- Newsletters

President Biden, on August 16, 2022, signed the Inflation Reduction Act ( P.L. 117-169) into law following its passage along party lines in both chambers of Congress.

The law is a slimmed down version of the Build Back Better Act that passed the House in 2021 but failed to even come up for a vote in the Senate due to opposition primarily from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). The Inflation Reduction Act did manage to keep some of the failed Build Back Better Act’s provisions in terms of generating revenues from corporations and wealthy taxpayers, as well as meeting some of the White House’s goals in the energy and health care sectors.

The law includes a one percent excise tax on stock repurchases, which goes into effect beginning in 2023, as well as a new corporate alternative minimum tax, although that does not apply to companies owned by private equity funds or certain manufacturing.

On the individual side, the IRS received a boost in funding of $80 billion across 10 years, part of which will be used to hire new agents who will help to the agency close the tax gap and get the wealthiest individuals to pay their fair share of taxes. Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has directed the Internal Revenue Service to not use any of the new funding to increase the share of small businesses or households making $400,000 or less that are exposed to audit.

To help meet the Biden Administration’s environmental goals, the law includes tax credits for electric vehicle purchases, as well as new tax credits and extensions on expiring tax credits to produce electricity from renewable sources; making homes more energy efficient; and other activities aimed at reducing the carbon output of the nation.

Close

President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law after it received bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The law ( H.R. 4346) "will boost American semiconductor research, development, and production, ensuring U.S. leadership in the technology that forms the foundation of everything from automobiles to household appliances to defense systems," the White House said in a fact sheet released August 9, 2022, the day of the signing.

To help with that, the bill contains a 25 percent investment tax credit for the manufacture of semiconductors as well and the manufacture of the tools to do so in addition to the grants that it provides the semiconductor industry.

Close

Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is seeking a detailed plan from the Internal Revenue Service on how it plans to spend to the $80 billion in additional funds that the agency received as part of the Inflation Reduction Act that was signed by President Biden on August 16, 2022.

"I would like the IRS to work closely with the Deputy Secretary to identify specific operational initiatives and associated timelines that will improve taxpayer services, modernize technology, and increase equity in our system of tax administration by pursuing tax evasion by those at the top who today do not pay their tax bill," Secretary Yellen said in an August 17, 2022, memorandum to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig.

In the memo, she directed the IRS to deliver an operational plan within six months, which "should include details on how resources will be spent over the ten-year horizon on technology, service equipment, and personnel. This operational plan is key to ensuring the public and Congress are able to hold the agency accountable as it pursues needed improvements."

Yellen added that she is "prepared to approve the near-term use of funds to improve services for next filing season, but we should treat this plan as a prerequisite for expending these resources more broadly, as I think there is value in thinking carefully over the course of the next few months how work should be prioritized and sequenced to achieve our goals."

Replacing Those Who Will Be Retiring

Yellen’s memo comes in the wake of GOP messaging that states the IRS is looking to hire 87,000 new agents that will be coming after the lower and middle class individuals.

Yellen reiterated in her memo that new funds from the Inflation Reduction Act "will not result in households earning $400,000 per year or less or small businesses seeing an increase in the chances they are audited relative to historic levels. Instead, they will allow the IRS to work to end the two-tiered system, where most Americans pay what they owe, but those at the top of the distribution often do not."

Much of the new hiring will go to simply maintaining employment levels as the funds will help "to replace the attrition that is on the horizon from the expected retirement of at least 50,000 employees over the next five years," the memo states. At this time, the official was not able to provide a breakdown in the functions of the people expected to retire, but the official emphasized that these are simply not new employees that would be added to the agency.

A Treasury official noted that revenue agents will not be the main focus of the hiring, but rather the majority will be individuals who will help improve customer service through IT upgrades and serving as customer service representatives. The IRS will also seek out auditors with specialized experience who can enforce the tax laws against high income individuals and corporations who avoid paying their tax bill.

The official noted that the number of IRS auditors that can handle the complex returns of high income individuals and corporations is roughly the same number today as the agency had during World War II, which allows the IRS to exam about 7,500 returns of the nearly 4.5 million it receives in this category.

The Criminal Investigations unit is not expected to see a spike in its number of employed. The official points out that the CI unit accounts for less than three percent of the total IRS workforce (less than 2,000 employees).

Closing The Tax Gap

The aim of the hiring of specialized auditors and agents that target high earners is to close the tax gap. The official noted that with the additional resources from the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS could collect an additional $400 billion over the next 10 years, although others, including former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti puts the collection amount at more than $1 trillion during the additional funding time period, according to testimony he provided to the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight during a May 11, 2021 hearing.

The Treasury official said the IRS is unable to collect 15 percent of the taxes that are owed, and over the next ten years, the tax gap could reach as high as $7.5 trillion.

Close

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins has taken an "unusual step" to appeal an Internal Revenue Service Deputy Commissioners’ decision directly to Commissioner Charles Rettig for reconsideration regarding the use of scanning technology for paper tax returns.

In March, Collins issued a Taxpayer Advocate Directive calling on the agency to work with tax software companies to implement a 2-D barcode on all returns prepared using the software. The barcodes would be printed on the paper returns and, when scanned, would transfer all the information from a paper-filed return without the need for manual entry, which is currently required for all paper returns.

For handwritten returns or returns where the barcode was not readable, the directive called for the agency to use optical scanning technology to automate the processing of those returns.

"If the IRS had implemented scanning technology, it is unlikely the current processing backlog would exist," Collins said in a March 29, 2022, letter outlining the directive.

Collins noted in an August 4 blog post that the IRS Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement Douglas O’Donnell and Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support Jeffrey Tribiano would not be following the directive.

In a July 18, 2022, memorandum for Collins, the deputy commissioners said the agency was exploring various barcoding technologies, but it would not follow the directive related to the scanning of handwritten forms or forms where the barcode could not be read.

Collins stated in the blog that "due to the magnitude of this issue and the unprecedented backlog of paper returns, I took the unusual step of appealing the Deputy Commissioners’ decision to the Commissioner for reconsideration."

In an August 2, 2022, memorandum to Commissioner Rettig, Collins noted that deputy commissioners’ response "declined to make a commitment to implement scanning technology to machine read v-coded returns, and it expressly rejected implementing scanning technology to machine read handwritten returns." She again called for the implementation of the use of some form of barcoding technology by the start of the 2023 filing season and the use of technology to machine read handwritten returns by the start of the 2023 filing season or, if that is not feasible, by the start of the 2024 filing season.

To frame the need, Collins noted in her blog post that the IRS "will have to process an average of about 525,000 paper-filed Forms 1040 per week during the second half of 2022 to eliminate the backlog" that came about as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. "As of July 15, however, it had processed a weekly average of paper-filed Forms 1040 over the prior four weeks of just 295,000."

She added: "While we all hope the IRS can work through the backlog this year, I often say that hope is not a business plan."

Close

The IRS and the Security Summit partners have warned tax professionals to beware of evolving identity theft scams perpetrated through phishing emails and SMS-text that are designed to trick practitioners into opening embedded links or attachments that infect their computer systems with the potential to steal personal and client information such as passwords, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, or social security numbers.

The IRS and the Security Summit partners have warned tax professionals to beware of evolving identity theft scams perpetrated through phishing emails and SMS-text that are designed to trick practitioners into opening embedded links or attachments that infect their computer systems with the potential to steal personal and client information such as passwords, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, or social security numbers. The IRS has urged tax professionals to work on strengthening their systems and protect client data by avoiding such scams and take necessary measures to protect themselves, such as:

multi-factor authentication, wherein tax professionals using cloud-based platforms are urged to use multi-factor options like phone, text, or tokens. This could avoid potential vulnerabilities with authentication done just through email, which may be accessible to identity thieves;
automatic updating of anti-virus software to prevent scams that target software vulnerabilities; and
drive encryption and regular backing up of files to help stop theft and ransomware attacks.

The IRS has also identified various kinds of scams that tax professionals should keep an eye out for, such as:

spear phishing in which scammers take time to identify their victim and craft a more enticing phishing email known as a lure;
identity thieves who pose as potential clients and exchange several emails with tax professionals before following up with an attachment that they claimed was their tax information. Once the tax professional click on the embedded URL and/or opened the attachment, malware is secretly downloaded onto their computers, and gives thieves access to passwords to client accounts or remote access to the computers themselves. After the thieves take over the computer systems, they identify pending tax returns, complete them, and e-file them, changing only the bank account information to steal the refund; and
ransomware attacks that make an unsuspecting tax professional open links or attachments, triggering malware to attack their computer system to encrypt files and the thieves hold the data for ransom.

The IRS has also reminded tax professionals that securing their network to protect taxpayer data is their responsibility as a tax preparer.

Close

The IRS has extended the deadlines for amending a retirement plan or individual retirement arrangement (IRA) to reflect certain provisions of Division O of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, P. L. 116-94, known as the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), and Section 104 of Division M of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, known as the Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019 (Miners Act). In addition, the IRS has extended the deadline for amending a retirement plan to reflect Section 2203 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), P. L. 116-136.The extended amendment deadline for (1) a qualified retirement plan or Code Sec. 403(b) plan (including an applicable collectively bargained plan) that is not a governmental plan or (2) an IRA is December 31, 2025.

SECURE Act and Miners Act

The deadlines for amending a retirement plan or IRA to reflect the provisions of the SECURE Act or the Miners Act, as set forth in Notice 2020-68 and Notice 2020-86, are extended as follows:

For a qualified plan (including an applicable collectively bargained plan) that is not a governmental plan within the meaning of Code Sec. 414(d), the deadline to amend a plan for provisions of the SECURE Act, or section 104 of the Miners Act is December 31, 2025.
The plan amendment deadline for a qualified governmental plan, within the meaning of Code Sec. 414(d), is 90 days after the close of the third regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023.
The deadline for a Code Sec. 403(b) plan (including an applicable collectively bargained plan) that is not maintained by a public school, as described in Code Sec. 403(b)(1)(A)(ii), to amend a plan for provisions of the SECURE Act or the regulations thereunder is December 31, 2025.
The plan amendment deadline for a Code Sec. 403(b) plan that is maintained by a public school, as described in Code Sec. 403(b)(1)(A)(ii), is 90 days after the close of the third regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023.
The deadline to amend a governmental plan under Code Sec. 457(b) for provisions of the SECURE Act or section 104 of the Miners Act is the later of (i) 90 days after the close of the third regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023, or (ii) if applicable, the first day of the first plan year beginning more than 180 days after the date of notification by the Secretary that the plan was administered in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of Code Sec. 457(b).
The deadline to amend the trust governing an IRA that is an individual retirement account or the contract issued by an insurance company with respect to an IRA that is an individual retirement annuity for provisions of the SECURE Act is December 31, 2025, or such later date as the Secretary prescribes in guidance.

Amendments to a retirement plan to reflect a provision of the SECURE Act that are made on or before the dates as extended will not cause the retirement plan to fail to satisfy the anti-cutback requirements of Code Sec. 411(d)(6) or section 204(g) of ERISA by reason of such amendments.

CARES Act

The deadlines for amending a retirement plan to reflect the provisions of section 2203 of the CARES Act are extended as follows:

the deadline for amending a retirement plan that is not a governmental plan is December 31, 2025; and
the deadline for amending a retirement plan that is a governmental plan is 90 days after the close of the third regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023, or, if later, with respect to a governmental plan under Code Sec. 457(b), the first day of the first plan year beginning more than 180 days after the date of notification by the Secretary that the plan was administered in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of Code Sec. 457(b).

Notice 2020-68, 2020-38 I.R.B. 567, and Notice 2020-86, 2020-53 I.R.B. 1786 are modified.

Close

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations eliminating the signature requirement for making a Code Sec. 754 election (section 754 election). The regulations finalize 2017 proposed regulations ( REG-116256-17), on which taxpayers were entitled to rely.

Election Signature Requirement

A partnership can make a section 754 election to adjust the basis of partnership property in the event the inside and outside bases are unequal. If the partnership files a section 754 election and there is a distribution of property, the basis of partnership property will be adjusted in the manner provided in Code Sec. 734. If the partnership files a section 754 election and there is a transfer of a partnership interest, the basis of partnership property will be adjusted in the manner provided in Code Sec. 743. The section 754 election applies to all distributions of property by the partnership and to all transfers of interests in the partnership during the tax year for which the election was filed and all subsequent tax years.

The regulations under Code Sec. 754 require a section 754 election to be made in a written statement (section 754 election statement) filed with the partnership return for the tax year during which the distribution or transfer occurs. The requirement of a written statement applies to returns filed either electronically or on paper. For the election to be valid, the return must be filed by the due date for the return, including extensions.

The amended regulation, which is identical to the 2017 proposed amendment, removes a requirement that the section 754 election statement be signed by one of the partners. Under the regulation before its amendment, a partnership filing an unsigned section 754 election statement with its partnership return failed to make a valid section 754 election. An unsigned statement is valid under the amended regulation if it meets the remaining requirements.

The regulation, as amended, retains two requirements. It continues to provide that a taxpayer making a section 754 election must file a statement with its return that:

sets forth the name and address of the partnership making the section 754 election, and
contains a declaration that the partnership elects under section 754 to apply the provisions of Code Sec. 734(b) and Code Sec. 743(b).

Effective and Applicability Dates

The amendment eliminating the signature requirement is effective August 5, 2022, and applies to tax years ending on or after the date of publication of the final regulation in the Federal Register. Taxpayers may, however, apply the amendment to tax years ending before that date.

Close

The American Institute of CPAs highlighted several challenges that tax practitioners are experiencing with the use of the Internal Revenue Service’s Practitioner Priority Service (PPS) line.

In an August 9, 2022, letter to the agency, the AICPA called the “plummeting” PPS line level of service "an area of continuing concern."

"Anecdotally, we are hearing from tax practitioners everyday regarding their significant PPS line challenges and the impact those challenges have on their interactions with IRS on behalf of taxpayers," the letter states.

The letter highlights issues with the handling of power of attorney (POA), transcripts, and account management versus automated collections, as well as providing some general recommendations.

In the area of power of attorney, the AICPA offered several recommendations, including having customer service representatives provide a fax number at the start of the call if a practitioner states that the POA likely is not on file and where "a delegated POA is presented and appears in order, do not require the first POA be posted to the Central Authorization File (CAF) before recognizing the delegated POA."

The AICPA also noted that customer service representatives "are often inconsistent on what is required to be completed on a POA for it to be valid," and called for better training of the representatives. The organization noted that the agency "should allow use of POAs that are signed by the taxpayer and the representative calling in—even if it is not yet signed by other listed representatives. While the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provides that IRS staff are to accept the POAs, the IRM is not universally followed in this regard."

In the area of transcripts, the AICPA asked the IRS to restore customer service representatives’ ability to provide internal screen-print type transactions as well as the IRS message line that existed solely to provide internal and other types of transcripts to practitioners as they waited.

"PPS CSRs have indicated lately that they will not provide internal screen-print type transcripts by fax or secure mailbox; they are only willing to use U.S. mail, which takes 4 to 6 weeks for receipt," the AICPA stated, adding that the delay makes it more difficult to resolve issues in a timely manner.

The AICPA also called for the elimination of the so-called "law line."

"Practitioners should not need to consult with IRS staff on interpretations of law—the practitioners should be competent in those areas. Moreover, the breadth of knowledge of the ‘law line’ staff is often not high or incorrect information is given," the letter states

The organization suggested the law line staff be utilized in other areas of the PPS line to help alleviate long wait times.

Another suggestion forwarded by the AICPA was that the IRS restore the ability of accounts management (AM) staff to grant cycle holds for accounts not in collection.

"Recently, AM has been unwilling to grant cycle holds, referring such requests to ACS [automated collection system]," the letter states. "Restoring authority to grant cycle holds with AM before an account goes to Collection will return more speed and efficiency in resolving issues, will eliminate needless Collection Due Process cases, and will keep more cases out of the Taxpayer Advocate Service as well."

That being said, the AICPA suggested that automated collection system be empowered to resolve more account issues, such as penalty abatement and other account-related issues and authorize PPS CSRs to grant 180-day holds where correspondence was sent in.

Other general recommendations included staffing the PPS line with "highly trained, highly empowered personnel;" discontinuing the practice of asking practitioners for their social security number and date of birth; enhancing the new automatic return call system; providing more supervisor availability; and enabling PPS CSRs to handle international issues.

Close

The American Institute of CPAs offered up suggestions to Congress, focused on the trust and estate proposals found within the fiscal year 2023 revenue proposal, as the legislative branch considers the White House Budget request.

In a July 28, 2022, letter sent to Democrat and Republican leadership on both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, AICPA outlined a number of proposals across four areas, including strengthening taxation of high-income taxpayers; modifying estate and gift taxation; and improving tax administration and compliance.

The White House budget revenue proposals were published in March 2022 in the so-called "Green Book."

With regards to strengthening taxation of high-income taxpayers, AICPA noted that it is "currently concerned that some of the provisions in the 2023 Treasury Green Book … regarding valuation rules for certain transfers of assets are inconsistent with well-established valuation principles and could result in valuations that do not reflect the true economic value of transferred assets. These inconsistencies could, in turn, unjustly negatively affect taxpayers."

Specifically, it raised concerns with treating transfers of appreciated property by gift or on death "as realization events," which could alter how the property is valuated and could put taxpayers at a disadvantage for not having complete access to different valuations.

In the tax administration section, AICPA expressed concern that proposed reporting requirements, the organization expressed concern that reporting requirements for tax year would apply to each trust whose estimated total value on the last day of the tax year exceeds $300,000 or whose gross income for the tax year exceeds $10,000, along with what may be overly burdensome informational reporting requirements.

"These low thresholds would capture a substantial number of trusts – many of which are likely of lower risk to the IRS due to the lowers dollars at stake," the letter states.

AICPA also called the taxing of estates the same as trusts for many of the provisions in the Green Book "problematic. The AICPA recommends that estates be treated similar to married filing separately for all estate provisions in the Green Book, as well as existing law (such as income tax and net investment income tax). This recommendation would restore estates to their federal tax position from 1954-1986."

Close

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

SALT Deduction

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

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

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

Close

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

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

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

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

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

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

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

Qualified Business Income

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

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

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

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

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

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

De Minimis Exception

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

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

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

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

Close

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

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

Crack & Pack

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

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

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

Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

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

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

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

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

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

Tax Reform 2.0

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

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

Key Takeways

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

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

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

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

Close

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

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

Individual Tax Brackets

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

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

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

For heads of households:

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

For unmarried taxpayers:

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

For married taxpayers filing separately:

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

For estates and trusts:

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

Standard Deduction

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

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

AMT Exemptions

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

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

Estate and Gift Tax

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

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

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

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

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close

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

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

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

Trade or Business

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

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

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

Specified Service Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wages/Capital Limit

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

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

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

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

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

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

Effective Dates

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

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

Comments Requested

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

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

Close