Newsletters

The Senate has approved a bipartisan IRS reform bill, which now heads to President Trump’s desk. Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.

The Senate has approved a bipartisan IRS reform bill, which now heads to President Trump’s desk. Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.

The reworked Taxpayer First Act ( HR 3151) cleared the Senate on the evening of June 13. The revamped measure had been approved unanimously in the House on June 10.

"After years of good-faith, bipartisan work, our IRS reforms are finally going to become law," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., and ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a joint statement. "In this historic legislation, we focused on putting taxpayers first."

Likewise, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, praised the passage of the bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. "It’s a big first step toward strengthening taxpayer protections and turning the IRS into the customer service organization it ought to be," Grassley said in a statement. "I look forward to President Trump signing it into law so the IRS can begin implementing long overdue reforms that will put taxpayers first," he added.

Reworked Bill

The reworked IRS reform bill, originally introduced in the last Congress, was revised earlier in June after the House passed a prior version in April. However, the original House-approved Taxpayer First bill (HR 1957) was deemed doomed in the Senate by May because of recent controversy surrounding the IRS’s Free File program. Thus, the provision codifying the Free File program was stripped from the original bill; the measure was reintroduced as HR 3151. It then quickly cleared each chamber.

Service Improvements

Generally, the Taxpayer First Act aims to reform the IRS for the first time in 20 years to better meet the needs of taxpayers. It requires the IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy, as well as a plan to redesign its structure, modernize its technology, and enhance its cyber security. In addition, the new law will:

• waive the application fee for an offer in compromise (OIC) by a low-income taxpayer;

• clarify information available about low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs);

• codify the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program;

• require notice regarding the closure of taxpayer assistance centers (TACs);

• improve the IRS whistleblower program; and

• modify the private debt collection program.

Identity Protection

The legislation includes a number of provisions to help protect taxpayers from tax ID theft and improve taxpayer interaction with the IRS should they become a victim. For example, the IRS must provide a single point of contact for victims of identity theft, notification of suspected identity theft, and guidelines for stolen identity refund fraud cases.

The IRS is required to expand its current program that allows victims of tax ID theft to obtain a personalized PIN. Any individual must be allowed to request an identity protection personal identification number (IP PIN) to confirm a taxpayer’s identity on tax returns.

Electronic Filing

The IRS reform bill directly impacts taxpayers and other persons by reducing the threshold for filing electronically from 250 or more returns during the year. The threshold is 100 or more returns for 2021, and 10 or more return after 2021. The IRS can waive the e-file requirement for tax return preparers in areas with limited internet access.

E-filing requirements are also extended to all tax-exempt organizations that file returns or statements, regardless of amount of assets, gross receipts, or number of returns to be filed. In addition, the IRS is directed to develop an internet portal to allow taxpayers to file series Form 1099, similar to the portal used to file series Form W-2 with the Social Security Administration.

Other Electronic Services

To help increase the use of electronic services, the IRS must publish within six months uniform standards for accepting electronic signatures on requests for disclosure of taxpayer information (Forms 2848, 4506-T, and 8821). It must also limit the redisclosure of return information by a designee to only those expressly consented to by the taxpayer.

The new law increases the penalty for improper disclosure or use of information by return preparers. It also puts new limits on access to returns and return information by non-IRS employees.

Overall, the IRS must develop procedures to authenticate users of its suite of electronic services, to prevent tax refund fraud. Included in these services, the IRS must develop an automated version of its Income Verification Express Service (IVES) for third-parties.

Planning Note: The legislation also allows the IRS to accept credit and debit card payments for the payment of taxes directly, as opposed to through a third party. In addition, the IRS must establish procedures for taxpayers to report misdirected deposits of refunds.

Other Changes

Additional changes made by the Taxpayer First Act include:

• clarifying procedures for equitable relief from joint liability;

• establish new safeguards on the seizure of funds believed to be structured to avoid the $10,000 financial reporting requirement; and

• modify procedures for the issuance of summons and notice of third party contacts by the IRS.

To help pay for these changes, the minimum penalty for failure to file returns is increased after 2019 to the lesser of $330 (indexed for inflation) or 100 percent of the amount required to be shown on the return.

Taxpayers may rely on two new pieces of IRS guidance for applying the Code Sec. 199A deduction to cooperatives and their patrons:

Taxpayers may rely on two new pieces of IRS guidance for applying the Code Sec. 199A deduction to cooperatives and their patrons:

• Proposed regulations provide detailed rules for coop patrons and specified cooperatives to calculate the deduction.

• A proposed revenue procedure provides three methods for specified cooperatives to calculate W-2 wages.

199A Deduction for Cooperatives and Patrons

The 199A deduction, also known as the pass-through deduction or the QBI deduction, generally allows individuals, estates and trusts to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships and pass-through entities. Since most coops are C corporations, they cannot claim the deduction. However, their members may receive patronage dividends that are included in QBI.

Despite these general rules, certain agricultural or horticultural coops, known as "specified cooperatives," can claim their own version of the a deduction under Code Sec. 199A(g). A specified coop can also pass through any portion of this deduction by making qualified payments to its patrons. The patrons must reduce their own QBI accordingly.

For specified coops, the 199A(g) deduction retains many of the rules that governed the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction before it was repealed at the end of 2017. For example, the 199A(g) deduction is based on the specified coop’s domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) and qualified production activities income (QPAI), rather than its QBI.

Sec. 199A Deduction for Coop Patrons in General

Under the proposed regulations, any coop patron’s QBI may include patronage dividends and an exempt coop’s non-patronage dividends that:

• are related to the patron’s trade or business,

• are qualified items of income, gain, deduction or loss at the coop level,

• are not from a specified service trade or business (SSTB), and

• are properly reported to the patron.

The proposed regulations provide detailed rules for how coops must report the required information to their patrons. However, the coop does not report any W-2 wages or unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The W-2/UBIA limit that can reduce QBI for higher-income taxpayers is calculated only at the patron level.

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction for Specified Cooperatives

Code Sec. 199A(g) allows specified coops to claim a 199A deduction and pass through any portion of it by making qualified payments to its members. However, as mentioned above, a specified coop’s deduction is largely based on the pre-2018 domestic production activities deduction (DPAD). This means that the 199A(g) deduction for specified coops is effectively separate from the general Code Sec. 199A(a) deduction for other taxpayers.

Since specified coop patrons might be able to claim both the general 199A(a) deduction and the passed-through portion of the coop’s 199A(a) deduction, they must reduce their 199A(a)deduction by nine percent of QBI (or if less, 50 percent of W-2 wages) that is allocable to the qualified payments from the specified coop.

The proposed regulations offer a safe harbor that patrons can use to calculate this reduction. The patron allocates aggregate business expenses and W-2 wages between qualified payments and other gross receipts by ratably apportioning them based on the ratio of qualified payments to total gross receipts in QBI.

The proposed regulations also define several terms that are relevant to the 199A(g) deduction for specified coops, including:

• Patron,

• Specified cooperative,

• Agricultural or horticultural products (though the IRS is also considering broader definitions), and

• In whole or significant part.

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction and DPAD

The proposed regulations also provide four steps to determine the amount of a specified coop’s 199A(g) deduction. A specified coop that is not tax-exempt must:

• separate patronage and non-patronage gross receipts and related deductions;

• identify patronage gross receipts that qualify as DPGR,

• use the patronage DPGR from step (3) to calculate QPAI, and

• calculate the 199A(g) deduction, which is generally nine percent of the lesser of QPAI from step (4), or taxable income

These last three steps are virtually identical to the pre-2018 DPAD rules.

A tax-exempt specified coop calculates two separate 199A(g) deductions: one based on gross receipts and related deductions from patronage sources, and one based on those items from non-patronage sources.

The proposed regulations also apply DPAD-types rules to:

• determine the coop’s DPGR,

• reduce a specified coop’s 199A(g) deduction to reflect oil-related QPAI, and

• pass through the deduction to patrons.

In addition, the proposed regulations provide special rules for partnerships and expanded affiliated groups (EAGs).

Specified Coops and W-2 Wages

Although the proposed regulations treat the 199A(g) deduction as largely independent from the general 199A(a) deduction, both deductions generally use the same rules for W-2 wages. However, under the proposed regulations, W-2 wages for the 199A(g) deduction cannot include wages paid with respect to employment in Puerto Rico.

As mentioned above, a wages/UBIA limit may reduce the 199A deduction for higher-income taxpayers. A proposed revenue procedure provides three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of the 199A(g) deduction:

• unmodified Box method

• modified Box 1 method

• tracking wages method.

These methods are largely identical to the methods provided in Rev. Proc. 2019-11, but are intended to better reflect changes that may be made in the underlying Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

Effective Dates for 199A Proposed Regulations and Revenue Procedure

The regulations are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after the date they are published as final. However, taxpayers may apply them in their entirely before that date.

The notice of the proposed revenue procedure is effective on June 18, 2019. Specified cooperatives may rely on the proposed procedure before it is published in its final form.

IRS Invites Comments on Proposed Rules for Sec. 199A

The IRS requests comments on the proposed regulations and the proposed revenue procedure. In particular, the IRS invites comments on the following elements:

• A coop’s reporting of W-2 wages and UBIA,

• The safe harbor for coop patrons,

• Definitions,

• A specified coop’s separation of patronage and non-patronage income,

• DPGR treatment of minor assembly and contract work, and

• W-2 wages and Puerto Rico.

Comments are due by August 19, 2019. They may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Comments on the proposed regs should reference "IRS REG-118425-18" and comments on the proposed revenue procedure should reference "Notice 2019-27".

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments have adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes. Regardless of state and local law, however, federal law controls when determining charitable deductions for federal income tax purposes.

Return Benefit

The final regulations generally adopt the rule in proposal regulations ( NPRM REG-112176-18) that the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). If a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to Code Sec. 170(c) entity, he or she must reduce any charitable contribution deduction for federal income tax purposes if he or she receives or expects to receive a SALT credit in return. A taxpayer is generally is not required to reduce the charitable deduction on account of its receipt of state or local tax deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce its charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive state or local tax deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

De Minimis Exception

The final regulations retain the de minimis exception that a taxpayer’s charitable deduction is not reduced if the SALT credits received as a return benefit do not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment. The 15-percent exception applies only if the sum of the taxpayer SALT credit received or excepted to receive does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s payment or of the fair market value of the property transferred.

Safe Harbor

The IRS has also issued Notice 2019-12 providing a safe harbor for certain individuals if any portion of a charitable contribution deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Under the safe harbor, any disallowed portion of the charitable deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164.

Eligible taxpayers can use the safe harbor to determine their SALT deduction on their tax-year 2018 return. Those who have already filed may be able to claim a greater SALT deduction by filing an amended return if they have not already claimed the $10,000 maximum amount ($5,000 if married filing separately).

Final regulations address the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provisions of Code Sec. 951A. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations published on October 10, 2018. The final regulations address open questions and comments received on the proposed regulations.

Final regulations address the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provisions of Code Sec. 951A. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations published on October 10, 2018. The final regulations address open questions and comments received on the proposed regulations.

Final regulations on the foreign tax credit also adopt proposed regulations published December 7, 2018. These rules were issued to ensure that the applicability dates coincide with the applicability dates of the Code sections to which they relate. The final foreign tax credit regulations also retain the basic structure and approach of the proposed regulations.

Also, a number of provisions were substantially revised.

Domestic Partnerships

The final regulations treat a domestic partnership as an entity for purposes of determining whether a U.S. person is a U.S. shareholder and whether a foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation (CFC). But the final rules treat a domestic partnership as an aggregate for purposes of determining whether and to what extent a partner of a domestic partnership has a GILTI inclusion.

Transfers During Qualified Period

The final regulations allow taxpayers to make an election that eliminates disqualified basis in property, by reducing a commensurate amount of adjusted basis in the property for all purposes of the Code.

Specified Tangible Property

A CFC may elect to use its non-ADS depreciation method for property acquired before enactment of the GILTI rules. A special rule requires depreciation of the salvage value: the portion of the basis in the property that would not be fully depreciated under the non-ADS depreciation method.

Anti-Abuse Rule

Under a "per se" rule in the proposed regulations, property was deemed to be held for the principal purpose of reducing a GILTI inclusion if held by the CFC for less than a 12-month period. The final regulations convert the per se rule to a rebuttable presumption. Under a second presumption, property held for more than 36 months is not subject to the rule. A safe harbor applies for certain transfers.

Foreign Tax Credit

The foreign tax credit proposed regulations contained a rule for determining the adjusted basis of the stock of the foreign corporation for purposes of allocating expenses to stock of certain foreign corporations. The final regulations provide that a taxpayer should not have an adjusted basis below zero in stock of a foreign corporation. A taxpayer’s adjusted basis may be reduced below zero as a result of an adjustment for earnings and profits deficits, as long as the adjustment for earnings and profits increased the adjusted basis of the foreign corporation above zero.

Applicability of Final Regs

The final GILTI regulations generally apply to tax years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 2017, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years of foreign corporations end.

Proposed Regulations

The Treasury Department and the IRS also issued proposed regulations on the treatment of domestic partnerships for determining amounts included in their partners' gross incomes under Code Sec. 951 with respect to CFCs owned by the partnership, and the GILTI treatment of gross income that is subject to a high rate of foreign tax under Code Sec. 951A.

The proposed regulations would affect U.S. persons that own stock of foreign corporations through domestic partnerships and U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations. The Treasury Department and the IRS request timely comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments.

Aggregate Treatment Adopted

To be consistent with the treatment of domestic partnerships under Code Sec. 951A, Treasury and the IRS determined that a domestic partnership should also generally be treated as an aggregate of its partners in determining stock owned under Code Sec. 958(a) for Code Sec. 951 purposes.

Expansion to Exclude Other High-Taxed Income

Treasury and the IRS also determined that the GILTI high tax exclusion should be expanded (on an elective basis) to include certain high-taxed income even if that income would not otherwise be foreign base company income (FBCI) or insurance income. Further, taxpayers should be allowed to elect to apply the Code Sec. 954(b)(4) exception (the "GILTI high tax exclusion") for certain classes of income that are subject to high foreign taxes.

Newly issued temporary regulations limit the application of the Code Sec. 245A participation dividends received deduction (the participation DRD) and the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) exception in certain situations that present an opportunity for tax avoidance. The temporary regulations also provide related information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038.

Newly issued temporary regulations limit the application of the Code Sec. 245A participation dividends received deduction (the participation DRD) and the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) exception in certain situations that present an opportunity for tax avoidance. The temporary regulations also provide related information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038.

Participation Exemption Regime

The transition to the participation exemption system introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97 (the Act) is effected through several interlocking provisions – Code Secs. 245A, 951A, and 965. All three provisions have different effective dates so there are periods in which some but not all of them apply. The participation exemption system operates alongside the subpart F regime.

Code Sec. 245A generally allows a domestic corporation a 100-percent dividends received deduction (a participation DRD) for the foreign-source portion of a dividend received after December 31, 2017, from a specified 10 percent-owned foreign corporation (an SFC). Generally, only earnings that are not taxed under the subpart F or the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime can, upon distribution, give rise to a dividend eligible for the participation DRD. Distribution of earnings and profits that is taxed under the subpart F or GILTI regime is a distribution of previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) that is not treated as a dividend and cannot qualify for the participation DRD. The participation DRD applies to distributions made after December 31, 2017.

The participation DRD does not apply to untaxed earnings of U.S. shareholders as of December 31, 2017. Instead, such earnings are subject to a transition tax under Code Sec. 965. For fiscal year CFCs, there is a gap period during which certain of their earnings may escape taxation.

Code Sec. 951A (the GILTI regime) taxes a U.S. shareholder on its global intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI, with respect to its CFCs at a reduced rate. The GILTI regime applies in the first tax year of a CFC beginning after December 31, 2017.

Code Sec. 954 generally provides that a dividend received by a CFC is included in the CFC’s foreign personal holding company income (FPHCI). Under Code Sec. 954(c)(6), however, a dividend received by a CFC from a related CFC is not included in the CFC’s FPHCI if certain requirements are satisfied (the section 954(c)(6) exception).

Scope of the Temporary Regulations

The temporary regulations limit the availability of the participation DRD and the section 954(c)(6) exception in specific and narrow cases where the deduction or exception, respectively, effectively eliminates subpart F income or GILTI from the U.S. tax system. Specifically, the temporary regulations address transactions that have the effect of avoiding tax under Code Sec. 965, 951A, or 951by inappropriately converting income that should have been subject to U.S. tax into nontaxed income. The temporary regulations also include information reporting rules under Code Sec. 6038 to facilitate administration of certain rules in the temporary regulations. The temporary regulations do not include general rules relating to dividends eligible for the participation DRD since those rules will be included in separate guidance.

Overview of the Temporary Regulations

Code Secs. 245A, 951A, and 965 generally act to tax foreign source income equivalently across taxpayers and sources so long as a U.S. shareholder owns the same amount of stock of a calendar year CFC throughout the CFC’s entire tax year. However, deviations from this condition potentially allow taxpayers to avoid tax by claiming a participation DRD in situations where otherwise identical income would be subject to U.S. tax. The following two situations may present such an opportunity for tax avoidance: (1) a U.S. corporation is the shareholder of a fiscal year CFC during 2018, or (2) a CFC pays a dividend and experiences a direct or indirect change in ownership during a tax year. The temporary regulations limit the application of the participation DRD in these situations.

With respect to the first situation, described above, as a result of a gap in the effective dates of these related international tax provisions, the difference between calendar year and fiscal year CFCs is significant and presents the potential for substantial tax avoidance when utilized to artificially generate earnings and profits in non-ordinary course transactions between related parties.

The temporary regulations refer to the portion of a dividend attributable to earnings and profits arising from such a transaction during this period as an "extraordinary disposition amount." An extraordinary disposition amount consists of certain earnings and profits resulting from transactions between related parties during the disqualified period. Although the period during which extraordinary dispositions may have occurred has passed, the regulations will potentially apply to any distributions of the associated earnings and profits after 2017.

In the second situation, described above, the participation DRD could facilitate the avoidance of the subpart F and GILTI regimes by allowing a U.S. shareholder to transfer, before the end of a CFC’s tax year, stock of the CFC to a new shareholder who will not be taxed on the CFC’s subpart F income or tested income.

The earnings and profits representing the portion of a dividend of a CFC attributable to subpart F income or tested income that, absent a transfer of the CFC stock pursuant to an extraordinary reduction, would have been subject to the subpart F or GILTI regimes are referred to as an "extraordinary reduction amount" in the temporary regulations. An extraordinary reduction amount consists of certain earnings and profits generated during a CFC’s tax year beginning after 2017 in which a domestic corporate U.S. shareholder reduces its ownership of the CFC by certain threshold amounts (e.g., a decrease in ownership of more than 10 percent). For this purpose, "certain earnings and profits" refers to income generally subject to inclusion under the subpart F or GILTI regimes.

Results similar to the ones described in the context of extraordinary disposition amounts and extraordinary reduction amounts can be achieved using the exemption from subpart F income under Code Sec. 954(c)(6) and lower-tier CFC dividends to upper-tier CFCs. Thus, the temporary regulations limit the application of the section 954(c)(6) exception in order to prevent similar results in circumstances in which a lower-tier CFC pays a dividend to another CFC, instead of directly to a U.S. shareholder.

Operation of the Temporary Rules

The temporary regulations do not permit the participation DRD for the portions of dividends made by CFCs that are attributable to ineligible amounts, which comprise extraordinary reduction amounts and 50 percent of any extraordinary disposition amounts.

To accomplish this, the temporary regulations disallow a deduction for transactions that have the effect of avoiding tax under Code Sec. 965, 951A, or 951. The extraordinary disposition rules accomplish this by denying the participation DRD for a narrowly and objectively defined class of earnings and profits generated by transactions undertaken in the disqualified period in circumstances that raise abuse concerns.

The extraordinary reduction rules accomplish this by denying the participation DRD for certain earnings distributed in the same year as reductions in ownership of CFC stock by a controlling Code Sec. 245A shareholder. The temporary regulations contain similar rules with respect to the section 954(c)(6) exception.

Information Reporting under Code Sec. 6038

Ineligible amounts, tiered extraordinary disposition amounts, and tiered extraordinary reduction amounts must be reported on the appropriate information reporting form in accordance with Code Sec. 6038. A transition rule mandates that taxpayers report the required information on the first return filed following the issuance of revised forms, instructions, or other guidance with respect to reporting such information. The transition rule also requires a corporation to report the information with respect to a predecessor corporation.

Applicability Dates

The rules in the temporary regulations relating to eligibility of distributions for the participation DRD apply to distributions occurring after December 31, 2017. The rules in the temporary regulations relating to the eligibility of dividends for the section 954(c)(6) exception also apply to distributions occurring after December 31, 2017, subject to a transition rule.

Final regulations reduce the Code Sec. 956 amount for certain domestic corporations that own stock in controlled foreign corporations (CFCs). The regulations are intended to ensure that Code Sec. 956 is applied consistently with the participation exemption system under Code Sec. 245A.

Final regulations reduce the Code Sec. 956 amount for certain domestic corporations that own stock in controlled foreign corporations (CFCs). The regulations are intended to ensure that Code Sec. 956 is applied consistently with the participation exemption system under Code Sec. 245A.

Subpart F Rules

Under the subpart F rules, U.S. shareholders of a CFC are currently taxed on their pro rata shares of the CFC’s subpart F income without regard to whether the income is distributed to the shareholders ( Code Sec. 951(a)). Subpart F income generally includes passive income and other income that is readily movable from one taxing jurisdiction to another ( Code Sec. 952). A U.S. shareholder is a U.S. person (e.g., individual citizen, domestic corporation, etc.) that owns or is treated as owning 10 percent or more of the voting power or value of a foreign corporation ( Code Sec. 951(b)).

The U.S. shareholders of a CFC are taxed on their pro rata share of the CFC’s earnings that are invested in U.S. property during the tax year and not distributed or otherwise taxed (the "section 956 amount"). U.S. shareholders are effectively taxed on foreign source earnings brought back into the United States, on the theory that the returned earnings are substantially the same as a dividend. This rule is intended to create symmetry by taxing effective repatriations of earnings in the same manner as actual repatriations of earnings are taxed.

Participation DRD

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) added Code Sec. 245A, which allows a 100-percent participation exemption deduction—a participation dividends-received deduction (DRD)—for the foreign-source portion of dividends received from a specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation by a domestic corporation that is a U.S. shareholder of the foreign corporation. A specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation is any foreign corporation (other than certain passive foreign investment companies) in which a domestic corporation is a U.S. shareholder.

However, a domestic corporation cannot claim a participation DRD for a dividend on any share of the foreign corporation’s stock:

• that the domestic corporation holds for 365 days or less during the 731-day period that begins on the date that is 365 days before the date when the share becomes ex-dividend with respect to the dividend; or

• to the extent the domestic corporation is obligated to make related payments on positions in substantially similar or related property ( Code Sec. 246(c)).

Under the TCJA, a Code Sec. 956 inclusion is not eligible for the DRD because it is not a dividend.

Tax Treatment Symmetry

The participation exemption system has made the current broad application of Code Sec. 956 to corporate U.S. shareholders inconsistent with the Code section’s purposes and the scope of the transactions it is meant to address. In response, the regulations:

• exclude corporate U.S. shareholders from the application of Code Sec. 956 to the extent necessary to maintain symmetry between the taxation of actual repatriations and the taxation of effective repatriations, so that neither an actual dividend to a corporate U.S. shareholder nor the shareholder’s Code Sec. 956 amount will result in additional U.S. tax; and

• reduce the Code Sec. 956 amount otherwise determined regarding a U.S. shareholder for a CFC’s tax year ( "tentative Section 956 amount") to the extent that the shareholder would be allowed a participation DRD had the shareholder received a distribution from the CFC equal to the tentative Code Sec. 956 amount (the "hypothetical distribution").

The regulations include an ordering rule to address the previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) rules in Code Sec. 959. Under the ordering rule, the hypothetical distribution is treated as:

• first attributable to earnings and profits (E&P) described in Code Sec. 959(c)(2) (amounts attributable to subpart F inclusions); and

• then attributable to E&P described in Code Sec. 959(c)(3) (all other E&P).

The regulations also address the tentative section 956 amount with respect to domestic partnerships. The regulations provide that the tentative section 956 amount with respect to a domestic partnership is reduced to the extent that one or more of the domestic corporate partners would be entitled to a participation DRD if:

• the partnership received the amount as a distribution; and

• the remaining amount of the inclusion under Code Sec. 956 is allocated to the partners in the same proportion as net income would result to partners upon a hypothetical distribution.

Applicability Date

The regulations will apply to tax years of CFCs beginning on or after July 22, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years of CFCs end.

The regulations may be applied to tax years of CFCs beginning after December 31, 2017, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years of CFCs end, provided the rules are applied consistently by the taxpayer and U.S. related persons.

Final rules allow employers to use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to reimburse employees for the purchase individual insurance coverage, including coverage on an Affordable Care Act Exchange. The rules also allow "excepted benefit HRAs," which would not have to be integrated with any coverage. The rules generally apply for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2020.

Final rules allow employers to use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to reimburse employees for the purchase individual insurance coverage, including coverage on an Affordable Care Act Exchange. The rules also allow "excepted benefit HRAs," which would not have to be integrated with any coverage. The rules generally apply for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2020.

HRA Use Expanded

The final rules expand the use of HRAs by:

• allowing integration of an HRA with individual health insurance coverage and thereby satisfy the Affordable Care Act’s annual dollar limit and preventive care cost sharing requirements;

• creating "excepted benefit HRAs" limited in amount and to the types of coverage for which premiums may be reimbursed;

• providing new premium tax credit eligibility rules for individuals who are offered an HRA integrated with individual health insurance coverage;

• clarifying that individual health insurance coverage, the premiums of which are reimbursed by an HRA or qualified small employer HRA (QSEHRA), does not become part of an ERISA plan when certain conditions are met; and

• adding new special enrollment for the individual market for individuals who gain access to HRAs integrated with individual health insurance coverage or who are provided a QSEHRA.

The final regulations add conditions on individual coverage HRAs intended to prevent a negative impact on the individual market.

Integration With Individual Coverage

Almost any employer can satisfy Affordable Care Act reimbursement requirements by having employees buy their own individual coverage. An employers may integrate an HRA with individual health coverage only if:

• participants and dependents are actually enrolled in individual health insurance coverage (though not coverage that consists solely of excepted benefits) for each month they are covered by the HRA;

• coverage is offered to a class of employees to whom a traditional group health plan is not offered;

• coverage is offered on the same terms in amount and conditions to all employees within each class (though certain variations based on age are allowed);

• an opt out option is provided for individuals who prefer Affordable Care Act Exchange coverage, but would not be eligible for the premium tax credit if enrolled in an employer health plan such as an HRA; and

• substantiation and notice requirements are met.

To guard against adverse selection, the final rules add a minimum class size requirement that will apply to certain classes of employees in certain instances. Classes of employees may include full-time employees; part-time employees; seasonal employees; employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement in which the plan sponsor participates; employees who have not satisfied a waiting period for coverage; employees who have not attained age 25 prior to the beginning of the plan year; nonresident aliens with no U.S.-based income; employees whose primary site of employment is in the same rating area; and groups combining any of these classes of employee.

Excepted Benefit HRAs

An employer that wants to offer an HRA that is not integrated with non-HRA group coverage, Medicare, TRICARE, or individual health insurance coverage may do so as an excepted benefit. As excepted benefits, these HRAs would not be subject to the employer group plan rules, including the market reforms under the Affordable Care Act. An excepted benefit HRA:

• must not be an integral part of the plan;

• must provide benefits that are limited in amount ($1,800 per year, adjusted for inflation after 2020);

• cannot provide reimbursement for premiums for certain health insurance coverage; and

• must be made available under the same terms to all similarly situated individuals.

Final regulations provide requirements that a person must satisfy to become and remain a certified professional employer organization (CPEO), as well as the CPEO’s federal employment tax liabilities and other obligations.

Final regulations provide requirements that a person must satisfy to become and remain a certified professional employer organization (CPEO), as well as the CPEO’s federal employment tax liabilities and other obligations.

CPEOs

Some employers contract with PEOs to complete and file tax returns, pay and withhold employment taxes on wages paid to employees, or provide other employee benefits. Code Sec. 3511 and Code Sec. 7705 provide certification requirements for PEOs, and codify the employment tax consequences of being CPEO.

For federal employment tax purposes, a CPEO is generally treated as the employer of any individual who is:

• performing services for a customer of the CPEO; and

• covered by a contract between the CPEO and the customer.

Employer treatment applies only to remuneration paid to the covered employee by the CPEO. If an individual covered by a CPEO contract performs services for a customer at a work site that meets certain coverage requirements, only the CPEO is treated as the employer for federal employment tax purposes for remuneration its pays to that work site employee.

A person must apply to the IRS to become a CPEO, and the IRS must certify that the person meets certain requirements. A CPEO must:

• meet tax status and background requirements;

• meet bond, financial review, and quarterly reporting requirements; and

• notify the IRS of any change that materially affects the continuing accuracy of information it has provided to the IRS.

The Treasury Secretary can suspend or revoke CPEO certification if the person does not satisfy certain agreements or applicable requirements.

Final Regs

The final regulations adopt and amend proposed regulations published in 2016 ( NPRM REG-127561-15), and reflect and address certain interim guidance ( Rev. Proc. 2016-33, 2016-25 I.R.B. 1034; Notice 2016-49, 2016-34 I.R.B. 265; Rev. Proc. 2017-14, 2017-3 I.R.B. 426). In finalizing the regulations, the IRS reviewed and analyzed a variety of issues affecting CPEOs, including:

• maintaining a separate annual FICA tax and FUTA tax wage base and withholding threshold for each customer for which a covered employee performs services during a calendar year;

• the treatment of tax credits, including the addition of the employer credit for paid family and medical leave and certain employee retention credits to the list of specified credits that apply to the CPEO customer and not the CPEO;

• the treatment of self-employed individuals under the CPEO rules;

• CPEO reporting to the IRS, such as reporting the commencement or termination of CPEO contracts and service agreements;

• the meaning of key terms such as "responsible individuals" (certain owners, officers, and other persons of the CPEO), "work site," and "work site employee";

• the CPEO application process, including when an applicant may reapply for certification;

• CPEO "suitability" requirements, including domestic disregarded entity and sole proprietorship certification, fingerprint cards and background checks, and the waiver of confidentiality and privilege;

• working capital requirements, including a limited exception to the positive working capital requirement;

• bond requirements, including a provision that the IRS Commissioner may provide exceptions to the rule that a CPEO must meet the bond requirements without posting collateral; and

• maintaining employee records.

Applicability

The final regulations are effective on May 28, 2019.

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

Generally, the IRS does not release draft forms but has done so in this case as a "courtesy," the instructions state. "Do not rely on draft forms, instructions, and publications for filing,"the IRS wrote. Further, drafts of instructions and publications generally undergo some changes before being finalized, the IRS noted.

2018 Form 1040
Starting with the 2019 tax filing season, many taxpayers will be able to file federal income taxes on a new postcard-sized Form 1040. The IRS planned to finalize the new base 2018 Form 1040 this summer, an IRS spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer. "This early release is part of our standard process to invite stakeholder input into draft forms before finalizing them," the IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer after the official release of the draft 2018 Form 1040.

Shorter Form, Six Schedules
The new, two-sided Form 1040 is intended to replace and consolidate current Forms 1040, 1040A and 1040EZ. "This new approach will simplify the 1040 so that all 150 million taxpayers can use the same form," the IRS said.

The shortened form reflects many of the changes to the tax code enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Some of these changes include the higher standard deduction and the elimination of certain deductions and personal exemptions. The new form now has 23 lines, decreased from 79. However, there are now six separate schedules that some taxpayers who continue to itemize will need to include with their return.

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New IRS Commissioner
"I am honored, privileged and most humbled by the opportunity to serve with you as Commissioner," Rettig said in an internal IRS message obtained by Wolters Kluwer on October 2. "The foundation of my becoming Commissioner is a deep appreciation for the IRS, its workforce and our country."

The Senate confirmed Rettig’s nomination for IRS Commissioner by a 64-to-33 bipartisan vote. The Senate Finance Committee advanced Rettig’s nomination in July. President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Rettig last February.

IRS Priorities Moving Forward
Rettig outlined several IRS priorities in his message to IRS employees. Those priorities include, among others, implementing tax reform, balancing taxpayer service with tax enforcement, and deterring tax fraud.

"I know the Service has many challenges…I also know we must continue rebuilding trust with taxpayers while implementing the once-in-a-generation tax reform bill passed by Congress in December," Rettig said. "We must work on our IT modernization efforts," he added.

Additionally, while the IRS has been working toward moving more taxpayer services online, notably, Rettig emphasized the importance of providing personalized service to taxpayers. "Providing high-quality, personalized service is a critical component in helping taxpayers understand and comply with their filing and reporting obligations,"Rettig wrote.

Rettig’s term as the 49th IRS Commissioner is scheduled to expire on November 12, 2022. John Koskinen’s term as IRS Commissioner ended in November 2017. David Kautter, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at Treasury, has been serving as acting IRS Commissioner in the interim.

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.