NEWSLETTERS

The IRS has issued proposed and temporary regulations under Code Sec. 530A, regarding general requirements for Trump accounts, the establishment of an initial account, including automatic enrollment by the Secretary of the Treasury, and qualified general contributions. Proposed regulations issued in March 2026 (NPRM REG-117270-25) that provided guidance on establishing Trump accounts, but did not establish automatic enrollment due to time constraints in resolving legal and administrative issues, are withdrawn. The temporary regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and expire on September 30, 2029.

The IRS has issued proposed and temporary regulations under Code Sec. 530A, regarding general requirements for Trump accounts, the establishment of an initial account, including automatic enrollment by the Secretary of the Treasury, and qualified general contributions. Proposed regulations issued in March 2026 (NPRM REG-117270-25) that provided guidance on establishing Trump accounts, but did not establish automatic enrollment due to time constraints in resolving legal and administrative issues, are withdrawn. The temporary regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and expire on September 30, 2029.

General Requirements and Establishment of an Account

A Trump account is either (1) an initial Trump account, created or organized by the Treasury Secretary for an eligible individual or (2) a rollover Trump account, which is an account created during the growth period and funded by a qualified rollover contribution from the account beneficiary's existing Trump account. The written governing instrument of a Trump account must generally meet the rules of Code Sec. 408(a)(1) through (6) and Code Sec. 530A(b)(1)(C)(i) through (iii). Any person approved by the IRS as of December 31, 2025, to be a nonbank trustee of an IRA would have automatic approval to act as a trustee of a Trump account. The written instrument must clearly identify the account as a Trump account at the time of creation.

The Secretary may make an election to establish an auto account for a qualifying individual. Another person may elect to establish a Trump account for an eligible individual by filing Form 4547 or via the electronic application or webpage made available by the Secretary. A person may claim an auto account pursuant to Temp. Reg. §1.530A-1T(d)(1)(iv) by establishing a claimed initial Trump account and having the funds in the auto account transferred to the claimed initial Trump account. On or about October 1, 2026, the Secretary shall establish an auto account for each person whom the Secretary has determined to meet the requirements of Temp. Reg. §1.530-A-1T(b)(2) to be an eligible individual, and from whom no prior election has been made. Periodic elections to establish accounts for eligible individuals will be made after that date.

Administration of an auto account is the Secretary's responsibility. During the growth period, an account may only accept qualified general contributions under Code Sec. 530A(f) and a $1,000 pilot program contribution. An auto account's only investment must be its equitable interest in the master group trust, which is a trust established for the exclusive benefit of account beneficiaries of auto accounts for purposes of holding investments of those auto accounts and meets the applicable requirements of Rev. Rul. 81-100, as modified, and is exempt from tax under Code Sec. 408(e).

Qualified General Contributions and Qualified Stock Contributions

Temp. Reg. §1.530A-7T establishes the framework for qualified general contributions to Trump accounts. A qualified general contribution must originate from an eligible donor, be accepted by the Secretary through a Treasury acceptance agreement, be made to beneficiaries within an approved class, and be allocated equally among all beneficiaries in that class. An approved class must include at least 5,000 account beneficiaries and include all account beneficiaries who are still in their growth period, reside in the specified geographic location, and born in one or more years identified in the Treasury acceptance agreement.

The regulations also create rules for qualified stock contributions, allowing eligible donors to contribute certain publicly traded stock issued by domestic corporations directly to Trump accounts. Such stock is generally subject to a minimum holding period ending on the earlier of five years after contribution or the beneficiary’s growth period ending.

Contributions made to qualifying Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organizations to fund general funding contributions are deductible under applicable charitable deduction rules, and gifts to eligible donor organizations are treated as qualifying charitable transfers. A Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organization furthers its exempt purposes by making a qualifying general funding contribution, whether directly or through a donor-advised fund. In addition, such contributions are treated as expenditures for charitable purposes and generally are not considered grants or distributions to individuals for purposes of the private foundation and donor-advised fund expenditure responsibility rules.

T.D. 10056

CC-00226466-26

The IRS has released the 2026-2027 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate certain expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include:

• 1. the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IE) rates,
• 2. the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction,
• 3. and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method.

The IRS has released the 2026-2027 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate certain expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include:

• 1. the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IE) rates,
• 2. the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction,
• 3. and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method.

Transportation Industry Special Per Diem Rates

The special M&IE rates for taxpayers in the transportation industry are:

• $80 for any locality of travel in the continental United States (CONUS), and
• $86 for any locality of travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Incidental Expenses Only Rate

The rate is $5 per day for any CONUS or OCONUS travel for the incidental expenses only deduction.

High-Low Substantiation Method

For purposes of the high-low substantiation method, the 2026-2027 special per diem rates are:

• $329 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $230 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

The amount treated as paid for meals is:

• $86 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $74 for travel to any other locality within CONUS

Instead of the meal and incidental expenses only substantiation method, taxpayers may use:

• $86 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $74 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

Taxpayers using the high-low method must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390. That procedure provides the rules for using a per diem rate to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred while traveling away from home.

Notice 2025-54, I.R.B. 2025-41, 479 is superseded.

Notice 2026-60

For 2027, the Social Security wage cap will be $192,300, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 3.6 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

For 2027, the Social Security wage cap will be $192,300, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 3.6 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

Wage Cap for Social Security Tax

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on wages is 7.65 percent each for the employee and the employer. FICA tax has two components:

• a 6.2 percent social security tax, also known as old age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); and
• a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, also known as hospital insurance (HI).

For self-employed workers, the Self-Employment tax is 15.3 percent, consisting of:

• a 12.4 percent OASDI tax; and
• a 2.9 percent HI tax.

OASDI tax applies only up to a wage base, which includes most wages and self-employment income up to the annual wage cap.

For 2027, the wage base is $192,300. Thus, OASDI tax applies only to the taxpayer’s first $192,300 in wages or net earnings from self-employment. Taxpayers do not pay OASDI tax on earnings that exceed $192,300.

There is no wage cap for HI tax.

Maximum Social Security Tax for 2027

For workers who earn $192,300 or more in 2027:

• an employee will pay a total of $11,922.60 in social security tax ($192,300 x 6.2 percent);
• the employer will pay the same amount; and
• a self-employed worker will pay a total of $23,845.20 in social security tax ($192,300 x 12.4 percent).

Additional Medicare Tax

Higher-income workers may have to pay an Additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent. This tax applies to wages and self-employment income that exceed:

• $250,000 for married taxpayers who file a joint return;
• $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separate returns; and
• $200,000 for other taxpayers.

The annual wage cap does not affect the Additional Medicare tax.

Benefit Increase for 2027

Finally, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase social security and SSI benefits for 2027 by 3.6 percent. The COLA is intended to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of these benefits.

Social Security Fact Sheet: 2027 Social Security Changes

SSA Press Release: Social Security Announces 3.6 Percent Benefit Increase for 2027

The IRS established the IRA Compliance Resolution System (ICRS) to permit IRA owners and custodians to correct failures related to individual retirement arrangements by submitting a request to the IRS. Failures eligible for ICRS include required minimum distribution failures and nonspouse beneficiary rollover failures. The revenue procedure will also govern requests for waivers from the 60-day rollover requirement from IRAs as well as qualified employer-sponsored plans. The revenue procedure is effective May 1, 2027.

The IRS established the IRA Compliance Resolution System (ICRS) to permit IRA owners and custodians to correct failures related to individual retirement arrangements by submitting a request to the IRS. Failures eligible for ICRS include required minimum distribution failures and nonspouse beneficiary rollover failures. The revenue procedure will also govern requests for waivers from the 60-day rollover requirement from IRAs as well as qualified employer-sponsored plans. The revenue procedure is effective May 1, 2027.

Self-Correction Not Available

The new system implements provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, requiring expansion of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) for qualified retirement plans to allow IRA custodians to address eligible inadvertent failures involving IRAs. The new ICRS consists of the IRA Voluntary Correction Program (IVCP), although additional correction programs may be introduced later. Self-correction of IRA failures is not currently available under ICRS. Instead, the IRA custodian or owner must make a submission to the IRS using the provided procedures and pay a fee on the Pay.gov website.

60-Day Rollover Waiver Requests

The procedure also establishes a process for requesting waivers of the 60-day rollover requirement under Code Secs. 402 and 408 through ICRS. During 2027, eligible applicants may request waivers through either ICRS or the existing private letter ruling process. Beginning in 2028, the IRS anticipates that such requests will be permitted only under ICRS.

Waiver requests may involve eligible rollover distributions from IRAs, qualified retirement plans, annuity plans, tax-sheltered annuities and governmental deferred compensation plans. Automatic waivers and waiver relief under previous guidance remains available.

Rev. Proc. 2026-33

The IRS updated the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), its comprehensive system of corrections programs for employer-sponsored qualified retirement plans. The updates reflect significant changes to EPCRS made by the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328) and subsequent guidance. Former procedures under Rev. Proc. 2021-30 are modified and superseded. The revised procedures are effective October 22, 2026.

The IRS updated the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), its comprehensive system of corrections programs for employer-sponsored qualified retirement plans. The updates reflect significant changes to EPCRS made by the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328) and subsequent guidance. Former procedures under Rev. Proc. 2021-30 are modified and superseded. The revised procedures are effective October 22, 2026.

The bulk of the changes in the revised procedures reflect the SECURE 2.0 Act’s expansion of EPCRS’s Self Correction Program component to permit self-correction of eligible inadvertent failures, including plan loan failures. Other changes made by SECURE 2.0 and incorporated into the revised EPCRS include safe harbor corrections under Code Sec. 414(cc) and the recovery of retirement plan overpayments under Code Sec. 414(aa).

Other changes made in the revised revenue procedure include:

• References to the availability of a separate compliance resolution system for IRA failures.
• Updates reflecting changes to the determination letter and opinion letter programs.
• Revisions to correction methods for SEPs and SIMPLE IRA plans.
• Revisions to procedures for locating lost participants.
• Revisions to the correction principle for failure to obtain spousal consent.
• Changes to the Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) and the Audit Closing Agreement Program (Audit CAP), such as revised procedures for a group submission under VCP.

Rev. Proc. 2026-34

The IRS has issued final regulations under Code Sec. 6311 implementing changes made by the Taxpayer First Act. The regulations permit the IRS to pay fees under contracts for processing tax payments by credit or debit card, provided the fees are fully recouped from taxpayers making those payments. The regulations remove restrictions on the IRS’s payment of fees under such contracts and on the imposition of reimbursement fees on persons paying taxes by credit or debit card.

The IRS has issued final regulations under Code Sec. 6311 implementing changes made by the Taxpayer First Act. The regulations permit the IRS to pay fees under contracts for processing tax payments by credit or debit card, provided the fees are fully recouped from taxpayers making those payments. The regulations remove restrictions on the IRS’s payment of fees under such contracts and on the imposition of reimbursement fees on persons paying taxes by credit or debit card.

Payment Processing Fees

The regulations authorize the IRS to enter into contracts for receiving tax payments by credit or debit card if the contracts are cost beneficial to the government. Under certain contracts, the IRS may pay fees, charges, or other monetary consideration to payment processors. If the IRS pays fees under these contracts, it must recoup the full amount from taxpayers making payments by credit or debit card. The reimbursement fees are payable at the time of, and in addition to, the tax payment and are limited to the amounts paid by the IRS under the contracts. The IRS must seek to minimize the fees paid under these arrangements.

Under other contracts, the IRS may elect not to pay fees to payment processors. Such arrangements do not prohibit card issuers, financial institutions, or other persons participating in the transactions from imposing their own fees or charges. The IRS may not receive any portion of those fees.

Error Resolution Procedures

Payments of taxes by credit or debit card, including reimbursement fees paid under the regulations, are subject to applicable error-resolution procedures under the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, or similar state or local laws. These procedures apply to errors relating to the credit or debit card account but do not apply to disputes, errors, or adjustments concerning the underlying tax liability. Reimbursement fees paid under the regulations are not taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and are not eligible for refund or credit under Code Sec. 6402.

Applicability

The final regulations amend existing regulations under Code Sec. 6311 to implement changes made by the Taxpayer First Act. The rules apply to tax payments and reimbursement fees made on or after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

T.D. 10060

The IRS has issued proposed and temporary regulations providing guidance on the new federal scholarship tax credit under Code Sec. 25F. Beginning after 2026, an individual may claim a nonrefundable federal income tax credit for contributions to certified scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) issuing scholarships to students in K-12 schools. The regulations clarify how the credit is calculated, including the treatment of state tax credits, credit carryforwards, and substantiation requirements. They also establish immediate administrative rules for SGOs and states that opt into the program and identify SGOs.

The IRS has issued proposed and temporary regulations providing guidance on the new federal scholarship tax credit under Code Sec. 25F. Beginning after 2026, an individual may claim a nonrefundable federal income tax credit for contributions to certified scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) issuing scholarships to students in K-12 schools. The regulations clarify how the credit is calculated, including the treatment of state tax credits, credit carryforwards, and substantiation requirements. They also establish immediate administrative rules for SGOs and states that opt into the program and identify SGOs.

Credit Eligibility and Calculation

An individual may claim a credit for qualified cash contributions made directly to eligible SGOs. The annual credit is generally limited to $1,700 per taxpayer or $3,400 for married individuals filing jointly. Contributions made through pass-through entities, including partnerships and S corporations, are not eligible for the credit. The taxpayer must reduce the federal tax credit by the amount of any state tax credit attributable to the same contribution before applying the federal limitation. Unused credit amounts may be carried forward for up to five years.

A taxpayer claiming the credit may not claim a charitable contribution deduction for the same contribution and must satisfy specified substantiation and reporting requirements. This includes use of a unique donor identification number on new Form 8525. The taxpayer donor must designate contributions as eligible for the credit at the time they are made. Once made, the designation is irrevocable.

A taxpayer may contribute to an eligible SGO regardless of their state of residence, allowing them to support qualifying SGOs across participating states.

Scholarship Granting Organizations

To qualify as an SGO, an organization must be recognized as a tax-exempt public charity, maintain separate accounts for qualified contributions and scholarship funds, and devote at least 90 percent of required expenditures to scholarships. SGOs must verify student eligibility, ensure scholarship funds are used solely for qualified elementary and secondary education expenses, and adopt procedures to prevent scholarships from benefiting disqualified persons. The regulations also require SGOs to register with the IRS, furnish acknowledgments to contributors, file annual reports, and maintain records demonstrating compliance with federal requirements.

State Participation

A state may elect to participate the federal scholarship tax program either through an advanced election or through the submission of a state SGO list. A state seeking to participate must annually certify eligible SGOs and provide the IRS with information demonstrating that the organizations satisfy federal requirements. The IRS will maintain and publish a nationwide list of eligible SGOs upon which taxpayers may generally rely when making contributions and claiming credits.

Applicability

Taxpayers, SGOs, and states may rely on the proposed regulations for qualified contributions beginning on or after January 1, 2027. The temporary regulations apply on or after September 1, 2026, and expire on October 1, 2029.

T.D. 10057

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117199-25

IR 2026-117

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations under Code Sec. 1062 governing the election to pay tax attributable to gain from qualified sales or exchanges of qualified farmland property in four annual installments. The proposed regulations define qualified farmland property and qualified farmers, provide rules for making the election, and address pass-through entities and acceleration events.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations under Code Sec. 1062 governing the election to pay tax attributable to gain from qualified sales or exchanges of qualified farmland property in four annual installments. The proposed regulations define qualified farmland property and qualified farmers, provide rules for making the election, and address pass-through entities and acceleration events.

Qualified Farmland Property

Qualified farmland property generally is U.S. real property that was used by the taxpayer as a farm for farming purposes, or leased to a qualified farmer for farming purposes, during substantially all of the 10 years preceding the sale or exchange. The property also must be subject to a covenant prohibiting nonfarm use for 10 years following the sale or exchange. A copy of the covenant must be attached to the taxpayer's return for the taxable year of the sale or exchange.

The proposed regulations provide that certain periods of nonuse will be disregarded in applying the 10-year farming use requirement. These include periods during which property is removed from production under a government program, pursuant to recognized farming practices, or because of unforeseen events outside the taxpayer's control, provided the property continues to be maintained for farming purposes.

Election and Installment Payments

Taxpayers would make the election by filing Form 1062, Deferral of Tax on Gain from the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers, and Schedule A (Form 1062). Once made, the election generally may be revoked only by paying the remaining unpaid applicable net tax liability. Each installment payment equals 25 percent of the taxpayer's applicable net tax liability. The first installment generally must be paid by the return due date, determined without regard to the extensions, for the taxable year of the sale or exchange.

Pass-Through Entities and Acceleration Events

Under the proposed regulations, partners, S corporation shareholders, beneficiaries, and other owners generally may make the election with respect to applicable net tax liability arising from a qualified sale or exchange by a pass-through entity. Pass-through entities must furnish Schedule A information and the covenant to owners and beneficiaries and report each owner's allocable share of gain.

The proposed regulations also provide rules accelerating unpaid installment payments following certain events. Acceleration events include failure to timely pay an installment, the death of an individual taxpayer, and certain liquidations, dispositions of substantially all assets, and other specified events involving corporations, trusts, and estates. The proposed regulations also provide procedures under which an eligible transferee may assume the remaining installment obligations in certain transactions.

The proposed regulations would apply to qualified sales and exchanges occurring in taxable years ending after publication of final regulations in the Federal Register. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for qualified sales and exchanges occurring in taxable years beginning after July 4, 2025, provided they apply the rules consistently and in their entirety. Treasury and the IRS requested comments on the proposed regulations and requests for a public hearing within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117095-25

IR 2026-115

As the excitement of understanding what artificial intelligence can do for the tax profession starts to subside, the conversation is beginning to shift to risk management and risk assessment. To that end, the American Institute of CPAs has launched a new initiative – the Council on AI Risk in Tax (CART) – to help tax professionals manage risk.

As the excitement of understanding what artificial intelligence can do for the tax profession starts to subside, the conversation is beginning to shift to risk management and risk assessment. To that end, the American Institute of CPAs has launched a new initiative – the Council on AI Risk in Tax (CART) – to help tax professionals manage risk.

CART was born out of a risk assessment framework recently developed by former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel that was published by AICPA after asking representatives of state tax authorities what he could do for them following his departure from the IRS.

“They said, ‘you know Danny, we are seeing so many interesting, exciting demos of AI products that really have paradigm-shifting productivity … but we don’t know what the risks are. We don’t know what questions we should ask ourselves to make sure that, as a tax authority, we are ready to deploy these powerful AI tools responsibly,” Werfel, senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University School of Government & Policy, said in an interview, adding that they also inquired about questions they should be asking vendors about safety features and other risks they should be looking out for.

“I did some immediate research and learned that there wasn’t an AI risk framework or risk register specific to tax,” he added, leading him develop version one of the recently published risk framework.”

From there, he approached AICPA as the place to publish the framework and through those conversations, created CART as a place for tax professionals and state tax administrators to collaborate on AI risk and further refine the framework.

“With AI, it’s obviously new,” Melanie Lauridsen, AICPA vice president of tax policy and advocacy, added. It’s ever evolving. There’s a huge interest. There’s a lot of unknowns, and there’s nothing really out there right now beyond what I have seen what Danny put forward to help guide people in this area.”

The Framework

The published framework states that it is more than a simple list of “relevant risks. The formulation and activation of the list means the organization has learned to:

• Define how risks show up in practice;

• Assign controls;

• Establish indicators; and

• Make course corrections as the environment evolves.

In this way the register is part of a broader risk governance framework to help organizations chart a sensible path forward from strategy to implementation.”

The publication includes distinct frameworks for both tax authorities and tax preparers. For tax authorities, the publication highlights 20 risk areas across four categories:

• Information integrity – The wrong information reaching taxpayers at scale.
• Fairness and legitimacy – Disparate or unfair treatment across groups.
• Security and data – Compromised systems, corrupted data, or the exploitation of sensitive taxpayer information at AI systems aggregate, surface, or make newly accessible to band actors.
• Institutional capacity – Loss of the knowledge and capacity by the institution needed to govern AI responsibility over time.

For tax preparers, there are 15 risk areas across 5 categories:

• Technical – Incorrect or unreliable AI outputs that establish the conditions for downstream errors.
• Practice – Failures of professional judgement, documentation, or oversight.
• Legal and regulatory – Increased exposure to legal liability (e.g., malpractice claims, regulatory sanctions).
• Business – Erosion of client trust and firm relationships.
• Workforce and Strategic – Loss of the expertise and institutional knowledge needed to practice responsibly.

The framework “establishes a notional risk register for tax authorities and presents that side-by-side with a distinct register for tax preparers,” the framework document states. “It also identifies important areas of overlap across the two.”

A Living Framework

Werfel noted that this is not intended to be a one-and-done framework, but rather a living document that he anticipates will be updated on a regular basis.

“I wanted to give myself six months of feedback and iteration,” he said. “I told CART at our kickoA meeting [that] once we issue version two after six months, then I think it’s an annual [update] from there. But in this form, version one to version two, I wanted to put a little bit more accelerated because that’s the highest risk point for it missing something big in the risk register itself.”

Lauridsen add that convening CART regularly and discussing risks and best practices associated with those risks and updating the framework “is the right approach” as opposed to trying to build a firm set of standards for risk assessment and risk management of AI.

“We don’t know what it’ll be in a month, two months, much less six months or a year,” Lauridsen said, noting the fast evolution AI is currently experiencing. “I think it would be a disservice to come forward with a standard right now.”

She continued: “Right now, it’s more best practices. Everybody’s trying to get their minds and arms around it and how to implement it.”

Werfel added that the feedback will be very important when the framework goes through future iterations, as the CART members will be able to report back when the framework works and more importantly, when it “missed the bullseye” by the cross section of accounting, law firms, government associations and AI vendors.

“My hope is that if it’s oA bullseye, we’ll hear about it and update it,” Werfel said.

He did not rule out seeing the framework converted into an industry standard somewhere down the line, but for now, the focus is to just keep this a framework that users can use as a best practices guide to assessing risks of AI tools that states and practitioners are considering for implementation.

In the near term, Werfel said that an idea was floated to CART to make a voluntary pledge to follow the framework that CART produces. It would be completely voluntary, but a pledge to follow it would be “hopefully helpful to rally attention to AI risk.”

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.