Stetson Koenes, PLLC - Newsletters

About 830,000 taxpayers are having their tax refunds held up due to the move away from paper checks and Democratic leadership on the House Ways and Means Committee is seeking information on what the IRS is doing to expedite the issuance of those refunds.

House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support Ranking Member Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Subcommittee on Oversight Ranking Member Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), in a March 9, 2026, letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Scott Bessent, noted that to date 530,000 notices have been sent to individual taxpayers who did not include bank account information on their tax returns and are planning to send another 300,000 notices this week.

“As a result of President Trump’s Executive Order 14247 mandating electronic payments of tax refunds, these taxpayers could face more than a 10-week delay (over 2.5 months) in receiving their refunds by paper check,” the letter states, adding a National Taxpayer Advocate citation stating that more than 10 million individual taxpayers received their refunds by check.

They continued: “Having reviewed the IRS notice and called the IRS phone lines, we learned that there is no simple process for these taxpayers to request an immediate release of their refund by paper check without waiting at least 10 weeks. Effectively, the President, unilaterally through his Executive Order, is causing undue hardship on millions of Americans by delaying their paper refunds for months. This delay is not mandated by the Internal Revenue Code.”

The ranking members ask Bessent a series of questions, including how IRS taxpayers without an online account can apply for a paper check and immediate release of funds; how many notices have been sent and are expected to be released; how many tax payers have exceptions have been successfully filed; and how many paper checks have been mailed to date.

The representatives asked for answers by March 23, 2026.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2026 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2026.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2026 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

$12,300 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$20,300 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$19,800 for the second year
$11,900 for the third year
$7,160 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2026 are:

$12,300 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$20,300 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$19,800 for the second year
$11,900 for the third year
$7,160 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

$7,160 for passenger cars and
$7,160 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2026, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

$62,000 for a passenger car, or
$62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2026 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Vehicles Exempt from Depreciation Caps and Lease Inclusion Amounts

The depreciation caps and lease inclusion amounts do not apply to:

cars with an unloaded gross vehicle weight of more than 6,000 pounds; or
SUVs, trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds.

So taxpayers who want to avoid these limits should "think big."

Rev. Proc. 2026-15

Close

The IRS has released guidance on the withdrawal of an election to be an excepted trade or business for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The election is made by filing an amended income tax return, amended Form 1065, or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitation. The withdrawal allows a taxpayer to make depreciation adjustments or a late election not to deduct the additional first-year depreciation (bonus depreciation) for certain property in light of recent legislative changes.

The IRS has released guidance on the withdrawal of an election to be an excepted trade or business for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The election is made by filing an amended income tax return, amended Form 1065, or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitation. The withdrawal allows a taxpayer to make depreciation adjustments or a late election not to deduct the additional first-year depreciation (bonus depreciation) for certain property in light of recent legislative changes. Guidance is also provided on the early election or revocation of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) CFC group election.

Background

A taxpayer’s deduction of business interest expenses paid or incurred for the tax year is generally limited under section 163(j) to the taxpayer’s business interest income for that year and 30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI). The deduction limit does not apply to certain excepted businesses, including an electing real property trade or business, electing farming business, or regulated utility trade or business.

The election applies to the current tax year and all subsequent tax years. The election is irrevocable but may automatically terminate in certain circumstances. An electing real property trade or business or electing farming business that elects out of the section 163(j) limit must depreciate certain property using alternative depreciation system (ADS) and as a result cannot claim bonus depreciation for that property.

Election Withdrawal

An election to be an excepted trade or business for the section 163(j) business interest limit may be withdrawn for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The withdrawal is made by attaching a statement to the taxpayer’s amended income tax return, amended Form 1065 , or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitations per the IRS guidance.

A taxpayer that receives an amended Schedule K-1 as a result of an amended return or Form 1065 should similarly file an amended return, amended Form 1065, or AAR with a similar attached statement. If a taxpayer withdraws an election, the taxpayer will be treated as if the election had never been made.

Depreciation Adjustments

A taxpayer that is withdrawing an excepted trade or business interest election under section 163(j) must determine its depreciation deduction and basis for the property that is affected by the withdrawn election in accordance with Code Sec. 168. A taxpayer that makes the withdrawals may make a late election under Code Sec. 168(k)(7) to opt certain property out of bonus depreciation on the same amended Federal income tax return, amended Form 1065, or AAR filed for withdrawing the section 163(j) excepted trade or business election.

CFC Group Election

A taxpayer that is a designated U.S. person may revoke or make a CFC group election without regard to the 60-month limitation of § 1.163(j)-7(e)(5)(ii) for the first specified period of a specified group beginning after December 31, 2024. A taxpayer that chooses to revoke the election or make a new election must follow all procedures specified in the regulation other than the 60-month limit. In addition, the 60-month limitation applies to subsequent specified periods.

Rev. Proc. 2026-17

Close

Internal Revenue Service CEO Frank Bisignano highlighted the early successes of the tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act before the House Ways and Means Committee while defending or deflecting critical commentary from the panel’s Democratic representatives.

In his opening statement during the March 4, 2026, hearing, Bisignano noted that the tax benefit to individuals under these provisions is “estimated to be $220 billion,” noting key aspects like the no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and the Trump accounts helping to pave the way to the benefits.

He also highlighted the growth of 43 percent in usage of online tools, which he said is coinciding with a decrease in demand for phone service.

“Our goal is for taxpayers is our transformational efforts to create a seamless customer experience where taxpayers can interact with the IRS with the same ease they expect from the private sector,” Bisignano told the committee.

Bisignano during the hearing framed AI simply as a tool in the technology toolbox and stated that he didn’t simply want to “modernize” IRS systems because all that does is lead to future obsolescence, but framed information technology upgrades as “transforming” the systems to be able to evolve with technology, which “will increase compliance and increase simplification.”

He was put on the defensive on the subject of audit rates, with questions suggesting that the agency is not doing its job in terms of auditing high income and other wealthy taxpayers, which will lead to a greater tax gap.

Bisignano tried to interject that there was a $2 billion settlement reached but was not given an opportunity to expand upon the circumstances around the recovery, as Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Ca.) noted that “fewer audits of wealthy tax cheats and more scrutiny of working families” doesn’t build “trust among the American taxpayers.”

In answering a separate question regarding audit rates, he pushed back on the increase or decrease in audit rates, testifying that there has never been a standard audit rate that has been proven to be the right number and it could be more or less than where things are at now.

Bisignano defended the cutting of the National Treasury Employees Union contract, stating that by statute, federal employees already have “greater benefits that any union in the world can provide for their people,” including pay, health, and other benefits that are guaranteed by law. “So they are losing nothing,” he said.

He also defended the elimination of the Direct File program, citing its lack of utilization and its costs to operate the program, while promoting Free File as “well-received” and a well-used and trusted program.

Bisignano avoided any discussion regarding the IRS turning over taxpayer information to the Department of Homeland Security without proper authorization, noting that litigation on this issue was still ongoing. He confirmed that so far, no one has been fired or disciplined for this unauthorized information transmission.

He also would not commit to opening any of the closed Taxpayer Assistance Centers, noting that the current centers were experiencing increased activity, although he did add that there were no plans to close any of the existing centers.

Adoption Credit Update

Bisignano told the committee that the IRS will be implementing a provision that for tax year 2025, carry forward amounts of the adoption credit for prior years are refundable up to $5,000 per qualifying child, “and the IRS is implementing this policy as expeditiously as possible without disrupting the current filing season.”

He said there is will be information on this published “very soon” and that taxpayers “should continue to claim the credit as directed by the current tax forms and instructions during the tax season, since the IRS is pursuing post-filing remedies to solve this issue.”

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The IRS has finalized regulations to include unmarked vehicles used by firefighters, members of rescue squads, or ambulance crews in the list of “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” exempt from the IRC §274(d) substantiation requirements. The final rule adopts, with only minor, non-substantive changes, the text of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-106595- 22) issued on December 3, 2024. The amendments ensure that specially equipped unmarked vehicles are subject to the same tax treatment as other emergency vehicles used by first responders.

Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicles

IRC §274(d) requires that taxpayers satisfy additional substantiation requirements when claiming certain business deductions including the business use of an automobile or other means of transportation. A qualified nonpersonal use vehicle is any vehicle that, by reason of its nature, is not likely to be used more than a de minimis amount for personal purposes. Reg. §1.274-5(k)(2)(ii) provides a list of such vehicles, which includes, in part: ambulances; clearly marked police, fire, public safety officer vehicles; and unmarked police vehicles.

Unmarked Emergency Vehicles

Recently, some municipalities have been providing unmarked vehicles to these first responders as a response to an increase in incidents of vandalism and harassment. These unmarked vehicles are typically equipped with special equipment such as lights and sirens, medical emergency equipment, communication radios, and personal protective equipment. Most fire and emergency response departments retain the title to these unmarked vehicles and have policies that limit the use of the vehicles for personal purposes.

The intent and use of these unmarked vehicles meet the definition of qualified nonpersonal vehicles provided in IRC §274(i). However, prior to the amendments, fire and emergency response departments had to substantiate the time the first responders spent using these unmarked vehicles for work related purposes. Personal use of these vehicles, no matter how minute, was required to be included in that employee’s income.

In addition to adding unmarked rescue to the list of qualified nonpersonal use vehicles provided in Reg. §1.274-5(k)(2)(ii), the amendments add Reg. §1.274-5(k)(7) which provides the definitions for “unmarked firefighter, rescue squad or ambulance crew vehicles”, “firefighter,” and “member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.”

The amendments apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may rely on the guidance provided in the proposed regulations until that date.

T.D. 10043

Close

Proposed regulations under Code Sec. 530A, providing guidance on making an election to open a Trump account, and under Code Sec. 6434, relating to the Trump account contribution pilot program, have been issued. Comments are requested and should be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (indicate IRS and REG-117270-25 for comments related to Code Sec. 530A or IRS and REG-117002-25 for comments related to Code Sec. 6434). The proposed regulations are proposed to apply on or after January 1, 2026.

Background

Code Sec. 530A, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) provides for the creation of a Trump account for an eligible individual. A Trump account is subject to certain special rules that do not apply to other types of individual retirement accounts during the growth period, which is the period that begins when an initial Trump account is established and ends on December 31st of the year in which the account beneficiary of the initial Trump account reaches the age of 17. Proposed regulations on the special rules that apply during and after the growth period are reserved and will be proposed at a later date.

In addition, Code Sec. 6434 was added, which provides for a one-time $1,000 pilot program contribution to the Trump account of an eligible child with respect to whom an election is made. The qualifications to be an eligible child are less restrictive than those to be an eligible individual. Finally, Code Sec. 128 allows for employer contributions to a Trump account of an employee or a dependent of an employee. These contributions must be made in accordance with the rules of a Code Sec. 128(c) Trump account contribution program. Guidance on this section is expected to be released in the future.

General Requirements and Election to Open 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. An individual can only have one Trump account containing funds in existence at a time. 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.

An election to open an account can be made by either an authorized individual or by the Secretary. If a pilot program contribution election is made at the same as the election to open the initial account, the authorized individual would be the individual authorized to make (and making) the pilot program contribution election. If a pilot contribution program election is not being made, Prop. Reg. §1.530A-1(c)(1)(i)(B) provides an ordering rule to determine who the authorized individual is. In order of priority, the authorized individual would be a legal guardian, parent, adult sibling, or grandparent of the eligible individual. The election to open an initial Trump account is made on or before December 31st of the calendar year in which the eligible individual attains age 18. The election is made on Form 4547 or through an electronic application or webpage made available by the Secretary.

Contribution Pilot Program

A pilot program election with respect to an eligible child must be made by a pilot program-electing individual so that the Secretary can make the $1,000 pilot program contribution into the Trump account of en eligible child. An eligible child is a pilot program-electing individual's anticipated qualifying child, as defined in Code Sec. 152(c), for the tax year of the pilot program-electing individual in which the pilot program election is made; is born in 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028; is a U.S. citizen; has been issued a social security number; and with respect to which no prior pilot program election has been made by any individual and processed by the Secretary.

A pilot program election is made with respect to the eligible child's "special taxable year" (defined in Prop. Reg. §301.6434-1(c)(1)), instead of with respect to any calendar based tax year for the eligible child's federal income tax liability. Once an election is processed, the eligible child is treated as making a $1,000 payment against a federal income tax liability for the eligible child's special taxable year, resulting in a $1,000 overpayment. The overpayment is then refunded by the Secretary as a pilot program contribution to the eligible child's Trump account. The overpayment is not refunded unless the eligible child has an established Trump account.

An election may be made on the day that a child becomes eligible, and the last day to make the election is December 31st of the calendar year in which the eligible child attains age 17. In addition, only the first pilot program contribution election processed by the IRS will result in a $1,000 contribution to the eligible child's Trump account. The pilot program contribution election is made on Form 4547.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117270-25

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117002-25

IR 2026-31

IR 2026-33

Close

The IRS expects to delay the applicability date of proposed regulations on required minimum distributions (RMDs) until the distribution calendar year that would begin 6 months after the date the regulations are finalized. Specifically, the announcement relates to proposed amendments of Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-4, 1.401(a)(9)-5, and 1.401(a)(9)-6, issued pursuant to NPRM REG–103529–23 .

Background

Prior to this announcement, provisions under NPRM REG–103529–23 (2024) were proposed to apply for determining RMDs for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. This ensured the provisions would begin to apply at the same time as final regulations under T.D. 10001 (2024).

Following a request for comments, concerns included difficulty to implement many provisions of future final regulations in a timely manner if the January 1, 2025, applicability date were to be retained in future final regulations.

Future Final Regulations

The IRS expects future final regulations that would amend Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-4, 1.401(a)(9)-5, and 1.401(a)(9)-6, issued pursuant to NPRM REG–103529–23, to apply to determine RMDs for the distribution calendar year that would begin no earlier than six months after the date that any future final regulations would be issued in the Federal Register. For periods before the applicability date of such future final regulations, taxpayers must continue to apply a reasonable, good-faith interpretation.

Announcement 2026-7

Close

The IRS has issued a waiver for individuals who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in certain foreign countries prevented them from fulfilling the requirements for the 2025 tax year. Qualified individuals may elect to exclude from gross income their foreign earned income and to exclude or deduct the housing cost amount.

Relief Provided

The IRS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has determined that war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions precluded the normal conduct of business in the following countries, effective from the dates specified: (1) Haiti – January 1, 2025; (2) Ukraine – January 1, 2025; (3) Democratic Republic of the Congo – January 28, 2025; (4) South Sudan – March 7, 2025; (5) Iraq – June 11, 2025; (6) Lebanon – June 22, 2025; and (7) Mali – October 30, 2025. An individual who left any of these countries on or after the respective dates will be treated as a qualified individual for the period during which the individual was a bona fide resident of, or was present in, the country. To qualify for relief, an individual must establish that, but for these adverse conditions, they would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1). Additionally, the waiver does not apply to individuals who first established residency or were physically present in any of these countries after the respective dates listed above. Taxpayers seeking guidance on how to claim this exclusion or file an amended return should refer to the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion section at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion or contact a local IRS office.

Rev. Proc. 2026-16

Close

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

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close

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

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

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

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

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

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

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

Qualified Business Income

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

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

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

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

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

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

De Minimis Exception

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

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

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

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

Close

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

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

Crack & Pack

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

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

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

Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

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

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

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

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

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

Tax Reform 2.0

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

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

Key Takeways

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

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

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

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

Close

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

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

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

Trade or Business

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

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

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

Specified Service Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wages/Capital Limit

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

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

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

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

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

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

Effective Dates

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

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

Comments Requested

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

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

Close

NEWSLETTERS

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

Vehicles Exempt from Depreciation Caps and Lease Inclusion Amounts

Background

Election Withdrawal

Depreciation Adjustments

CFC Group Election

Adoption Credit Update

Background

General Requirements and Election to Open an Account

Contribution Pilot Program

Background

Future Final Regulations

Relief Provided