The IRS has updated its simplified procedure for estates requesting an extension of time to make a portability election under Code Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A). The updated procedure replaces that provided in Rev. Proc. 2017-34. If the portability election is made, a decedent’s unused exclusion amount (the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount) is available to a surviving spouse to apply to transfers made during life or at death.

The IRS has updated its simplified procedure for estates requesting an extension of time to make a portability election under Code Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A). The updated procedure replaces that provided in Rev. Proc. 2017-34. If the portability election is made, a decedent’s unused exclusion amount (the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount) is available to a surviving spouse to apply to transfers made during life or at death. The simplified method is to be used instead of the letter ruling process. No user fee is due for submissions filed in accordance with the revenue procedure.

A simplified method to obtain an extension of time was available to decedents dying after December 31, 2010, if the estate was only required to file an estate tax return for the purpose of electing portability. However, that method was only available on or before December 31, 2014. Since December 31, 2014, the IRS has issued numerous letter rulings under Reg. §301.9100-3 granting extensions of time to elect portability in situations in which the estate was not required to file a return under Code Sec. 6018(a). The number of ruling requests that were received after December 31, 2014, and the related burden imposed on the IRS, prompted the continued relief for estates that have no filing requirement under Code Sec. 6018(a). Rev. Proc. 2017-34 provided a simplified method to obtain an extension of time to elect portability that is available to the estates of decedents having no filing obligation under Code Sec. 6018(a) for a period the last day of which is the later of January 2, 2018, or the second anniversary of the decedent’s death. An estate seeking relief after the second anniversary of the decedent’s death could do so by requesting a letter ruling in accordance with Reg. §301.9100-3.

Despite this simplified procedure, there remained a significant number of estates seeking relief through letter ruling requests in which the decedent died within five years of the date of the request. The number of these requests has placed a continuing burden on the IRS. Therefore, the updated procedure extends the period within which the estate of a decedent may make the portability election under that simplified method to on or before the fifth anniversary of the decedent’s date of death.

Section 3 provides that the simplified procedure is only available if certain criteria are met. The taxpayer must be the executor of the estate of a decedent who: (1) was survived by a spouse; (2) died after December 31, 2010; and (3) was a U.S. citizen or resident at the time of death. In addition, the estate must not be required to file an estate tax return under Code Sec. 6018(a) and did not file an estate tax return within the time prescribed by Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(1) for filing a return required to elect portability. Finally, all requirements of section 4.01 of the revenue procedure must be met.

The revenue procedure does not apply to estates that filed an estate tax return within the time prescribed by Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(1) to elect portability. For taxpayers that do not qualify for relief because the requirements of section 4.01 are not met, the estate can request an extension of time to file the estate tax return to make the portability election by requesting a letter ruling.

Under Section 4.01, the requirements for relief are: (1) a person permitted to make the election on behalf of a decedent must file a complete and properly-prepared Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, (as provided in Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(7)) on or before the fifth annual anniversary of the decedent’s date of death; and (2) "FILED PURSUANT TO REV. PROC. 2022-32 TO ELECT PORTABILITY UNDER §2010(c)(5)(A)" must be written at the top of the Form 706. If the requirements of sections 3.01 and 4.01 are met, the estate will be deemed to meet the requirements for relief under Reg. §301.9100-3 and relief will be granted to extend the time to elect portability. If relief is granted pursuant to the revenue procedure and it is later determined that the estate was required to file a federal estate tax return, based on the value of the gross estate, plus any adjusted taxable gifts, the extension of time granted to make the portability election is deemed null and void.

If a decedent’s estate is granted relief under this revenue procedure so that the estate tax return is considered timely for electing portability, the decedent’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount that is available to the surviving spouse or the surviving spouse’s estate for application to the transfers made by the surviving spouse on or after the decedent’s date of death. If the increase in the surviving spouse’s applicable exclusion amount attributable to the addition of the decedent’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount as of the date of the decedent’s death result in an overpayment of gift or estate tax by the surviving spouse or his or her estate, no claim for credit or refund may be made if the limitations period for filing a claim for credit or refund with respect to that transfer has expired. A surviving spouse will be deemed to have filed a protective claim for refund or credit of tax if such a claim is filed within the time prescribed in Code Sec. 6511(a) in anticipation of a Form 706 being filed to elect portability pursuant to the revenue procedure.

The revenue procedure is effective July 8, 2022. Through the fifth anniversary of a decedent’s date of death, the procedure described in section 4.01 of this revenue procedure is the exclusive procedure for obtaining an extension of time to make portability election if the decedent and the executor meet the requirements of section 3.01 of this revenue procedure. If a letter ruling request is pending on July 8, 2022, and the estate is within the scope of the revenue procedure, the file on the ruling request will be closed and the user fee will be refunded. The estate may obtain relief as outlined in the revenue procedure by complying with section 4.01. Rev. Proc. 2017-34, I.R.B. 2017-26, 1282, is superceded.

The IRS intends to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A to defer the applicability date of the reporting of qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

The IRS intends to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A to defer the applicability date of the reporting of qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Background

Final BEAT regulations adopted with T.D. 9885 include rules under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A addressing the reporting of QDPs, which are not treated as base erosion payments for BEAT purposes. The final regulations generally apply to tax years ending on or after December 17, 2018.

In general, a payment qualifies for the QDP exception if the taxpayer satisfies certain reporting requirements. Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) requires a taxpayer subject to the BEAT to report on Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts, the aggregate amount of QDPs for the tax year, and make a representation that all payments satisfy the reporting requirements of Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2). If a taxpayer fails to satisfy these reporting requirements with respect to any payments, those payments are not eligible for the QDP exception and are treated as base erosion payments, unless another exception applies.

The QDP reporting rules of Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) apply to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021. Before these rules are applicable (the transition period), a taxpayer is treated as satisfying the QDP reporting requirements to the extent that the taxpayer reports the aggregate amount of QDPs on Form 8991, Schedule A, provided that the taxpayer reports this amount in good faith ( Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2)(iv); Reg. §1.6038A-2(g)).

In Notice 2021-36, I.R.B. 2021-26, 1227, the IRS announced the intention to extend the transition period through tax years beginning before January 1, 2023, while the IRS studies the interaction of the QDP exception, the BEAT netting rule in Reg. §1.59A-2(e)(3)(vi), and the QDP reporting requirements. The IRS has not yet issued regulations amending the applicability date of Reg. §1.6038A-2(g). The IRS continue to study these provisions and has determined that it is appropriate to further extend the transition period.

Deferred Applicability Date of QDP Reporting and Taxpayer Reliance

The IRS intends to amend Reg. §1.6038A-2(g) to provide that the QDP reporting rules of Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. Until these rules apply, the transition period rules described above will continue to apply. Taxpayers may rely on this Notice before the amendments to the final regulations are issued.

John Hinman, Director, IRS Whistleblower Office highlighted the importance of whistleblower information in identifying noncompliance and reducing the tax gap in an executive column published by the IRS. Each year, the IRS receives thousands of award claims from individuals who identify taxpayers who may not be abiding by U.S. tax laws. The IRS Whistleblower Office ensures that award claims are reviewed by the appropriate IRS business unit, determines whether an award should be paid and the percentage of any award and ensures that approved awards are paid. The IRS has paid over $1.05 billion in over 2,500 awards to whistleblowers since 2007.

John Hinman, Director, IRS Whistleblower Office highlighted the importance of whistleblower information in identifying noncompliance and reducing the tax gap in an executive column published by the IRS. Each year, the IRS receives thousands of award claims from individuals who identify taxpayers who may not be abiding by U.S. tax laws. The IRS Whistleblower Office ensures that award claims are reviewed by the appropriate IRS business unit, determines whether an award should be paid and the percentage of any award and ensures that approved awards are paid. The IRS has paid over $1.05 billion in over 2,500 awards to whistleblowers since 2007.

Further, Hinman stated that according to the IRS’s Large Business and International (LB&I) division, whistleblowers have provided invaluable insights into violations perpetuated by large corporations, wealthy individuals and their planners. Further, since the inception of the Whistleblower Office, information from whistleblowers has resulted in over 900 criminal tax cases. Hinman stated that individuals can file a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, to be considered for an award. Specific, credible and timely claims are most likely to be accepted for additional consideration and referred to one of IRS’s operating divisions. A subject matter expert may contact the whistleblower to ensure the IRS fully understands the information submitted. The IRS will notify whistleblowers when a case for which they provided information is referred for audit or examination.

Further, Hinman noted that the IRS takes the protection of whistleblower identity very seriously.The IRS prevents the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity, and even the fact that they have provided information, to the maximum extent that the law allows. Additionally, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by their employers under a law passed in 2019. Finally, Hinman noted that going forward, the Whistleblower Office team will continue to make improvements to this important program, raise awareness about the program for potential whistleblowers and look for ways to gain internal efficiencies to move cases forward as quickly as possible.

A group of Senate Democrats is calling on the IRS to extend the filing deadline for those unable to file for and receive the advanced child tax credit (CTC) due to the processing backlog of individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) applications.

A group of Senate Democrats is calling on the IRS to extend the filing deadline for those unable to file for and receive the advanced child tax credit (CTC) due to the processing backlog of individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) applications.

In a July 14, 2022, letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, the Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), called on the IRS to "allow families who applied for an ITIN or ITIN renewal prior to April 15, 2022, to file for and receive the advanced CTC if they file a return before or on October 15, 2022."

An ITIN is needed for taxpayers who do not have and are not eligible to receive a Social Security number but still have a U.S. tax filing requirement. This includes individuals who are nonresident aliens; U.S. resident aliens; dependents or spouses of U.S. citizen/resident alien; dependent or spouse of a nonresident alien visa holder; nonresident alien claiming a tax treaty benefit; or nonresident alien student, professor, or researcher filing a U.S. tax return claiming an exception.

The senators cite figures from the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration stating that prior to COVID-19 pandemic, it generally took between seven and 11 weeks to process an ITIN application (depending on if it was filed during tax season).

"But, as reported by TIGTA and the IRS’ own website, processing times have increased—with ITIN application processing averaging three to four months and renewal times doubling to 41 days," the letter states.

"Given that the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act required that an ITIN had to be issued on or before the due date of the return in order to file for the CTC, many families may not have received their ITIN prior to April 15, 2022," the letter adds, preventing access to the benefit.

The IRS has released a Fact Sheet to help taxpayers understand how and why agency representatives may contact them and how to identify them and avoid scams. Generally, the IRS sends a letter or written notice to a taxpayer in advance, but not always.

The IRS has released a Fact Sheet to help taxpayers understand how and why agency representatives may contact them and how to identify them and avoid scams. Generally, the IRS sends a letter or written notice to a taxpayer in advance, but not always. Depending on the situation, IRS employees may first call or visit with a taxpayer. Further, the IRS clarified that other than IRS Secure Access, the agency does not use text messages to discuss personal tax issues, such as those involving bills or refunds. The IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information. The IRS initiates most contacts through regular mail. Taxpayers can report fraudulent emails and text messages by sending an email to phishing@irs.gov.

Further, taxpayers will generally first receive several letters from the IRS in the mail before receiving a phone call. However, the IRS may call taxpayers if they have an overdue tax bill, a delinquent or unfiled tax return or have not made an employment tax deposit. The IRS does not leave pre-recorded, urgent or threatening voice messages and will never call to demand immediate payment using a specific payment method, threaten to immediately bring in law enforcement groups, demand tax payment without giving the taxpayer an opportunity or ask for credit or debit cards over the phone.

Additionally, IRS revenue officers generally make unannounced visits to a taxpayers home or place of business to discuss taxes owed or tax returns due. However, taxpayers would have first been notified by mail of their balance due or missing return. Taxpayers should always ask for credentials or identification when visited by IRS personnel. Finally, the IRS clarified that taxpayers who have filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court may receive a call or voicemail message from an Appeals Officer. However, the Appeals Officer will provide self-identifying information such as their name, title, badge number and contact information.

The American Institute of CPAs offered the Internal Revenue Service a series of recommendations related to proposed regulations for required minimum distributions from individual retirement accounts.

The American Institute of CPAs offered the Internal Revenue Service a series of recommendations related to proposed regulations for required minimum distributions from individual retirement accounts.

The July 1, 2022, comment letter to the agency covered two specific areas: minimum distribution requirements for designated beneficiaries when death of the employee or IRA owner occurs after the required beginning date, and the definition of employer and guidance for multiple arrangements.

Regarding the minimum distribution requirements, AICPA recommended in the letter that the agency "eliminate the requirement … mandating that a designated beneficiary who is not an eligible designated beneficiary take distribution in each of the 10 years following the death of an employee."

AICPA also recommended that "the final regulations follow the rule … requiring only that the entire interest is to be distributed no later than by the end of the tenth year following the death of the employee/IRA owner."

Regarding the definition of employer and guidance related to multiple employer agreements, AICPA recommended "defining the retirement requirement in section 401 (a)(9)-2(b)(1)(ii) as met at the plan level in reference to MEPs [multiple employer plans] and PEPs [pooled employer plans]; when an employee terminates employment with the employer after attaining age 72 and is reemployed with either the same employer or another employer sponsoring the same MEP or PEP prior to attaining their RBD of April 1 the following year."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on stimulus checks during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From April 2020 to December 2021, the federal government made direct payments to taxpayers totaling $931 billion to address pandemic-related financial stress.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on stimulus checks during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From April 2020 to December 2021, the federal government made direct payments to taxpayers totaling $931 billion to address pandemic-related financial stress.

Report Findings

Some eligible taxpayers never received payments. Eligible taxpayers can still claim their payments through October 17. There were challenges for the Service and Treasury to get payments especially to nonfilers, or those who were not required to file tax returns. Taxpayers who think they may be eligible but did not receive the third economic impact payment (EIP) or child tax credit (CTC) can request an extension and file a simplified return at https://www.childtaxcredit.gov/. Although no new EIP and advance CTC payments are underway, the Treasury and Service could learn to manage other refundable tax credits such as the earned income tax credit (EITC). Further, the IRS’s new Taxpayer Experience Office could help improve outreach and improve taxpayer experience.

Recommendations

GAO made two recommendations. First, the Treasury and IRS could use available data to update their estimate of eligible taxpayers to better tailor and redirect their ongoing outreach and communications efforts for similar tax credits. Second, both agencies could focus on improving interagency collaboration. They could use data to assess their efforts to educate more taxpayers about refundable tax credits and eligibility requirements.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operations and Development (OECD) is delaying the implementation of Pillar One of the landmark agreement on international tax reform.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operations and Development (OECD) is delaying the implementation of Pillar One of the landmark agreement on international tax reform.

A new Progress Report on Pillar One, which includes "a comprehensive draft of the technical model rules to implement a new taxing right that will allow market jurisdictions to tax profits from some of the largest multinational enterprises," will be open to stakeholder comment through August 19, 2022, OECD said in a statement.

That report notes that the plan is to finalize Pillar One by mid-2023, with the more than 135 countries and jurisdictions that are a part of the agreement able to put the framework into operation in 2024.

The revised timeline "is designed to allow greater engagement with citizens, businesses, and parliamentary bodies which will ultimately have to ratify the agreement," OECD said.

The Department of the Treasury welcomed the delay.

"Treasury welcomes the additional year agreed to at the OECD to allow further time for negotiations among governments and consultations with stakeholders on implementation of the Pillar One agreement, which will make the international tax system more stable and fair for businesses and workers in the United States and globally," a spokesperson for the agency said. "Tremendous progress has been made, and additional time will ensure we all get this historic agreement right."

OECD also noted that technical work under Pillar Two, which will introduce the 15 percent global minimum corporate tax rate, "is largely complete." The implementation framework is expected to be released later this year.

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.