NEWSLETTERS
The IRS has reminded taxpayers to report digital asset income on 2023 federal tax returns, with an updated question now on Forms 1040, Individual Income Tax Return; 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return...
For purposes of the new clean vehicle credit and the used clean vehicle credit, the IRS has extended the deadlines for submitting seller reports for vehicles placed in service in 2023 and ea...
For purposes of the low-income housing credit, the IRS concluded that additional housing credit dollar amounts (HCDAs) for 2021 and 2022 that are returned to a state housing agency may be realloca...
The IRS has underscored the vital importance of selecting a tax professional carefully to safeguard personal and financial information. Taxpayers bear legal responsibility for their income tax...
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance on inflation adjustments to its civil monetary penalties as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment...
A provider of concrete pumping services failed in its challenge to Washington Rule 211 as the department of revenue did not exceed its statutory authority nor was it arbitrary or capricious when it ma...
Following what was described as a successful launch of beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, officials from the Department of the Treasury found themselves before the House Financial Services Committee defending the regulations.
Following what was described as a successful launch of beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, officials from the Department of the Treasury found themselves before the House Financial Services Committee defending the regulations.
"The beneficial ownership registry successfully launched on January 1 this year," Andrea Gacki, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said during a February 14 oversight hearing of the committee. "In the first week alone, more than 100,000 companies successfully filed their beneficial ownership information. And I am pleased to report that today, so far, FinCEN has received more than half a million reports successfully filed."
Brian Nelson, Treasury undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, told the committee that there are 32 million companies that are expected to file a BOI report.
Gacki continued: "The now ongoing better collection of beneficial ownership information, paired with the forthcoming phased provision of access to the database by law enforcement and other authorized users will close what is long been identified as a gap in the United States anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regime."
Gacki and Nelson were put on the defensive during the hearing as committee members challenged them on the effect of the reporting requirements on small businesses.
She noted that FinCEN took steps to make sure the filing system is "workable for small businesses," including making it simple with the ability to complete in 20 minutes without the need to seek professional help that could end up costing a small business more money.
Nelson also emphasized that Treasury is using all available tools to spread the word of the filing requirements and offer guides on how to file.
"We recognize that a number of these small businesses have never heard of FinCEN, so there’s a big educational campaign," he said, adding that the agency is working on a solution for those unable to file BOI electronically, such as businesses in Amish communities.
Gacki also stressed that if there are issues related to filing, FinCEN is not looking to take action against those who are simply having trouble filing their BOI report.
"I want to stress that, when it comes to enforcement, the statute is clear," she said. "We can only take enforcement action for willful violations. We are not out to take ‘gotcha’ enforcement actions. We want to educate about the requirement."
AICPA Calls For Suspension Of BOI Reporting Requirement
Despite the efforts FinCEN and the broader Treasury department are making to educate the public on the BOI reporting requirements, the American Institute of CPAs is calling for the suspension of BOI reporting requirements.
In a February 13, 2024, letter to the leadership of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, AICPA stated the BOI reporting rule "should be suspended until the small business community is considered well-informed of their requirement to report BOI information to FinCEN and the outstanding questions by the financial professionals who serve this community have been answered."
AICPA stated that small businesses "should have a reasonable chance at compliance" in addition to a timeframe to gain awareness of the requirements. "To comply and provide the information necessary, small businesses need additional time to work through these and other questions that have not been answered in the six weeks this rule has been in effect. We urge you to suspend the rule and give small entities the time necessary to work through this requirement so we can best support the small business community."
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
The IRS has issued a warning to small businesses regarding potential issues with Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims as the March 22, 2024 deadline for the ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program approaches. Seven suspicious warning signs have been identified based on feedback from tax professionals and compliance personnel. These signs may indicate erroneous claims and could lead to IRS scrutiny.
The IRS has issued a warning to small businesses regarding potential issues with Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims as the March 22, 2024 deadline for the ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program approaches. Seven suspicious warning signs have been identified based on feedback from tax professionals and compliance personnel. These signs may indicate erroneous claims and could lead to IRS scrutiny. The ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program allows businesses to rectify incorrect claims by repaying just 80% of the amount claimed. Taxpayers who realize their claims are ineligible are urged to quickly pursue the claim withdrawal process.
The IRS has highlighted seven suspicious signs indicating potential inaccuracies in ERC claims. These include:
- Too many quarters being claimed: Employers should ensure they meet eligibilitycriteria for each quarter claimed.
- Government orders that dont qualify: Employers should have clear documentation demonstrating how and when government orders related to COVID-19 impacted their operations.The frequently asked questions about ERC – Qualifying Government Orders section of IRS.gov has helpful examples. Also, employers should avoid a promoter that supplies a generic narrative about a government order.
- Too many employees and wrong calculations : Employers should accurately calculate the credit based on changes in the law and avoid overclaiming. For details about credit amounts, see the Employee Retention Credit - 2020 vs 2021 Comparison Chart.
- Business citing supply chain issues :Employers should carefully review the rules on supply chain issues and examples in the 2023 legal memo on supply chain disruptions.
- Business claiming ERC for too much of a tax period: Businesses should check their claim for overstated qualifying wages and should keep payroll records that support their claim.
- Business didn’t pay wages or didn’t exist during eligibility period: Employers can only claim ERC for tax periods when they paid wages to employees.
- Promoter says there’s nothing to lose: Businesses should be on high alert with any ERC promoter who urged them to claim ERC because they have nothing to lose.
The Employee Retention Credit (ERC) is available to eligible employers who paid qualified wages to some or all employees between March 12, 2020, and January 1, 2022. Eligibility varies based on the time period:
- For 2020 and the first two quarters of 2021: Eligibility is based on trade or business operations being fully or partially suspended due to a COVID-19-related government order or experiencing a decline in gross receipts.
- For the third quarter of 2021: Eligibility includes suspension of trade or business operations, a decline in gross receipts, or being classified as a recovery startup business.
- For the fourth quarter of 2021: Only recovery startup businesses are eligible.
The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2024 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2024.
The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2024 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2024.
Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps
The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2024 limit annual depreciation deductions to:
- $12,400 for the first year without bonus depreciation
- $20,400 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 2024 are:
- $12,400 for the first year without bonus depreciation
- $20,400 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 2024, 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
- $64,000 for an SUV, truck or van.
The 2024 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."
The Internal Revenue Service has reviewed, redesigned and deployed 31 notices for the 2024 tax filing season in an effort to simplify the notices and improve their clarity.
This is a part of a broader effort to simplify up to 90 percent of the notices the agency sends out to taxpayers on an annual basis.
The Internal Revenue Service has reviewed, redesigned and deployed 31 notices for the 2024 tax filing season in an effort to simplify the notices and improve their clarity.
This is a part of a broader effort to simplify up to 90 percent of the notices the agency sends out to taxpayers on an annual basis.
Included in the first wave of redesigned notices are notices to taxpayers who served in combat that may be eligible for tax deferment, notices that remind a taxpayer that they may have an unfiled return, and notices that remind a taxpayer about their balance due and where they can go for assistance.
"The IRS has a large number of these letters as well as other standard correspondence,"IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel said during a January 23, 2024, teleconference with reporters."And as we’ve heard from tax professionals as well as taxpayers, these notices can be confusing. They cover complex topics. They can include a lot of legal language, and with our current systems and machines, the letters can be a mishmash of looks that do not always have a consistent familiar look you might get from a credit card company or a bank."
Werfel said that these issues made it clear the agency management that they need to redesign the notices to utilize clearer, plain language that a taxpayer can act upon without potentially needing to consult with a tax professional to help understand the information being sent and potentially requested. About 20 million of these 31 notices were sent to taxpayers in calendar year 2022, he said.
He highlighted the potential that the redesigned notices will have by discussing the pilot program that redesigned Notice 5071C, which asks questions about possible identity theft. The IRS made the language clearer and included a QR code to direct taxpayers to the appropriate web page to allow them to respond to the notice.
"In all, 60,000 taxpayers received this pilot letter compared to taxpayers who received the original letter,"Werfel said."There was a 16 percent reduction in taxpayers who called the IRS as their first action and a 6 percent increase in taxpayers who used the online option. The IRS will apply the lessons learned from this pilot to a larger redesign initiative."
By the 2025 tax filing season, Werfel said the IRS is hoping to have redesigned up to 200 notices, which make up about 90 percent of the notices sent out to individual taxpayers in 2022.
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
The IRS, with its Criminal Investigation (CI) arm, has urged businesses to review eligibility for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC). To combat fraud, they intensified compliance efforts related to this pandemic-era credit. Businesses wrongly claiming the ERC are advised to consider applying for the Voluntary Disclosure Program before the March 22 deadline. A special withdrawal program is also available for those with eligibility concerns on pending claims.
The IRS, with its Criminal Investigation (CI) arm, has urged businesses to review eligibility for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC). To combat fraud, they intensified compliance efforts related to this pandemic-era credit. Businesses wrongly claiming the ERC are advised to consider applying for the Voluntary Disclosure Program before the March 22 deadline. A special withdrawal program is also available for those with eligibility concerns on pending claims. Both programs aimed to help employers to avoid penalties and interest on incorrect claims. CI special agents plan to conduct nationwide educational sessions in February for tax professionals, focusing on the ERC. These sessions, part of a broader initiative, will be held in at least 23 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The IRS has implemented several initiatives to address inappropriate claims by businesses. Some key points are listed below.
ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program (Open until March 22, 2024):
- businesses with erroneous claims and received payments can participate;and
- the program runs until March 22, 2024.
Withdrawal Program for Pending ERC Claims:
- the IRS continues to accept and process requests to withdraw an employer's full ERC claim under a special withdrawal process.
ERC Eligibility Information:
- special information is available to help businesses understand Employee Retention Tax Credit guidelines; and
- resources include ERC FAQs and the ERC Eligibility Checklist, offered as an interactive toolor a printable guide.
Increased IRS Compliance Activity:
- letters notifying taxpayers of disallowed ERC claims have been sent;
- letters related to claiming an erroneous or excessive credit are planned; and
- ongoing compliance efforts include Audits, Civil Investigations, and Criminal Investigations.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has published a Small Entity Compliance Guide (Guide) to provide an overview of the Beneficial Ownership Information Access and Safeguards Rule (Access Rule) requirements for small entities that obtain beneficial ownership information (BOI) from FinCEN.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has published a Small Entity Compliance Guide (Guide) to provide an overview of the Beneficial Ownership Information Access and Safeguards Rule (Access Rule) requirements for small entities that obtain beneficial ownership information (BOI) from FinCEN. Under the Access Rule, issued in December 2023, BOI reported to FinCEN is confidential, must be protected and may be disclosed only to certain authorized federal agencies; state, local, tribal and foreign governments; and financial institutions. The guide includes sections summarizing the Access Rule’s requirements that pertain to small financial institutions’ access to BOI.
Further, FinCEN intends to provide access to certain categories of financial institutions with obligations under the current Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Rule. Therefore, this Guide includes sections summarizing the Access Rule’s requirements that pertain to these small financial institutions only
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have released new analysis that shows the additional funding provided to the IRS under the Inflation Reduction Act can increase revenues by"as much as" $561 billion.
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have released new analysis that shows the additional funding provided to the IRS under the Inflation Reduction Act can increase revenues by"as much as" $561 billion.
"This analysis provides a more comprehensive assessment of the revenue effects of the transformational enforcement and modernization efforts enabled by the IRA" Greg Leiserson, Treasury deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis, said February 6, 2024, during a press teleconference."The IRS estimates that the IRA, as enacted, would increase revenue by as much as $561billion through fiscal year 2034, substantially more than earlier estimates. If IRA funding is renewed with it runs out, as the administration has proposed, estimated revenue would be as much as $851 billion."
A previous estimate had the IRA generating an additional $390 billion over the next 10 years based primarily on enforcement hires as the key revenue driver and assuming a diminished return over time.
Leiserson noted that previous estimates"were limited to revenues generated by direct enforcement activities resulting from higher enforcement staffing. This narrow focus does not consider the significant impact of the technology, data, and service improvements made possible by the IRA or any deterrent effect the greater enforcement capabilities and activities would have in order to better assess the revenue raised by this transformation."
The new analysis is broken down into five categories:
- Direct Revenue: payments received related to enforcement actions
- Revenue Protected: stopping illegitimate refund claims before the refund is issued
- Impact of Service on Compliance: making it easier for taxpayers to pay what they owe
- Compliance Assurance: increasing transparency and tax certainty for complex tax situations
- Efficiency Gains: including from IT investments and improvements to data analytics
The IRS has traditionally made estimates in the first two categories listed.
IRS Chief Data and Analytics Officer Melanie Krause during the call highlighted that in addition to the heightened compliance and enforcement efforts going on against the wealthy individuals that may not be paying taxes they legitimately owe, the improvements to things such as customer service and to improving access to Taxpayer Assistance Centers also helps.
"For example, whether we have the resources to serve taxpayers by being available to answer the phone" when they have question is important for voluntary compliance, she said, adding that the same is true for when people use TACs.
She noted that the analysis being published"is a pioneering step forward for developing a more exhaustive and accurate estimates of the return on investment for IRS funding, which will enrich our understanding of how these investments yield tangible outcomes,"she said.
Taking into consideration everything and not just enforcement gains "illustrate the bottom-line importance of investing in our nation’s tax system really can’t be overstated," Krause said."And the resulting changes will ripple out and create benefits for taxpayers and the nation in many ways."
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
The American Institute of CPAs offered a series of guidance recommendations to the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to help provide clarity on a notice issued by the IRS on changes to the regulation for Roth IRA catch-up contributions made by SECURE 2.0.
The American Institute of CPAs offered a series of guidance recommendations to the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to help provide clarity on a notice issued by the IRS on changes to the regulation for Roth IRA catch-up contributions made by SECURE 2.0.
In a January 17, 2024, letter to the agencies, AICPA recommend that guidance be issued across areas.
First, the organization recommended that Treasury and the IRS "ssue guidance stated that federal income tax withholding with respect to a participant’s mandatory Roth IRAcatch-up contribution is not required before February 1 of the year in which the amount is contributed," the letter stated.
Second, AICPA called for guidance "allowing an elective deferral which is treated as a Roth catch-up contribution due to being recharacterized based on the failure of the ADP [actual deferral percentage] test, to be taxable to the participant in the year of recharacterization."
Third, it was recommended that future guidance issued in relation to Section V.3 of the Notice 2023-62"clarifies that for purposes of determining if an employee’s participating wages exceeds $145,000 (as adjusted0, only wages from the employee’s specific common law employer in the previous year are included, and only if it is a participating employer in the plan."
Finally, AICPA recommends the agencies "issueguidance stating that an individual who had deferrals characterized as Roth contributions as a result of not contributing deferrals equal to the regular limit be permitted to have them designated as regular deferrals."
The organization characterized these guidance recommendations as helping to bring more simplicity to the tax system.
"Due to the mandate in SECURE 2.0 requiring certain catch-up contributions be made on a Roth IRA basis, the IRS issued notice 2023-62 to help implement the provision," Kristin Esposito, AICPA director of tax policy and advocacy, said in a statement. "AICPA want to highlight certain administrability issues noticed in the guidance that we believe will make for a smoother transition."
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
As part of the ongoing efforts to improve tax compliance in high income categories, the IRS will begin dozens of audits on business aircraft involving personal use.
As part of the ongoing efforts to improve tax compliance in high income categories, the IRS will begin dozens of audits on business aircraft involving personal use. The audits will be focused on large corporations, large partnerships and other high income taxpayers, and will scrutinize whether the use of jets is being properly allocated between business and personal reasons. "During tax season, millions of people are doing the right thing by filing and paying their taxes, and they should have confidence that everyone is also following the law," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, "These aircraftaudits will help ensure high-income groups aren’t flying under the radar with their tax responsibilities."
These audits of corporate jet usage is part of the IRS Large Business and International division’s "campaign" program and includes issue-focused examinations, taxpayer outreach and education, tax form changes and focusing on particular issues that present a high risk of noncompliance. "The IRS continues to increase scrutiny on high-income taxpayers as we work to reverse the historic low audit rates and limited focus that the wealthiest individuals and organizations faced in the years that predated the Inflation Reduction Act," Werfel said. In addition to the work on corporate jets,the IRS has a variety of efforts underway to improve tax compliance in complex, overlooked high-dollar areas where the agency did not have adequate resources prior to Inflation Reduction Act funding.
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.