WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service will be resuming issuing collections notices to taxpayers that were previously suspending during the COVID-19 pandemic, although a date on when they will begin to be sent out has not been set.

WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service will be resuming issuing collections notices to taxpayers that were previously suspending during the COVID-19 pandemic, although a date on when they will begin to be sent out has not been set.

"Right now, we are planning for restarting those notices," Darren Guillot, commissioner for collection and operation support in the IRS Small Business/Self Employment Division, said May 5, 2023, during a panel discussion at the ABA May Tax Meeting. "We have a very detailed plan."

Guillot assured attendees that the plan does not involve every notice just starting up on an unannounced day. Rather, the IRS will "communicate vigorously" with taxpayers, tax professionals and Congress on the timing of the plans so no one will be caught off guard by their generation.

He also stated that the plan is to stagger the issuance of different types of notices to make sure the agency is not overwhelmed with responses to them.

"The notice restart is really going to be staggered," Guillot said. "We’re going to time it at an appropriate cadence so that we believe we can handle the incoming phone calls that it can generate."

Guillot continued: "We want to also be mindful of the impact that it will have on the IRS Independent Office of Appeal. Some of those notices come with appeals rights and we want to make sure that we give taxpayers a chance to resolve their issues without the need to have to go to appeal or even get to that stage of that notice. So, it will be a staggered process."

In terms of helping to avoid the appeals process and getting taxpayers back into compliance, Guillot offered a scenario of what taxpayers might expect. In the example, if a taxpayer was set to receive a final Notice of Intent to Levy right before the pause for the pandemic was instituted, "we’re probably going to give most of those taxpayers a gentle reminder notice to try and see if they want to comply before we go straight to that final notice. That’s good for the taxpayer and it’s good for the IRS. And it’s good for the appellate process as well."

Guillot also said the agency is going to look at the totality of the 500-series of notices and taxpayers and their circumstances to see if there is a more efficient way of communicating and collecting past due amounts from taxpayers.

He also stressed that the IRS has been working with National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins and she has offered "input that we’re incorporating and taking into consideration every step of the way."

Collins, who also was on the panel, confirmed that and added that the IRS is "trying to take a very reasonable approach of how to turn it back on," adding that the staggered approach will also help practitioners and the Taxpayer Advocate Service from being overwhelmed as well as the IRS.

Guillot also mentioned that in the very near future, the IRS will start generating CP-14 notices, which are the statutory due notices. This is the first notice that a taxpayer will receive at the end of a tax season when there is money that they owe and those will start to be sent out to taxpayers around the end of May.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service will use 2018 as the benchmark year for determining audit rates as it plans to increase enforcement for those individuals and businesses making more than $400,000 per year.

The Internal Revenue Service will use 2018 as the benchmark year for determining audit rates as it plans to increase enforcement for those individuals and businesses making more than $400,000 per year.

The agency is "going to be focused completely on … closing the gap," IRS Commissioner Daniel said April 27, 2023, during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee. "What that means is the auditrate, the most recent auditrate, we have that’s complete and final is 2018. That is the rate that I want to share with the American people. The auditrate will not go above that rate for years to come because for the next several years, at least, we’re going to be focused on work that we’re doing with the highest income filers."

Werfel added that even if the IRS were to expand its audit footprint a few years from now, "you’re still not going to get anywhere near that historical average for quite some time. So, I think there can be assurances to the American people that if you earn under $400,000, there’s no new wave of audits coming. The probability of you being audited before the Inflation Reduction Act and after the Inflation Reduction Act are not changed at all."

He also noted that many of the new hires that will be brought in to handle enforcement will focus on the wealthiest individuals and businesses. Werfel said that there currently are only 2,600 employees that cover filings of the wealthiest 390,000 filers and that is where many of the enforcement hires will be used.

"We have to up our game if we’re going to effectively assess whether these organizations are paying what they owe," he testified. "So, it’s about hiring. It’s about training. And it’s not just hiring auditors, it’s about hiring economists, scientists, engineers. And when I [say] scientists, I mean data scientists to truly help us strategically figure out where the gaps are so we can close those gaps."

Werfel did sidestep a question about the potential need for actually increasing the number of audits for those making under $400,000. When asked about a Joint Committee on Taxation report that found that more than 90 percent of unreported income actually came from taxpayers earning less than $400,000, he responded that "there is a lot of mounting evidence that there is significant underreporting or tax gap in the highest income filers. For example, there’s a study that was done by the U.S. Treasury Department that looked at the top one percent of Americans and found that as much as $163 billion of tax dodging, roughly."

And while answering the questions on the need for more personnel to handle the audits of the wealthy, he did acknowledge that "a big driver" of needing such a large workforce to handle the filings of wealthy taxpayers is due to the complexity of the tax code, in addition to a growing population, a growing economy, and an increasing number of wealthy taxpayers.

Other Topics Covered

Werfel’s testimony covered a wide range of topics, from the size and role of the personnel to be hired to the offering of service that has the IRS fill out tax forms for filers to technology and security upgrade, similar to a round of questions the agency commissioner faced before the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing a week earlier.

He reiterated that a study is expected to arrive mid-May that will report on the feasibility of the IRS offering a service to fill out tax forms for taxpayers. Werfel stressed that if such a service were to be offered, it would be strictly optional and there would be no plans to make using such a service mandatory.

"Our hope and our vision [is] that we will meet taxpayers where they are," he testified. "If they want to file on paper, we’re not thrilled with it, but we’ll be ready for it. If they want the fully digital experience, if they want to work with a third-party servicer, we want to accommodate that."

Werfel also reiterated a commitment to examine the use of cloud computing as a way to modernize the IRS’s information technology infrastructure.

And he also continued his call for an increase in annual appropriations to compliment the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. He testified that modernization funds were "raided" so that phones could be answered and to prevent service levels from declining while still being able to modernize the agency, more annual funds will need to be appropriated.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Supreme Court has held that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not apply where a delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in accounts or records summoned by the IRS under Code Sec. 7602(a). The IRS had entered official assessments against an individual for unpaid taxes and penalties, following which a revenue officer had issued summonses to three banks seeking financial records of several third parties, including the taxpayers. Subsequently, the taxpayers moved to quash the summonses. The District Court concluded that, under Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i), no notice was required and that taxpayers, therefore, could not bring a motion to quash. 

The Supreme Court has held that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not apply where a delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in accounts or records summoned by the IRS under Code Sec. 7602(a). The IRS had entered official assessments against an individual for unpaid taxes and penalties, following which a revenue officer had issued summonses to three banks seeking financial records of several third parties, including the taxpayers. Subsequently, the taxpayers moved to quash the summonses. The District Court concluded that, under Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i), no notice was required and that taxpayers, therefore, could not bring a motion to quash. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, finding that the summonses fell within the exception in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the general notice requirement.

Exceptions to Notice Requirement

The taxpayers argued that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies only if the delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in the accounts or records summoned by the IRS. However, the statute does not mention legal interest and does not require that a taxpayer maintain such an interest for the exception to apply. Further, the taxpayers’ arguments in support of their proposed legal interest test, failed. The taxpayers first contended that the phrase "in aid of the collection" would not be accomplished by summons unless it was targeted at an account containing assets that the IRS can collect to satisfy the taxpayers’ liability. However, a summons might not itself reveal taxpayer assets that can be collected but it might help the IRS find such assets.

The taxpayers’ second argument that if Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) is read to exempt every summons from notice that would help the IRS collect an "assessment" against a delinquent taxpayer, there would be no work left for the second exception to notice, found in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(ii). However, clause (i) applies upon an assessment, while clause (ii) applies upon a finding of liability. In addition, clause (i) concerns delinquent taxpayers, while clause (ii) concerns transferees or fiduciaries. As a result, clause (ii) permits the IRS to issue unnoticed summonses to aid its collection from transferees or fiduciaries before it makes an official assessment of liability. Consequently, Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not require that a taxpayer maintain a legal interest in records summoned by the IRS.

An IRS notice provides interim guidance describing rules that the IRS intends to include in proposed regulations regarding the domestic content bonus credit requirements for:

An IRS notice provides interim guidance describing rules that the IRS intends to include in proposed regulations regarding the domestic content bonus credit requirements for:

• --the Code Sec. 45 electricity production tax credit,
• --the new Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit,
• --the Code Sec. 48 energy investment credit, and
• --the new Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit.

The notice also provides a safe harbor regarding the classification of certain components in representative types of qualified facilities, energy projects, or energy storage technologies. Finally, it describes recordkeeping and certification requirements for the domestic content bonus credit.

Taxpayer Reliance

Taxpayers may rely on the notice for any qualified facility, energy project, or energy storage technology the construction of which begins before the date that is 90 days after the date of publication of the forthcoming proposed regulations in the Federal Register.

The IRS intends to propose that the proposed regs will apply to tax years ending after May 12, 2023.

Domestic Content Bonus Requirements

The notice defines several terms that are relevant to the domestic content bonus credit, including manufactured, manufactured product, manufacturing process, mined and produced. In addition, the notice extends domestic content test to retrofitted projects that satisfy the 80/20 rule for new and used property.

The notice also provides detailed rules for satisfying the requirement that at least 40 percent (or 20 percent for an offshore wind facility) of steel, iron or manufactured product components are produced in the United States. In particular, the notice provides an Adjusted Percentage Rule for determining whether manufactured product components are produced in the U.S.

Safe Harbor for Classifying Product Components

The safe harbor applies to a variety of project components. A table list the components, the project that might use each component, and assigns each component to either the steel/iron category or the manufactured product category.

The table is not exhaustive. In addition, components listed in the table must still meet the relevant statutory requirements for the particular credit to be eligible for the domestic content bonus credit.

Certification and Substantiation

Finally, the notice explains that a taxpayer that claims the domestic content bonus credit must certify that a project meets the domestic content requirement as of the date the project is placed in service. The taxpayer must also satisfy the general income tax recordkeeping requirements to substantiate the credit.

A taxpayer certifies a project by submitting a Domestic Content Certification Statement to the IRS certifying that any steel, iron or manufactured product that is subject to the domestic content test was produced in the U.S. The taxpayer must attach the statement to the form that reports the credit. The taxpayer must continue to attach the form to the relevant credit form for subsequent tax years.

A married couple’s petition for redetermination of an income tax deficiency was untimely where they electronically filed their petition from the central time zone but after the due date in the eastern time zone, where the Tax Court is located. Accordingly, the taxpayers’ case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A married couple’s petition for redetermination of an income tax deficiency was untimely where they electronically filed their petition from the central time zone but after the due date in the eastern time zone, where the Tax Court is located. Accordingly, the taxpayers’ case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The deadline for the taxpayers to file a petition in the Tax Court was July 18, 2022. The taxpayers were living in Alabama when they electronically filed their petition. At the time of filing, the Tax Court's electronic case management system (DAWSON) automatically applied a cover sheet to their petition. The cover sheet showed that the court electronically received the petition at 12:05 a.m. eastern time on July 19, 2022, and filed it the same day. However, when the Tax Court received the petition, it was 11:05 p.m. central time on July 18, 2022, in Alabama.

Electronically Filed Petition

The taxpayers’ petition was untimely because it was filed after the due date under Code Sec. 6213(a). Tax Court Rule 22(d) dictates that the last day of a period for electronic filing ends at 11:59 p.m. eastern time, the Tax Court’s local time zone. Further, the timely mailing rule under Code Sec. 7502(a) applies only to documents that are delivered by U.S. mail or a designated delivery service, not to an electronically filed petition.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel said changes are coming to address racial disparities among those who get audited annually.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel said changes are coming to address racial disparities among those who get audited annually.

"I will stay laser-focused on this to ensure that we identify and implement changes prior to the next tax filing season," Werfel stated in a May 15, 2023, letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The issue of racial disparities was raised during Werfel’s confirmation hearing an in subsequent hearings before Congress after taking over as commissioner in the wake of a study issued by Stanford University that found that African American taxpayers are audited at three to five times the rate of other taxpayers.

The IRS "is committed to enforcing tax laws in a manner that is fair and impartial," Werfel wrote in the letter. "When evidence of unfair treatment is presented, we must take immediate actions to address it."

He emphasized that the agency does not and "will not consider race as part of our case selection and audit processes."

He noted that the Stanford study suggested that the audits were triggered by taxpayers claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit.

"We are deeply concerned by these findings and committed to doing the work to understand and address any disparate impact of the actions we take," he wrote, adding that the agency has been studying the issue since he has taken over as commissioner and that the work is ongoing. Werfel suggested that initial findings of IRS research into the issue "support the conclusion that Black taxpayers may be audited at higher rates than would be expected given their share of the population."

Werfel added that elements in the Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan include commitments to "conducting research to understand any systemic bias in compliance strategies and treatment. … The ongoing evaluation of our EITC audit selection algorithms is the topmost priority within this larger body of work, and we are committed to transparency regarding our research findings as the work matures."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The American Institute of CPAs expressed support for legislation pending in the Senate that would redefine when electronic payments to the Internal Revenue Service are considered timely.

The American Institute of CPAs expressed support for legislation pending in the Senate that would redefine when electronic payments to the Internal Revenue Service are considered timely.

In a May 3, 2023, letter to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), the AICPA applauded the legislators for The Electronic Communication Uniformity Act (S. 1338), which would treat electronic payments made to the IRS as timely at the point they are submitted, not at the point they are processed, which is how they are currently treated. The move would make the treatment similar to physically mailed payments, which are considered timely based on the post mark indicating when they are mailed, not when the payment physically arrives at the IRS or when the agency processes it.

S. 1338 was introduced by Sen. Blackburn on April 27, 2023. At press time, Sen. Cortez Masto is the only co-sponsor to the bill.

The bill adopts a recommendation included by the National Taxpayer Advocate in the annual so-called "Purple Book" of legislative recommendations made to Congress by the NTA. The Purple Book notes that IRS does not have the authority to apply the mailbox rule to electronic payments and it would need an act of Congress to make the change.

"Your bill would provide welcome relief and solve a problem that taxpayers have been faced with, i.e., incurring penalties through no fault of their own because they believed their filings or payments were timely submitted through an electronic platform," the AICPA letter states. This legislation would provide equity by treating similarly situated taxpayers similarly. It would also improve tax administration by eliminating IRS notices assessing unnecessary penalties when the taxpayer or practitioner electronically submits a tax return by the deadline regardless of when the IRS processes it.

Tax policy and comment letters submitted to the government can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

WASHINGTON—The Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan was designed to be a living document, an Internal Revenue Service official said.

The plan, which outlines how the IRS plans to spend the additional nearly $80 billion in supplemental funds allocated to it in the Inflation Reduction Act, was written to be a "living document. It’s not meant to be something static that stays on the shelf and never gets updated, and just becomes an historic relic," Bridget Roberts, head of the IRS Transformation and Strategy Office, said May 5, 2023, at the ABA May Tax Meeting.

WASHINGTON—The Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan was designed to be a living document, an Internal Revenue Service official said.

The plan, which outlines how the IRS plans to spend the additional nearly $80 billion in supplemental funds allocated to it in the Inflation Reduction Act, was written to be a "living document. It’s not meant to be something static that stays on the shelf and never gets updated, and just becomes an historic relic," Bridget Roberts, head of the IRS Transformation and Strategy Office, said May 5, 2023, at the ABA May Tax Meeting.

Roberts also described the plan as a tool to help bring the agency together and more unified in its mission.

"We intentionally wrote the plan to sort of break down some of those institutional silos," she said. "So, we didn’t write it based on business unit or function."

She framed the development of the plan a "cross-functional, cross-agency effort," adding that it "wasn’t like, ‘here’s how we’re going to change wage and investment or large business.’ It was, ‘here’s how we’re going to change service and enforcement and technology. And those pieces touch everything."

Roberts also highlighted the need for better data analytics across the agency, something that the SOP emphasizes particularly as it beings to ramp up enforcement activities to help close the tax gap.

"We are never going to be able to hire at a level that you can audit everybody," she said. "So, the ability to use data and analytics to really focus our resources on where we think there is true noncompliance," rather than conducting audits that result in no changes. "That’s not helpful for taxpayers. That’s not helpful for the IRS."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals, in coordination with the National Taxpayer Advocate, has invited public feedback on how it can improve conference options for taxpayers and representatives who are not located near an Appeals office, encourage participation of taxpayers with limited English proficiency and ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities. Taxpayers can send their comments to ap.taxpayer.experience@irs.gov by July 10, 2023.

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals, in coordination with the National Taxpayer Advocate, has invited public feedback on how it can improve conference options for taxpayers and representatives who are not located near an Appeals office, encourage participation of taxpayers with limited English proficiency and ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities. Taxpayers can send their comments to ap.taxpayer.experience@irs.gov by July 10, 2023.

Appeals resolve federal tax disputes through conferences, wherein an appeals officer will engage with taxpayers in a way that is fair and impartial to taxpayers as well as the government to discuss potential settlements. Additionally, taxpayers can resolve their disputes by mail or secure messaging. Although, conferences are offered by telephone, video, the mode of meeting with Appeals is completely decided by the taxpayer. Recently, appeals expanded access to video conferencing to meet taxpayer needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, taxpayers and representatives who prefer to meet with Appeals in person have the option to do so as, appeals has a presence in over 60 offices across 40 states where they can host in-person conferences.

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.