Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel is looking to build on the successes the agency has experienced with the first year of supplemental funding provided to the agency by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel is looking to build on the successes the agency has experienced with the first year of supplemental funding provided to the agency by the Inflation Reduction Act.

"I look at yeartwo through the lens of what do we need to do with the next filing season to build on the successes of the previous filing season," Werfel said during an August 15 teleconference with press as he highlighted a couple of key objectives he has for the second year of supplemental funding.

"First of all, we had a really strong filing season," he said. "It could be stronger. We want to achieve the highest level of service we can achieve."

Among the improvements he wants to see are a further reduction in wait times on calls to the IRS; expanding the number of self-service options that taxpayers can engage in when they call so they don’t have to wait to be connected to an agency representatives; and getting more people to sign up for an online account with the agency, as well as improving the online account functionality.

"The idea would be from a service standpoint, the filing features should feel very different than the previous year," he said.

Werfel also wants to see more expansion in the walk-in service centers, including hiring more workers to allow for more Saturday hours to help people who might not be able to get there during the week due to work, as well as utilizing more pop-up walk-in centers to help reach people in more remote areas of the United States.

On the enforcement side, Werfel wants to see the "anemic" audit rates of high-wealth individuals, large corporations and complex partnerships continue to rise.

"We started to see real meaningful results there," he noted. "I want to be able to report to the American people that we’re putting the Inflation Reduction Act to work to create and drive a more equitable tax system that’s returning money to the government’s bottom line."

Werfel also said the IRS will continue with reporting the "dirty dozen" tax scams and will continue to be looking at ways to help taxpayers avoid these scams as well as helping the victims of those scams. He highlighted the recent action of ending nearly all unannounced visits by IRS representatives to homes and businesses as a way that taxpayers are being protected.

"My hope is that in each successive year, we’re putting tools out there that taxpayers are leveraging and saying, ‘this is helpful,’ and are appreciative of the fact that the IRS is functioning better than it did in previous years," Werfel said.

Recapping The First Year

Much of the press call focused on highlighting the successes of the first year, with Werfel highlighting that the agency provided better service, including providing assistance to more than 7 million taxpayers over the phone, an increase of 3 million over the previous tax filing season and increased face-to-face help to more than 500,000 people at the taxpayer assistance centers, a 30 percent increase. Werfel also mentioned the use of call-back technology so taxpayers don’t have to wait on the phone on hold and can receive a call-back without losing their place in the queue to talk to an agency representative.

He reiterated gains in enforcement as well as improvements on the technology side such as highlighting the recent announcement of more forms being able to be filed electronically and improvements to document scanning of tax forms.

Another aspect of the Inflation Reduction Act that was highlighted during the law’s one year anniversary was by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who highlighted the green energy tax provisions at a recent speech in Las Vegas.

She noted a variety of ways the IRA is helping to spur investment in clean energy, including in buildings and in clean vehicles and is helping the nation meet international climate standards.

"The IRA is helping re-shape some of the production that is critical to our clean economy," Yellen said, according to prepared remarks that were published on the Treasury Department website.

She also highlighted that earlier this summer, "Treasury also released proposed guidance that would make it easier for these tax credits to reach a broad range of institutions. We are implementing innovative tools that will enable states, cities, towns, and tax-exempt organizations – like schools and hospitals – to directly access these credits."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is seeing a "concerning" increase in state and federal payroll tax evasion and workers’ compensation fraud in the U.S. residential and commercial real estate construction industries.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is seeing a "concerning" increase in state and federal payroll tax evasion and workers’ compensation fraud in the U.S. residential and commercial real estate construction industries.

"FinCEN is committed to combating fraud by shedding light on how illicit actors within the construction industry are using shell corporations and other tactics to commit workers’ compensation fraud and avoid payroll taxes," FinCEN Acting Director Himamauli Das said in a statement.

The agency in a FinCEN Notice issued August 15, 2023, highlighted how companies evade payroll taxes. Step one has construction contractors writing checks payable to the shell corporation, which creates the façade that the shell company is performing construction projects. Step two sees the shell company operator deposit cash the checks at a check cashing facility or deposit them into a shell company bank account. Step three sees the shell company return the cash to the construction contractor, minus a fee, for renting the workers’ compensation insurance policy and conducting payroll-related transactions. The final step is the construction contractors using the cash to pay the workers without withholding appropriate payroll-related taxes or paying any workers’ compensation premiums.

The notice also draws attention "a range of red flags to assist financial institutions in detecting, preventing, and reporting suspicions transactions associated with shell companies perpetrating payrolltax evasion and workers’ compensation fraud in the construction industry." Among the 11 red flags highlighted are:

• The customer is a new (i.e., less than two years old) small construction company specializing in one type of construction trade (e.g., framing, drywall, stucco, masonry, etc.) with minimal online presence and has indicators of being a shell company;
• Beneficial owners of the shell company have no known prior involvement with, or in, the construction industry, and the individual opening the account provides a non-U.S. passport as a form of identification;
• A customer receives weekly deposits in their account that exceed normal account activity from several construction contractors involved in multiple construction trades;
• Large volumes of checks for under $1,000 are drawn on the company’s bank account and made payable to separate individuals (i.e., the workers) which are subsequently negotiated for cash by the payee, and
• The company’s bank account has minimal to no tax- or payroll-related payments to the Internal Revenue Service, state and local tax authorities, or a third-party payroll company despite a large volume of deposits from client.

The statement did not provide any statistical data that reflect the rise in payroll tax evasion or workers’ compensation fraud, but said that every year, "state and federal tax authorities lose hundreds of millions of dollars to these schemes, which are perpetrated by illicit actors primarily through banks and check cashers."

The notice also reminds financial institutions’ obligations to file a suspicious activity report if a transaction could be conducted with the intent for fraud or tax evasion, and it provides instructions on how to file the SAR.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is hoping that collections notices from the Internal Revenue Service will resume in the coming months.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is hoping that collections notices from the Internal Revenue Service will resume in the coming months.

The agency suspended automated collections notices in response to the backlog of unprocessed mail correspondence that resulted from the shutdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and have yet to resume sending notices out.

Collis said that the agency is developing a plan on how those collections notices will resume and she said it is an important piece of information that taxpayers with balances due need.

Speaking here August 9, 2023, at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum event, Collins expressed concern that people are saying "hey, the IRS probably forgot about me because it’s been 18 months. And I am concerned that people do not realize that interest and the failure to pay [penalty] is kicking in."

And while she urged IRS to resume collections notices, she also cautioned that it needs to be done in a staggered fashion so that the agency, as well as tax professionals are not simultaneously inundated with calls about these notices all at once, potentially creating another backlog as the agency continues to clear backlog pandemic inventories.

"So what they’re trying to do is stagger them," Collins said. "Have then come out in different timeframes so that all of them don’t hit at the same time, … because if they turn the spigot on, how many phone calls are they going to get that next day? They won’t be able to handle that volume."

Collins said the agency is looking at how to prioritize which notices should be going out first as well as possibly changing the notices to make them more informative for taxpayers.

"So, stay tuned on that," he told attendees. "I don’t think it’ll be tomorrow, but I’m hoping that it’ll be months from now, not two years from now that we turn it back on."

Another area Collins expressed concerns about is the changing of the 1099-K threshold to $600. She said that her office has been in touch with "the Venmos of the world" to try to get them to put systems in place that will help their customers differentiate between personal transactions and business transactions to help ensure that 1099-Ks that will be issued because of the new threshold will accurate.

"I don’t know what’s going to happen between now and January, but the IRS, and our office as well, has been trying to work on this so it’s not as big a problem," she said. "But I am a little concerned because there’s going to be a lot of 1099 cases, potentially."

Collins also offered a "spoiler alert" that the online accounts for tax professionals "will become useful." She suggested it will not be the fully functioning portal she has been calling for, but there will be more functions added to it to make it a useful tool for tax practitioners.

"It will no longer be just a glorified Power of Attorney form, or the ability to file one,” she said. “It will actually have some usefulness. … Stay tuned."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Taxpayers, by the 2024 filing season, will be able to digitally submit all correspondence, non-tax forms, and notice responses electronically to the Internal Revenue Service, the agency announced.

Additionally,"by Filing Season 2025, the IRS is committing to digitally process 100 percent of tax and information returns that are submitted by paper, as well as half of all paper correspondence, non-tax forms, and notice responses,"Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said August 2, 2023. "It will also digitalize historical documents that are currently in storage at the IRS."

Taxpayers, by the 2024 filing season, will be able to digitally submit all correspondence, non-tax forms, and notice responses electronically to the Internal Revenue Service, the agency announced.

Additionally,"by Filing Season 2025, the IRS is committing to digitally process 100 percent of tax and information returns that are submitted by paper, as well as half of all paper correspondence, non-tax forms, and notice responses,"Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said August 2, 2023. "It will also digitalize historical documents that are currently in storage at the IRS."

Taxpayers will still have the option of mailing in paper-based correspondence.

Yellen cited the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act to the IRS for giving the agency the ability to transition from "a paper-based agency" to a "digital-first agency."

"This ‘PaperlessProcessing’ initiative is the key that unlocks other customer service improvements," Yellen said. "It will enable taxpayers to see their documents, securely access their data, and save time and money. And it will allow other parts of the IRS to rely on these digital copies to provide faster refunds, reduce errors in tax processing, and delivery a more seamless and responsive customer service experience."

According to a fact sheet issued by the IRS, the agency estimates that "more than 94 percent of individual taxpayers will no longer ever need to send mail to the IRS," and will enable up to 152 million paper documents to be submitted digitally per year.

Additionally, taxpayers will be able to e-file 20 additional tax forms, enabling up to 4 million additional tax forms to be filed digitally each year, including amendments to Forms 940, 941, 941SSPR.

"At least 20 of the most used non-tax forms will be available in digital, mobile-friendly formats that make them easy for taxpayers to complete and submit," the fact sheet continues. "These forms will include a Request for Taxpayer Advocate Service Assistance, making it easier for taxpayers to get the help they need."

The fact sheet also outlines some more targets for the 2025 filing season, including:

• making an additional 150 of the most used non-tax forms available in digital, mobile-friendly formats;
• digitally processing all paper-filed tax and information returns;
• processing at least half of paper-submitted correspondence, with all paper documents – correspondence, non-tax forms, and notice responses – to be processed digitally by Filing Season 2026; and
• digitizing up to 1 billion historical documents.

"When combined with an improved data platform, digitization and data extraction will enable data scientists to implement advanced analytics and pattern recognition methods to pursue cases that can help address the tax [gap], including wealthy individuals and large corporations using complex structures to evade taxes they owe," the fact sheet states.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

An IRS Notice provides a transition rule that generally allows taxpayers to claim the Code Sec. 25C energy efficient home improvement credit for home energy audits conducted in 2023 even if the auditor is not certified. The Notice also describes regulations the IRS intends to propose for qualified home energy audits.

An IRS Notice provides a transition rule that generally allows taxpayers to claim the Code Sec. 25C energy efficient home improvement credit for home energy audits conducted in 2023 even if the auditor is not certified. The Notice also describes regulations the IRS intends to propose for qualified home energy audits.

Taxpayers may rely on the Notice until the proposed regs are issued. The proposed regs are expected to apply to tax years ending after December 31, 2022 .

Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit for Home Energy Audits

The energy efficient home improvement credit is generally equal to 30 percent of amounts paid or incurred for qualified energy efficiency improvements, residential energy property expenditures, and home energy audits placed in service after 2022. The credit is generally limited to $1,200 per year, but different annual limits apply to particular types of expenses.

The annual credit for home energy audits is limited to $150 per year. For example, if a taxpayer pays $900 for a home energy audit, the credit is limited to $150 rather than 30 percent of the expense ($300).

A qualified home energy audit must:

Transition Rule for 2023

A transition rule applies to home energy audits conducted on or before December 31, 2023, during a tax year ending after December 31, 2022. An audit during this transition period may qualify for the credit even if it is not conducted by a certified home energy auditor. However, an audit conducted after December 31, 2023, will not qualify for the credit unless the auditor is certified.

Proposed Regs: Certified Home Energy Auditor

The proposed regs will define a "qualified home energy audit" as an inspection conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified home energy auditor. The audit must be consistent with the Jobs Task Analysis led by the Department of Energy (DOE) and validated by the industry.

A qualified home energy auditor will have to be certified by a Qualified Certification Program at the time of the audit. DOE maintains a list of qualified certified programs on its website at https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/25c-energy-efficient-home-improvement-credit. These are the only programs that may certify a qualified home energy auditor.

Proposed Regs: Written Report

Under the proposed regs, a qualified home energy audit must include a written report prepared and signed by the qualified home energy auditor. The report must include:

Proposed Regs: Substantiation

Finally, the proposed regs will require the taxpayer to substantiate the home energy audit expenditure by maintaining the certified home energy auditor’s signed written report as a tax record. The taxpayer must also comply with the instructions for Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits, or any successor form.

The Internal Revenue Service will end, except in very limited circumstances, the practice of making unannounced visits to taxpayers’ homes and businesses."This change is effective immediately,"IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel said during a July 24, 2023, teleconference with reporters. Werfel said the change is being made in reaction to an increase in scam activity as well as for IRS employee safety."With a growth in scam artists, taxpayers are increasingly uncertain who was knocking on their doors," Werfel said. "For IRS employees, there were fears about their own personal safety on these visits. I also learned that these concerns were shared by our partners as the National Treasury Employees Union."

The Internal Revenue Service will end, except in very limited circumstances, the practice of making unannounced visits to taxpayers’ homes and businesses."This change is effective immediately,"IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel said during a July 24, 2023, teleconference with reporters. Werfel said the change is being made in reaction to an increase in scam activity as well as for IRS employee safety."With a growth in scam artists, taxpayers are increasingly uncertain who was knocking on their doors," Werfel said. "For IRS employees, there were fears about their own personal safety on these visits. I also learned that these concerns were shared by our partners as the National Treasury Employees Union."

Unannounced visits will be replaced with scheduled visits. If the IRS needs to meet with a taxpayer, that taxpayer will receive an appointment letter, known as a 725-B letter, to schedule a time for a revenue officer to meet with the taxpayer."This will help taxpayers feel more prepared when it is time to meet," Werfel said."“Taxpayers whose cases are assigned to a revenue officer will now be able to schedule face-to-face meetings at a set place and time. They will have the necessary information and documents in hand to reach a resolution of their cases more quickly."

In addressing what the IRS will do if a taxpayer is not reachable by mail or is not responding to a meeting scheduling letter, Werfel stated that there are other actions that the agency can take to help drive compliance, such as imposing a lien or a levy, which can be done remotely. He also stressed that in past cases where revenue officers made unannounced visits, they were in situations where the revenue officer was attempting to collect a sizable debt with a median in these cases of $110,000."These homevisits were not occurring for small tax debt," Werfel said. "These are for big tax debts." Werfel outlined what he described as "rare instances" when unannounced visits will continue to occur, including service of a summons and subpoena as well as in the conduct of sensitive enforcement activities such as the seizure of assets."These activities are just a drop in the bucket compared to the number of visits that have taken place in the past," Werfel said, noting that there were a few hundred each year compared to the tens of thousands of other visits that occurred each year under the decades-old policy.

Werfel said that this policy will not impact activities conducted by the Criminal Investigations division, which operates under its own rules and protocols."Today’s decision is part of a broader plan that will help us work smarter and be more efficient," he said, noting this action is part of the larger IRS transformation effort taking place with the help of the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has released a revenue ruling providing additional guidance concerning receipt of cryptocurrency. If a cash-method taxpayer stakes cryptocurrency native to a proof-of-stake blockchain and receives additional units of cryptocurrency as rewards when validation occurs, the fair market value of the validation rewards received is included in the taxpayer's gross income in the tax year in which the taxpayer gains dominion and control over the validation rewards. The same is true if a taxpayer stakes cryptocurrency native to a proof-of-stake blockchain through a cryptocurrency exchange and receives additional units of cryptocurrency as rewards as a result of the validation

The IRS has released a revenue ruling providing additional guidance concerning receipt of cryptocurrency. If a cash-method taxpayer stakes cryptocurrency native to a proof-of-stake blockchain and receives additional units of cryptocurrency as rewards when validation occurs, the fair market value of the validation rewards received is included in the taxpayer's gross income in the tax year in which the taxpayer gains dominion and control over the validation rewards. The same is true if a taxpayer stakes cryptocurrency native to a proof-of-stake blockchain through a cryptocurrency exchange and receives additional units of cryptocurrency as rewards as a result of the validation

Scenario in the Ruling

The revenue ruling presents a scenario in which transactions in a cryptocurrency that is convertible virtual currency are validated by a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. A cash-method taxpayer validates a new block of transactions on the cryptocurrency blockchain, receiving two units of the cryptocurrency as validation rewards. Pursuant to the cryptocurrency protocol, during a brief period ending on Date 2, the taxpayer lacks the ability to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any interest in the two units of cryptocurrency in any manner. On the following day (Date 3), the taxpayer has the ability to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the two cryptocurrency units.

Analysis and Holding

Cryptocurrency that is convertible virtual currency is treated as property for Federal income tax purposes and general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions involving cryptocurrency. For example, a taxpayer who receives cryptocurrency as a payment for goods or services or who mines cryptocurrency must include the fair market value of the cryptocurrency in the taxpayer's gross income in the tax year the taxpayer obtains dominion and control of the cryptocurrency.

In the scenario, two units of cryptocurrency represent the taxpayer's reward for staking units and validating transactions on the blockchain. On Date 3, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth as the taxpayer gains dominion and control through the taxpayer's ability, as of this date, to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the two units of cryptocurrency received as validation rewards. Accordingly, the fair market value of the two units of cryptocurrency is included in taxpayer's gross income for the tax year that includes Date 3.

Problems with the Internal Revenue Service’s handling of the Employee Retention Tax Credit took center stage before a House committee hearing, with tax professionals airing issues they have experienced and ongoing concerns they have.

Problems with the Internal Revenue Service’s handling of the Employee Retention Tax Credit took center stage before a House committee hearing, with tax professionals airing issues they have experienced and ongoing concerns they have.

Testifying at a July 28, 2023, hearing of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, Larry Gray, partner at AGC CPA, said that as the pandemic started and he started to make educational YouTube videos to help other practitioners navigate the tax law, he found issues with the ERTC, including the growing industry of ERTC mills and the potential for fraud that comes with them.

He noted that many of these mills are simply taking their fee for providing essentially clerical assistance. However, Gray noted that in these ERTC mills, the agreements stated that"they don’t do audit," but they might be able to help find someone of a business does get audited because of the ERTC filing. And unfortunately, as was discussed throughout the hearing, people are falling for these ERTC mills and putting their businesses at risk.

And Gray put the problems that have arisen squarely on the IRS.

"We are getting no guidance," Gray said. "There should have been an ERTC implementation team to coordinate from the top down. We need education. We need guidance."

To that end, the IRS did issue a legal advice memorandum on July 20, 2023, that shows the application of the statutory requirements of the ERTC across five different scenarios.

Gray also took a subtle dig at Congress, acknowledging in his testimony that part of the issues could be related to an IRS that was "understaffed, and they were underfunded" when the COVID-19 pandemic began three years ago.

Roger Harris, President of accounting and tax firm Padgett Advisors, also highlighted issues, starting with the first which was "how we submitted claims to the IRS," which was exclusively on paper at a time when no one was present to handle the processing of paper correspondence because of the pandemic, creating a significant backlog.

"And it’s still ongoing," he continued, causing a "delay in getting the money out to the people who need it."

And with all the moving parts related to potential people who need to amend returns depending on how the business is structured, a mistake in any of these forms could be generating penalties and interest, a problem that is magnified when combined with Gray’s observation of the lack of available guidance to help taxpayers who are trying to do the right thing and collect money they are legitimately owed.

Ahead of the subcommittee hearing, the IRS announced in a July 26, 2023, statement that it received more than 2.5 million claims since the ERTC program began and it has "made substantial progress on these claims this year, with 99 percent of claims approximately three-months old as of mid-July."

However, throughout the hearing, witnesses and committee members questioned the integrity of that figure, noting that IRS has changed numbers on its website as to how many claims remain in the backlog. There also were question on how the figure itself is determined.

Harris also pointed out the problems the ERTC mills are causing with his business and for other tax professionals looking to do the right thing by their clients.

"We have had clients that we have dealt with for many years who have trusted our advice," Harris testified. "But all of a sudden when someone is telling them, ‘Your advisor doesn’t know what they are doing, and if you listen to me, I can give you a half million dollars,’ it’s very hard for as the people who are working with these small businesses to win that argument, in many instances, just because of the sheer amount of money that is being dangled in front of them."

Harris continued: "And as we have heard, the IRS has no choice but to begin enforcement actions to try and correct this."

He said he is asking the IRS "for some help [with] a real-world solution to give us the ability to try to bring these people back into compliance. … [It] is going to take a concerted effort by our industry, the tax practitioner community, to help solve this problem," especially when people may have already spent the money because they were unaware that the weren’t entitled to under the ERTC program and fell for the fraud being perpetrated by the ERTC mills. And that does not even account for the fees that were paid to the ERTC mills that will never be recovered.

He did note that IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, at last week’s IRS-sponsored tax forum in Atlanta did ask tax practitioners what they needed in regard to the ERTC.

In its July 26 statement, the IRS offered a series of recommendations on how to avoid ERTC scams. At the tax forum, Werfel said that the "amount of misleading marketing around this credit is staggering, and it is creating an array of problems for taxprofessionals and the IRS while adding risk for businesses improperly claiming the credit. A terrible scenario is unfolding that hurts everyone involved – except the promoters" of the misleading ERTC marketing.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS announced substantial progress in the ongoing effort related to the dubious Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. The IRS successfully cleared the backlog of valid ERCs. The period of eligibility for the credit for affected businesses is very limited, covering only between March 13, 2020, and December. 31, 2021. Under the current law, businesses can typically continue to file claims for the credit until April 15, 2025.

The IRS announced substantial progress in the ongoing effort related to the dubious Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. The IRS successfully cleared the backlog of valid ERCs. The period of eligibility for the credit for affected businesses is very limited, covering only between March 13, 2020, and December. 31, 2021. Under the current law, businesses can typically continue to file claims for the credit until April 15, 2025.

"The further we get from the pandemic, we believe the percentage of legitimate claims coming in is declining," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel told attendees at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum in Atlanta. "Instead, we continue to see more and more questionable claims coming in following the onslaught of misleading marketing from promoters pushing businesses to apply. To address this, the IRS continues to intensify our compliance work in this area," he added.

Taxpayers should be wary of certain signs including (1) unsolicited calls or advertisements mentioning an easy application process; (2) statements that the promoter or company can determine ERC eligibility within minutes; and (3) large upfront fees to claim the credit. Eligible employers who need help claiming the credit should work with a trusted tax professional. Finally, taxpayers can report ERC abuse by submitting Form 14242, Report Suspected Abusive Tax Promotions or Preparers and any supporting materials to the IRS Lead Development Center in the Office of Promoter Investigations.

The Internal Revenue Service is looking for ways get its post-filing alternative dispute resolution programs greater exposure and use.

The agency recently issued a public call for comment on a variety of topics related to the use of ADR, including learning why taxpayers choose not to use ADR; issues that keep taxpayers from using ADR that should be changed to allow for inclusion; how best to improve ADR; how best to education about ADR; feedback on when ADR proved particularly useful; and ideas on how to achieve tax certainty or resolution sooner beyond existing ADR programs, including ideas for new programs.

The Internal Revenue Service is looking for ways get its post-filing alternative dispute resolution programs greater exposure and use.

The agency recently issued a public call for comment on a variety of topics related to the use of ADR, including learning why taxpayers choose not to use ADR; issues that keep taxpayers from using ADR that should be changed to allow for inclusion; how best to improve ADR; how best to education about ADR; feedback on when ADR proved particularly useful; and ideas on how to achieve tax certainty or resolution sooner beyond existing ADR programs, including ideas for new programs.

A list of specific issues the IRS has outlined can be found here, though comments submitted about the ADR should not necessarily be limited to the subject areas listed.

Indu Subbiah, supervisory appeals officer and acting senior advisor in the IRS Independent Office of Appeal, explained the genesis of this request for comment.

"We had a sense the ADR [programs] weren’t being used quite as robustly as we would have liked,” she said in an interview with Federal Tax Daily, adding that a recently issued U.S. Government Accountability Office report “really brought that to our attention."

According to the report, “IRS Could Better Manage Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs To Maximize Benefits,"IRS Could Better Manage Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs To Maximize Benefits," GAO found that while the agency offers six alternative dispute resolution programs,"IRS used ADR programs to resolve disputes in less than half of one percent of all cases reviews by its Independent Office of Appeals"from fiscal year 2013 to 2022. In this time period, the number of cases closed using ADR annually peaked in 2014 (429 cases closed) and then steadily declined during the review period, reaching a low point of 119 cases closed in 2022.

"Beyond these data on ADR usage, IRS does not have the data necessary to manage the ADR programs, such as data on taxpayer requests to use ADR; IRS’ acceptance or rejection of those requests; and the results from using ADR, including rate of resolution, time, and costs," the GAO report states. "Although IRS does not know definitively why ADR usage has declined, potential reasons include taxpayers do not perceive the benefits of using ADR, according to IRS officials"

The report continues: "IRS is missing opportunities to use several management practices for its ADR programs to help increase taxpayers’ willingness to use ADR as well as maximize the programs’ benefits. IRS does not have clear and measurable objectives for its ADR programs that contribute to achieving IRS’s strategic goals and objectives, such as its ability to resolve disputes over specific tax issues and reduce the investment of time and money to do so. IRS does not analyze data to assess whether ADR is achieving benefits. … IRS has not regularly monitored the taxpayer experience with ADR to address problems in real-time."

With these critical observations about the ADR programs being put forth by GAO, the Independent Office of Appeals is now proactively looking at what is going on to make the ADR programs work better for taxpayers and the agency, the first step being this request for comments.

"The whole point of ADR programs is so that taxpayers and the IRS can use ADR to resolve issues, potentially at a lower cost," Subbiah said. "I think everybody would agree that when the process works, the IRS and the taxpayer can avoid costly litigation."

"The question for us is how can we is how can we even improve the ability to resolve a case with Appeals, and to me, it’s maybe can we resolve those cases sooner," Andrew Keyso, chief of the IRS Office of Independent Appeals, said during the interview.

"I think this is a good time to reconsider how we do alternative dispute resolution and mediation because of the" supplemental funding the agency received as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Keyso said, noting that there are more resources to apply to appeals officers and mediators.

Keyso said that one of the ways the Office of Appeals measures success of ADR "based on how many people are coming in to use ADR and those numbers are fairly small. So I think we’d like to see those numbers increase."

One thing that the IRS will be looking for in the questions is the need for education as a potential way to increase the use of ADR. In fact, one of the questions the agency asked is directly focused on education.

"One of the questions we really focused on was education," Subbiah said, noting that they are looking for stakeholders to "tell us [and] to help us understand whether it is [lack of] education [on ADR and its benefits] or is it something else. I think it will be very telling and very interesting to us to really get at the heart of why it isn’t being used."

Elizabeth Askey, deputy chief of the Office of Independent Appeals, noted, anecdotally, that larger businesses and wealthier taxpayers seem to be a lot more aware of the various tools at their disposal, including ADR. However, the Office also is hearing situations where there is a reluctance on the part of compliance officers to use ADR tools.

Keyso added that while larger businesses and wealthier taxpayers might be more aware of ADR, there needs to be more education for smaller businesses and lower income taxpayers, in addition to education across the IRS itself.

"So, in those cases, it may be a matter of us getting to the root of why some compliance personnel are less inclined to go this route than others," Askey said during the interview. "It’s not just the education of taxpayers and their practitioners, but of our own compliance personnel."

Keyso stressed that this effort was broad, not only in the scope of which taxpayers and practitioners might need education about the availability and use of ADR, but also within the agency. And he remains optimistic that this effort to request commentary from the public will help that.

"We’re optimistic that the public will come in and tell us why we don’t make use of more ADR. We don’t find it productive, for instance, or we can’t get the agency to cooperate," he said. And with the additional IRA funding in hand, the agency can respond and look to see how ADR can be restructured to make it more useful for everyone to help get more issues resolved in a more timely and cost-efficient manner.

"I hope that mindset is shared across the agency," Keyso said."I think it is and is becoming more so in the effort to help resolve cases quickly." He noted there will always be cases where resolution needs a more traditional path, but when this process is complete, there will be a greater recognition where ADR can be and is used.

IRS is asking the public to submit its comments on the ADR programs by August 25, 2023, via email at ap.adr.programs@irs.gov.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is reiterating her call for the Internal Revenue Service to stop automatically assessing penalties related to international information returns.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is reiterating her call for the Internal Revenue Service to stop automatically assessing penalties related to international information returns.

In an August 22, 2023, blog post, she also called on the agency to "provide taxpayers due process by affording them the opportunity to administratively present their reasonable cause defense and request FTA [first time abatement] and consideration by the Independent Office of Appeals prior to any assessment."

The blog post noted that relief was needed because there is "a misconception that IIRpenalties affect primarily bad-faith, wealthy taxpayers who are experiencing consequences of their own making."

However, that is not the case. Collins wrote that the automatic penalty regime "disproportionately affects individuals and businesses of more moderate resources, and is by no means just a rich person’s problem. Wealthy individuals and large businesses tend to have knowledgeable and well-informed representation and as a result have fewer foot faults. Immigrants, small businesses, and low-income individuals may not be as well-informed about IIRpenalties and may not have return preparers with the same technical expertise on international penalties."

NTA noted that from 2018-2021, 71 percent of the penalties were assessed to taxpayers with incomes of $400,000 or less, with an average penalty to these people being more than $40,000.

One example of how penalties can be triggered is when an immigrant who is a U.S. citizen starts a small business and includes family members who live abroad. This arrangement could trigger the need for an IIR and if it is not filed, the taxpayer could be automatically assessed penalties, which are defined in Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6038 and 6038A. The blog goes through a number of other scenarios which would require an IIR and penalties for failure to do so.

However, when "taxpayers voluntarily correct their failure to file, this good-faith action can sometimes have the unexpected effect of causing the IRS to automatically assess the penalty,"the blog states. "If the IRS does not administratively abate the penalty, taxpayers will need to pay the penalty in full before challenging by filing suit refund in the United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Appeals."

Collins continues to advocate for legislative changes that would allow for changes in due process that would allow for cases to be heard in court before any penalties are paid, as well as providing a more "efficient and equitable regime governing the initial imposition of IIRpenalties and the mechanisms by which they can be challenged by taxpayers while also protecting their rights."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.