The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

Distributions for Emergency Personal Expenses

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(I) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for a distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for emergency personal expenses. The term "emergency personal expense distribution" means any distribution made from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for purposes of meeting unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to necessary personal or family emergency expenses. The IRS specifically noted that emergency expenses could be related to: medical care; accident or loss of property due to casualty; imminent foreclosure or eviction from a primary residence; the need to pay for burial or funeral expenses; auto repairs; or any other necessary emergency personal expenses.

The IRS provides that a plan administrator or IRA custodian may rely on a written certification from the employee or IRA owner that they are eligible for an emergency personal expense distribution. Furthermore, the IRS provides that an emergency personal expense distribution is not treated as a rollover distribution and thus is not subject to mandatory 20% withholding. However, the distribution is subject to withholding, the IRS said. If the emergency personal expense distribution is repaid, it is treated as if the individual received the distribution and transferred it to an eligible retirement plan within 60 days of distribution.

If an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer emergency personal expense distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is an emergency personal expense distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Distributions to Domestic Abuse Victims

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(K) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for an eligible distribution to a domestic abuse victim (domestic abuse victim distribution). The guidance defines a"domesticabusevictimdistribution" as any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to a domestic abuse victim if made during the 1-year period beginning on any date on which the individual is a victim of domestic abuse by a spouse or domestic partner. "Domesticabuse" is defined as physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, or intimidate the victim, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently, including by means of abuse of the victim’s child or another family member living in the household.

As with distributions for emergency personal expenses, a retirement plan may rely on an employee’s written certification that they qualify for a domestic abuse victim distribution. Similarly, if an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer domestic abuse victim distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is a domestic abuse victim distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Request for Comments

The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the guidance, and specifically on whether the Secretary should adopt regulations providing exceptions to the rule that a plan administrator may rely on an employee’s certification relating to emergency personal expense distributions and procedures to address cases of employee misrepresentation. Comments should be submitted in writing on or before October 7, 2024, and should include a reference to Notice 2024-55.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

Specifically targeted by this new tax compliance effort are partnership basis shifting transactions. In these transactions, a single business that operates through many different legal entities (related parties) enters into a set of transactions that manipulate partnership tax rules to maximize tax deductions and minimize tax liability. These basis shifting transactions allow closely related parties to avoid taxes.

The use of these abusive transactions grew during a period of severe underfunding for the IRS. As such, the audit rates for these increasingly complex structures fell significantly. It is estimated that these abusive transactions, which cut across a wide variety of industries and individuals, could potentially cost taxpayers more than $50 billion over a 10-year period, according to an IRS News Release.

"Using Inflation Reduction Act funding, we are working to reverse more than a decade of declining audits among the highest income taxpayers, as well as complex partnerships and corporations," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said during a press call discussing the new effort on June 14, 2024.

"This announcement signals the IRS is accelerating our work in the partnership arena, which has been overlooked for more than a decade and allowed tax abuse to go on for far too long," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. "We are building teams and adding expertise inside the agency so we can reverse long-term compliance declines that have allowed high-income taxpayers and corporations to hide behind complexity to avoid paying taxes. Billions are at stake here".

This multi-stage regulatory effort announced by the Treasury and IRS includes the following guidance designed to stop the use of basis shifting transactions that use related-party partnerships to avoid taxes:

• proposed regulations under existing regulatory authority to stop related parties in complex partnership structures from shifting the tax basis of their assets amongst each other to take abusive deductions or reduce gains when the asset is sold;

• proposed regulation to require taxpayers and their material advisers to report if they and their clients are participating in abusive partnership basis shifting transactions; and

• a Revenue Rulingproviding that certain related-party partnership transactions involving basis shifting lack economic substance.

"Treasury and the IRS are focused on addressing high-end tax abuse from all angles, and the proposed rules released today will increase tax fairness and reduce the deficit," said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen.

In the June 14, 2024, press call, Commissioner Danny Werfel also noted that there will be an increase in audits of large partnerships with average assets over $10 billion dollars and larger organizational changes taking place to support compliance efforts, including the creation of a new associate office that will focus exclusively on partnerships, S corporations, trusts, and estates.

By Catherine S. Agdeppa, Content Management Analyst

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

The concept was promoted by multiple witnesses testifying during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the subject of child savings accounts and other tax advantaged accounts that would benefit children. It also is the subject of a recently released report from The Tax Foundation.

Rather than push new limited-use savings accounts, "policymakers may want to consider enacting a more comprehensive savings program such as a universalsavingsaccount," Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at George Mason University, testified before the committee during the May 21, 2024, hearing. "Universalsavingsaccounts will allow workers to save in one simple account from which they would withdraw without penalty for any expected or unexpected events throughout their lifetime."

She noted that, like other more focused savings accounts, like health savings accounts, it would have "the benefit of sheltering some income from the punishing double taxation that our code imposes."

De Rugy added that universal savings accounts "have a benefit that they do not discourage savings for those who are concerned that the conditions for withdrawals would stop them from addressing an emergency in their family."

Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, who also promoted the idea of universal savings accounts. He said these accounts "would allow families to save for their kids or any of life’s other priorities. The flexibility of these accounts make them best suited for lower and middle income Americans."

He also noted that they are promoting savings in countries that have implemented them, including Canada and United Kingdom.

"For example, almost 60 percent of Canadians own tax-free savingsaccounts," Michel said. "And more than half of those account holders earned the equivalent of about $37,000 a year. These accounts have helped increase savings and support the rest of the Canadian savings ecosystem."

De Rugy noted that in countries that have implemented it, they function like a Roth account in that money that has already been taxed can be put into it and not penalized or taxed upon withdrawal.

Michel also noted that the if the tax benefits extend to corporations as they do with deposits to employee health savings accounts, "to the extent that you lower the corporate income tax, you’re going to encourage a different additional investment into savings by those entities."

Simulating The Universal Savings Account Impact

The Tax Foundation in its report simulated how a universal savings account could work, based on how they are implemented in Canada. The simulation assumed the accounts could go active in 2025 for adults aged 18 years or older.

On a post-tax basis, individuals would be allowed to contribute up to $9,100 on a post-tax basis annually, with that cap indexed for inflation. Any unused "contribution room" would be allowed to be carried forward. Earnings would be allowed to grow tax-free and withdrawals would be allowed for any purpose without penalty or further taxation. Any withdrawal would be added back to that year’s contribution room and that would be eligible for carryover as well.

"The fiscal cost of this USA policy would be offset by ending the tax advantage of contributions to HSAs beginning in 2025," the report states. "As such, future contributions to HSAs would be given normal tax treatment, i.e. included in taxable income and subject to payroll tax with subsequent returns on contributions also included in taxable income."

In this scenario, the Tax Foundation report estimates that "this policy change would on net raise tax revenue by about $110 billion over the 10-year budget window."

As for the impact on taxpayers, the "after-tax income would fall by about 0.1 percent in 2025 and by a smaller amount in 2034, reflecting the net tax increase in those years," the report states. "Over the long run, and accounting for economic impacts, taxpayers across every quintile would see a small increase in after-tax income on average, but the top 5 percent of earners would continue to see a small decrease in after-tax income on average."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

In a report issued June 5, 2024, the federal government watchdog noted that while the agency uses AI to improve the efficiency and selection of audit cases to help identify noncompliance, "IRS has not completed its documentation of several elements of its AI sample selection models, such as key components and technical specifications."

GAO noted that the IRS began using AI in a pilot in tax year 2019 for sampling tax returns for NRP audits. The current plan is to use AI to create a sample size of 4,000 returns to measure compliance and help inform tax gap estimates, although GAO expressed concerns about the accuracy of the estimates with that sample size.

"For example, NRP historically included more than 2,500 returns that claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, but the redesigned sample has included less than 500 of these returns annually," the report stated.

IRS told GAO that it "is exploring ways to combine operational audit data with NRP audit data when developing its taxgapestimates. IRS officials also told us that if IRS can reliably combine these data for taxgap analysis, IRS might be better positioned to identify emerging trends in noncompliance and reduce the uncertainty of the estimates due to the small sample size."

The report also highlighted the fact that the agency "has multiple documents that collectively provide technical details and justifications for the design of the AI models. However, no set of documents contains complete information and IRS analyst could use to run or update the models, and several key documents are in draft form."

"Completing documentation would help IRS retain organizational knowledge, ensure the models are implemented consistently, and make the process more transparent to future users," the report stated.

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.