The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

Background

Code Sec. 6050W requires payment settlement entities to file Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions, for each calendar year for payments made in settlement of certain reportable payment transactions. Among other information, the return must report the gross amount of the reportable payment transactions regarding a participating payee to whom payments were made in the calendar year. As originally enacted, Code Sec. 6050W(e) provided that TPSOs are not required to report third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the gross amount that would otherwise be reported is more than $20,000 and the number of such transactions with that payee is more than 200.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) amended Code Sec. 6050W(e) so that, for calendar years beginning after 2021, a TPSO must report third party network transaction settlement payments that exceed a minimum threshold of $600 in aggregate payments, regardless of the number of transactions. The IRS has delayed implementing the amended TPSO reporting threshold for calendar years beginning before January 1, 2023, and for calendar year 2023 (Notice 2023-10; Notice 2023-74).

For backup withholding purposes, a reportable payment includes payments made by a TPSO that must be reported on Form 1099-K, without regard to the thresholds in Code Sec. 6050W. The IRS has provided interim guidance on backup withholding for reportable payments made in settlement of third party network transactions (Notice 2011-42).

Reporting Relief

Under the new transition relief, a TPSO will not be required to report payments in settlement of third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than:

• $5,000 for calendar year 2024;
• $2,500 for calendar year 2025.

This relief does not apply to payment card transactions.

For those transition years, the IRS will not assert information reporting penalties under Code Sec. 6721 or Code Sec. 6722 against a TPSO for failing to file or furnish Forms 1099-K unless the gross amount of aggregate payments to be reported exceeds the specific threshold amount for the year, regardless of the number of transactions.

In calendar year 2026 and after, TPSOs will be required to report transactions on Form 1099-K when the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than $600, regardless of the number of transactions.

Backup Withholding Relief

For calendar year 2024 only, the IRS will not assert civil penalties under Code Sec. 6651 or Code Sec. 6656 for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax during the calendar year. However, TPSOs that have performed backup withholding for a payee during 2024 must file Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax, and Form 1099-K with the IRS, and must furnish a copy of Form 1099-K to the payee.

For calendar year 2025 and after, the IRS will assert those penalties for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax.

Effect on Other Documents

Notice 2011-42 is obsoleted.

Notice 2024-85

IR-2024-299

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

Background

Code Sec. 752(a) treats an increase in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, as well as an increase in the partner’s individual liabilities when the partner assumes partnership liabilities, as a contribution of money by the partner to the partnership. Code Sec. 752(b) treats a decrease in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, or a decrease in the partner’s own liabilities on the partnership’s assumption of those liabilities, as a distribution of money by the partnership to the partner.

The regulations under Code Sec. 752(a), i.e., Reg. §§1.752-1 through 1.752-6, treat a partnership liability as recourse to the extent the partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss and nonrecourse to the extent that no partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss.

According to the existing regulations, a partner bears the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability if the partner or a related person has a payment obligation under Reg. §1.752-2(b), is a lender to the partnership under Reg. §1.752-2(c), guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability as provided in Reg. §1.752-2(e), or pledges property as security for a partnership liability as described in Reg. §1.752-2(h).

Proposed regulations were published in December 2013 (REG-136984-12). These final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with modifications.

The Final Regulations

The amendments to the regulations under Reg. §1.752-2(a) provide a proportionality rule for determining how partners share a partnership liability when multiple partners bear the economic risk of loss for the same liability. Specifically, the economic risk of loss that a partner bears is the amount of the partnership liability or portion thereof multiplied by a fraction that is obtained by dividing the economic risk of loss borne by that partner by the sum of the economic risk of loss borne by all the partners with respect to that liability.

The final regulations also provide guidance on how a lower-tier partnership allocates a liability when a partner in an upper-tier partnership is also a partner in the lower-tier partnership and bears the economic risk of loss for the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The lower-tier partnership in this situation must allocate the liability directly to the partner that bears the economic risk of loss with respect to the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The final regulations clarify how this rule applies when there are overlapping economic risks of loss among unrelated partners, and the amendments add an example illustrating application of the proportionality rule to tiered partnerships. They also add a sentence to Reg. §1.704-2(k)(5) clarifying that an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability that is treated as the upper-tier partnership’s liability under Reg. §1.752-4(a), with the result that partner nonrecourse deduction attributable to the lower-tier partnership’s liability are allocated to the upper-tier partnership under Reg. §1.704-2(i).

In addition, the final regulations list in one section all the situations under Reg. §1.752-2 in which a person directly bears the economic risk of loss, including situations in which the de minimis exceptions in Reg. §1.752-2(d) are taken into account. The amendments state that a person directly bears the economic risk of loss if that person—and not a related person—meets all the requirements of the listed situations.

For purposes of rules on related parties under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(1), the final regulations disregard: (1) Code Sec. 267(c)(1) in determining if an upper-tier partnership’s interest in a lower-tier partnership is owned proportionately by or for the upper-tier partnership’s partners when a lower-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the upper-tier partnership; and (2) Code Sec. 1563(e)(2) in determining if a corporate partner in a partnership and a corporation owned by the partnership are members of the same controlled group when the corporation directly bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the owner partnership. The regulations state that in both these situations a partner should not be treated as bearing the economic risk of loss when the partner’s risk is limited to the partner’s equity investment in the partnership.

Under the final regulations, if a person owning an interest in a partnership is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability, then other persons owning interests in that partnership are not treated as related to that person for purposes of determining the economic risk of loss that they bear for the partnership liability.

The final regulations also provide that if a person is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability and is related to more than one partner, then the partners related to that person share the liability equally. The related partners are treated as bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability in proportion to each related partner’s interest in partnership profits.

The final regulations contain an ordering rule in which the first step in Reg. §1.762-4(e) is to determine whether any partner directly bears the economic risk of loss for the partnership liability and apply the related-partner exception in Reg. §1.752-4(b)(2). The next step is to determine the amount of economic risk of loss each partner is considered to bear under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(3) when multiple partners are related to a person directly bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability. The final step is to apply the proportionality rule to determine the economic risk of loss that each partner bears when the amount of the economic risk of loss that multiple partners bear exceeds the amount of partnership liability.

The IRS and Treasury indicate that they are continuing to study whether additional guidance is needed on the situation in which an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability and distributes, in a liquidating distribution, its interest in the lower-tier partnership to one of its partners when the transferee partner does not bear the economic risk of loss.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. 10014 apply to any liability incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after December 2, 2024. Taxpayers may apply the final regulations to all liabilities incurred or assumed by a partnership, including those incurred or assumed before December 2, 2024, with respect to all returns (including amended returns) filed after that date; but in that case a partnership must apply the final regulations consistently to all its partnership liabilities.

T.D. 10014

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

The final regs generally adopt proposed regs issued on November 22, 2023 (NPRM REG-132569-17) with some minor modifications.

Hydrogen Energy Storage P property

he Proposed Regulations required that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes such as for the production of end products like fertilizer. However, the IRS recognize that the statute does not include that requirement. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt the requirement that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen that is solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes.

The final regulations also provide that property that is an integral part of hydrogen energy storage property includes, but is not limited to, hydrogen liquefaction equipment and gathering and distribution lines within a hydrogen energy storage property. However, the IRS declined to adopt comments requesting that the final regulations provide that chemical storage, that is, equipment used to store hydrogen carriers (such as ammonia and methanol), is hydrogen energy storage property.

Thermal Energy Storage Property

To clarify the proposed definition of “thermal energy storage property,” the final regs provide that such property does not include property that transforms other forms of energy into heat in the first instance. The final regulations also clarify the requirements for property that removes heat from, or adds heat to, a storage medium for subsequent use. Under a safe harbor, thermal energy storage property satisfies this requirement if it can store energy that is sufficient to provide heating or cooling of the interior of a residential or commercial building for at least one hour. The final regs also include additional storage methods and clarify rules for property that includes a heat pump system.

Biogas P property

The final regulations modify several elements of the rules governing biogas property. Gas upgrading equipment is included in cleaning and conditioning property. The final regs clarify that property that is an integral part of qualified biogas property includes but is not limited to a waste feedstock collection system, landfill gas collection system, and mixing and pumping equipment. While a qualified biogas property generally may not capture biogas for disposal via combustion, combustion in the form of flaring will not disqualify a biogas property if the primary purpose of the property is sale or productive use of biogas and any flaring complies with all relevant laws and regulations. The methane content requirement is measured at the point at which the biogas exits the qualified biogas property.

Unit of Energy P property

To clarify how the definition of a unit of energy property is applied to solar energy property, the final regs update an example illustrate that the unit of energy property is all the solar panels that are connected to a common inverter, which would be considered an integral part of the energy property, or connected to a common electrical load, if a common inverter does not exist. Accordingly, a large, ground-mounted solar energy property may comprise one or more units of energy property depending upon the number of inverters. For rooftop solar energy property, all components of property that are installed on a single rooftop are considered a single unit of energy property.

Energy Projects

The final regs modify the definition of an energy project to provide more flexibility. However, the IRS declined to adopt a simple facts-and-circumstances analysis so an energy project must still satisfy particular and specific factors.

T.D. 10015

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

Background

A partnership with Section 751 property must provide information to each transferor and transferee that are parties to a sale or exchange of an interest in the partnership in which any money or other property received by a transferor in exchange for all or part of the transferor’s interest in the partnership is attributable to Section 751 property. The partnership must file Form 8308 as an attachment to its Form 1065 for the partnership's tax year that includes the last day of the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange took place. The partnership must also furnish a statement to the transferor and transferee by the later of January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange occurred, or 30 days after the partnership has received notice of the exchange as specified under Code Sec. 6050K and Reg. §1.6050K-1. The partnership must use a copy of the completed Form 8308 as the required statement, or provide or a statement that includes the same information.

In 2020, Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) was amended to require a partnership to furnish to a transferor partner the information necessary for the transferor to make the transferor partner’s required statement in Reg. §1.751-1(a)(3). Among other items, a transferor partner in a Section 751(a) exchange is required to submit with the partner’s income tax return a statement providing the amount of gain or loss attributable to Section 751 property. In October 2023, the IRS added new Part IV to Form 8308, which requires a partnership to report, among other items, the partnership’s and the transferor partner’s share of Section 751 gain and loss, collectibles gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(5), and unrecaptured Section 1250 gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(6).

In January 2024, the IRS provided relief due to concerns that many partnerships would not be able to furnish the information required in Part IV of the 2023 Form 8308 to transferors and transferees by the January 31, 2024 due date, because, in many cases, partnerships would not have all of the required information by that date (Notice 2024-19, I.R.B. 2024-5, 627).

The relief below has been provided due to similar concerns for furnishing information for Section 751(a) exchanges occurring in calendar year 2024.

Penalty Relief

For Section 751(a) exchanges during calendar year 2024, the IRS will not impose the failure to furnish a correct payee statement penalty on a partnership solely for failure to furnish Form 8308 with a completed Part IV by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), only if the partnership:

• timely and correctly furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of Parts I, II, and III of Form 8308, or a statement that includes the same information, by the later of January 31, 2025, or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange, and
• furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of the complete Form 8308, including Part IV, or a statement that includes the same information and any additional information required under Reg. §1.6050K-1(c), by the later of the due date of the partnership’s Form 1065 (including extensions), or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange.

This notice does not provide relief with respect to a transferor partner’s failure to furnish the notification to the partnership required by Reg. §1.6050K-1(d). This notice also does not provide relief with respect to filing Form 8308 as an attachment to a partnership’s Form 1065, and so does not provide relief from failure to file correct information return penalties under Code Sec. 6721.

Notice 2025-2

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

AICPA noted that the while there a preliminary injunction has been put in place nationwide by a U.S. district court, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has already filed its appeal and the rules could be still be reinstated.

"While we do not know how the Fifth Circuit court will respond, the AIPCA continues to advise members that, at a minimum, those assisting clients with BOI report filings continue to gather the required information from their clients and [be] prepared to file the BOI report if the inunction is lifted," AICPA Vice President of Tax Policy & Advocacy Melanie Lauridsen said in a statement.

She continued: "The AICPA realizes that there is a lot of confusion and anxiety that business owners have struggled with regarding BOI reporting requirements and we, together with our partners at the State CPA societies, have continued to advocate for a delay in the implementation of this requirement."

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted on December 3, 2024, a motion for preliminary injunction requested in a lawsuit filed by Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., et al, against the federal government to halt the implementation of BOI regulations.

In his order granting the motion for preliminary injunction, United States District Judge Amos Mazzant wrote that its "most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties."

He noted that this request represents a "drastic" departure from history:

First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law – a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States; and

Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formations as designed by various States – anonymity.

"For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi-Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government," he continued. "As a result, the Plantiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our Constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS highlighted that plaintiff’s attorneys or law firms representing clients in lawsuits on a contingency fee basis may receive as much as 40 percent of the settlement amount that they then defer by entering an arrangement with a third party unrelated to the litigation, who then may distribute to the taxpayer in the future. Generally, this happens 20 years or more from the date of the settlement. Subsequently, the taxpayer fails to report the deferred contingency fees as income at the time the case is settled or when the funds are transferred to the third party. Instead, the taxpayer defers recognition of the income until the third party distributes the fees under the arrangement. The goal of this newly launched campaign is to ensure taxpayer compliance and consistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers which requires the contingency fees be included in taxable income in the year the funds are transferred to the third party.

Additionally, the IRS stated that the Service's efforts continue to uncover unreported financial accounts and structures through data analytics and whistleblower tips. In fiscal year 2024, whistleblowers contributed to the collection of $475 million, with $123 million awarded to informants. The IRS has now recovered $4.7 billion from new initiatives underway. This includes more than $1.3 billion from high-income, high-wealth individuals who have not paid overdue tax debt or filed tax returns, $2.9 billion related to IRS Criminal Investigation work into tax and financial crimes, including drug trafficking, cybercrime and terrorist financing, and $475 million in proceeds from criminal and civil cases attributable to whistleblower information.

Proper Use of Form 8275

The IRS stressed upon the proper use of Form 8275 by taxpayers in order to avoid portions of the accuracy-related penalty due to disregard of rules, or penalty for substantial understatement of income tax for non-tax shelter items. Taxpayers should be aware that Form 8275 disclosures that lack a reasonable basis do not provide penalty protection. Taxpayers in this posture should consult a tax professional or advisor to determine how to come into compliance. In its review of Form 8275 filings, the IRS identified multiple filings that do not qualify as adequate disclosures that would justify avoidance of penalties. Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers that Form 8275 is not intended as a free pass on penalties for positions that are false.

FS-2024-32

IR-2024-310

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.

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) mandated a change from the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U). Official amounts for 2019 should be released by the IRS later in 2018.

Individual Tax Brackets

The projected bracket ranges for individuals in 2019 are as follows.

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $19,400
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $19,400 and up to $78,900
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $78,900 and up to $168,400
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $168,400 and up to $321,450
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $321,450 and up to $408,200
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $408,200 and up to $612,350
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $612,350

For heads of households:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $13,850
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $13,850 and up to $52,850
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $52,850 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For unmarried taxpayers:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For married taxpayers filing separately:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,725
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,725 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $306,175
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $306,175

For estates and trusts:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $2,600
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $2,600 and up to $9,300
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,300 and up to $12,750
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $12,750

Standard Deduction

TCJA also roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction. For 2019, the following standard deduction amounts are projected:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $24,400
For heads of households, $18,350
For unmarried taxpayers and well as married taxpayers filing separately, $12,200

AMT Exemptions

TCJA eliminated the AMT for corporations, and increased the exemption amounts, and the exemption phaseouts, for individuals. For 2019, the AMT exemption amounts are projected to be:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $111,700
For unmarried individuals and heads of households, $71,700
For married taxpayers filing separately, $55,850

Estate and Gift Tax

The following amounts related to transfer taxes (estate, generation-skipping, and gift taxes) are projected for 2019:

The gift tax annual exemption is projected to be $15,000 in 2019

The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion (increased under TCJA) is projected to be $11,400,000 for decedents dying in 2019

The exclusion for gifts made in 2019 to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen is projected to be $155,000 for 2019

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

The adoption credit for 2019 is projected to be $14,080 for 2019.

For 2019, the allowed Roth IRA contribution amount is projected to phase out for married taxpayers filing jointly with income between $193,000 and $203,000 For heads of household and unmarried filers, the projected phaseout range is between $122,000 to $137,000.

The maximum amount of deductible contributions that can be made to an IRA is projected to be $6,000 for 2019. The increased contribution amount for taxpayers age 50 and over will, therefore, be $7,000.

The deduction for traditional IRA contributions is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers whose income is greater than $103,000 if both spouses are covered by a retirement plan at work. If only one spouse is covered by a retirement plan at work, the phaseout is projected to begin when modified adjusted gross income reaches $193,000. For heads of household and unmarried filers who are covered by a retirement plan at work, the 2019 income phaseout range for deductible IRA contributions is projected to begin at $64,000.

For 2019, the $2,500 student loan interest deduction is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $140,000. For single taxpayers, the 2019 deduction is projected to begin to phase out at a MAGI level of over $70,000.

The amount of the 2019 foreign earned income exclusion under Code Sec. 911 is projected to be $105,900.

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.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

A legislative package that would make permanent the pass-through deduction, as well as other individual tax cuts, is expected to move though the House this fall. However, the House’s legislative efforts are not expected, at this time, to pass muster in the more narrowly GOP-controlled Senate.

Criticism

Several Democratic lawmakers and tax policy experts have already started to weigh in on the proposed regulations, which were released on August 8 while Congress remained in its annual August recess. Democrats have criticized the new deduction for primarily benefiting the wealthy. Meanwhile, several tax policy experts have taken to Twitter to note that the deduction is overly complex and administratively burdensome.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has reportedly said that the proposed regulations "confirm that the fortunate few win," under the new tax law. "Tax planners are already scouring through the nearly 200 pages of regulations in search of new ways to keep wealthy clients from paying their fair share."

Compliance Burdens

The pass-through deduction could add 25 million hours to taxpayers’ annual reporting burden, according to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the IRS has estimated that gross reporting annualized costs to taxpayers will total approximately $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, the IRS has estimated that the compliance burden will vary between taxpayers, averaging between 30 minutes and 20 hours. The administrative burden on smaller pass-through entities is anticipated to be on the lower end of the estimate, according to the IRS.

Comment. Ryan Kelly, partner at Alston & Bird LLP, told Wolters Kluwer on August 13 that the IRS’s 25 million-hour estimate, whether accurate or not, suggests that there will be a significant increase in administrative compliance costs. "There is a real cost to tax compliance in lost time and productivity for taxpayers," Kelly said. However, Kelly predicted that taxpayers’ Code Sec. 199A compliance burden will eventually decrease. "Time will reveal the extent of taxpayers’ administrative burden to comply; however, it is likely that as time goes on the taxpayers’ compliance burden will fall as taxpayers, tax practitioners, and the Service all become more familiar with section 199A and how it is intended to operate."
Meanwhile, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees have both praised Treasury and the IRS for quickly releasing the much anticipated regulations. Additionally, several tax policy experts have also praised the proposed regulations for alleviating confusion, as well as taxpayer anxiety, about ambiguous provisions of the law.

"This first-ever 20 percent deduction for small businesses allows our local job creators to keep more of their money so they can hire, invest, and grow in their communities," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a statement. "These proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty and flexibility for Main Street businesses in this historic new small business deduction."

Improvements to the proposed regulations are expected in the coming months as stakeholders submit comments. A public hearing at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been scheduled for October 16. "Evolution of tax regulations is generally never a pretty process, but it is a necessary process that in this case will hopefully happen sooner rather than later," Kelly told Wolters Kluwer.