Stetson Koenes, PLLC - Newsletters

The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.

Under Code Sec. 6050K, partnerships must file Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, for transfers involving Code Sec. 751(a) property. The IRS and Treasury Department received comments that many partnerships could not determine the information required for Part IV of Form 8308 by the January 31 furnishing deadline. As a result, the final regulations remove Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) and revise Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1) to permit partnerships to furnish Form 8308 completed in accordance with the form instructions.

Although partnerships are no longer required to furnish Part IV information to transferors and transferees by January 31, they must still file a completed Form 8308, including Part IV, with Form 1065. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2025.

T.D. 10048

Close

The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.

Background

The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0 Act), permitted defined contribution plans to make qualified long-term care distributions, effective for distributions made after December 29, 2025. The 10 percent additional tax on early distributions would not apply to distributions under Code Sec. 401(a)(39). However, a qualified long-term care distribution would be included in the taxpayer’s gross income.

Disclosure Requirements

The guidance addresses content requirements and procedures for submitting an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS. There is no general deadline for submitting an Issuer Disclosure. However, an issuer must submit an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS before the issuer can file a long-term care premium statement with a defined contribution plan.

Distribution Requirements

Under the guidance, the plan administrator is permitted to rely on the issuer’s statement and the information provided on the long-term care premium statement in making a qualified long-term care distribution. It is optional for a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions, but the exception to the 10% additional tax only applies if the plan permits qualified long-term care distributions, even if the employee uses a distribution to pay for long-term care insurance. Unlike other permitted distributions, a qualified long-term care distribution would not be eligible for an extended 3-year repayment to a retirement plan.

Reporting Requirements

The payment of a qualified long-term care distribution to an employee must be reported by the payor on Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.

Further, issuers must make a return to the IRS using Form 1099-LPS, Long-Term Care Premiums Paid Statement. The issuer will report the long-term care premiums paid for the calendar year. The Form 1099-LPS must be filed with the IRS no later than February 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year the long-term care premium statement was filed with the plan.

Deadline Extension

The guidance extends the deadline for a plan sponsor of a defined contribution plan that is not a governmental plan, a section 403(b) plan maintained by a public school, or an applicable collectively bargained plan, to amend its plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions from December 31, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The deadlines to amend defined contribution plans that are applicable collectively bargained plans or governmental plans remain as provided in Notice 2024-02. Thus, Notice 2024-2, I.R.B. 2024-2, 316, is modified in part.

Notice 2026-33

Close

The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.

Fishing rights-related income is exempt from federal income tax and employment tax under Code Sec. 7873. However, proposed reliance regulations would allow contributions to be made to qualified retirement plans based on fishing rights-related income. Also, plans that accept contributions of fishing rights-related income may still use safe harbor definitions of compensation. The IRS finalized this rule as proposed without material modification.

Although the final rule is somewhat limited in scope, the IRS addressed additional issues in the preamble. The IRS clarified that plan contributions attributable to a Tribal employee's fishing rights-related activiity is treated as investment in the contract under Code Sec. 72 . Thus, distributions of the amount contributed would generally be tax-free (subject to basis recovery rules) and distributions attributable to earnings would be taxable. The IRS also indicated that plans that permit designated Roth contributions may allow contributions attributable to fishing rights-related activity to be made on a Roth basis.

T.D. 10046

Close

The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.

Taxpayers generally have two years from the disallowance notice to resolve the claim or file a refund suit, but an administrative appeal does not suspend this deadline. Once the period expires, the IRS cannot issue a refund even if the taxpayer later prevails. To address this, eligible taxpayers may execute Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit, provided it is signed by both parties before the limitation period ends.

The IRS now permits submission of Form 907 through its Document Upload Tool, with qualifying requests reviewed and confirmed in writing. While the IRS is issuing notices to eligible taxpayers, others meeting the criteria may also apply. The agency indicated that the initiative is intended to preserve taxpayer rights and facilitate administrative resolution of ERC disputes.

Close

The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.

The significant issue ruling program allows taxpayers to request rulings on one or more issues that:

are solely under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate);
are significant issues, as defined in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21; and
involve the tax consequences or characterization of a transaction (or part of a transaction) that is described in Code Sec. 332, 351, 355, 368, or 1036.

Significant Issue Ruling Program

Taxpayers may request, and the IRS may issue, a ruling on part of an integrated transaction described in the above provisions, or a ruling on a particular legal issue under a section of the Code or regulations with respect to a transaction (or part thereof) rather than a ruling that addresses all aspects of that section (or any other section) with respect to the transaction (or part thereof).

In addition, the IRS may rule on the tax consequences resulting from integrated transactions described in the above provisions to the extent that a significant issue is presented under related Code sections that address such tax consequences.

A significant issue generally is a germane and specific issue of law, provided that a ruling on the issue would not be a comfort ruling or the conclusion in such a ruling otherwise would not be essentially free from doubt.

The requests for ruling must contain (1) narrative description of the transaction that puts the significant issue in context; (2) statement identifying the issue; (3) analysis of the solvability of issue; and more.

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Proc. 2026-1 and Rev. Proc. 2026-3 are modified and amplified.

Effective Date

The significant issue ruling program applies to all letter ruling requests described in section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21 postmarked or, if not mailed, received by the IRS after May 5, 2026.

Rev. Proc. 2026-21

Other References:

Code Sec. 332
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,052.188

Other References:

Code Sec. 351
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,405.48

Other References:

Code Sec. 355
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,466.923

Other References:

Code Sec. 368
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,753.53

Other References:

Code Sec. 1036
CCH Reference - FED ¶29,702.11

Close

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions.

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions. Since 2020, the IRS has settled 405 cases through earlier initiatives, although taxpayers still had to pay penalties and were allowed only limited deductions for certain out-of-pocket costs. More than 1,100 conservation easement cases currently remain pending before the IRS and the Tax Court. Under the new initiative, many eligible partnerships will not have to make an upfront payment to participate. In addition, taxpayers whose earlier settlement offers expired or were rejected may now have another chance to resolve their cases, while some partnerships that were not previously eligible may also qualify. IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said Congress created the conservation easement deduction to encourage legitimate preservation efforts rather than tax shelters based on inflated property values.

The IRS said partnerships that accept the offer during the initial 90-day period generally will not be allowed a charitable contribution deduction, but they may qualify for a limited deduction tied to certain out-of-pocket expenses. Those partnerships generally would face a 10 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty, while partnerships settling during an additional 45-day period generally would face a 20 percent penalty. Interest also will continue to accrue as required by law. At the same time, the IRS noted that courts have repeatedly reduced claimed deductions and upheld significant penalties in conservation easement disputes. Certain cases, such as those already tried or currently under appeal, will not qualify for the initiative. The IRS added that eligibility will depend on the status and specific facts of each case.

Close

Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.

“Based on limited and anecdotal information, many practitioners noted that the IRS appeared to operating consistently compared with the prior year’s service,” AICPA said in a recent letter to the Senate Finance Committee’s top leadership following a hearing on the 2026 tax filing season, adding that data currently available shows “tax return processing remained relatively consistent, though the quality of telephone services appeared to vary depending on the hotline.”

AICPA did observe that while Internal Revenue Service modernization efforts have allowed for consistent customer service levels compared to recent prior years, “IRS customer service has not returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels according to IRS data and the AICPA’s most recent annual membership survey.”

With that, the industry organization offered recommendations in the areas of governance and oversight, taxpayer services, and dedicated practitioner services.

In the area of IRS governance and oversight, AICPA recommended the following:

Requiring a Government Accountability Office review to determine whether a private sector board with sufficient authority to hold the IRS accountable and oversee implementation of key recommendations from advisory groups;
Re-establish the annual joint hearing review to focus on strategic and business plans, taxpayer service and compliance, technology and modernization, and the filing season; and
The Joint Committee on Taxation should provide a bi-annual report on the overall state of the Federal tax system.

In the area of taxpayer service, the following recommendations were offered:

Hire more qualified and experienced professionals from the private sector, adequately train all agency employees, skillfully manage IRS resources, and ensure organizational alignment between Congress, the executive branch, and the IRS;
Congress should determine what the appropriate level of service is and then ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated to achieve that level;
Continue to improve the technology infrastructure modernization; and
Effectively utilize customer satisfaction surveys to assess IRS performance, improve the taxpayer experience, and effectuate modernization efforts or process improvement.

AICPA pushed for the passage of the Taxpayer Assistance and Services Act, which it states “would significantly improve IRS services, reinforce fairness and transparency in our tax system, and reduce tax administrative burdens on taxpayers and practitioners, including many critical tax provisions for which AICPA has previously advocated.”

In the area of dedicated practitioner services, AICPA recommended:

Create consolidated dedicated “executive-level” practitioner services comparable to private sector services that are implemented and adapted based on practitioner feedback solicited periodically; and
Continue to expand the functionality of a robust and enhanced tax professional account as part of the IRS’s online portal with account access to all of a practitioner’s client information, allowing for IRS to communicate directly with authorized practitioners, enable a centralized login system, and prioritize the protection and privacy of user identities and data;
Provide practitioners with a robust practitioner priority hotline with high-skilled employees capable of resolving complex technical and procedural issues; and
Assign customer service representatives to each geographic area to address unusual or complex issues that practitioners were unable to resolve through the priority hotlines.

The letter to the Senate Finance Committee leadership and other AICPA 2026 tax policy and advocacy comment letter can be found here.

Close

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes.

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2019 Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rates for 2019 are:

58 cents per mile for business uses;
20 cents per mile for medical uses; and
14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2019
For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2018 is:

$50,400 for passenger automobiles, and
$50,400 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2019 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses
The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
on active military duty, and
moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses
For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2018-3, I.R.B. 2018-2, 285, as modified by Notice 2018-42, I.R.B. 2018-24, 750, is superseded.

Close

The IRS has provided interim guidance for the 2019 calendar year on income tax withholding from wages and withholding from retirement and annuity distributions. In general, certain 2018 withholding rules provided in Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353, will remain in effect for the 2019 calendar year, with one exception.

The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to develop income tax withholding regulations to reflect changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), as well as other changes in the Code since the regulations were last amended, and certain miscellaneous changes consistent with current procedures.

Withholding Allowances
The IRS delayed the release of the 2018 Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, in order to reflect changes made by the TCJA, such as changes in itemized deductions available, increases in the child tax credit, the new credit for other dependents, and the suspension of personal exemption deductions. Notice 2018-14 provided relief for employers and employees affected by the delay.

In June, the IRS released a draft 2019 Form W-4 and instructions, which incorporated changes that were meant to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and make the withholding system more transparent. However, in response to stakeholders’ comments, the IRS later announced that the redesigned Form W-4 would be postponed until 2020. The IRS intends to release a 2019 Form W-4 before the end of 2018 that makes minimal changes to the 2018 Form W-4.

The 2019 Form W-4 and the computational procedures in IRS Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, will continue to use the term "withholding allowances" and related terminology to incorporate the withholding allowance factors specified in Code Sec. 3402(f) and the additional allowance items in Code Sec. 3402(m). Until further guidance is issued, references to a "withholding exemption" in the Code Sec. 3402 regulations and guidance will be applied as if they were referring to a withholding allowance.

Changes in Status
The guidance provides that if an employee experiences a change of status on or before April 30, 2019, that reduces the number of withholding allowances to which he or she is entitled, and if that change is solely due to the changes made by the TCJA, the employee generally must furnish a new Form W-4 to the employer by May 10, 2019. However, if an employee no longer reasonably expects to be entitled to a claimed number of allowances due to a change in personal circumstances that is not solely related to TCJA changes, the employee must furnish his or her employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change. Similarly, if an employee claims married filing status on Form W-4 but divorces his or her spouse, the employee must furnish the employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change.

Failure to Furnish
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to withdraw the regulations under Code Sec. 3401(e), and modify other regulations, so that an employee who fails to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as "single" but entitled to the number of withholding allowances determined under computational procedures provided in IRS Publication 15. Until further guidance is issued, however, employees who fail to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as single with zero withholding allowances.

Additional Allowances
Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may include his or her estimated Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction in determining whether he or she can claim the additional withholding allowance under Code Sec. 3402(m) on Form W-4.

Alternative Procedure
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to update the withholding regulations to explicitly allow employees to determine their Form W-4 entries by using the IRS withholding calculator ( www.irs.gov/W4App) or IRS Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax, instead of having to complete certain schedules included with the Form W-4. However, the regulations are expected to provide that an employee cannot use the withholding calculator if the calculator’s instructions state that it should not be used due to his or her individual tax situation. The employee will need to use Publication 505 instead.

Alternative Methods
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables under Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), due to this alternative procedure’s unintended complexity and burden.

Lock-In Letters
The IRS may issue a "lock-in letter" to an employer, which sets the maximum number of withholding allowances an employee may claim. If the employer no longer employs the employee, the employer must send a written response to the IRS office designated in the lock-in letter that the employee is not employed by the employer. The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the written response requirement. Pending further guidance, employers should not send a written response to the IRS under Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(iv).

Pension, Annuity Payments
The payor of certain periodic payments for pensions, annuities, and other deferred income generally must withhold tax from the payments as if they were wages, unless the individual payee elects not to have withholding apply. Before 2018, if a withholding certificate was not furnished to the payor, the withholding rate was determined by treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding exemptions. The TCJA amended this rule so that the rate "shall be determined under rules prescribed by the Secretary." The IRS has determined that, for 2019, withholding on periodic payments when no withholding certificate is in effect continues to be based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding allowances.

Comments Requested
The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on both the interim guidance and the guidance that should be provided in regulations. Comments must be received by January 25, 2019. Comments should be submitted to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov (include "Notice 2018-92" in the subject line of any electronic submission).

Close

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

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

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

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

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

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

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

Qualified Business Income

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

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

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

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

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

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

De Minimis Exception

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

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

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

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

Close

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

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

Crack & Pack

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

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

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

Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

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

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

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

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

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

Tax Reform 2.0

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

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

Key Takeways

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

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

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

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

Close

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

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

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

Trade or Business

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

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

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

Specified Service Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wages/Capital Limit

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

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

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

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

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

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

Effective Dates

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

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

Comments Requested

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

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

Close

NEWSLETTERS

Background

Disclosure Requirements

Distribution Requirements

Reporting Requirements

Deadline Extension

Significant Issue Ruling Program

Effect on Other Documents

Effective Date