The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

This postponement applies to individual taxpayers, including those who pay self-employment tax. Penalties, interest and additions to tax will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of May 17, 2021.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that they do not need to file any forms or call the IRS to qualify for this automatic federal tax filing and payment relief.

Individual taxpayers who need additional time to file beyond the May 17 deadline can request a filing extension until October 15 by filing Form 4868 through their tax professional or tax software, or by using the Free File link on the IRS website. Filing Form 4868 gives taxpayers until October 15 to file their 2020 tax return, but does not grant an extension of time to pay taxes due.

Not for Estimated Taxes, Other Items

This relief does not apply to estimated tax payments that are due on April 15, 2021. Taxes must be paid as taxpayers earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. Also, the federal tax filing deadline postponement to May 17, 2021, only applies to individual federal income returns and tax (including tax on self-employment income) payments otherwise due April 15, 2021, not state tax payments or deposits or payments of any other type of federal tax. The IRS urges taxpayers to check with their state tax agencies for details on state filing and payment deadlines.

Winter Storm Relief

The IRS had previously announced relief for victims of the February winter storms in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. These states have until June 15, 2021, to file various individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. The extension to May 17 does not affect the June deadline.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

• 2021 Recovery Rebate Credits of $1,400 for eligible individuals ($2,800 for joint filers) plus $1,400 for each eligible dependent. Credit begins to phase out at adjusted gross income of $150,000 for joint filers, $112,500 for a head of household, $75,000 for other individuals. The IRS has already begun making advance refund payments of the credit to taxpayers.
• Exclusion of up to $10,200 of unemployment compensation from income for tax year 2020 for households with adjusted gross income under $150,000.
• Enhancements of many personal tax credits meant to benefit individuals with lower incomes and children.
• Exclusion of student loan debt from income, for loans discharged between December 31, 2020, and January 1, 2026.
• For tax years after December 31, 2026, the $1,000,000 deduction limit on compensation of a publicly-held corporation’s covered employees will expand to include the five highest paid employees after the CEO and CFO. The rule in current law applies to the CEO, the CFO, and the next three highest paid officers.
• For the payroll credits for paid sick and family leave: The credit amounts are increased by an employer’s collectively bargained pension plan and apprenticeship program contributions that are allocable to paid leave wages. Also, paid leave wages do not include wages taken into account as payroll costs under certain Small Business Administration programs.

The president is conducting a nationwide tour to explain and promote the over 600-page, $1.9 trillion legislation.

Stimulus Payments

Many of the 158.5 million American households eligible for the payments from the stimulus package can expect to receive them soon, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the same afternoon Biden signed the legislation into law. Payments are coming by direct deposit, checks, or a debit card to those eligible.

FTC: Beware of Scams

Scammers are right now crawling out from under their rocks to fleece businesses and consumers receiving the aid, the Federal Trade Commission warned on March 12.

It is important for business owners and consumers to know that the federal government will never ask them to pay anything up front to get this money, said the FTC: "That’s a scam. Every time." The regulatory agency also cautioned that the government will not call, text, email or direct mail aid recipients to ask for a Social Security, bank account, or credit card number.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

"I hope Treasury will say something very soon: FAQs, press release, something. IRS undoubtedly will have to write new regs," commented Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Senior Fellow Howard Gleckman. He stressed IRS certainly will have to figure out how to make the retroactive tax exemption for some 2020 unemployment benefits work. Gleckman also said he suspects the Child Tax Credit will require new guidance.

Gleckman claimed a new form this late in the tax season is unlikely. "Amended returns seems easiest," said the veteran IRS observer.

To help implement the tax-related changes in the American Rescue Plan, a colleague at the Tax Policy Center, Janet Holtzblatt, said that she, as well, is looking for guidance from the IRS on what taxpayers would do if they received unemployment benefits in 2020. Holtzblatt noted the law would exclude $10,200 of those benefits from adjusted gross income if the taxpayers’ adjusted gross income is less than $150,000.

What people will want to know, Holtzblatt stated, is:

• What to do if they already filed their tax return and paid income taxes on those benefits? Do they have to file an amended tax return just to get the tax refund for that reason, or will the IRS establish a simpler method to do so?
• And going forward, what about people who have not yet filed their tax return? If a new form is not released, what should they report on the existing return—the full amount or the partial amount? And how will the IRS know when the tax return is processed whether the taxpayer reported the full amount or the partial amount? (Eventually, the IRS could—when, after the filing season is over and tax returns are matched to 1099s from UI offices—but that could be months before taxpayers would be made whole.)

For the CARES Act, Holtzblatt said the IRS generally provided guidance through FAQs on their website which was insufficient for some tax professionals and later voided. "Some of their interpretations raised questions—and in the case of the treatment of prisoners, was challenged in the courts and led to a reversal of the interpretation in the FAQ," she explained.

National Association of Tax Professionals Director of Marketing, Communications & Business Development Nancy Kasten said new rules are musts and the agency will have to issue new FAQs, potentially on all of the key provisions in the legislation. The NATP executive asserted that old forms are going to need to be revised for Tax Year 2021. "Regarding 2020 retroactive items, we are waiting on IRS guidance," said Kasten.

National Conference of CPA Practitioners National Tax Policy Committee Co-Chair Steve Mankowski said the primary rules that will need to be written ASAP relate to the changes in the 2020 unemployment, especially since it appears to be income based as well as the increased child tax credit with advanced payments being sent monthly unless a taxpayer opts out. He added there will most likely need to be a worksheet added to the 2020 tax returns to show the unemployment received and adjusting UE income down to the taxable amount.

Mankowski, immediate past president of NCCCPAP said the primary items for new FAQs include the unemployment and the income limit on the non-taxability, changes in the child tax credit; and changes in the Employee Retention Credit.

In response to an email seeking what the agency plans to do to help implement the pandemic relief measure, an IRS spokesman forwarded the following statement released on March 10:

"The IRS is reviewing implementation plans for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that was recently passed by Congress. Additional information about a new round of Economic Impact Payments and other details will be made available on IRS.gov, once the legislation has been signed by the President."

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Creating new incentives and making temporary ones permanent are particularly critical for helping American competitiveness in semiconductors, batteries and other high-tech products, Senate Banking Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Ranking Minority Party Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) stressed at the session.

Wyden said it is urgent business for elected officials to create conditions for the American semiconductor industry to thrive for years as part of a Congressional job creation toolkit. "I have seen too many short-term tax policies and mistakes," the Senate Finance Chair said. His sentiment was echoed by Crapo, the committee’s top Republican: "This is an area of bipartisan interest, and I welcome the opportunity to work with Chairman Wyden on this."

Crapo: Don’t Raise Corporate Rate

At the same time, Crapo cautioned Congress should not offset losses in federal revenue from increasing the stability of investment importance of protecting tax credit credits by raising the overall corporate tax rate. He said he is "very concerned" by reports he has heard that the White House is preparing to propose just that. Currently at 21 percent, the corporate tax rate was 35 percent before the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act took effect.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School Of Management Accounting Professor Michelle Hanlon told the hearing raising corporate tax rates would put American industry at a competitive disadvantage globally. She said the 2017 tax cuts should be built upon to expand manufacturing.

While saying expanding tax breaks for tech including clean energy is critical, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) warned the federal government is looking at an avalanche of debt. To lessen that surge, he said it is important to go after the tax gap: money that taxpayers owe but they are not paying.

Senator Todd Young (R-Ind) warned that left unchanged, starting in 2022 companies will no longer be able to expense research and development expenses in the year incurred. "This would come at the expense of manufacturing jobs," he said. Young has introduced legislation to let businesses write up R&D as they are currently allowed.

If businesses are not allowed to continue to amortize their research and development expenses in the year they are incurred, it would significantly increase the cost to perform R&D in the U.S., Intel Chief Financial Officer George Davis warned the panel.

Ford Embraces Biden Proposal

Ford Motor Company Vice President, Global Commodity Purchasing And Supplier Technical Assistance Jonathan Jennings told the Senate that the auto maker embraces President Joe Biden’s proposal to provide a 10 percent advanceable tax credit for companies creating U.S. manufacturing jobs.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

"There were trailers in June filled (with unopened paper returns). There are none today," Rettig said in an appearance before the House Appropriations Committee Financial Services Subcommittee.

When there was a delay in getting to a return, Rettig said that a taxpayer was credited on the date the mail was received, not the day the payment was processed.

The IRS leader stated that virtual currency, which is designed to be anonymous, has probably significantly increased the amount of money taxpayers owed but have not paid since the last formal figure of $381 billion was estimated in 2013.

To close the gap between money owed and money paid, Rettig said there has to be an increase in guidance as well as enforcement. "The two go together," said Rettig, who pointed out that the IRS must support the people who are working to get their tax payments right as well as working against those who are trying to thwart the agency’s efforts.

Rettig cited high-income/high-wealth taxpayers, including high-income non-filers, as high enforcement priorities. "We have not pulled back enforcement efforts for higher income individuals during the pandemic. We can be impactful," said Rettig. He added that the IRS is using artificial intelligence and other information technology (IT) advances to catch wealthy tax law and tax rule breakers. "Our advanced data and analytic strategies allow us to catch instances of tax evasion that would not have been possible just a few years ago," said the IRS leader.

Rettig contended that the agency’s IT improvement efforts are being hampered by a shortage of funding. According to Rettig, three years into a six-year business modernization plan, the IRS has received half of the money it requested from Congress for the initiative.

One of the impacts of the pandemic on the IRS and the taxpayers and tax professionals it serves, said Rettig, is the average length of phone calls has risen to 17 minutes from 12 minutes because the issues have been more complex.

On another issue related to COVID-19, Rettig said the IRS has been diligently working to alert taxpayers and tax professionals to scams related to COVID-19, especially calls and email phishing attempts tied to the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs). He said people can reduce the chances of missing their EIP payments through lost, stolen or thrown-away debit cards by filing their tax returns electronically.

The Commissioner told the panel that the delay in starting the tax filing season this year will not add to any additional delays to refunds on returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).

Rettig also noted that taxpayers who interact with an IRS representative now have access to over-the-phone interpreter services in more than 350 languages.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

Background

During the tax years at issue, each taxpayer had an American Express credit card that was part of a rewards program that paid reward dollars for eligible purchases made on their cards. Card users could redeem reward dollars as credits on their card balances (statement credits). To generate as many reward dollars as possible, the taxpayers used their American Express credit cards to buy as many Visa gift cards as they could from local grocery stores and pharmacies. They used the gift cards to purchase money orders, and deposited the money orders into their bank accounts. The husband occasionally purchased money orders with one of the American Express cards.

The taxpayers also occasionally paid their American Express bills through a money transfer company. Using this method, they paid the American Express bill with a reloadable debit card, and the money transfer company would transmit the payment to American Express electronically. The taxpayers used their American Express cards to purchase reloadable debit cards that they used to pay their American Express bills, and the purchase of debit cards and reloads also generated reward dollars.

All of the taxpayers' charges of more than $400 in single transactions with the American Express cards were for gift cards, reloadable debit cards, or money orders. On their joint tax returns, the taxpayers did not report any income from the rewards program.

The IRS determined that the reward dollars generated ordinary income to the taxpayers. When a payment is made by a seller to a customer as an inducement to purchase property, the payment generally does not constitute income but instead is treated as a purchase price adjustment to the basis of the property ( Pittsburgh Milk Co., 26 TC 707, Dec. 21,816; Rev. Rul. 76-96, 1976-1 CB 23). The IRS argued that the taxpayers did not purchase goods or property, but instead purchased cash equivalents—gift cards, reloads for debit cards, and money orders—to which no basis adjustment could apply. As a result, the reward dollars paid as statement credits for the charges relating to cash equivalents were an accession to wealth.

Rebate Policy; Cash Equivalency Doctrine

The Tax Court observed that the taxpayers' aggressive efforts to generate reward dollars created a dilemma for the IRS which was largely the result of the vagueness of IRS credit card reward policy. Under the rebate rule, a purchase incentive such as credit card rewards or points is not treated as income but as a reduction of the purchase price of what is purchased with the rewards or points ( Rev. Rul. 76-96; IRS Pub. 17). The court observed that the gift cards were quickly converted to assets that could be deposited into the taxpayers’ bank accounts to pay their American Express bills. According to the court, to avoid offending its long-standing policy that card rewards are not taxable, the IRS sought to apply the cash equivalence concept, but that concept was not a good fit in this case.

The court stated that a debt obligation is a cash equivalent where it is a promise to pay of a solvent obligor and the obligation is unconditional and assignable, not subject to set-offs, and is of a kind that is frequently transferred to lenders or investors at a discount not substantially greater than the generally prevailing premium for the use of money ( F. Cowden, CA-5, 61-1 ustc ¶9382, 289 F2d 202). The court found that the three types of transactions in this case failed to fit this definition.

The court ruled that the reward dollars associated with the gift card purchases were not properly included in income. The reward dollars taxpayers received were not notes, but instead were commitments by American Express to allow taxpayers credits against their card balances. The court found that American Express offered the rewards program as an inducement for card holders to use their American Express cards.

However, the court upheld the inclusion in income of the related reward dollars for the direct purchases of money orders and the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards. The court observed that the money orders purchased with the American Express cards, and the infusion of cash into the reloadable debit cards, were difficult to reconcile with the IRS credit card reward policy. Unlike the gift cards, which had product characteristics, the court stated that no product or service was obtained in these uses of the American Express cards other than cash transfers.

As the court noted, the money orders were not properly treated as a product subject to a price adjustment because they were eligible for deposit into taxpayers' bank account from acquisition. The court similarly found that the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards also were not product purchases. The reloadable debit cards were used for transfers by the money transfer company, which the court stated were arguably a service, but the reward dollars were issued for the cash infusions, not the transfer fees.

Finally, the court stated that its holdings were not based on the application of the cash equivalence doctrine, but instead on the incompatibility of the direct money order purchases and the debit card reloads with the IRS policy excluding credit card rewards for product and service purchases from income.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

Settlement Day

Settlement Day events are coordinated efforts to resolve cases in the U.S. Tax Court by providing taxpayers who are not represented by counsel with the opportunity to receive free tax advice from Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs), American Bar Association (ABA) volunteer attorneys, and other pro bono organizations. Taxpayers can also discuss their Tax Court cases and related tax issues with members of the Office of Chief Counsel, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and IRS Collection representatives. These communications can aid in reaching a settlement by providing taxpayers with a better understanding of what is needed to support their case.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) employees also participate in VSDs to assist taxpayers with tax issues attributable to non-docketed years. Local Taxpayer Advocates and their staff can work with and inform taxpayers about how TAS may be able to assist with other unresolved tax matters, or to provide further assistance after the Tax Court matter is concluded. IRS Collection personnel will be available to discuss potential payment alternatives if a settlement is reached. For those who choose to take their cases to court, the VSD process can also give a better understanding of what information taxpayers need to present to the court to be successful.

Following its first announcement of virtual settlement days in May last year, the Chief Counsel and LITCs have successfully used VSD events to help more than 259 taxpayer resolve Tax Court cases without having to go to trial.

Registration and Information

The IRS proactively identifies and reaches out to taxpayers with Tax Court cases which appear most suitable for this settlement day approach, and invites them attend VSD events. The IRS also generally encourages taxpayers with active Tax Court cases to contact the assigned Chief Counsel attorney or paralegal about participating in the March VSD events.

This year, the IRS has included the following locations where these events have never been offered: Albuquerque, Billings, Buffalo, Cheyenne, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Nashville, Peoria, Omaha, Reno, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose.

LITCs can contact their local Chief Counsel offices about the event in their area. If additional information is needed, individuals can reach out to Chief Counsel’s Settlement Day Cadre, or contact Sarah Sexton Martinez at (312) 368-8604. Pro bono volunteers are encouraged to contact Meg Newman (Megan.Newman@americanbar.org) with the American Bar Association Tax Section.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

However, the taxpayer, a high school graduate, testified that she had “a little bit of banking education,” indicating that she had some familiarity with bookkeeping. Her ex-spouse added during trial that the taxpayer had worked at a bank for a few years. Regarding her role in the LLC, the taxpayer maintained the business' books and records, prepared and signed sales tax returns and unemployment tax contribution forms on its behalf, and worked with an accountant to prepare its tax returns. Nothing in the record indicated that her ex-spouse tried to deceive or hide anything from her.

Further, the taxpayer’s joint ownership of the LLC, her involvement in maintaining its books and records, her role in preparing and signing tax-related documents on behalf of the business, and her cooperation with an accountant to prepare the LLC’s tax returns, showed that she had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances that made the deductions unallowable. Thus, she also was not entitled to relief under Code Sec. 6015(c).

The taxpayer was not eligible for streamlined determination under Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, because no evidence corroborated her testimony that her former spouse had abused her in any sense to which the tax law or common experience would accord any recognition. The history of acrimony between the taxpayer and her ex-spouse called into question the weight to be given to her claims of spousal abuse. Finally, the taxpayer was unable to persuade the court that she was entitled to equitable relief under Code Sec. 6015(f). She was intimately involved with the LLC, knew or had reason to know of the items giving rise to the understatement, and failed to make a good-faith effort to comply with her income tax return filing obligations.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

Thereafter, the RA obtained written approval from her immediate supervisor for the civil fraud penalty, and sent the taxpayers a notice of deficiency determining the same. The taxpayers contended that the civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the RA’s supervisor because the revenue agent report (RAR) presented at the conference meeting embodied the first formal communication of the RA’s initial determination to assert the fraud penalty.

Due to the use of a summons letter requiring the taxpayers' attendance, the closing conference at the end of the taxpayers’ examination process carried a degree of formality not present in most IRS meetings. The closing conference was, like an IRS letter, a formal means of communicating the IRS’s initial determination that taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty. Therefore, the RA communicated her initial determination to assert the fraud penalty when she provided the taxpayers with a completed and signed RAR at the closing conference. The RA had also informed the taxpayers during the closing conference that they did not have appeal rights at that time, which was incomplete and potentially misleading.

The completed RAR given to the taxpayers during the closing conference, coupled with the context surrounding its presentation, represented a "consequential moment" in which the RA formally communicated her initial determination that the taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty.

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.