and that the amount of interest paid is not a meaningful business measure.

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.