NEWSLETTERS

President Donald Trump targeted federal hiring, including specific rules for the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States’ participation in the global tax framework being developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development among his flurry of executive orders signed on the first day of his second term in the Oval Office.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is keeping beneficial reporting information reporting voluntary even though the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction that was put in place by a lower court to keep the BOI regulation from being enforced.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is keeping beneficial reporting information reporting voluntary even though the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction that was put in place by a lower court to keep the BOI regulation from being enforced.

"In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force," the agency posted to its website on January 24, 2025. "However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports."

The posting follows a Supreme Court order stating on January 23, 2025, that the injunction put in place by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 5, 2024, was removed.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a dissenting opinion on lifting the injunction.

"However likely the Government’s success on the merits may be, in my view, emergency relief is not appropriate because the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient exigency to justify our interventions," Justice Jackson wrote, citing two reasons: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already expedited the hearing of the case and the government has deferred the implementation of the regulations on its own accord.

"The Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant nature would result if the Act’s implementation is further delayed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts. I would therefore deny the application and permit the appellate process to run its course," Justice Jackson added.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that provide rules for classifying digital and cloud transactions. The rules apply for purposes of the international provisions of the Code.

The rules retain the overall approach of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-130700-14, August 14, 2019), with some revisions.

The Treasury and IRS also issued proposed regulations that provide sourcing rules for cloud transactions.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that provide rules for classifying digital and cloud transactions. The rules apply for purposes of the international provisions of the Code.

The rules retain the overall approach of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-130700-14, August 14, 2019), with some revisions.

The Treasury and IRS also issued proposed regulations that provide sourcing rules for cloud transactions.

Background

Reg. §1.861-18 provides rules for classifying cross-border transactions involving digitized information, specifically computer programs, broadly grouped into the following categories:

• the transfer of a copyright;
• the transfer of a copyrighted article;
• the provision of services for the development or modification of a computer program; and
• the provision of know-how relating to the development of a computer program.

The 1998 final regulations focus on the distinction between the transfer of the copyright itself and transfer of a copyrighted article, using a substance-over-form characterization approach and by examining the underlying rights granted to the transferee. Transfers of copyrights and copyrighted articles are further characterized as complete or partial transfers, resulting in the transfers being characterized as either sales or licenses, in the case of a copyrights, or sales or leases, in the case of a copyrighted articles.

2025 Final Regulations

The 2025 final regulations maintain the basic framework for characterizing transfers of content and extend the characterization framework to digital content. Digital content is generally defined as any computer program or other content protected by copyright law, not just transactions involving computer programs.

The categories of transactions include:

• the transfer of a copyright in the digital content;
• the transfer of a copy of the digital content (a copyrighted article);
• the provision of services for the development or modification of the digital content; and
• the provision of know-how relating to the development of digital content.

The 2025 final regulations also provide for cloud transactions and characterize the transactions as a provision of services.

Cloud transactions are generally defined as transactions through which a person obtains on-demand network access to computer hardware, digital content, or similar resources.

The 2025 final regulations replace the de minimis rule and the concept of arrangement with a predominant character rule that applies to both digital content transactions and cloud transactions. Under the rule, a transaction with multiple elements is characterized based on the predominant character of the transaction.

Request for Comments on 2025 Final Regulations

The Treasury and IRS are considering whether the characterization rules should apply to all provisions of the Code and have requested comments on any specific areas that would be affected, with examples if appropriate. Comments are also requested on any guidance that would be needed and the approach the guidance should take. In addition to general comments, the Treasury and IRS also request comments on the desirability and effect of applying the rules in specific areas and the guidance need.

Comments should be submitted 90 days after the Notice requesting comments is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, with consideration for comments submitted after that date that do not delay the guidance. Comments may be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal www.regulations.com or or by mail to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:01:PR (Notice 2025-6, Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., 20044.

Proposed Sourcing Rules for Cloud Transactions

Gross income from a cloud transaction is sourced as services. Under the Code, gross income from the performance of services is sourced to the place where the service is performed.

To determine the place of performance, the proposed regulations would take into account the location of the employees and assets, including both tangible and intangible assets, that contribute to the provision of cloud transactions. The sourcing rules would apply on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis.

The place of performance of a cloud transactions is established through a formula composed of a fraction that has three parts-the intangible property factor, the personnel factor, and the tangible property factor. The factors make up the denominator of the fraction. The numerator is the sum of each portion of each factor that is from sources within the United States. The gross income from a cloud transaction multiplied by the fraction is the U.S. source portion of the gross income.

T.D. 10022

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-107420-24

Notice 2025-6

The IRS has released final regulations implementing the clean hydrogen production credit under Code Sec. 45V, as well as the election to treat a clean hydrogen production facility as energy property for purposes of the energy investment credit under Code Sec. 48. The regulations generally apply to tax years beginning after December 26, 2023.

The IRS issued updates to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Code Sec. 25C) and the Residential Clean Energy Property Credit (Code Sec. 25D). The former credit applies to qualifying property placed in service on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2033. The updates pertained to FS-2024-15. More information is available here.

The IRS issued updates to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Code Sec. 25C) and the Residential Clean Energy Property Credit (Code Sec. 25D). The former credit applies to qualifying property placed in service on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2033. The updates pertained to FS-2024-15. More information is available here.

Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit

The credit is limited to $2,000 per taxpayer per taxable year in the aggregate for electric or natural gas heat pump water heaters, electric or natural gas heat pumps, and biomass stoves or boilers.

Thus, a taxpayer could claim a total credit of $3,200 if they had sufficient expenditures in property categories (or a home energy audit) subject to the $1,200 limitation and in property categories subject to the $2,000 limitation.

Additionally, a taxpayer can claim the credit only for qualifying expenditures incurred for an existing home, or for an addition to or renovation of an existing home, but not for a newly constructed home.

Residential Clean Energy Property Credit

One of the FAQs mentions that this credit is a nonrefundable personal tax credit. A taxpayer claiming a nonrefundable credit can only use it to decrease or eliminate tax liability.

The credit is generally limited to 30 percent of qualified expenditures made for property placed in service between 2022 and 2032. However, the credit allowed for qualified fuel cell property expenditures is 30 percent of the expenditures, up to a maximum credit of $500 for each half kilowatt of capacity of the qualified fuel cell property.

FS-2025-1

IR-2025-17

The IRS has provided updated guidance on the implementation of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600), as amended, regarding controversies involving whether individuals are "employees" for employment tax purposes. Section 530 (which is not an Internal Revenue Code section) provides relief for employers who are involved in worker classification status disputes with the IRS and face large employment tax assessments as a result of the IRS’s proposed reclassifications of workers.

The IRS has provided updated guidance on the implementation of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600), as amended, regarding controversies involving whether individuals are "employees" for employment tax purposes. Section 530 (which is not an Internal Revenue Code section) provides relief for employers who are involved in worker classification status disputes with the IRS and face large employment tax assessments as a result of the IRS’s proposed reclassifications of workers.

Section 530 Safe Harbor

Section 530 provides that an employer will not be liable for federal employment taxes regarding an individual or class of workers if certain statutory requirements are met. Section 530 relief applies only if the taxpayer did not treat the individual as an employee for federal employment tax purposes for the period at issue, and meets each of the following requirements for that period:

• the taxpayer filed all required federal tax returns, including information returns, on a basis that is consistent with the taxpayer’s treatment of the individual as not being an employee (reporting consistency requirement);
• the taxpayer did not treat the individual or any individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee (substantive consistency requirement); and
• the taxpayer had a reasonable basis for not treating the individual as an employee (reasonable basis requirement).

Rev. Proc. 85-18, 1985-1 CB 518, provided instructions for implementing section 530 relating to the employment tax status of independent contractors and employees.

Updated Guidance

The updated guidance clarifies provisions in Rev. Proc. 85-18 regarding the definition of employee, the section 530 requirement for the filing of required returns, and the reasonable basis safe harbor rules. The updated guidance also includes new provisions that reflect certain statutory changes made to section 530 since 1986.

Among other things, the updated guidance amplifies guidelines in Rev. Proc. 85-18 which interpreted the word “treat” for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer did not treat an individual as an employee for section 530 purposes. Under the updated guidance, with respect to any individual, actions that indicate “treatment” of the individual as an employee for section 530 purposes include:

• withholding of income tax or FICA taxes from any payments made;
• filing of an original or amended employment tax return;
• filing or issuance of a Form W-2; and
• contracting with a third party to perform acts required of employers.

Provisions in Rev. Proc. 85-18 that explained how refunds, credits, abatements, and handling of claims applied to taxpayers who were under audit or otherwise involved in administrative or judicial processes with the IRS at the time of enactment of section 530 are no longer applicable and were not included in the updated guidance. Section 530 relief remains available at any stage in the administrative or judicial process if the requirements for relief are met.

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Proc. 85-18, 1985-1 CB 518, is modified and superseded.

Rev. Proc. 2025-10

The IRS has issued final regulation identifying certain partnership related-party basis adjustment transactions as transactions of interest (TOI), a type of reportable transaction under Reg. §1.6011-4. Taxpayers that participate and material advisors to these transactions, and substantially similar transactions, are required to disclose as much to the IRS using Form 8886 and Form 8918, respectively, or be subject to penalties.

Regulations under Code Sec. 2801, which imposes a tax on covered gifts and covered bequests received by a citizen or resident of the United States from a covered expatriate, have been issued.

The IRS has issued a revenue ruling addressing the federal tax treatment of contributions and benefits under state-administered paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs. The ruling clarifies how these contributions and benefits are classified for income tax, employment tax, and reporting purposes, with distinctions drawn between employer and employee contributions.

The IRS has issued a revenue ruling addressing the federal tax treatment of contributions and benefits under state-administered paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs. The ruling clarifies how these contributions and benefits are classified for income tax, employment tax, and reporting purposes, with distinctions drawn between employer and employee contributions.

PFML Contributions

Mandatory contributions made by employers under PFML programs are classified as excise taxes deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 164. These payments are deemed state-imposed obligations for the purpose of funding public programs and are not included in employees' gross income under Code Sec. 61. In contrast, mandatory contributions withheld from employees’ wages are treated as state income taxes under Code Sec. 164(a)(3). Employees may deduct these amounts on their federal tax returns if they itemize deductions, subject to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap under Code Sec. 164(b)(6).

The ruling further specifies the treatment of benefits paid under PFML programs. Family leave benefits, which provide wage replacement during caregiving periods, are included in the recipient’s gross income under Code Sec. 61 but are not considered wages for federal employment tax purposes under Code Sec. 3121. By comparison, medical leave benefits attributable to employee contributions are excluded from gross income under Code Sec. 104(a)(3). However, medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions are partially taxable under Code Sec. 105 and are subject to FICA taxes.

The ruling also addresses scenarios where employers voluntarily cover portions of employees’ contributions, referred to as "employer pick-ups." Such pick-ups are treated as additional compensation, included in employees’ gross income under Code Sec. 61, and are subject to federal employment taxes. Employers, however, may deduct these payments as ordinary business expenses under Code Sec. 162.

To ensure compliance, the IRS requires states and employers to report benefits exceeding $600 annually under Code Sec. 6041 using Form 1099. Additionally, benefits subject to employment taxes must be reported on Form W-2.

The ruling modifies prior guidance and includes a transition period for 2025 to allow states and employers to adjust their systems to meet reporting and compliance requirements. This clarification provides a framework for managing the tax implications of PFML programs, ensuring consistent treatment across jurisdictions.

Effective Date

This revenue ruling is effective for payments made on or after January 1, 2025. However, transition relief is provided to the states, the District of Columbia, and employers from certain withholding, payment, and information reporting requirements for state-paid medical leave benefits paid made during calendar year 2025.

Effect on Other Guidance

Rev. Rul. 81-194, Rev. Rul. 81-193, Rev. Rul. 81-192, and Rev. Rul. 81-191 are amplified to include the holdings in this revenue ruling that are applicable to the facts in those rulings. Rev. Rul. 72-191, as modified by Rev. Rul. 81-192, is further modified.

Rev. Rul. 2025-4

IR-2025-16

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins identified the lengthy processing and uncertainty regarding the employee retention credit as being among the ten most serious problems facing taxpayers.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins identified the lengthy processing and uncertainty regarding the employee retention credit as being among the ten most serious problems facing taxpayers.

"Although the [Internal Revenue Service] has processed several hundred thousand claims in recent months, it was still sitting on a backlog of about 1.2 million claims as of October 26, 2024," Collins noted in her just released 2024 Annual Report to Congress. "Many claims have been pending for more than a year, and with the imminent start of the 2025 filing season, the IRS will shift its focus and resources to administering the filing season, resulting in even longer ERC processing delays."

Collins is calling on the IRS to provide more specific information with claims denials, more transparency on the timing of claims processing, and allowing taxpayers to submit documentation and seek an appeal before disallowing a claim that was not subject to an audit.

In addition to ERC processing, Collins identified delays in processing of tax returns as another serious problem taxpayers are facing, including delays associated with the more than 10 million paper 1040 returns and more than 75 million paper-filed returns and forms overall each year, as well as issues surrounding rejections of e-filed returns, most of which are valid returns. These delays end up delaying refunds and can be particularly hard on low-income filers who are receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit.

"We recommend the IRS continue to prioritize automating its tax processing systems, including by scanning all paper-filed tax returns in time for the 2026 filing season and processing amended tax returns automatically," the report states.

Another processing issue identified in the report deals with delays in processing and refunds for victims of identity theft.

Collins reported that the delays in addressing identity theft issues grew to 22 months in fiscal year 2024, affecting nearly 500,000 taxpayers.

"The IRS has advised us that it has begun to prioritize resolution of cases involving refunds over balance-due returns rather than following its traditional ‘first in, first out’ approach," the report states. "This is somewhat good news, but I strongly encourage the IRS to fix this problem once and for all during the coming year."

Other issues in the top 10 include:

• Taxpayer service is often not timely or adequate;
• The prevalence of tax-related scams;
• Employment recruitment, hiring, training, and retention challenges are hindering transformational change within the industry;
• The dependence on paper forms and manual document review in processing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers is causing delays and potential security risks;
• Limited taxpayer financial and tax literacy;
• The IRS’s administration of civil tax penalties is often unfair, inconsistently deters improper behavior, fails to promote efficient administration, and thus discourages tax compliance; and
• Changes to the IRS’s criminal voluntary disclosure practice requirements may be reducing voluntary compliance and negatively impacting the tax gap.

Collins also called on Congress to ensure the IRS receives adequate funding specifically for taxpayer services and technology upgrades, noting that many improvements that are highlighted in the report were made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided supplemental funding to the agency.

"Much of the funding has generated controversy – namely, the funding allocated for enforcement," the report notes. "But some of the funding has received strong bipartisan support – namely, the funding allocated for taxpayer services and technology modernization."

She reported that telephone service has improved dramatically, correspondence processing has improved dramatically, and in-person has become more accessible following the IRA funding, as well as technology improvements including increased scanning and processing of paper-filed tax returns electronically; increases in electronic correspondence; expansion of secure messaging; the ability to submit forms from mobile phones; and increases in both chatbot and voicebot technology.

"I want to highlight this distinction so that if Congress decides to cut IRA funding, it does not inadvertently throw the baby out with the bathwater," she reports.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

IR-2025-4

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

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.

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 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).

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.

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.