- Newsletters

The Supreme Court has reversed and remanded California v. Texas, holding that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision.

In 2010, ACA, under the newly added Code Sec. 5000A, required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or pay a penalty. In 2017, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress effectively nullified the penalty by setting its amount at $0. The IRS issued guidance that the statute no longer required taxpayers to report whether they did or did not maintain coverage.

In 2018, Texas and 17 other states brought a lawsuit against the United States and federal officials. They were later joined by two individuals (Neill Hurley and John Nantz). The United States took the side of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that without the penalty, the minimum essential coverage requirement was unconstitutional and that the minimum essential coverage requirement was not severable from the rest of ACA. Hence, they believed ACA as a whole was invalid. California, along with fifteen other states and the District of Columbia, intervened to defend ACA.

The District Court found that the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision, Code Sec. 5000A(a). The court further held that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of ACA. It granted relief in the form of a declaration stating just that. On appeal, a panel majority agreed with the District Court that the plaintiffs had standing and that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional. It found that the District Court’s severability analysis, however, was "incomplete," and it remanded the case for further analysis.

The Supreme Court did not analyze whether the provision or ACA is unconstitutional, because it held that Texas and the other plaintiffs in the suit lack standing to bring the case. The plaintiffs do not have standing because they were not able to show a past or future injury, pocketbook or otherwise, fairly traceable to the government enforcing the minimum essential coverage requirement. The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss.

Close

The IRS issued two new, separate sets of frequently-asked-questions (FAQs) to assist families and small and mid-sized employers) in claiming credits under the American Rescue Plan (ARP). These FAQs provide information on eligibility, computing the credit amounts and how to claim these important tax benefits. Enacted in March to assist families and small businesses with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery underway, the ARP enhanced the child and dependent care credit and the paid sick and family leave credit.

Child and Dependent Care Credit
For 2021, the ARP increased the maximum amount of work-related expenses for qualifying care that may be taken into account in calculating the credit, increased the maximum percentage of those expenses for which the credit may be taken, modified how the credit is reduced for higher earners, and made it refundable. Additionally, eligible taxpayers can claim qualifying work-related expenses up to:

$8,000 for one qualifying person, up from $3,000 in prior years; or
$16,000 for two or more qualifying persons, up from $6,000 in prior years.

Further, the taxpayers are required to have earnings, and the amount of qualifying work-related expenses claimed cannot exceed the taxpayer’s earnings. Combined with the increase to 50-percent in the maximum credit rate, taxpayers with the maximum amount of qualifying work-related expenses would receive a credit of $4,000 for one qualifying person, or $8,000 for two or more qualifying persons.

A dependent under the age of 13 or a dependent of any age or spouse who is incapable of self-care and who lives with the taxpayer for more than half of the year is considered a qualifying person for this credit. Under the new ARP, more taxpayers will qualify for the new maximum 50-percent credit rate. However, the 50-percent credit rate goes down as income rises above $125,000. Taxpayers with adjusted gross income over $438,000 are not eligible for the credit.

The credit is fully refundable for the first time in 2021. This means eligible taxpayers can receive the credit even if they owe no federal income tax. To be eligible for the refundable credit, a taxpayer must reside in the U.S. for more than half of the year. However, special rules apply to military personnel stationed outside the U.S. To claim the credit for 2021, taxpayers need to complete Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses, and include the form when filing their tax returns in 2022.

Paid Sick and Family Leave Credit
The paid sick and family leave credits reimburse eligible employers for the cost of providing paid sick and family leave to their employees for reasons related to COVID-19, including leave taken by employees to receive or recover from COVID-19 vaccinations. Self-employed individuals are eligible for similar tax credits. Additionally, under the ARP, eligible employers may now claim the credit for paid family leave wages for the same reasons that they can claim the credit for paid sick leave wages.

Under the ARP, eligible employers, including businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees and certain governmental employers, may claim tax credits for qualified leave wages and certain other wage-related expenses (such as health plan expenses and certain collectively bargained benefits) paid with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. The ARP kept the daily wage thresholds that previously existed for these credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) ( P.L. 116-127). The aggregate cap on qualified sick leave wages remains at two weeks (up to a maximum of 80 hours), and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021. The aggregate cap on qualified family leave wages increases to $12,000 from $10,000, and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021.

The paid leave credits under the ARP are tax credits against the employer’s share of Medicare tax. This credit is refundable, which means that the employer is entitled to payment of the full amount of he credit to the extent it exceeds the employer’s share of Medicare tax. Self-employed individuals may claim comparable credits on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Close

The IRS has started sending letters to over 36 million families who, based on tax returns filed, may be eligible to receive monthly child tax credit payments starting July. Eligibility of these families are being evaluated based on information provided by taxpayers in their 2019 or 2020 tax returns, or through the Non-Filers tool while registering for an Economic Impact Payment. In addition, taxpayers who are eligible for advance child tax credit payments will receive a second, personalized letter listing an estimate of their monthly payment, starting July 15.

The IRS further announced that eligible families will begin receiving advance payments, either by direct deposit or check. Importantly, this payment will be up to $300 per month for each qualifying child under six years of age, and up to $250 per month, for each qualifying child from ages six to 17. Moreover, advance child tax credit payments will be issued on July 15, August 13, September 15, October 15, November 15 and December 15, 2021.

To avail themselves of these credits, taxpayers who have not yet filed their 2020 or 2019 return should do so as soon as possible, to receive advance payments. The IRS reminded taxpayers who do not normally file returns, such as families experiencing homelessness, that filing soon will ensure that their most current banking information would be applicable. Similarly, community groups, non-profits, associations, education organizations and others with connections to people with children to share this critical information about the child tax credit and other important benefits.

Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers of the changes to child tax credit by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2). The entire credit is fully refundable for 2021; meaning eligible families can avail themselves of the credit, even if they owe no federal income tax. The IRS also recommends that taxpayers visit the Advance Child Tax Credit Payments in 2021 page to learn more about these changes.

Close

The IRS has finalized regulations relating to the mandatory 60-day postponement of certain time-sensitive tax-related deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster. Further, the regulations clarify the definition of "federally declared disaster." The regulations affect individuals who reside in or were killed or injured in a disaster area, businesses that have a principal place of business in a disaster area, relief workers who provide assistance in a disaster area, or any taxpayer whose tax records necessary to meet a tax deadline are located in a disaster area.

Background
Section 205 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019, enacted as Division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94), amended Code Sec. 7508A relating to the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate to postpone certain time-sensitive tax deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster, by adding Code Sec. 7508A(d). This provision provides qualified taxpayers a mandatory 60-day period that is disregarded "in the same manner as a period specified" under Code Sec. 7508A(a).

On January 13, 2021, the IRS published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM REG-115057-20) to interpret and implement Code Secs. 165(i)(5) and 7508A(d). As described in the proposed regulations, Code Sec. 7508A(d) was ambiguous in at least two important respects—the time-sensitive acts to be postponed (beyond the pension-related actions described in Code Sec. 7508A(d)(4)) were not specified and it was unclear how the mandatory 60-day postponement period was to be calculated when the disaster declaration specified in Code Sec. 7508A(d) did not contain an incident date. The legislative history was also insufficient to explain these areas of ambiguity

Final Regulations
The final regulations adopt the proposed rules including providing that the definition of a federally declared disaster includes both a major disaster and emergencies declared under sections 401 or 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) ( P.L. 100-707). Also, one minor modification has been made to an example in the proposed rules to better illustrate the calculation of the mandatory 60-day postponement period in the event of multiple declarations and shifting "latest" incident dates.

Applicable Date
The final regulations under Code Sec. 7508A for a mandatory 60-day postponement period apply to disasters declared on or after December 21, 2019. The final regulations under Code Sec. 165 for the definition of a federally declared disaster apply June 11, 2021.

Close

The IRS has released a revenue procedure explaining how a taxpayer changes its method of computing depreciation for certain residential rental property. Automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method are available for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Residential Rental Property Allowed 30-Year ADS Depreciation
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) added residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to the list of property to which a 30 year recovery periods applies under the alternative depreciation system (ADS), thus changing the recovery period from 40 years to 30 years. The change applied to property placed in service after December 31, 2017, and therefore only to property newly placed in service.

The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act (Taxpayer Certainly Act) ( P.L. 116-260), enacted December 27, 2020, extended 30-year depreciation to apply to residential rental property placed in service before January 1, 2018 held by certain electing real property trade or businesses. To apply the 30-year recovery period to property already placed in service, taxpayers have to change their computation of depreciation for the property.

Procedures Provided for Changing Depreciation Method
This revenue procedure permits taxpayers who are affected by the Taxpayer Certainly Act's retroactive effective date to file an amended federal income tax return or information return, administrative adjustment request (AAR), or a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, to change their method of computing depreciation of certain residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to use a 30-year ADS recovery period. If the property is included in a general asset account, it permits taxpayers to change their general asset account treatment for the property to comply with Reg. §1.168(i)-1(h)(2).

The revenue procedure also provides automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method, and in certain cases simplified procedures, for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Close

An eligible partnership may file amended partnership returns for tax years beginning in 2018, 2019, and 2020 by filing a Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income (Form 1065), with the "Amended Return" box checked. The partnership may also issue an amended Schedule K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. (Schedule K-1), to each of its partners.

Partnerships Eligible for Amended-Return Procedures
The amended-return procedures apply to "BBA partnerships," which include most partnerships that are subject to the centralized audit regime provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) ( P.L. 114-74). The centralized audit regime replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) ( P.L. 97–248) partnership procedures.

An eligible BBA partnership may use amended returns to:

change its method of depreciation and/or general asset account treatment for its residential rental property, or
make a late election to be an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7) by filing an amended Form 1065 in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2020-22, 2020-18 IRB 745.

Amended Partnership Returns in Special Situations
If the partnership is currently under examination for a tax year beginning in 2018, 2019, or 2020, it must send written notice to the revenue agent coordinating the before or at the same time it files its amended Form 1065.

If the partnership previously filed an administrative adjustment request (AAR) for a tax year covered by the amended return, it should use the items as adjusted in the AAR on the amended return.

If, under Notice 2019-46, 2019-37 I.R.B. 695, a partnership has applied the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rules of Proposed Reg. §1.951A-5 for tax years ending before June 22, 2019, the partnership may continue to apply those rules to those tax years. However, the partnership must also furnish amended Schedules K-1 and appropriate notifications to its partners.

Close

An estate was allowed a marital deduction because the decedent’s marriage was valid in the country of celebration. The decedent, who was Jewish, obtained a religious divorce under rabbinical law in New York from his first wife after a New York court had declared his Mexican divorce invalid, which resulted in the declaration that his marriage to a second wife was null and void. The decedent traveled to Israel and married his third wife in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony. The Israeli marriage certificate noted that the decedent was free to marry because he was divorced. The government claimed that because the divorce was not valid under state law, no marital deduction was allowed because the property did not pass to the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Marriage Was Valid in New York
Under New York law, the marriage was valid since it was recognized in Israel unless it was contrary to public policy or violated "positive law." Because Code Sec. 2056(a) focuses on the identity of the surviving spouse, the initial question was whether the decedent and the surviving spouse were validly married, and not whether the religious divorce was valid. Under Israeli law, the decedent was validly divorced and could remarry. Thus, for purposes of New York law, the marriage was not bigamous and not contrary to public policy. New York divorce law was not violated by the finding because that law was not broken by a New York resident marrying outside of the state and recognizing a non-New York marriage was not equivalent to ruling on the divorce’s validity. However, the ruling was narrowly focused on whether the New York Court of Appeals would recognize the Israeli marriage, which was not contested by the prior spouse and left undisturbed by the lower courts.

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced that they intend to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Sec. 59A and Code Sec. 6038A to defer the information reporting requirements for qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. The current regulations provide that the QDP reporting requirements apply to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021.

Background
Under the BEAT rules, a base erosion minimum tax is imposed on certain corporations with annual average annual gross receipts of at least $500 million over the previous three tax years. The tax applies to base erosion payments paid or accrued in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Generally speaking, base erosion payments are certain types of payments made by a taxpayer to foreign related parties or foreign persons.

QDPs are not base erosion payments. A QDP is any payment made by a taxpayer to a foreign related party pursuant to a derivative for which:

the taxpayer recognizes gain or loss on the derivative on a mark-to-market basis (treats the derivative as sold on the last business day of the tax year);
the gain or loss is ordinary; and
any gain, loss, income or deduction on a payment made pursuant to the derivative is also treated as ordinary.

This QDP exception applies only if the taxpayer satisfies certain reporting requirements. Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) requires a taxpayer subject to the BEAT to report on Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts, the aggregate amount of QDPs for the tax year, and make a representation that all payments satisfy the reporting requirements of Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2).

Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) applies to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021. During the “transition period” before that date, a taxpayer is treated as satisfying the reporting requirements to the extent that it reports the aggregate amount of QDPs on Schedule A of Form 8991, provided the taxpayer reports this amount in good faith ( Reg. §§1.59A-6(b)(2)(iv); 1.6038A-2(g)).

QDP Reporting Deferred
The preamble to 2020 final regulations relating to Code Sec. 59A included a comment which recommended that Treasury and the IRS address the interaction of the QDP exception, the BEAT netting rule in Reg. §1.59A-2(e)(3)(vi), and the QDP reporting requirements in Reg. §1.59A-6 and Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix). While studying this matter, Treasury and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to extend the transition period.

Accordingly, Treasury and the IRS intend to amend Reg. §1.6038A-2(g) to provide that Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. Until that reporting requirement applies, the transition period rules described above continue to apply.

Taxpayer Reliance
Taxpayers may rely on this Notice before the amendments to the final regulations are issued.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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?

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close