On April 28, 2021, the White House released details on President Biden’s new $1.8 trillion American Families Plan. The proposal follows the already passed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act and the recently proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure-focused American Jobs Plan. The details were released in advance of President Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress.

On April 28, 2021, the White House released details on President Biden’s new $1.8 trillion American Families Plan. The proposal follows the already passed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act and the recently proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure-focused American Jobs Plan. The details were released in advance of President Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress.

The plan includes many provisions that would make good on the President’s campaign promises. The proposal would provide universal preschool to three and four year-olds, two free years of community college, and free tuition for certain universities specializing in serving underrepresented students. The plan would also invest in teacher and child care education, provide free or lower cost child care to lower income families, expand paid leave programs, and improve the quality of student lunch programs. It would also establish automatic adjustments to unemployment insurance, depending upon economic conditions.

Personal Tax Breaks Extended

The proposal would also extend tax benefits already signed into law under the American Rescue Plan Act. This includes:

• extending enhanced premium tax credits and making premium reductions permanent;
• extending the enhanced child tax credit through 2025 (currently a fully refundable $3,000 per child ($3,600 for a child under age six) for 2021 only);
• permanently extending the enhancements of the child and dependent care tax credit, which increase the amount of the credit as well as the incomes at which the credit is phased out;
• permanently extending the increased earned income tax credit for taxpayers without children.

Tax Changes, TCJA Rollback

On the campaign trail, President Biden promised to increase taxes on both corporations and higher-income individuals. While the provisions of the American Jobs Plan are largely funded through a proposed increase in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, the provisions of his American Families Plan are funded by the promised increases to individual taxes.

The proposal would increase the top tax rate on individuals to 39.6 percent from the current rate of 37 percent. This would return the tax rate on the highest bracket of income to where it was before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect in 2018.

The proposal would also increase the tax rate on capital gains and dividends for households making over $1 million, to match the 39.6 percent rate on income. For 2021, capital gains and certain qualified dividends are taxed at 20 percent for joint filers with taxable income of $496,000 or more.

The plan proposes to eliminate the tax-free step-up in basis on inherited property where the gain would be in excess of $1 million (up to $2.5 million in the case of a couple using existing real estate exemptions. The plan also eliminates the carried interest loophole that allows hedge fund partners to pay tax on income at capital gains rates. The plan would also limit a provision allowing for tax deferral on property exchanges, permanently extend the limitation on excess business losses, and ensure that higher income taxpayers cannot avoid the 3.8 percent Medicare tax.

The plan also provides increased funding for the IRS to improve enforcement, specifically to ensure that higher income taxpayers are unable to avoid proper payment of taxes. While the White House estimates that this will produce an additional $700 billion in revenue over 10 years, many believe this to be a vast overestimate.

Notably absent from the plan is an increase to the cap on the deduction of state and local taxes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act set a $10,000 limit for the deduction, but many lawmakers, particularly those representing higher tax states like New York and California, have been pressing to increase the limit or completely eliminate it

Next Steps?

It is uncertain when Congress may take up the process of proposing legislation carrying out the American Families Plan. President Biden has indicated his willingness to negotiate on any proposals he makes. However, the chilly reception to his American Jobs Plan does not indicate a smooth process to get a vote on a legislative package for the infrastructure proposal, let alone passage with razor-thin majorities in both chambers of Congress. With many lawmakers indicated that they want to work on infrastructure before moving on to other proposals, the process from proposal to law could stretch out for months.

The IRS announced that it had started issuing refunds to eligible taxpayers who paid taxes on 2020 unemployment compensation that was excluded from taxable income by the recently enacted American Rescue Plan (ARP) (P.L. 117-2).

The IRS announced that it had started issuing refunds to eligible taxpayers who paid taxes on 2020 unemployment compensation that was excluded from taxable income by the recently enacted American Rescue Plan (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2).

Unemployment compensation is taxable income, but the ARP excludes $10,200 in unemployment compensation from the income used to calculate the amount of taxes owed. The $10,200 per person exclusion applies to taxpayers who are single or married filing jointly, with modified adjusted gross income of less than $150,000. The $10,200 is the amount of income exclusion, not the amount of the refund itself.

The IRS has identified over 10 million taxpayers who filed their tax returns prior to the ARP becoming law in March, and is reviewing past returns to determine the correct taxable amount of unemployment compensation and tax. This could potentially result in a refund, reduced balance due, or with no refund being owed.

The first phase of adjustments is being made for single taxpayers who had the simplest tax returns, such as those filed by taxpayers who did not claim children or any refundable tax credits. Notices explaining the corrections will be sent to taxpayers, and are expected to reach them within 30 days of the correction being made.

The IRS stated that it will issue refunds by direct deposit to taxpayers who provided their bank account information on their returns. Alternatively, refunds will be mailed as a paper check to the taxpayer’s address of record.

These refunds will be subject to normal offset rules, such as past-due federal tax, state income tax, state unemployment compensation debts, child support, spousal support or certain federal nontax debts, such as student loans. The IRS will send separate notices to those taxpayers whose refunds could be offset to settle unpaid debts.

Further, corrections to any Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) without qualifying children and the recovery rebate credit are being made automatically as part of this process. However, some taxpayers may be eligible for certain income-based tax credits that were not claimed on their original return. The IRS also reminded taxpayers to file an amended tax return if the revised adjusted gross income amount makes them eligible for additional benefits.

A safe harbor is available for certain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients who relied on prior IRS guidance and did not deduct eligible business expenses. These taxpayers may elect to deduct the expenses for their first tax year following their 2020 tax year, rather than filing an amended return or administrative adjustment request for 2020.

A safe harbor is available for certain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients who relied on prior IRS guidance and did not deduct eligible business expenses. These taxpayers may elect to deduct the expenses for their first tax year following their 2020 tax year, rather than filing an amended return or administrative adjustment request for 2020.

The IRS had initially determined that businesses whose PPP loans were forgiven or expected to be forgiven could not deduct business expenses paid for by the loan. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 ( P.L. 116-260), enacted on December 27, 2020, subsequently permitted taxpayers to deduct these expenses.

Safe Harbor Eligibility

To be eligible for the safe harbor, the taxpayer must have received an original PPP covered loan and filed a federal income tax return or information return for the 2020 tax year on or before December 27, 2020. The taxpayer must have paid or incurred original eligible expenses during the taxpayer’s 2020 tax year that the taxpayer did not deduct because:

• the expenses resulted in forgiveness of the original PPP covered loan; or
• the taxpayer reasonably expected at the end of the 2020 tax year that the expenses would result in forgiveness.

Electing the Safe Harbor

A taxpayer elects the safe harbor by attaching a statement to a timely, including extensions, federal income tax return or information return for the taxpayer’s first tax year following the 2020 tax year in which the original eligible expenses were paid or incurred. The statement must include:

• the taxpayer’s name, address, and social security number or taxpayer identification number;
• a statement that the taxpayer is applying the safe harbor provided by section 3.01 of Revenue Procedure 2021-20;
• the amount and date of disbursement of the taxpayer’s original PPP loan; and
• a list, including descriptions and amounts, of the original eligible expenses.

Certain Expenses and Loans Not Covered

The safe harbor applies only to original eligible expenses, and not to additional expenses that were added by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The safe applies only to original PPP loans. It does not apply to PPP second draw loans.

Individuals may use two special procedures to file returns for 2020 that allow them to receive advance payments of the 2021 child credit and the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit.

Individuals may use two special procedures to file returns for 2020 that allow them to receive advance payments of the 2021 child credit and the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit. Under the procedures:

• individuals who are not required to file returns for 2020 can use a simplified federal income tax return filing procedure; and
• individuals with zero adjusted gross income (AGI) for 2020 can file electronic returns by entering "$1" in several fields.

Simplified Return Procedures

Individuals may file simplified 2020 returns electronically or on paper if they have not filed and are not required to file 2020 returns. The simplified procedures apply to Forms 1040, 1040-SR and 1040-NR.

The individual should write "Rev. Proc. 2021-24" at the top of a paper return. The procedure includes detailed instructions for providing identification, income and direct deposit information.

Zero AGI

Many filing systems for electronic returns will not accept returns that report zero AGI. To file an electronic return, in addition to all other information required to be entered on Form 1040, Form 1040-SR, or Form 1040-NR, an individual with no AGI should report:

• $1 as taxable interest on line 2b of the form;
• $1 as total income on line 9 of the form; and
• $1 as AGI on line 11 of the form.

Filers of Form 1040-NR with no AGI should also report $1 as itemized deductions on lines 7 and 8 of Schedule A (Form 1040-NR) and line 12 of Form 1040-NR.

Returns Must Be Accurate

Simplified returns and zero-AGI electronic returns are federal income tax returns for all purposes. Thus, the individual must properly sign the return under penalties of perjury. The returns must also provide accurate information. However, the IRS will not challenge the accuracy of income items reported by taxpayers using these special procedures.

Individuals Who Filed 2020 Returns

Individuals who have already filed their 2020 returns do not have to do anything further to:

• receive advance child credit payments for an eligible child shown on that return;
• receive a third-round Economic Impact Payment (EIP) for the 2021 recovery rebate credit that is attributable to a dependent shown on that return; or
• claim a previously claimed 2020 recovery rebate credit and additional 2020 recovery rebate credit for themselves and for each eligible qualifying child.

Similarly, an individual who filed a federal income tax return for 2019, including by entering information in the "Non-Filers: Enter Information Here" tool on the IRS website, also do not need to file any additional forms of contact the IRS in order to receive advance child credit payments for a qualifying child shown on that return. An individual who did not receive EIPs for the full amount of the 2020 Recovery Rebate Credits may claim them by filing a 2020 federal income tax return.

U.S. Territory Residents

The simplified return and zero-AGI procedures do not apply to residents of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

• Residents of Puerto Rico may be eligible to claim the child tax credit from the IRS under procedures to be announced at a later date, but they are not eligible to receive advance child tax credit payments.
• Residents of other U.S. territories should contact their local territory tax agency for additional information about the child tax credit and advance child tax credit payments, third-round economic impact payments, the 2020 recovery rebate credit, and the additional 2020 recovery rebate credit.

The IRS has provided guidance for employers, plan administrators, and health insurers regarding the new credit available to them for providing continuation health coverage to certain individuals under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) emergency.

The IRS has provided guidance for employers, plan administrators, and health insurers regarding the new credit available to them for providing continuation health coverage to certain individuals under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) emergency.

COBRA provides eligible former employees, retirees, spouses, former spouses, and dependent children with the right to temporary continuation of health coverage at group rates. COBRA generally covers health plans maintained by private-sector employers with 20 or more full and part-time employees. It also covers employee organizations or federal, state or local governments. State mini-COBRA laws often provide similar benefits for insured small employers not subject to Federal COBRA.

The American Rescue Plan Act ( P.L. 117-2) provided a temporary 100% reduction in the premium that individuals would have to pay when they elect COBRA continuation health coverage following a reduction in hours or an involuntary termination of employment. The new law provides a corresponding tax credit for the entities that maintain group health plans, such as employers, multiemployer plans, and insurers. The 100% reduction in the premium and the credit are also available with respect to continuation coverage provided for those events under comparable state laws, sometimes referred to as "mini-COBRA."

Under the new law, COBRA premium assistance is available to eligible individuals as of the first period of coverage beginning on or after April 1, 2021, and will not be available for periods of coverage beginning after September 30, 2021. For each Assistance Eligible Individual, COBRA premium assistance does not extend beyond the period of COBRA continuation coverage in the event that the period ends prior to September 30, 2021. If an individual receiving premium assistance becomes eligible for coverage under any other group health plan or for Medicare, the premium assistance period ends.

Example: On April 1, 2021, the individual’s employment is terminated, and the individual becomes a qualified beneficiary. The individual elects COBRA continuation coverage and becomes an Assistance Eligible Individual with COBRA continuation coverage beginning on April 1, 2021, the date the individual lost coverage. On July 1, 2021, the individual becomes eligible for coverage under a group health plan sponsored by the employer of the individual’s spouse and ceases to be an Assistance Eligible Individual. The individual ceases COBRA continuation coverage as of July 1, 2021, and enrolls in coverage in the group health plan sponsored by the employer of the individual’s spouse. On August 1, 2021, the individual’s spouse has an involuntary termination of employment, and as a result the individual and spouse lose coverage. The individual and spouse become qualified beneficiaries due to the loss of coverage and elect COBRA continuation coverage with the plan sponsored by the spouse’s employer. The individual and spouse become Assistance Eligible Individuals with respect to COBRA continuation coverage as of August 1, 2021.

In Notice 2021-31, the IRS has provided information regarding the calculation of the credit, the eligibility of individuals, the premium assistance period, and other information vital to employers, plan administrators, and insurers to understand the credit.

The IRS has reminded employers that under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2), small and midsize employers and certain government employers are entitled to claim refundable tax credits that reimburse them for the cost of providing paid sick and family leave to their employees due to COVID-19. This includes leave taken by employees to receive or recover from COVID-19 vaccinations.

The IRS has reminded employers that under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2), small and midsize employers and certain government employers are entitled to claim refundable tax credits that reimburse them for the cost of providing paid sick and family leave to their employees due to COVID-19. This includes leave taken by employees to receive or recover from COVID-19 vaccinations.

ARP tax credits are available to eligible employers that pay sick and family for leave from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. Under the Act, eligible employers include any business, including tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees who are not able to work or telework due to reasons related to COVID-19, including needing to recover from any injury, disability, illness or condition related to the vaccinations.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the paid leave credits under the ARP are tax credits against the employer’s share of the Medicare tax. The tax credits are refundable, and the employer is entitled to payment of the full amount of credits if it exceeds the employer’s share of the Medicare tax. The tax credit for paid sick leave wages is equal to the sick leave wages paid for COVID-19 related reasons, for up to two weeks at 100 percent of the employee’s regular rate of pay. Further, the tax credit for paid family leave wages is equal to the family leave wages paid for up to twelve weeks, at 2/3rds of the employee’s regular rate of pay. Importantly, the amount of these tax credits increases according to allocable health plan expenses and contributions for certain collectively bargained benefits, as well as the employer’s share of social security and Medicare taxes paid on the wages.

Eligible employers are recommended to report their total paid sick and family leave wages, health plan expenses and collectively bargained contributions, including their share of social security and Medicare taxes on the paid leave wages for each quarter on their federal employment tax return. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, can be used to report income tax and social security and Medicare taxes withheld from employee wages.

Further, in anticipation of claiming the credits on the Form 941, eligible employers can retain the federal employment taxes that they otherwise would have deposited, including federal income tax withheld, the employees’ share of social security, Medicare taxes and their share of social security and Medicare taxes with respect to all employees up to the amount of credit for which they are eligible. If, however, an eligible employer does not have enough federal employment taxes set aside for deposit to cover amounts provided as paid sick and family leave wages, the eligible employer may request an advance of the credits by filing Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19. The eligible employer will then have to account for the amounts received as an advance when they file Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the relevant quarter. Finally, self-employed individuals may claim comparable tax credits on their individual Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers who owe 2020 taxes that there are different ways to pay their taxes online, including payment options for many people who cannot pay in full.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers who owe 2020 taxes that there are different ways to pay their taxes online, including payment options for many people who cannot pay in full.

The IRS stated that the most important thing that taxpayers with a tax bill should do is file a return by the May 17 due date, even if they cannot pay in full, or request a six-month extension to avoid higher penalties for failing to file on time. The IRS emphasized that even though automatic tax filing extensions are available, these extensions do not change the payment deadline.

Further, interest, plus the much smaller late-payment penalty, will apply to any payments made after May 17. Normally, the late-payment penalty is one-half-of-one percent (0.5%) per month. The interest rate, adjusted quarterly, is currently 3% per year, compounded daily.

The IRS urges taxpayers to use Direct Pay, which is the fastest and easiest way to pay a personal tax bill. In addition, the IRS has noted that online payment plans are processed more quickly than requests submitted with electronically-filed tax returns.

There are two main types of online payment plans:

• Short-term payment plan: The payment period is 120 days or less and the total amount owed is less than $100,000 in combined tax, penalties and interest. A 180-day payment plan is also possible, but is only available by calling or writing the IRS.
• Long-term payment plan ( "installment agreement"): Payments are made monthly, and the amount owed must be less than $50,000 in combined tax, penalties and interest. If the IRS approves an installment agreement, a setup fee normally applies, but low-income taxpayers may qualify to have the fee waived or reimbursed. In addition, for anyone who filed their return on time, the late-payment penalty rate is cut in half while an installment agreement is in effect. This means that the penalty accrues at the rate of one-quarter-of-one percent (0.25%) per month, instead of the usual one-half-of-one percent (0.5%) per month.

Taxpayers who do not qualify for an online payment agreement may still be able to arrange to pay in installments. If the IRS determines a taxpayer is unable to pay, it may delay collection until their financial condition improves. Taxpayers can request a delay by calling the phone number on their IRS notice or 800-829-1040.

Some taxpayers can qualify to settle their tax bill for less than the full amount due through an offer in compromise. Though there is typically a $205 non-refundable application fee, it is generally waived for low-income taxpayers, and for offers based on doubt as to liability. The Offer in Compromise Pre-Qualifier tool can help determine eligibility for anyone interested in applying.

The IRS reminds taxpayers that May includes National Hurricane Preparedness Week and National Wildfire Awareness Month. It urges taxpayers to create or review emergency preparedness plans for surviving natural disasters.

The IRS reminds taxpayers that May includes National Hurricane Preparedness Week and National Wildfire Awareness Month. It urges taxpayers to create or review emergency preparedness plans for surviving natural disasters.

The IRS advises taxpayers to do the following:

• Secure key documents such as tax returns, birth certificates, deeds, titles and insurance policies inside waterproof containers in a secure space. Keep duplicates of these documents with a trusted person outside the area of the taxpayer. Scan these documents for backup storage on electronic media such as a flash drive.
• Take current photos or videos of a home or business’s contents, especially expensive and high value items. The IRS disaster-loss workbooks in IRS Pub. 584-B can help individuals and businesses compile lists of belongings or business equipment.
• Employers who use payroll service providers should ask the provider if it has a fiduciary bond in place. The bond could protect the employer in the event of default by the payroll service provider.
• Reconstructing records after a disaster may be required for tax purposes, getting federal assistance or insurance reimbursement. Taxpayers who have lost some or all their records during a disaster can visit IRS’s Reconstructing Records webpage as one of their first steps.

Dependent care assistance benefits carryovers and extended claims period amounts that would have been excluded from income if used during the preceding tax year will remain excludable in tax years ending in 2021 and 2022. In addition, these benefits will not be taken into account in determining the dependent care benefits exclusion limit for the tax years ending in 2021 and 2022.

Dependent care assistance benefits carryovers and extended claims period amounts that would have been excluded from income if used during the preceding tax year will remain excludable in tax years ending in 2021 and 2022. In addition, these benefits will not be taken into account in determining the dependent care benefits exclusion limit for the tax years ending in 2021 and 2022.

Dependent Care Assistance Exclusion

Employees may exclude amounts their employer pays or incurs for dependent care assistance benefits if furnished pursuant to a dependent care assistance program. For 2020, the exclusion could not exceed $5,000, $2,500 if married filing separately (for 2021 only, increased to $10,500, $5,250 if married filing separately). Unused benefits may be used during a 2 1/2 month grace period following the plan year’s end. However, if the sum of the benefits used in the tax year (including unused benefits used during a grace period that falls in the tax year) exceeds the limitation, the excess is taxable.

Carryovers and Extensions

Beyond the grace period, carryovers of unused dependent care assistance program amounts generally are not permitted. However, the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 ( P.L. 116-260) allowed employers to amend their plans to permit carryovers to plan years ending in 2021 and 2022, or to extend the permissible period for incurring claims to plan years over the same period.

Under Notice 2021-15, I.R.B. 2021-10, 898, if an employer adopts the carryover or the extended period, the annual limits apply to amounts contributed for a year, and not to amounts reimbursed or otherwise available for reimbursement.

Notice 2021-26 clarifies that dependent care assistance program benefits that would have been excluded from income if used during the tax year ending in 2020 or 2021, remain eligible for exclusion from the participant’s gross income, and are disregarded in applying the limits for the employee's subsequent tax years when they are carried over from a plan year ending in 2020 or 2021 or permitted to be used pursuant to an extended claims period.

Notice 2021-26 also provides examples illustrating the possible tax consequences of electing $10,500 in benefits for a plan year beginning in 2021 but ending in 2022.

The Treasury Department has released a statement discussing investment in the IRS and improving tax compliance. 

The Treasury Department has released a statement discussing investment in the IRS and improving tax compliance. While roughly 99 percent of the taxes due on wages are remitted to the IRS, compliance across other forms of income is substantially less, because the IRS has had difficulty verifying whether income from unverified sources is properly reported. The Treasury states that noncompliance is concentrated at the top of the distribution: according to a recent study, the top one percent failed to report 20 percent of their income, and failed to pay nearly $175 billion in taxes owed annually.

The Treasury states that lower levels of compliance not only negatively impact tax progressivity, but also lower tax revenue and deteriorate the country’s fiscal position. If left unaddressed, the difference between taxes owed to the government and taxes actually paid will total approximately $7 trillion in the next 10 years. This massive gap in revenue would mean that policymakers must choose between higher taxes elsewhere in the tax system, lower spending on fiscal priorities, or rising budget deficits. This tax gap has many underlying causes, with insufficient resources being at the forefront. In addition, budget cuts over the past decade have resulted in an IRS that lacks the capacity to address sophisticated tax evasion efforts. Over this period, audit rates for taxpayers making over $1 million in income have fallen by almost 80 percent.

To ensure a fair and effective tax system, the Treasury says that a robust and sustained investment in the IRS is necessary. The IRS requires access to 21st century technology and to better information, so that it can target its efforts at offenders while helping compliant taxpayers avoid unnecessary and costly audits. Importantly, this investment will also put the IRS in a position to provide taxpayers with timely answers to questions.

The Treasury has listed some considerations that provide the basis for a series of proposals in the American Families Plan (AFP). The AFP intends to overhaul tax administration and provide the IRS with the resources and information it needs to address tax evasion. These reforms are expected to generate an additional $700 billion in tax revenue over the course of a decade. The reforms are expected to:

• Provide the IRS with necessary resources to stop sophisticated tax evasion. A key component of this initiative is the provision of a sustained, multi-year stream of funds to help the IRS tackle costly tax evasion.
• Provide the IRS with more complete information on third parties. When the IRS has information from third parties, income is accurately reported, and taxes are fully paid. Importantly, this proposal intends to provide additional information to the IRS without an increased burden on taxpayers. It leverages the information that financial institutions have about account holders, requiring that they add to their regular, annual reports information about aggregate account outflows and inflows.
• Overhaul outdated technology to help IRS identify tax evasion, by providing the IRS with resources to modernize its technological infrastructure.
• Improve taxpayer service and deliver tax credits. Service enhancement will improve the ability of the IRS to communicate with taxpayers securely and promptly. The proposal would also include the necessary resources to ensure that the IRS efficiently delivers credits to families and workers, including newly expanded child tax credits and child and dependent care tax credits.
• Regulate paid tax preparers by providing the IRS with legal authority to implement safeguards in the tax preparation industry. This includes stiffer penalties for unscrupulous or "ghost preparers" who fail to identify themselves on tax returns and defraud taxpayers.

Michael Jackson’s image and likeness, as well as his interests in two trusts—one trust (NHT II) that held his interest in the Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC, and one trust (NHT III) that held Mijac Music—were valued for estate tax purposes.

Michael Jackson’s image and likeness, as well as his interests in two trusts—one trust (NHT II) that held his interest in the Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC, and one trust (NHT III) that held Mijac Music—were valued for estate tax purposes.

Image and Likeness

The estate claimed that the decedent’s image and likeness was valued at about $2,000. However, at trial, the estate brought in additional experts and increased the value to about $3 million. This amount was based on a 10-year revenue projection, which examined pre-death revenue, post-death rights, and growth and decline rates using pre-death marketability and a potential post-death boom. An estimate of expenses incurred in administering the image and likeness and expenses related to rehabilitation of the decedent’s image reduced the revenue stream. As a result, the Tax Court determined that the date-of-death value of the decedent’s image was $4.1 million.

Interest in Sony/ATV

In the years prior to his death, the decedent had borrowed against his interest in the Sony/ATV company. The company was valued using the discounted cash flow method. After finding the value of the company as a whole, a discount for lack of control was applied to one-half of that amount to reflect the decedent’s 50-percent interest. Because of the debt secured by the interest, however, the Tax Court determined that the date-of-death value of NHT II was zero.

Interest in Mijac Music

The major asset of NHT III was Mijac Music, which owned compositions from many artists, including the decedent. The decedent also assigned the income he earned from his writer’s share of certain performance revenue to NHT III. The discounted cashflow analysis was used again and the court determined the revenue streams of Mijac Music and the writer’s share of revenue. After subtracting the trust’s liabilities from the revenue, the Tax Court determined the value of NHT III was $107 million.

No Penalties

Although the values differed widely, the estate was not liable for accuracy-related penalties. Its reliance on the appraisal values was reasonable.

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.