- Newsletters

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2021 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2021.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps
The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2021 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

$10,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$18,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$16,400 for the second year
$9,800 for the third year
$5,860 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans
The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2021 are:

$10,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$18,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$16,400 for the second year
$9,800 for the third year
$5,860 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles
If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

$5,860 for passenger cars and
$5,860 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans
If a vehicle is first leased in 2021, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

$51,000 for a passenger car, or
$51,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2021 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Vehicles Exempt from Depreciation Caps and Lease Inclusion Amounts
The depreciation caps and lease inclusion amounts do not apply to:

cars with an unloaded gross vehicle weight of more than 6,000 pounds; or
SUVs, trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds.

So taxpayers who want to avoid these limits should "think big."

Close

The IRS has issued guidance for employers claiming the employee retention credit under Code Sec. 3134, enacted by section 9651 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), P.L. 117-2, which provides a credit for wages paid after June 30, 2021, and before January 1, 2022. The guidance amplifies previous notices which addressed the employee retention credit under section 2301 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136, as amended by sections 206 and 207 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, P.L. 116-260.

In general, eligible employers can claim a refundable employee retention credit against the employer share of Social Security tax equal to 70 percent of the qualified wages they pay to employees after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Qualified wages are limited to $10,000 per employee per calendar quarter in 2021. Thus, the maximum employee retention credit available is $7,000 per employee per calendar quarter, for a total of $14,000 for the first two calendar quarters of 2021. Under Code Secs. 3134(a) and (b)(1)(A), these limits continue to apply in the third and fourth calendar quarters in 2021.

The guidance explains changes made to the employee retention credit for the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, including:

making the credit available to eligible employers that pay qualified wages after June 30, 2021, and before January 1, 2022;
expanding the definition of eligible employer to include "recovery startup businesses";
modifying the definition of qualified wages for "severely financially distressed employers"; and
providing that the credit does not apply to qualified wages taken into account as payroll costs in connection with a shuttered venue grant under section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Venues Act, or a restaurant revitalization grant under section 5003 of the ARP.

The guidance also provides guidance on several miscellaneous issues with respect to the employee retention credit for both 2020 and 2021, including:

the definition of full-time employee and whether that definition includes full-time equivalents;
the treatment of tips as qualified wages and the interaction with the Code Sec. 45B credit;
the timing of the qualified wages deduction disallowance and whether taxpayers that already filed an income tax return must amend that return after claiming the credit on an adjusted employment tax return; and
whether wages paid to majority owners and their spouses may be treated as qualified wages.

Highlights of some of the items addressed in the guidance are summarized below.

Recovery Startup Businesses
A separate credit limit under Code Sec. 3134(b)(1)(B) applies to "recovery startup businesses." A "recovery startup business" is an employer (i) that began carrying on any trade or business after February 15, 2020; (ii) for which the average annual gross receipts of the employer for the three-tax-year period ending with the tax year that precedes the calendar quarter for which the credit is determined does not exceed $1,000,000; and (iii) that is not otherwise an eligible employer due to a full or partial suspension of operations or a decline in gross receipts. For an eligible employer that is a recovery startup business, the amount of the credit allowed under Code Sec. 3134(a) (after application of the limit under Code Sec. 3134(b)(1)(A)) for each of the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021 cannot exceed $50,000.

The determination of when a recovery startup business "began carrying on a trade or business" is made in the same manner as for purposes of Code Sec. 162. It is appropriate for the term "qualified wages" to include wages paid by a recovery startup business. In the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, a recovery startup business that is a small eligible employer may treat all wages paid with respect to an employee during the quarter as qualified wages. Whether an employer is a recovery startup business is determined separately for each calendar quarter.

Qualified Wages
The rules in Notice 2021-20 for determining the average number of full-time employees continue to apply in the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021. However, Code Sec. 3134(c)(3)(C) provides a different rule for qualified wages paid by "severely financially distressed employers." For the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, an eligible employer with gross receipts that are less than 10 percent of the gross receipts for the same calendar quarter in calendar year 2019 (or 2020, if the employer was not in existence in 2019) is a severely financially distressed employer.

Further, the rules for determining whether an employer is an eligible employer based on a decline in gross receipts also apply, in the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, for determining whether an eligible employer is a severely financially distressed employer based on the 10 percent threshold. For the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, a severely financially distressed employer that is a large eligible employer may treat all wages paid to its employees during the quarter in which the employer is considered severely financially distressed as qualified wages.

Claiming the Credit
Notice 2021-20 and Notice 2021-23 set forth the rules for claiming the employee retention credit in 2020 and the first and second calendar quarters in 2021, respectively. These rules, including the rules pertaining to claiming an advance and relevant limitations, continue to apply for the third and fourth quarters in 2021.

Reporting
Eligible employers will report their total qualified wages and the related health insurance costs for each quarter on their employment tax returns (Form 941) for the applicable period. If a reduction in the employer's employment tax deposits is not sufficient to cover the credit, certain employers may receive an advance payment from the IRS by submitting Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19.

Effect on Other Documents
Notice 2021-20, I.R.B. 2021-11, 922 and Notice 2021-23, I.R.B. 2021-16, 1113, are amplified.

Close

The Treasury and IRS have provided an optional safe harbor allowing employers to exclude the following amounts from their gross receipts solely for determining eligibility for the employee retention credit.

The Treasury and IRS have provided an optional safe harbor allowing employers to exclude the following amounts from their gross receipts solely for determining eligibility for the employee retention credit:

the amount of the forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan;
the amount of any Shuttered Venue Operators Grants under the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Venues Act; and
the amount of any Restaurant Revitalization Grants under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2).

Certain employers may be eligible for an employee retention credit against applicable federal employment taxes if their gross receipts for a calendar quarter decline by a certain percentage as compared to a prior calendar quarter. For most employers, gross receipts are defined by Code Sec. 448(c). For tax-exempt employers, gross receipts are defined by Code Sec. 6033.

Applying Safe Harbor Consistently
Employers must apply the safe harbor consistently in order to exclude these amounts from gross receipts for determining employee retention credit eligibility. An employer consistently applies the safe harbor by:

excluding these amounts from its gross receipts for each calendar quarter in which gross receipts are relevant to determining eligibility to claim the employee retention credit; and
applying the safe harbor to all employers treated as a single employer under the aggregation rules.

An employer must also retain in its records substantiating support for the credit claimed, including the use of the safe harbor.

If an employer revokes its safe harbor election, it must adjust all employment tax returns affected by the revocation.

Claiming the Employee Retention Credit
Employers claim the employee retention credit on their employment tax return, generally Form 941, Employers Quarterly Federal Tax Return, or on an adjusted employment tax return, generally Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund. An employer is not required to apply the safe harbor.

The safe harbor does not permit the exclusion of these amounts from gross receipts for any other federal tax purpose.

Effect on Other Documents
This guidance updates and amplifies Notice 2021-20, I.R.B. 2021-11, 922, Notice 2021-23, I.R.B. 2021-16, 1113, and Notice 2021-49, I.R.B. 2021-34.

Close

The IRS issued transition relief for certain employers claiming the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) under Code Sec. 51. This would apply for certain employees beginning work after December 31, 2020, in response to legislation permitting the designation of an Empowerment Zone under Code Sec. 1393(b) to be extended from December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2025. Specifically, section IV of this notice provides transition relief by extending the 28-day deadline for employers to request certification from a designated local agency that an individual who begins work on or after January 1, 2021, and before October 9, 2021, is a member of the Designated Community Resident targeted group or the Qualified Summer Youth Employee targeted group.

Additional Time to Submit Form 8850
The IRS stated that employers may need additional time to comply with the certification requirements of Code Sec. 51(d)(13)(A)(ii). Because the termination dates designated in Empowerment Zone nominations are not automatically extended until after the deadline in Rev. Proc. 2021-18, I.R.B. 2021-15 for submitting a written declination has passed, employers that hired an individual who is a Designated Community Resident or a Qualified Summer Youth Employee and who began work for that employer on or after January 1, 2021, may not have submitted Form 8850 to the designated local agency within 28 days of the individual beginning work. To be eligible for the relief provided by this notice, an employer that did not submit Form 8850 to the DLA within 28 days of an individual beginning work must submit the completed Form 8850 to the DLA.

An employer that hires an individual who is a Designated Community Resident or a Qualified Summer Youth Employee and who begins work for the employer on or after October 9, 2021, is not eligible for the transition relief described in this notice with respect to that new employee.

Effective Date
The effective date of this notice is August 10, 2021

Close

The U.S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) is launching a streamlined application portal to allow certain borrowers to apply for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan forgiveness directly through the SBA. The SBA also is explaining why it discontinued use of Loan Necessity Questionnaires for PPP borrowers.

PPP Direct Forgiveness Portal
The SBA announced that it is launching a streamlined application portal to allow borrowers with PPP loans $150,000 or less through participating lenders to apply for forgiveness directly through the SBA. The new forgiveness platform will begin accepting applications from borrowers on August 4th, 2021.

In addition to the technology platform, the SBA is setting up a PPP customer service team to answer questions and directly assist borrowers with their forgiveness applications. Borrowers that need assistance or have questions should call (877) 552-2692, Monday to Friday, 8 a.m.-8 p.m. EST. More information on the PPP direct forgiveness portal is available at https://www.sba.gov/article/2021/jul/28/sba-announces-opening-paycheck-protection-program-direct-forgiveness-portal.

Loan Necessity Questionnaires
In updated FAQs, the SBA has explained why it discontinued use of the Loan Necessity Questionnaire. According to Treasury, based on the results of loan reviews that it has completed thus far, the SBA believes audit resources will be more efficiently deployed across all loans if the loan necessity questionnaire is discontinued. The loan necessity reviews, including the review of the borrower’s completed Loan Necessity Questionnaire, are lengthy and have caused delays beyond the 90-day statutory timeline for forgiveness, thus negatively impacting those borrowers that made their loan necessity certification in good faith. For these reasons, SBA is discontinuing any reliance on the Loan Necessity Questionnaires.

The Loan Necessity Questionnaires (SBA Forms 3509 and 3510) were used to facilitate the collection of supplemental information that would be used by SBA loan reviewers to evaluate the good faith certification made by PPP borrowers on their loan application that economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary to support ongoing operations. Each borrower, that together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of $2 million or greater was required to complete the form. In July, the SBA said it would no longer request either version of the Loan Necessity Questionnaire. In addition, Loan Necessity Questionnaires previously requested by the SBA are no longer required to be submitted.

Close

The IRS stated that families should use the Child Tax Credit (CTC) Update Portal to confirm their eligibility for the payments. If eligible, the tool also indicates whether taxpayers are enrolled to receive their payments by direct deposit. More information can be found at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021.

Direct Deposit
For taxpayers currently using direct deposit, the tool will list the full bank routing number and the last four digits of their account number. This account is where the IRS sent their payments so far and will continue to do so. If necessary, the account can now be changed starting with the September 15 payment.

Monthly Payments
Eligible families for monthly payments include those who (1) filed either a 2019 or 2020 federal income tax return; (2) used the Non-Filers tool on IRS.gov in 2020 to register for an Economic Impact Payment; and (3) registered for the advance CTC this year using the new Non-Filer Sign-Up Tool on IRS.gov. The new maximum credit is available to taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of (1) $75,000 or less for singles; (2) $112,500 or less for heads of household; and (3) $150,000 or less for married couples filing a joint return and qualified widows and widowers.

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2) raised the maximum Child Tax Credit in 2021 to $3,600 for children under the age of 6 and to $3,000 per child for children ages 6 through 17. Before 2021, the credit was worth up to $2,000 per eligible child.

Close

The IRS provided additional guidance on the application of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2) relating to temporary premium assistance for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) continuation coverage. This notice supplements Notice 2021-31, I.R.B. 2021-23, and addresses additional issues.

The IRS provided additional guidance on the application of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (P.L. 117-2) relating to temporary premium assistance for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) continuation coverage. This notice supplements Notice 2021-31, I.R.B. 2021-23, and addresses additional issues.

Eligibility
The IRS noted that if the original qualifying event was a reduction in hours or an involuntary termination of employment, COBRA premium assistance is available to an individual entitled to elect COBRA continuation coverage for an extended period due to a disability determination, second qualifying event, or an extension under State mini-COBRA. This should fall under the extended period of coverage between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021, even if the taxpayer had not notified the plan or insurer of the intent to elect extended COBRA continuation coverage before the start of that period.

Next, the eligibility ends when the taxpayer becomes eligible for coverage under any other disqualifying group health plan or Medicare. This includes the other coverage not including all of the benefits provided by the previously elected COBRA continuation coverage.

Finally, if a plan (other than a multiemployer plan) subject to Federal COBRA covers employees of two or more members of a controlled group, each common law employer that is a member of the controlled group is the premium payee entitled to claim the COBRA premium assistance credit with respect to its employees or former employees.

Close

The foreign tax credit did not apply against the net investment income tax (NIIT). The structure of the Internal Revenue Code made the credit inapplicable to the NIIT, and tax treaties did not override that fact.

Under Code, Foreign Tax Credit Did Not Apply to NIIT
The foreign tax credit is in chapter 1, subtitle A of the Code, and it expressly applies only against taxes imposed by chapter 1. However, the NIIT is in chapter 2A. Thus, the credit does not apply against the NIIT. Although Reg. §1.1411-1(a) provides that all Code provisions that apply to the determination of taxable income under chapter 1 also apply to the NIIT, tax credits are not taken into account in determining taxable income. In fact, Reg. §1.1411-1(e) explicitly provides that credits against the tax imposed by chapter 1, including the foreign tax credit, are not allowed against the NIIT unless specifically provided by the Code.

Tax Treaties Did Not Override Code
Provisions in the U.S.-France and U.S.-Italy tax treaties that provided a foreign tax credit against U.S. income tax also did not provide an independent foreign tax credit against the NIIT. Although the treaties were intended to limit double taxation, they were expressly subject to the provisions and limitations of the Code. Thus, any allowable foreign tax credit had to be determined in accordance with the Code, and was limited by the Code’s provision of a credit. Although the taxpayer claimed that the Code was silent as to whether there was a foreign tax credit against the NIIT, the placement of the NIIT in chapter 2A made the foreign tax credit inapplicable. The creation of a new chapter for the NIIT was not happenstance or a mere clerical choice; rather, it was a deliberate decision by Congress and part of the Code’s fundamental structure.

No Summary Judgment on Penalty
Finally, issues of material fact precluded summary judgement as to the taxpayer’s liability for the penalty for failing to pay tax shown due on a return. She reported zero tax due on her Form 1040, though she did show the correct amount of the NIIT on her attached Form 8060, Net Investment Income Tax. Even if her Form 8960 constituted a return, the taxpayer argued that she had reasonable cause for her failure to pay because when she filed her return, she included a disclosure that she was claiming the foreign tax credit against the NIIT.

Close

A missing or unknown federal gift tax return could constitute reasonable cause for the late filing of an estate tax return.

To understand the appropriate steps to take after the decedent’s death, the executor was in contact with the decedent’s tax preparer, a family office service, and an attorney. Several months after the decedent’s death, the attorney advised that no estate tax return needed to be filed because the gross estate was below the basic exclusion amount for the year of death. Nearly two years after the decedent’s death, the decedent’s son, who had not been involved in the estate preparation and administration, indicated that various trusts might have been created. The attorney asked the tax preparer about the trusts and the tax preparer provided a gift tax return reporting gifts to the trusts. The amount of the gifts put the estate over the threshold amount for an estate tax return.

Complaint Established Reasonable Cause
Calling the government’s argument circular, the court concluded that it would not dismiss the complaint based on the position that the attorney’s advice on whether to file an estate tax return was objectively unreasonable. If the court sided with the government on this point, missing information could never constitute reasonable cause because the advice would never be based on all pertinent facts and circumstances. Relying on the complaint alone, the court could not decide whether the attorney’s investigation constituted reasonable due diligence.

The executor is ultimately responsible for providing all of the information available to prepare a tax return. In this case, the question of whether the executor acted reasonably was dependent on the availability of the missing gift tax return. Absent more information from the tax preparer about the gift tax return, the complaint could not be dismissed.

Close

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

SALT Deduction

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

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

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

Close

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

Close

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction and its recently-released proposed regulations, REG-107892-18. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: How do the proposed regulations provide both limitations and flexibility regarding the available election to aggregate trades or businesses?

Joshua Wu: Treasury agreed with various comments that some level of aggregation should be permitted to account for the legal, economic and other non-tax reasons that taxpayers operate a single business across multiple entities. Permissive aggregation allows taxpayers the benefit of combining trades or businesses for applying the W-2 wage limitation, potentially resulting in a higher limit. Under Proposed Reg. §1.199A-4, aggregation is allowed but not required. To use this method, the business must (1) qualify as a trade or business, (2) have common ownership, (3) not be a SSTB, and (4) demonstrate that the businesses are part of a larger, integrated trade or business (for individuals and trusts). The proposed regulations give businesses the benefits of electing aggregation without having to restructure the businesses from a legal standpoint. Businesses failing to qualify under the above test will have to consider whether a legal restructuring would be possible.

Wolters Kluwer: How does Notice 2018-64 Methods for Calculating W-2 Wages for Purposes of Section 199A, which accompanied the release of the proposed regulations, coordinate with aggregation?

Joshua Wu: Notice 2018-64 contains a proposed revenue procedure with guidance on three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of section 199A. The Unmodified Box method uses the lesser of totals in Box 1 of Forms W-2 or Box 5 (Medicare wages). The Modified Box 1 method takes the total amounts in Box 1 of Forms W-2 minus amounts not wages for income withholding purposes, and adding total amounts in Box 12 (deferrals). The Tracking wages method is the most complex and tracks total wages subject to income tax withholding. The calculation method is dependent on the group of Forms W-2 included in the computation and, thus, will vary depending upon whether businesses are aggregated under §1.199A-4 or not. Taxpayers with businesses generating little or no Medicare wages may consider aggregating with businesses that report significant wages in Box 1 that are still subject to income tax withholding. Under the Modified Box 1 method, that may result in a higher wage limitation.

Crack & Pack

Wolters Kluwer: What noteworthy anti-abuse safeguards did the proposed regulations seek to establish? How do the rules address "cracking" or "crack and pack" strategies?

Joshua Wu: Treasury included some anti-abuse provisions in the proposed regulations. One area that Treasury noted was the use of multiple non-grantor trusts to avoid the income threshold limitations on the 199A deduction. Taxpayers could theoretically use multiple non-grantor trusts to increase the 199A deduction by taking advantage of each trust’s separate threshold amount. The proposed regulations, under the authority of 643(f), provide that two or more trusts will be aggregated and treated as a single trust if such trusts have substantially the same grantor(s) and substantially the same primary beneficiary or beneficiaries, and if a principal purpose is to avoid tax. The proposed regulations have a presumption of a principal purpose of avoiding tax if the structure results in a significant tax benefit, unless there is a significant non-tax purpose that could not have been achieved without the creation of the trusts.

Another anti-abuse issue relates to the "crack and pack" strategies. These strategies involve a business that is limited in its 199A deduction because it is an SSTB spinning off some of its business or assets to an entity that is not an SSTB and could claim the 199A deduction. For example, a law firm that owns its building could transfer the building to a separate entity and lease it back. The law firm is an SSTB and, thus, is subject to the 199A limitations. However, the real estate entity is not an SSTB and can generate a 199A deduction (based on the rental income) for the law partners. The proposed regulations provide that a SSTB includes any business with 50 percent common ownership (direct or indirect) that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to an excluded trade or business. Also, if a trade or business shares 50 percent or more common ownership with an SSTB, to the extent that trade or business provides property or services to the commonly-owned SSTB, the portion of the property or services provided to the SSTB will be treated as an SSTB. The proposed regulations provide an example of a dentist who owns a dental practice and also owns an office building. The dentist rents half the building to the dental practice and half to unrelated persons. Under [Proposed Reg.] §1.199A-5(c)(2), the renting of half of the building to the dental practice will be treated as an SSTB.

Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: Generally, what industries can be seen as "winners" and "losers" in light of the proposed regulations?

Joshua Wu: The most obvious "losers" in the proposed regulations are the specified services businesses (e.g., lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc.) who are further limited by the anti-abuse provisions in arranging their affairs to try and benefit from 199A. On the other hand, certain specific service providers benefit from the proposed regulations. For example, health clubs or spas are exempt from the SSTB limitation. Additionally, broadcasters of performing arts, real estate agents, real estate brokers, loan officers, ticket brokers, and art brokers are all exempt from the SSTB limitation.

Wolters Kluwer: What areas of the Code Sec. 199A provision stand out as most complex when calculating the deduction, and how does this complexity vary among taxpayers?

Joshua Wu: With respect to calculating the deduction, one complex area is planning to maximize the W-2 wages limitation. Because compensation as W-2 wages can reduce QBI, and potentially the 199A deduction, determining the efficient equilibrium point between having enough W-2 wages to limit the impact of the wage limitation, while preserving QBI, will be a fact-driven complex planning issue that must be determined by each taxpayer. Another area of complexity will be how taxpayers track losses which may reduce future QBI and, thus, the 199A deduction. The proposed regulations provide that losses disallowed for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, are not taken into account for purposes of computing QBI in a later taxable year. Taxpayers will be left to track pre-2018 and post-2018 losses and determine if a loss in a particular tax year reduces QBI or not.

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

Wolters Kluwer: An IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that the IRS did not expect the proposed regulations to answer all questions surrounding the deduction. Indeed, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said that stakeholder feedback would help finalize the regulations. What significant questions remain unanswered for taxpayers and tax practitioners, and has additional uncertainty been created with the release of the IRS guidance?

Joshua Wu: On the whole, the proposed regulations did a good job addressing the most important areas of Section 199A. However, there are many areas where additional guidance would be helpful. Such guidance may be in the form of additional regulations or other administrative pathways. For example, the proposed regulations did not address the differing treatment between a taxpayer operating as a sole proprietor versus an S corporation. Wages paid to an S corporation shareholder boosts the W-2 limitation but are not considered QBI. Thus, with the same underlying facts, the 199Adeduction may vary between taxpayers operating as a sole proprietor versus those operating as an S corporation.

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

Wolters Kluwer: In what ways do you see the passthrough deduction rules changing when the final regulations are released?

Joshua Wu: I suspect that the core components of the proposed regulations will not change significantly. However, I would not be surprised if Treasury were to include more specific examples with respect to real estate and whether certain types of activity constitute a trade or business. Additionally, the proposed regulations will likely generate comments and questions from various industry groups related to the SSTB definitions and specific types of services (e.g., do trustees and executors fall under the legal services definition). Treasury may change the definitions of SSTBs in response to comments and clarify definitions for industry groups.

Tax Reform 2.0

Wolters Kluwer: The White House and congressional Republicans are currently moving forward on legislative efforts known as "Tax Reform 2.0." The legislative package proposes making permanent the passthrough deduction. How does the impermanence of this deduction currently impact taxpayers? (Note: On September 13, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up a three-bill Tax Reform 2.0 package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.)

Joshua Wu: The 199A deduction has a significant impact on the choice of entity question for businesses. With the 21 percent corporate rate, we have seen many taxpayers considering restructuring away from passthrough entities to a C corporation structure. The 199A deduction is a large consideration in whether to restructure or not, but its limited effective time does raise questions about the cost effectiveness of planning to obtain the 199A deduction where the benefit will sunset in eight years.

Key Takeways

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners should remind clients who may benefit from the 199A deduction to keep detailed records of any losses for each line of business, as this may impact the calculation of QBI in the future. Practitioners should also help clients examine the whole of their activity to define their "trades or businesses." This will be essential to calculating the 199A deduction and planning to maximize any such deduction. Finally, practitioners should remember that some of the information that may be necessary to determine a 199A deduction may not be in their client’s possession. Practitioners need to plan in advance with their clients regarding how information about each trade or business will be obtained (e.g., how will a limited partner in a partnership obtain information regarding the partnership’s W-2 wages and/or UBIA of qualified property).

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners and taxpayers should remember that the regulations are only proposed and may change before they become final. Any planning undertaken this year should carefully weigh the economic costs and be rooted in the statutory language of 199A. It will be some time before case law helps clarify the nuances of Section 199A, and claiming the deduction allows the IRS to more easily impose the substantial understatement penalty if a taxpayer gets it wrong.

Close

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

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

Individual Tax Brackets

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

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

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

For heads of households:

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

For unmarried taxpayers:

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

For married taxpayers filing separately:

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

For estates and trusts:

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

Standard Deduction

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

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

AMT Exemptions

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

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

Estate and Gift Tax

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

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

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

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

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close

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

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

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

Trade or Business

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

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

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

Specified Service Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wages/Capital Limit

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

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

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

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

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

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

Effective Dates

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

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

Comments Requested

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

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

Close