The IRS has provided interim guidance on the deductions for qualified tips and qualified overtime compensation under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). For tax year 2025, employers and other payors are not required to separately account for cash tips or qualified overtime compensation on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, or 1099-MISC furnished to individual taxpayers.

The IRS provided guidance on changes relating to health savings accounts (HSAs) under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). These changes generally expand the availability of HSAs under Code Sec. 223.

The IRS provided guidance on changes relating to health savings accounts (HSAs) under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). These changes generally expand the availability of HSAs under Code Sec. 223.

Background

To access HSAs, individual taxpayers (1) need to be covered under a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) and (2) should not have other disqualifying health coverage. The minimum annual deductible for an HDHP in 2025 is $1,650 for self-only coverage and $3,300 for family coverage. The out-of-pocket maximum for TY 2025 is $8,300 for self-only coverage and $16,600 for family coverage.

OBBBA Changes

The OBBA made a few key changes to HDHPs and, by extension, HSAs. First, it made permanent a safe harbor for HDHPs that have no deductible for telehealth and other remote care services. The OBBBA permanent extension applies retroactively after December 31, 2024.

Second, the term HDHP now includes any plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) that is available as individual coverage through an exchange, including bronze and catastrophic plans. Before the OBBBA was enacted, many bronze plans did not qualify as HDHPs because the plans’ out-of-pocket maximum exceeded the statutory limits for HDHPs or because they provided benefits that were not preventive care without a deductible. Similarly, catastrophic plans could not be HDHPs because they were required to provide three primary care visits before the minimum deductible was satisfied and to have an out-of-pocket maximum that exceeded the statutory limits for HDHPs. This provision amending the definition of an HDHP applies for months after December 31, 2025.

Finally, direct primary care service arrangements (DPCSA) under Code Sec. 223(c)(1)(E)(ii) are no longer treated as a health plan for purposes of determining HSA eligibility and enrollment, and enrolling in a DPCSA will not cause a taxpayer to fail eligibility to contribute to an HSA. These DPCSAs changes would apply after December 31, 2025.

Q&As

The IRS answered several common questions from the public regarding these three provisions with regards to administration and eligibility.

Notice 2026-5

IR 2025-119

The IRS has answered initial questions regarding Trump accounts, which it intends to address in forthcoming proposed regulations. The guidance addresses general questions relating to the establishment of the accounts, contributions to the accounts, and distributions from the accounts under Code Secs. 128, 530A, and 6434. Comments, specifically on issues identified in the notice, should be submitted in writing on or before February 20, 2026, by mail or electronically.

The IRS has answered initial questions regarding Trump accounts, which it intends to address in forthcoming proposed regulations. The guidance addresses general questions relating to the establishment of the accounts, contributions to the accounts, and distributions from the accounts under Code Secs. 128, 530A, and 6434. Comments, specifically on issues identified in the notice, should be submitted in writing on or before February 20, 2026, by mail or electronically.

Establishment of the Accounts

An account may be established for the benefit of an eligible individual by making an election on Form 4547, Trump Account Election(s), or through an online tool or application on trumpaccounts.gov. A Trump account may be created at the same time that an election is made to receive a pilot program contribution. A Trump account is a traditional IRA under Code Sec. 408(a).

A rollover Trump account can only be established after the initial Trump account is created and during the growth period of the account, which is the period that ends before January 1 of the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18. A rollover account must first be funded by a qualified rollover contribution before receiving any other contribution. Additional rules regarding the choice of trustee, rollover accounts, and the written government instrument requirements are discussed in section III.A of the notice.

Pilot Program and Contributions

The election to receive a pilot program contribution is made on Form 4547 or through the online tool, once available. Pilot program contributions will be deposited into the Trump account of an eligible child no earlier than July 4, 2026.

Trustees of Trump accounts must maintain procedures to prevent contributions from exceeding the annual limit of Code Sec. 530A(c)(2)(A). Trustees are required to collect and report the amount and sources of contributions. Contributions may be made to a Trump account and to an individual retirement arrangement for the same individual during the growth period in accordance with the rules of Code Secs. 408 and 530A(c)(2).

Qualified general contributions will be transferred by the Treasury Department or its agent to the trustee of a Trump account pursuant to a general funding contribution. More information on how and where permitted entities will make an application to make a general funding contribution will be provided before the application process opens.

An employer can exclude up to $2,500 from the gross income of an employee for a contribution made by the employer to a Trump account contribution program. The annual limit is per employee, not per dependent. A Trump account contribution may be made by salary reduction under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan if the contribution is made to the Trump account of the employee's dependent and not if the contribution is made to the Trump account of the employee.

Eligible Investments

The terms "mutual fund" and "exchange traded fund" are explained, with additional comments requested on their definitions. The tracking of returns of an index and leverage for purposes of Trump accounts are also described. A mutual fund or exchange traded fund will meet the requirements of having annual fees and expenses of no more than 0.1% of the balance of the investment fund if the sum of its annual fees and expenses is less than 0.1% of the value of the fund's net assets. Additional questions regarding eligible investments are discussed in section III.D of the notice.

Distributions

Only permitted distributions, which are qualified rollover contributions or qualified ABLE rollover contributions, excess contributions, or distributions upon the death of an account beneficiary, are allowed during the growth period. Hardship distributions during the growth period are not allowed. If an account beneficiary dies after the growth period, the rules that apply to other individual retirement accounts after the death of the account owner apply. If the Trump account beneficiary dies during the growth period, the account ceases to be a Trump account and an IRA as of the date of death.

Reporting and Coordination with IRA Rules

Annual reporting by the Trump account trustee is required. Forms and instructions will be issued in the future. After the growth period, distributions from Trump accounts are governed by the IRA distribution rules of Code Sec. 408(d).

Notice 2025-68

IR 2025-117

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to implement Code Sec. 25F, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Code Sec. 25F allows a credit for an individual taxpayer's qualified contribution to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) providing qualified elementary and secondary scholarships.

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to implement Code Sec. 25F, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Code Sec. 25F allows a credit for an individual taxpayer's qualified contribution to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) providing qualified elementary and secondary scholarships.

Tax Credit

Beginning January 1, 2027, individual taxpayers may claim a nonrefundable federal tax credit for cash contributions to SGOs. Taxpayers must be citizens or residents of the United States. The credit allowed to any taxpayer is limited to $1,700. The credit is reduced by the amount allowed as a credit on any state tax return. Additionally, to prevent a double benefit, no deduction is allowed under Code Sec. 170 for any amount taken into account as a qualified contribution for purposes of the Code Sec. 25F credit.

SGO Requirements

An organization can qualify as an SGO after satisfying conditions that include (1) being a Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organization that is exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) and not a private foundation; (2) maintaining one or more separate accounts exclusively for qualified contributions; (3) appearing on the list submitted for the applicable covered state under Code Sec. 25F(g); and (4) providing scholarships to 10 or more students who do not all attend the same school, as well as meeting certain other requirements.

Request for Comments

The forthcoming proposed regulations describe the certification process currently envisioned by the Treasury Department and the IRS for covered states to elect to participate under Code Sec. 25F . The IRS requests comments on these matters before December 26, 2025, through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal (indicate “IRS-2025-0466”). Paper submissions should be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:01:PR (Notice 2025-70), Room 5503, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

Notice 2025-70

IR-2025-115

The IRS has disclosed the first set of certifications for the qualifying advanced energy project credit under Code Sec. 48C(e).

The IRS has disclosed the first set of certifications for the qualifying advanced energy project credit under Code Sec. 48C(e) for the period beginning:

• March 29, 2024, through September 30, 2025, resulting from the Round 1 allocation; and
• January 10, 2025, through September 30, 2025, resulting from the Round 2 allocation.

The Service also disclosed the identities of taxpayers and amounts of the Code Sec. 48C credits allocated to said taxpayers.

Background

Notice 2023-18, I.R.B. 2023-10, established a program to allocate $10 billion of credits for qualified investments in eligible qualifying advanced energy projects under Code Sec. 48C(e)(1). Code Sec. 48C(e)(4)(A) provides a base credit rate of 6 percent of the qualified investment. In cases where projects satisfy Code Secs. 48C(e)(5)(A) and (6), the Service would provide an alternative rate of 30 percent of the qualified investment.

Certification

Each applicant for certification has two years from the date of acceptance of the Code Sec. 48C(e) application. During this time, the applicant needs to submit evidence that the requirements of the certification have been met. The IRS will publish additional notices annually for certifications issued during each successive 12-month period beginning on October 1, 2025 for both Round 1 and 2.

Announcement 2025-22

Announcement 2025-23

The IRS and Treasury Department have provided procedures for a state to elect to be a “covered state” to participate with the Code Sec. 25F credit program for calendar year 2027 prior to identifying any scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) in the state. Form 15714 is used by a state to make the advanced election.

The IRS and Treasury Department have provided procedures for a state to elect to be a “covered state” to participate with the Code Sec. 25F credit program for calendar year 2027 prior to identifying any scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) in the state. Form 15714 is used by a state to make the advanced election.

Background

For tax years beginning after 2026, a U.S. citizen or resident alien may claim a nonrefundable personal tax credit of up to $1,700 for qualified contributions made to a scholarship granting organization (SGO). A qualified contribution is a charitable contribution of cash to an SGO that uses the contribution to fund scholarship for eligible K-12 students.

In order for a contribution made by a taxpayer to an SGO in a state (or the District of Columbia) to be a qualified contribution eligible for the credit, the state must elect participate in the credit program and must identify by January 1 of each calendar year a list of qualified SGOs in the state.

Advanced Election for 2027

A state may make an advanced election using Form 15714 to be a covered state for the Code Sec. 25F credit for the 2027. The form may be submitted any time after December 31, 2026, and before the day before the final date on which the State is permitted to submit the State SGO list (as will be specified in future guidance).

The advance election will allow a state to inform potential SGOs of the state’s participation in the credit before submitting a full SGO limit to the IRS. Any SGO list submitted with Form 15714 will not be processed by the IRS and the state will need to resubmit the list as specified in future guidance. Once a state’s advance election has been made on Form 15714 for calendar year 2027, the only subsequent submission the IRS will accept is the official submission of the state’s SGO list for the calendar year.

Rev. Proc. 2026-6

IR 2025-121

The IRS has formally withdrawn two proposed regulations that would have clarified how married individuals may obtain relief from joint and several tax liability. The withdrawal affects taxpayers seeking protection under Code Sec. 6015 and relief from federal income tax obligations tied to State community property laws under Code Sec. 66.

The IRS has formally withdrawn two proposed regulations that would have clarified how married individuals may obtain relief from joint and several tax liability. The withdrawal affects taxpayers seeking protection under Code Sec. 6015 and relief from federal income tax obligations tied to State community property laws under Code Sec. 66.

The two notices of proposed rulemaking—originally issued on August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49242), and November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72649)—offered procedural guidance for requesting equitable, innocent spouse, or separation of liability relief. These proposals also reflected statutory amendments introduced by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 and evolving jurisprudence. The Treasury Department and the IRS decided to halt progress on these rules due to the passage of time, the scope of public comments, and resource prioritization.

While the agency acknowledged the regulatory need in this area, it cited the volume and breadth of feedback as grounds for reassessment. The IRS clarified that any future rules addressing these issues would require new proposals and another round of public comment, in line with current statutory frameworks and legal developments.

Importantly, this withdrawal does not prevent the issuance of new regulations on joint and several liability relief. Nor does it alter existing statutory or regulatory obligations in place under current law. The IRS retains authority under 26 U.S.C. 7805 to revisit and re-propose rules as necessary.

The withdrawal was announced by the IRS and Treasury on December 15, 2025, and was signed by Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Executive Officer. Tax professionals and affected individuals should continue to rely on existing law and procedures when seeking relief under Code Secs. 6015 and 66.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-132251-11; REG-134219-08

The American Institute of CPAs has voiced its opposition to the Internal Revenue Service’s proposal to combine the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Return Preparer Office

The American Institute of CPAs has voiced its opposition to the Internal Revenue Service’s proposal to combine the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Return Preparer Office.

“The AICPA has an extensive and resolute history of steadfastly supporting initiatives that would enhance compliance, elevate ethical conduct, and protect taxpayer confidence in our tax system,” the organization said in a November 14, 2025, letter to the directors of the two offices. “The proposed combination of OPR and RPO contravenes those principles.” A copy of this and other AICPA 2025 tax policy and advocacy comment letters can be found here.

AICPA said it “strongly opposes any efforts to combine OPR and RPO because it would inappropriately consolidate credentialed and uncredentialed return preparers under OPR, create potential conflicts of interest, and divert resources from the primary role of OPR.”

It added that the merger “would sow confusion among taxpayers trying to understand the differing qualifications and practice rights of preparers, which would harm taxpayers and erode taxpayer confidence in our tax system.”

AICPA noted that OPR “has the exclusive delegated authority to interpret and enforce the regulations in Treasury Department Circular 230 (Circular 230), which governs tax practitioners interacting with the tax administration system,” while RPO “administers the Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) program, manages the enrolled agent practitioner program, encourages enrollment in the Annual Filing Season Program (AFSP), and processes some complaints against return preparers.”

“These two offices perform dissimilar government functions, oversee different types of preparers, and, therefore, should remain separate to avoid potential conflicts of interest,” AICPA said in the letter.

AICPA argued that the combination would divert resources away from the primary role of OPR and could undermine the credibility of OPR’s enforcement objective.

“Under a combined OPR unit, unscrupulous and incompetent preparers could readily misrepresent that they are subject to ethical obligations overseen by the ‘Office of Professional Responsibility,’ which would give such preparers a foothold to abuse taxpayers and undermine public trust and accountability in the tax profession,” AICPA stated in the letter.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.