Newsletters

Final regulations relating to the low-income housing tax credit revise and clarify requirements that low-income housing agencies must follow when conducting physical inspections of low-income units and reviewing low-income certifications and other documentation. The regulations finalize previously issued temporary regulations (T.D. 9753, February 25, 2016).

Final regulations relating to the low-income housing tax credit revise and clarify requirements that low-income housing agencies must follow when conducting physical inspections of low-income units and reviewing low-income certifications and other documentation. The regulations finalize previously issued temporary regulations (T.D. 9753, February 25, 2016).

Sample Inspection Size

The final regulations require the agency to inspect no fewer units than the number specified in the "Low-Income Housing Credit Minimum Unit Sample Size Reference Chart." The reference chart can be found in Rev. Proc. 2016-15, I.R.B. 2016-11, 435, and is borrowed from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Real Estate Assessment Center Protocol (the REAC protocol). Previously, an agency was permitted to inspect 20 percent of the low-income housing units in the project if this was lesser than the number required by the reference chart. This change addresses a concern that limiting physical inspections to 20 percent of units in small projects is not sufficient to ensure overall compliance with habitability and low-income requirements.

All-Buildings Requirement

No change is made to the requirement that an agency must inspect all buildings in a low-income housing project by the end of the second calendar year after the year in which the last building in the project is placed in service unless a project inspection is conducted under the REAC protocol. Suggestions that the IRS dispense with the all-buildings requirement for agencies not using the REAC protocol were not adopted.

Reasonable Notice Time Frame Shortened

A building owner and tenants are allowed a maximum 15 day advance notice that a project will be inspected. The temporary regulations allowed a 30-day notice period. The particular units to be inspected may only be identified on the day of the inspection. The 15 day advance notice limit will also apply to reviews of low-income certifications.

Amendment of Agency’s Qualified Allocation Plan

The final regulations are effective on February 26, 2019. However, an agency only needs to amend it qualified allocation plan by December 31, 2020, to reflect the requirements in the final regulations.

Rev. Proc. 2016-15 is obsolete with respect to an agency as of the date that on which the agency amends its qualified allocation plan.

The Senate’s top Democratic tax writer is calling on the IRS and Treasury to further waive underpayment penalties for the 2018 tax year. Nearly 30 million taxpayers are expected to have underpaid taxes last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Senate’s top Democratic tax writer is calling on the IRS and Treasury to further waive underpayment penalties for the 2018 tax year. Nearly 30 million taxpayers are expected to have underpaid taxes last year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Underpayment Penalty

The IRS announced in IRS News Release IR-2019-3 that it would waive the underpayment penalty for any taxpayer who paid at least 85 percent of their total tax liability during the 2018 tax year. The usual threshold is 90 percent. However, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the IRS should "do more."

"Instead of penalizing those who paid less than 90 percent of what they owed in 2018, now they’re penalizing those who paid less than 85 percent," Wyden said on February 7 from the Senate floor. "That was one small step in the right direction," he added.

Before the IRS’s news release, Wyden wrote to Treasury and the IRS urging the waiver of underpayment penalties for withholding errors related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Although the IRS did lower the penalty threshold for the 2018 tax year, Wyden stated on February 7 that "nobody should be penalized for the Trump administration’s mistakes on tax withholding."

Democrats are largely opposed to the TCJA as a whole, and claim that Republicans’ tax code overhaul was rushed. Thus, significant tax withholding errors and underpayments are expected to be incurred. "Change the penalty thresholds. Extend safe harbors. Whatever needs to happen," Wyden said.

Additionally, several Republicans have also voiced their concern about the expected increase in underpayment related to withholding. SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently urged the IRS to be "lenient" on underpayment penalties for 2018, as it is the first tax year since tax reform implementation.

AICPA

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has likewise urged Treasury and the IRS to provide more extensive penalty relief. "The substantial uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the TCJA and the updated federal tax withholding tables presented a challenge for many taxpayers in understanding and accounting for their tax liability," Annette Nellen, chair of the AICPA’s Tax Executive Committee said in a recent letter to Treasury and the IRS. The AICPA has recommended an 80 percent threshold for the underpayment penalty waiver.

Senators have introduced a bipartisan bill specifically tailored to reduce excise taxes and regulations for the U.S. craft beverage industry. The bill aims to promote job creation and permanently reduce certain taxes and compliance burdens.

Senators have introduced a bipartisan bill specifically tailored to reduce excise taxes and regulations for the U.S. craft beverage industry. The bill aims to promote job creation and permanently reduce certain taxes and compliance burdens.

Craft Beverage Tax Reform

The Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Bill of 2019 was introduced on February 6 by Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

"By modernizing burdensome rules and taxes for craft beverage producers, this legislation will level the playing field and allow these innovators to further grow and thrive," Wyden said in a press release. The comprehensive measure is supported by the entire craft beverage industry, according to a summary of the bill.

Generally, the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Bill of 2019 would implement the following provisions:

For Brewers:

• Reduce excise taxes to provide more cash flow to reinvest in personal business growth.
• Simplify rules for ingredient approval and brewery collaboration.

For Vintners:

• Expand the wine producer tax credit.
• Expand allowances for tax purposes on carbonation and alcohol content for certain wines.

For Distillers:

• Establish reduced excise taxes for small craft distilleries.
• Reduce restrictions on tax-free transfers of spirits between distillers.

The bill would also exempt beverage producers from certain capitalization rules for aged products.

"The craft beverage industry is driven by small businesses that support thousands of jobs and contribute billions in economic output," Blunt said in the press release.

As of February 6, the bill has 10 bipartisan cosponsors.

The IRS’s proposed 50-percent gross income locational rule on the active conduct of Opportunity Zone businesses is garnering criticism from stakeholders and lawmakers alike. The IRS released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-115420-18, for tax reform’s Opportunity Zone program last October.

The IRS’s proposed 50-percent gross income locational rule on the active conduct of Opportunity Zone businesses is garnering criticism from stakeholders and lawmakers alike. The IRS released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-115420-18, for tax reform’s Opportunity Zone program last October.

50-Percent Locational Rule

Many stakeholders have urged the IRS to reconsider its proposed rule requiring that at least 50-percent of gross income of a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ) business is derived from the active conduct of a trade or business within the QOZ. The IRS heard from several of these stakeholders at a full house public hearing on the proposed regulations held last week at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"[W]e’re concerned that manufacturing businesses, e-commerce enterprises, and others that have the potential to spur significant economic activity could be excluded inadvertently because of this rule," Stefan Pryor, Rhode Island Secretary of Commerce said at the hearing. Additionally, other stakeholders commented that the proposed rule would go against congressional intent.

Comment. There is no locational-related rule for gross income of QOZ businesses included in the law’s statutory language. However, the statutory language does provide a tangible property test to ensure qualifying businesses are predominantly located within the QOZ.

QOZ Business Congressional Intent

To that end, the bipartisan, bicameral tax writers who drafted the original QOZ bill language, too, have urged the IRS to remove the 50-percent gross income locational requirement.

The Opportunity Zone program was enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) in 2017. The program is housed under new Code Secs. 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2. Although not a single Democrat voted for the TCJA, the Opportunity Zone program was based on a bicameral measure sponsored by a group of bipartisan tax writers.

"Since many businesses derive income from the sale of goods and services outside of a single census tract, this would significantly limit the ability for local operating businesses to qualify for Opportunity Fund investment, contrary to congressional intent," the lawmakers wrote in a recent letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. "Even for those businesses who might qualify under this rule, it would impose immense new administrative burdens to track and report the location of each source of business income," they added.

Second Round of Proposed Regulations

Currently, the IRS is working on a second batch of proposed regulations for Opportunity Zones. Those proposed rules "hopefully will see the light of day shortly," Scott Dinwiddie, an IRS official in the Income Tax and Accounting division said at last week’s hearing.

The IRS has said that it is postponing its plan to discontinue faxing taxpayer transcripts. The IRS statement came on the heels of a letter sent earlier this week from bipartisan leaders of the Senate Finance Committee urging such a delay.

The IRS has said that it is postponing its plan to discontinue faxing taxpayer transcripts. The IRS statement came on the heels of a letter sent earlier this week from bipartisan leaders of the Senate Finance Committee urging such a delay.

IRS Cybersecurity

The IRS announced in IRS News Release IR-2018-256 last December that it would stop its tax transcript faxing service for individuals and businesses on February 4, 2019. The IRS cited to reasons of taxpayer security for the change in procedure. To that end, ceasing the IRS’s transcript faxing service would better prohibit cybercriminals from obtaining taxpayer data, according to the IRS.

Grassley, Wyden Urge Delay

SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., sent IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig a letter earlier this week expressing concern with the IRS’s original timeline for discontinuing the tax transcript faxing service. The bipartisan leaders did not ask the IRS to eliminate its plan to discontinue the particular service. However, they did encourage the IRS to extend the date of discontinuation for the sake of taxpayers and practitioners in light of the recent partial government shutdown, which included the IRS.

"[W]e encourage the IRS to delay its planned discontinuation of faxing taxpayer information until such time that the agency can reasonably resolve the legitimate concerns of the tax-practitioner community about alternatives to the IRS faxing taxpayer information," Grassley and Wyden wrote. "Of course, such a delay should not compromise the security or privacy of taxpayer information."

IRS Extends Transcript Faxing Service

The IRS’s Wage & Investment Division issued a January 30 statement stating that the IRS will extend its transcript faxing service beyond February 4. Additionally, the IRS said it is reviewing options for a new timeline and will provide taxpayers and practitioners advance notice of the new date.

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.