Dreyer, Ooms & Van Drunen, Ltd.

The IRS has announced penalty relief for the 2025 tax year relating to new information reporting obligations introduced under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The relief applies to penalties imposed under Code Secs. 6721 and 6722 for failing to file or furnish complete and correct information returns and payee statements.

The OBBBA introduced new deductions for qualified tips and qualified overtime compensation, applicable to tax years beginning after December 31, 2024. These provisions require employers and payors to separately report amounts designated as cash tips or overtime, and in some cases, the occupation of the recipient. However, recognizing that employers and payors may not yet have adequate systems, forms, or procedures to comply with the new rules, the IRS has designated 2025 as a transition period.

For 2025, the Service will not impose penalties if payors or employers fail to separately report these new data points, provided all other information on the return or payee statement is complete and accurate. This relief applies to information returns filed under Code Sec. 6041 and to Forms W-2 furnished to employees under Code Sec. 6051. The IRS emphasized that this transition relief is limited to the 2025 tax year only and that full compliance will be required beginning in 2026 when revised forms and updated electronic reporting systems are available.

Although not mandatory, the IRS encourages employers to voluntarily provide separate statements or digital records showing total tips, overtime pay, and occupation codes to help employees determine eligibility for new deductions under the OBBBA. Employers may use online portals, additional written statements, or Form W-2 box 14 for this purpose.

Notice 2025-62

IR-2025-110

Close

The 2026 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2026 because the increase in the cost-of-living index met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.

The SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328) made some retirement-related amounts adjustable for inflation. These amounts, as adjusted for 2026, include:

The catch-up contribution amount for IRA owners who are 50 or older is increased from $1,000 to $1,100.
The amount of qualified charitable distributions from IRAs that are not includible in gross income is increased from $108,000 to $111,000.
The limit on one-time qualified charitable distributions made directly to a split-interest entity is increased from $54,000 to $55,000.
The dollar limit on premiums paid for a qualifying longevity annuity contract (QLAC) remains $210,000.

Highlights of Changes for 2026

The contribution limit has increased from $23,500 to $24,500 for employees who take part in:

401 (k)
403 (b)
most 457 plans, and
the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan

The annual limit on contributions to an IRA increased from $7,000 to $7,500.

The catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over for employer retirement plans (such as 401(k), 403(b), and most 457 plans) has increased from $7,500 to $8,000.

The income ranges increased for determining eligibility to make deductible contributions to:

IRAs,
Roth IRAs, and
to claim the Saver’s Credit.

Phase-Out Ranges

Taxpayers can deduct contributions to a traditional IRA if they meet certain conditions. The deduction phases out if the taxpayer or their spouse takes part in a retirement plan at work. The phase-out depends on the taxpayer’s filing status and income.

For single taxpayers covered by a workplace retirement plan, the phase-out range is $81,000 to $91,000, up from $79,000 to $89,000.
For joint filers, when the spouse making the contribution takes part in a workplace retirement plan, the phase-out range is $129,000 to $149,000, up from $126,000 to $146,000.
For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan but their spouse is, the phase-out range is $242,000 to $252,000, up from $236,000 to $246,000.
For a married individual filing separately who is covered by a workplace plan, the phase-out range remains $0 to $10,000.

The phase-out ranges for Roth IRA contributions are:

$153,000 to $168,000 for singles and heads of household,
$242,000 to $252,000 for joint filers,
$0 to $10,000 for married separate filers.

Finally, the income limits for the Saver’s Credit are:

$80,500 for joint filers,
$60,375 for heads of household,
$40,250 for singles and married separate filers.

Notice 2025-67

IR-2025-111

Close

The IRS released interim guidance and announced its intent to publish proposed regulations regarding the exclusion of interest on loans secured by rural or agricultural real property under Code Sec. 139L. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance in section 3 of the notice for loans made after July 4, 2025, and on or before the date that is 30 days after the publication of the forthcoming proposed regulations.

Partial Exclusion of Interest

Code Sec 139L, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), provides for a partial exclusion of interest for certain loans secured by rural or agricultural real property. The amount excluded is 25 percent of the interest received by a qualified lender on a qualified real estate loan. A qualified lender will include 75 percent of the interest received on a qualified real estate loan in gross income. A qualified lender is not required to be the original holder of the loan on the issue date of the loan in order to exclude the interest under Code Sec 139L.

Qualified Real Estate Loan

A qualified real estate loan is secured by qualified rural or agricultural property only if, at the time that the interest accrues, the qualified lender holds a valid and enforceable security interest with respect to the property under applicable law. Subject to a safe harbor provision, the amount of a loan that is a qualified real estate loan is limited to the fair market value of the qualified rural or agricultural property securing the loan, as of the issue date of the loan. If the amount of the loan is greater than the fair market value of the property securing the loan, determined as of the issue date of the loan, only the portion of the loan that does not exceed the fair market value is a qualified real estate loan.

The safe harbor allows a qualified lender to treat a loan as fully secured by qualified rural or agricultural property if the qualified lender holds a valid and enforceable security interest with respect to the qualified rural or agricultural property under applicable law and the fair market value of the property security the loan is at least 80 percent of the issue price of the loan on the issue date.

Fair market value can be determined using any commercially reasonable valuation method. Subject to certain limitations, the fair market value of any personal property used in the course of the activities conducted on the qualified rural or agricultural property (such as farm equipment or livestock) can be added to the fair market value of the rural or agricultural real estate. The addition to fair market value may be made if a qualified lender holds a valid and enforceable security interest with respect to such personal property under applicable law and the relevant loan must be secured to a substantial extent by rural or agricultural real estate.

Use of the Property

The presence of a residence on qualified rural or agricultural property or intermittent periods of nonuse for reasons described in Code Sec. 139L(c)(3) does not prevent the property from being qualified rural or agricultural property so long as the the property satisfies the substantial use requirement.

Request for Comments

The Treasury Department and the IRS are seeking comments on the notice in general and on the following specific issues:

The extent to which the forthcoming proposed regulations address the meaning of certain terms;
The extent to which the forthcoming proposed regulations address whether property is substantially used for the production of one or more agricultural products or in the trade or business of fishing or seafood processing;
The extent to which the forthcoming proposed regulations address how the substantial use requirement applies to properties with mixed uses;
The manner in which the forthcoming proposed regulations address changes involving qualified rural or agricultural property following the issuance of a qualified real estate loan;
The manner in which the forthcoming proposed regulations address how a qualified lender determines whether the loan remains secured by qualified rural or agricultural property;
The extent to which the forthcoming proposed regulations address how Code Sec. 139L applies in securitization structures; and
The extent to which the forthcoming proposed regulations address Code Sec. 139L(d), regarding the application of Code Sec. 265 to any qualified real estate loan.

Written comments should be submitted, either electronically or by mail, by January 20, 2026.

Notice 2025-71

IR-2025-113

Close

The IRShas provided a safe harbor for trusts that otherwise qualify as investment trusts under Reg. §301.7701-4(c) and as grantor trusts to stake their digital assets without jeopardizing their tax status as investment trusts and grantor trusts. The Service also provided a limited time period for an existing trust to amend its governing instrument (trust agreement) to adopt the requirements of the safe harbor.

Background

Under “custodial staking,” a third party (custodian) takes custody of an owner’s digital assets and facilitates the staking of such digital assets on behalf of the owner. The arrangement between the custodian and the staking provider generally provides that an agreed-on portion of the staking rewards are allocated to the owner of the digital assets.

Business or commercial trusts are created by beneficiaries simply as a device to carry on a profit-making business that normally would have been carried on through a business organization classified as a corporation or partnership. An investment trust with a single class of ownership interests, representing undivided beneficial interests in the assets of the trust, is classified as a trust if there is no power under the trust agreement to vary the investments of the certificate holders.

Trust Arrangement

The revenue procedure applies to an arrangement formed as a trust that (i) would be treated as an investment trust, and as a grantor trust, if the trust agreement did not authorize staking and the trust’s digital assets were not staked, and (ii) with respect to a trust in existence before the date on which the trust agreement first authorizes staking and related activities in a manner that satisfies certain listed requirements, qualified as an investment trust, and as a grantor trust, immediately before that date. If the listed requirements (described below) are met, a trust's authorization in the trust agreement to stake its digital assets and the resulting staking of the trust's digital assets will, under the safe harbor, not prevent the trust from qualifying as an investment trust and as a grantor turst.

Requirements for Trust

The requirements for the safe harbor to apply are as follows:

Interests in the trust must be traded on a national securities exchange and must comply with the SEC’s regulations and rules on staking activities.
The trust must own only cash and units of a single type of digital asset under Code Sec. 6045(g)(3)(D).
Transactions for the cash and units of digital asset must be carried out on a permissionless network that uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism to validate transactions.
Trust’s digital assets must be held by a custodian acting on behalf of the trust at digital asset addresses controlled by the custodian.
Only the custodian can effect a sale, transfer, or exercise the rights of ownership over said digital assets, including while those assets are staked.
Staking of the trust's digital assets must protect and conserve trust property and mitigate the risk that another party could control a majority of the assets of that type and engage in transactions reducing the value of the trust’s digital assets.
The trust’s activities relating to digital assets must be limited to (1) accepting deposits of the digital assets or cash in exchange for newly issued interests in the trust; (2) holding the digital assets and cash; (3) paying trust expenses and selling digital assets to pay trust expenses or redeem trust interests; (4) purchasing additional digital assets with cash contributed to the trust; (5) distributing digital assets or cash in redemption of trust interests; (6) selling digital assets for cash in connection with the trust's liquidation; and (7) directing the staking of the digital assets in a way that is consistent with national securities exchange requirements.
The trust must direct the staking of its digital assets through custodians who facilitate the staking on the trust's behalf with one or more staking providers.
The trust or its custodian must have no legal right to participate in or direct the activities of the staking provider.
The trust's digital assets must generally be available to the staking provider to be staked.
The trust's liquidity risk policies must be based solely on factors relating to national securities exchange requirements regarding redemption requests.
The trust's digital assets must be indemnified from slashing due to the activities of staking providers.
The only new assets the trust can receive as a result of staking are additional units of the single type of digital asset the trust holds.

Amendment to Trust

A trust may amend its trust agreement to authorize staking at any time during the nine-month period beginning on November 10, 2025. Such an amendment will not prevent a trust from being treated as a trust that qualifies as an investment trust under Reg. §301.7701-4(c) or as a grantor trust if the aforementioned requirements were satisfied.

Effective Date

This guidance is effective for tax years ending on or after November 10, 2025.

Rev. Proc. 2025-31

Close

WASHINGTON – National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins told attendees at a recent conference that she wants to see the Taxpayer Advocate Service improve its communications with taxpayers and tax professionals.

“What I would like to do is improve our responsiveness and communication with fill-in-the-blank, whether it be taxpayer or practitioner, because I think that is huge,” Collins told attendees November 18, 2025, at the American Institute of CPA’s National Tax Conference.

“I think a lot of my folks are working really hard to fix things, but they’re not necessarily communicating as fast and often as they should,” she continued. “So, I would like to see by year-end we’re in a position that that is a routine and not the exception.”

In tandem with that, Collins also told attendees she would like to see the IRS be quicker in terms of how it fixes issues. She pointed to the example of first-time abatement, something she called an “an amazing administrative relief for taxpayers” but one that is only available to those who know to ask for it.

She estimated that there are about one million taxpayers every year that are eligible to receive it and among those, most are lower income taxpayers.

The IRS, Collins noted, agreed a couple of years ago that this was a problem. “The challenge they had was how do they implement it through their systems?”

Collins was happy to report that those who qualify for first-time abatement will automatically be notified starting with the coming tax filing season, although she did not have any insight as to how the process would be implemented.

Patience

Collins also asked for patience from the taxpayer community in the wake of the recently-ended government shutdown, which has increased the TAS workload as TAS employees were not deemed essential and were furloughed during the shutdown.

She noted that TAS historically receives about 5,000 new cases a week and the shutdown meant the rank-and-file at TAS were not working. She said that the service did work to get some cases closed that didn’t require employee help.

“So, any of you who are coming in or have cases, please be patient,” Collins said. “Our guys are doing the best they can, but they do have, unfortunately, a backlog now coming in.”

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The IRS and Treasury have issued final regulations that implement the excise tax on stock repurchases by publicly traded corporations under Code Sec. 4501, introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Proposed regulations on the computation of the tax were previously issued on April 12, 2024 (NPRM REG-115710-22) and final regulations covering the procedural aspects of the tax were issued on July 3, 2024 (T.D. 10002). Following public comments and hearings, the proposed computation regulations were modified and are now issued as final, along with additional changes to the final procedural regulations. The rules apply to repurchases made after December 31, 2022.

Overview of Code Sec. 4501

Code Sec. 4501 imposes a one percent excise tax on the fair market value of any stock repurchased by a “covered corporation”—defined as any domestic corporation whose stock is traded on an established securities market. The statute also covers acquisitions by “specified affiliates,” including majority-owned subsidiaries and partnerships. A “repurchase” includes redemptions under Code Sec. 317(b) and any transaction the Secretary determines to be economically similar. The amount subject to tax is reduced under a netting rule for stock issued by the corporation during the same tax year.

Scope and Definitions

The final regulations clarify the definition of stock, covering both common and preferred stock, with several exclusions. They exclude:

Additional tier 1 capital not qualifying as common equity tier 1,
Preferred stock under Code Sec. 1504(a)(4),
Mandatorily redeemable stock or stock with enforceable put rights if issued prior to August 16, 2022,
Certain instruments issued by Farm Credit System entities and savings and loan holding companies.

The IRS rejected requests to exclude all preferred stock or foreign regulatory capital instruments, limiting exceptions to U.S.-regulated issuers only.

Exempt Transactions and Carveouts

Several categories of transactions are excluded from the excise tax base. These include:

Repurchases in connection with complete liquidations (under Code Secs. 331 and 332),
Acquisitive reorganizations and mergers where the corporation ceases to be a covered corporation,
Certain E and F reorganizations where no gain or loss is recognized and only qualifying property is exchanged,
Split-offs under Code Sec. 355 are included unless the exchange is treated as a dividend,
Reorganizations are excluded if shareholders receive only qualifying property under Code Sec. 354 or 355.

The IRS adopted a consideration-based test to determine whether the reorganization exception applies, disregarding whether shareholders actually recognized gain.

Application to Take-Private Transactions and M&A

The final rules clarify that leveraged buyouts, take-private deals, and restructurings that result in loss of public listing status are not considered repurchases for tax purposes. This reverses prior treatment under proposed rules, aligning with policy concerns that such deals are not akin to value-distribution schemes.

Similarly, cash-funded acquisitions and upstream mergers into parent companies are excluded where the repurchase is part of a broader ownership change plan.

Netting Rule and Timing Considerations

Under the netting rule, the amount subject to tax is reduced by the value of new stock issued during the tax year. This includes equity compensation to employees, even if unrelated to a repurchase program. The rule does not apply where a corporation is no longer a covered corporation at the time of issuance.

Stock is treated as repurchased on the trade date, and issuances are counted on the date the rights to stock are transferred. The IRS clarified that netting applies only to stock of the covered corporation and not to instruments issued by affiliates.

Foreign Corporations and Surrogates

The excise tax also applies to certain acquisitions by specified affiliates of:

Applicable foreign corporations, i.e., foreign entities with publicly traded stock,
Covered surrogate foreign corporations, as defined under Code Sec. 7874.

Where such affiliates acquire stock from third parties, the tax is applied as if the affiliate were a covered corporation, but limited only to shares issued by the affiliate to its own employees. These provisions prevent U.S.-parented multinational groups from circumventing the tax through offshore affiliates.

Exceptions Under Code Sec. 4501(e)

The six statutory exceptions remain intact:

Reorganizations with no gain/loss under Code Sec. 368(a);
Contributions to employer-sponsored retirement or ESOP plans;
De minimis repurchases under $1 million per tax year;
Dealer transactions in the ordinary course of business;
Repurchases by RICs and REITs;
Repurchases treated as dividends under the Code.

The IRS expanded the RIC/REIT exception to cover certain non-RIC mutual funds regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 if structured as open-end or interval funds.

Reporting and Administrative Requirements

Taxpayers must report repurchases on Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return. Recordkeeping, filing, and payment obligations are governed by Part 58, Subpart B of the regulations. The procedural rules also address:

Applicable filing deadlines;
Corrections for adjustments and refunds;
Return preparer obligations under Code Secs. 6694 and 6695.

These provisions codify prior guidance issued in Notice 2023-2 and reflect technical feedback from tax professionals and stakeholders.

Applicability Dates

The final rules apply to:

Stock repurchases occurring after December 31, 2022;
Stock issuances during tax years ending after December 31, 2022;
Procedural compliance starting with returns due after publication in the Federal Register.

Corporations may rely on Notice 2023-2 for transactions before April 12, 2024, and either the proposed or final regulations thereafter, provided consistency is maintained.

Takeaways

The final regulations narrow the excise tax’s reach to align with Congressional intent: discouraging opportunistic buybacks that return capital to shareholders outside traditional dividend mechanisms. By excluding structurally transformative M&A transactions, debt-like preferred stock, and regulated financial instruments, the IRS attempts to strike a balance between tax enforcement and market practice.

T.D. 10037

Close

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

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

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

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

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

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

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

Qualified Business Income

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

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

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

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

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

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

De Minimis Exception

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

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

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

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

Close

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

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

Crack & Pack

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

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

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

Winners & Losers

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

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

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

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

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

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

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

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

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

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

Tax Reform 2.0

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

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

Key Takeways

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

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

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

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

Close

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.

Close

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

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

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

Trade or Business

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

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

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

Specified Service Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wages/Capital Limit

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

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

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

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

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

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

Effective Dates

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

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

Comments Requested

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

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

Close

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.

Close