The IRS has outlined key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), signed into law on July 4, 2025, that introduce new deductions beginning in tax year 2025. The deductions apply through 2028 and cover qualified tips, overtime pay, car loan interest, and a special allowance for seniors.

The IRS has outlined key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), signed into law on July 4, 2025, that introduce new deductions beginning in tax year 2025. The deductions apply through 2028 and cover qualified tips, overtime pay, car loan interest, and a special allowance for seniors.

Under the “No Tax on Tips” provision, employees and self-employed individuals may deduct up to $25,000 in voluntary cash or charged tips received in IRS-designated tip-based occupations. Tips must be reported on Form W-2, Form 1099 or directly on Form 4137. The deduction phases out above $150,000 in modified adjusted gross income ($300,000 for joint filers). Self-employed individuals engaged in a Specified Service Trade or Business under Code Sec. 199A and employees of SSTBs are ineligible.

The “No Tax on Overtime” provision permits workers to deduct the premium portion of overtime pay required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The deduction is capped at $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers), with a similar income-based phaseout.

The “No Tax on Car Loan Interest” rule allows individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on loans used to purchase new, personal-use vehicles assembled in the U.S. Qualifying loans must originate after December 31, 2024, and be secured by the vehicle. Used and leased vehicles do not qualify. The deduction phases out for income above $100,000 ($200,000 for joint filers).

Finally, taxpayers aged 65 or older can claim a new $6,000 deduction per person in addition to the current senior standard deduction. The deduction phases out above $75,000 ($150,000 for joint filers).

All deductions are available to itemizing and non-itemizing taxpayers. Transition relief for tax year 2025 will be provided.

FS-2025-3

Funding uncertainty and a constantly changing tax law environment are presenting challenges to the Internal Revenue Service as it works to meet legislative and executive mandates to improve the taxpayer experience.

Funding uncertainty and a constantly changing tax law environment are presenting challenges to the Internal Revenue Service as it works to meet legislative and executive mandates to improve the taxpayer experience.

A July Government Accountability Office report highlighted three specific challenges that the agency is facing as it works to improve the taxpayer experience.

GAO noted that "uncertainty about stable multiyear funding hinders efforts to modernize IRS computer systems and offer digital services to quickly resolve taxpayer issues. "

IRS had been using the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act to help address these issues, but those fundings have been a constant target for Republicans in Congress as well as the current Trump Administration, despite regular calls for stable and adequate funding.

The second challenge GAO reported was that "complicated and changing tax laws limit IRS’s ability to offer timely guidance to taxpayers," the report states, though agency officials said it had plans in place to ensure the guidance flowing from the IRS is provided in a manner that is accurate, up-to-date, and available in a user-friendly format.

Staffing was highlighted as the third challenge.

GAO reported that "being unable to hire enough staff trained to help taxpayers can undercut the ability to optimally improve taxpayer experiences. IRS officials said IRS had efforts to boost hiring and training as well as improved systems to enable staff to improve taxpayer experiences."

However, in March 2025, "IRS officials said it was unclear how reductions to the IRA funding and to its staffing will affect these efforts to address the challenges," GAO reported.

The government watchdog also noted that IRS has not established key practices to:

• Define taxpayer experience goals related to service improvements;

• Generate new evidence from measures, analytical tools, and dashboards to track progress with the taxpayer experience goals;

• Involve external stakeholders to help assess the affects of its service improvements on the taxpayer experience; and

• Promote accountability for achieving the taxpayer experience goals.

"IRS officials said establishing an evidence-based approach using these and other key practices has been delayed," GAO reports. "The IRS offices that had been coordinating IRA and taxpayer experience initiatives were disbanded in March 2025 and April 2025, respectively, according to IRS officials."

GAO recommends that the agency "fully establish an evidence-based approach to determine the effects of service improvements on the taxpayer experience."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Audits on high-income individuals and partnerships have increased in recent years as audits on large corporations have decreased in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s focus on the former group, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration found.

Audits on high-income individuals and partnerships have increased in recent years as audits on large corporations have decreased in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s focus on the former group, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration found.

In a report on trends in compliance activities through fiscal year 2023 dated July 10, 2025, examination starts for partnerships increased 63 percent from FY 2020 (4,106 starts) to FY 2023 (6,709 starts), while examination starts decreased 18 percent in the same time frame from 1,700 to 1,400.

For individuals, the overall combined number of examinations open and closed from FY 2020 through 2023 decreased from 466,921 to 400,446. For individuals with income tax returns of $400,000 or less, the percentage of examinations opened and closed dropped from 94.8 percent to 91.2 percent (442,856 to 365,229) while the percentage of examinations opened and closed for individual income tax returns more than $400,000 increased from 5.2 percent to 8.8 percent (24,065 to 35,217).

"The IRS planned to increase enforcement activities to help ensure tax compliance among high-income and high-wealth individuals," TIGTA reported, adding that it planned to use the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act and that the IRS as of May 2024, the agency plans to audit twice the number of individual returns with more than $400,000 in FY 2024 compared to FY 2023.

However, whether the IRS will be able to meet any compliance goals for both individuals as well as partnerships and corporations is questionable, with agency’s "ability to move forward with hiring efforts in these complex audit areas of corporations, partnerships and high-income individuals is uncertain considering the decreased enforcement funding and recent government staffing cuts."

To that end, the agency’s Field Collection, Campus Collection, and Examination staff is already on a downward trend.

TIGTA reported that the staff decreased from 18,472 employees in FY 2020 to 17,475 in 2023 due to attrition. The Collection staff slightly increased from 7,246 to 7,371 and the Examination staff decreased from 11,226 to 10,104.

"The status of the IRS’s IRA plan, other IRA transformational initiatives, along with the IRS’s hiring plans is uncertain, at best," TIGTA reported. "Although the IRS made substantial progress with hiring 4,048 revenue officers and revenue agents in FY 2024, the recissions of IRA funding, the hiring freeze, early retirement incentives, and future reductions in force present a challenge to improving taxpayer service and enforcing the nation’s tax laws."

The report also noted that in FY 2023, $10.1 billion in enforcement revenue was collected by the Automated Collection System. Field Collection collected a total of $5.9 billion.

In a separate report dated July 10, 2025, TIGTA reported the IRS planned to increase examinations across individuals, partnerships and businesses reporting total positive income of more than $400,000 in FY 2024. The average starts from FY 2019-2023 was 29,466 and the IRS planned to increase that to 70,812. At the same time, the number of returns with a total positive income reported of less and $400,000 is planned to decrease from an average of 452,051 from FY 2019-2023 to 354,792 in FY 2024. But it is not clear whether the agency will be able to meet these targets even though it was on track to meet these goals.

The agency "has not defined key terminology or aspects of its methodology for compliance to meet with these goals as outlined in the 2022 Treasury Directive that higher income earners would be targeted for audit," TIGTA reported. "The IRS stated that the FY 2024 plan was created with the assumptions available at the time. Any subsequent decisions about these issues could affect the effectiveness of future examination plans in meeting compliance requirements."

TIGTA did not make any recommendations in either report and the IRS did not make any comments on them.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has released guidance clarifying the withholding and reporting obligations for employers and plan administrators when a retirement plan distribution check is uncashed and later reissued.

The IRS has released guidance clarifying the withholding and reporting obligations for employers and plan administrators when a retirement plan distribution check is uncashed and later reissued.

In the scenario addressed, a plan administrator issued an $800 designated distribution to a former employee, withheld the correct amount of federal income tax under Code Sec. 3405, and sent the remaining balance by check. When that check went uncashed and was subsequently voided, a second check was mailed. Because the original withholding amount was correct and fully remitted, the IRS has concluded that no refund or adjustment is available under Code Secs. 6413 or 6414, as there was no overpayment involved.

For the second check, the IRS has stated that no further withholding is required if the amount reissued is equal to or less than the original distribution. However, if the new amount exceeds the prior distribution—due, for example, to accumulated earnings—the excess portion is treated as a separate designated distribution subject to new withholding under Code Sec. 3405.

With respect to reporting obligations, the IRS noted that Code Sec. 6047(d) requires a Form 1099-R to be filed for designated distributions of $10 or more. For the first check, the $800 distribution must be reported for the applicable year, with the full amount listed in Boxes 1 and 2a, and the tax withheld in Box 4. No additional reporting is required for the second check if the amount is equal to or less than the original. However, if the second check includes an excess of $10 or more, that additional amount must be reported on a separate Form 1099-R for the year in which the second distribution occurs.

Rev. Rul. 2025-15

The Treasury Department and the IRS have withdrawn proposed rules addressing the treatment of built-in income, gain, deduction, and loss taken into account by a loss corporation after an ownership change under Code Sec. 382(h). The withdrawal, effective July 2, 2025, follows public criticism on the proposed regulations’ approach.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have withdrawn proposed rules addressing the treatment of built-in income, gain, deduction, and loss taken into account by a loss corporation after an ownership change under Code Sec. 382(h). The withdrawal, effective July 2, 2025, follows public criticism on the proposed regulations’ approach.

The proposed rules were Reg. §1.382-1, proposed on September 10, 2019 (84 FR 47455), and Reg. §§1.382-1, 1.382-2 and 1.382-7, proposed on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2061). The proposed regulations would have adopted as mandatory, with certain modifications, (a) the safe harbor net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG) and net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL) computation provided in Notice 2003-65, 2003-40 I.R.B. 747, based on the principles of Code Sec. 1374, and (b) the “1374 approach,” (as described in Notice 2003-65) for the identification of recognized built-in gain and recognized built-in loss. The IRS considered that the 1374 approach would make it easier for taxpayers to calculate built-in gains and built-in losses and comply with Code Sec. 382(h).

The IRS received critical comments from practitioners on the proposed rules, leading the agency to conclude that further study is needed before issuing any new proposed regulations.

The proposed regulations are withdrawn. Taxpayers may continue to rely on Notice 2003-65 for applying Code Sec. 382(h) to an ownership change before the effective date of any temporary or final regulations under Code Sec. 382(h).

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-125710-18

The Treasury and IRS removed this final rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that involved gross proceeds reporting by brokers for effectuating digital asset sales.

The Treasury and IRS removed this final rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that involved gross proceeds reporting by brokers for effectuating digital asset sales. The agencies reverted the relevant text of the CFR back to the text that was in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this final rule.

Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving the final rule titled “Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers that Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales.” The Treasury Department and the IRS were not soliciting comments on this action, nor delaying the effective date.

Effective Date

This final rule is effective on July 11, 2025.

T.D. 10021

A more then 25 percent reduction in the Internal Revenue Service workforce will likely present some significant challenges on the heels of a 2025 tax season described as a "measured success," according to the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate.

A more then 25 percent reduction in the Internal Revenue Service workforce will likely present some significant challenges on the heels of a 2025 tax season described as a "measured success," according to the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate.

In the "Fiscal Year 2026 Objectives Report to Congress," National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins noted that the 2025 filing season marked the IRS’ "third consecutive year of delivering a generally successful filing season, and by some measures, it was the smoothest yet. Most taxpayers filed their returns and paid their taxes or received their refunds without any delays or intervention from the IRS."

The report highlights that more than 95 percent of individual returns were filed electronically and more than 60 percent of taxpayers received refunds, "the majority within standard processing timeframes."

Despite having a successful season, the agency has reduced its workforce by more than 25 percent since the federal government under President Trump began cutting the federal workforce.

In analyzing what agency functions are affected by this workforce reduction, the report states that "many functions are more visible to taxpayers and directly impact service delivery, while other functions play vital supporting roles in providing taxpayer service and delivering on the IRS’s mission."

Collins in the report when on to encourage Congress ignore requests to cut the IRS budget and ensure the agency is properly staffed and financed.

"The Administration’s budget proposal envisions a 20 percent reduction in appropriated IRS funding next year and an overall reduction of 37 percent after taking into account after taking into account the decrease in supplemental funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. A reduction of that magnitude is likely to impact taxpayers and potentially the revenue collected."

The issues of the workforce reduction could be compounded by the expected permanent extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Collins stated that most of the changes related to the extension won’t take effect until January 1, 2026, "but several provisions impacting tens of millions of taxpayers will likely be effective during the 2025. This suggests additional complexity with taxpayers file their 2025 tax returns during the 2026 filing season and more complexity the following year. In addition, the reduction of more than 25 percent in the IRS workforce has the potential to reduce taxpayer services."

The report also echoed ongoing calls it has made in the past, as well as calls by other stakeholders, to continue to improve its information technology modernization strategy. Collins notes that in recent years, "the agency has made notable strides in modernizing its systems. … If this momentum continues, the IRS will be well positioned to deliver high quality service, enhance the taxpayer experience, and perhaps improve tax compliance at a reduced cost."

She highlighted the improvements that were made possible through the supplemental funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, but added that the Trump Administration has paused indefinitely or cancelled projects and replaced them with nine distinct modernization "’vertical,’ which are technology projects designed to meet specified technology demands."

"While these initiatives are promising, the IRS must provide clear and detailed communication to Congress and the public regarding the objectives, scope, business value, milestones, projected timelines, costs, and anticipated impacts of these nine vertical projects on taxpayer service," the report stated. "Without such transparency, there is a real risk these initiatives could stall or deviate from their intended outcomes."

Collins also made a case for sustained funding for IT improvements, recalling a 2023 blog post where she highlighted that large U.S. banks "spend between $10 billion and $14 billion a year on technology, often more than half on new technology systems. Yet in fiscal year (FY) 2022, Congress appropriated just $275 million for the IRS’s Business Systems Modernization (BSM) account. That’s less than five percent of what the largest banks are spending on new technology each year, and the IRS services far more people and entities than any bank."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

IR-2025-71

The Internal Revenue Service Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) released its 2025 annual report during a public meeting in Washington, D.C., outlining 14 recommendations—ten directed to the IRS and four to Congress. 

The Internal Revenue Service Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) released its 2025 annual report during a public meeting in Washington, D.C., outlining 14 recommendations—ten directed to the IRS and four to Congress. ETAAC operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and collaborates with the Security Summit, a joint initiative established in 2015 by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry to address identity theft and cybercrime.

ETAAC recommended that the IRS update tax return forms to strengthen security and reduce fraud and identity theft. It also advised the agency to revise Modernized e-File reject codes and explanations, expand information sharing with state and industry partners, and continue transitioning taxpayers toward fully digital interactions.

Congress was urged to support tax simplification aligned with policy objectives, grant the IRS authority to regulate non-credentialed tax return preparers, ensure stable funding for taxpayer services and operations, and prioritize sustained technology modernization. For more information, visit the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) page.

IR-2025-72

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.