Newsletters

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

FINAL REGULATIONS: Written Binding Contract Rules
Constructed property. The proposed regulations provided that property manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract entered into prior to the manufacture, etc., of the property is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Thus, if the contract was entered into before September 28, 2017, the 100 bonus rate did not apply.

That rule was scrapped in response to negative feedback. Instead the final regulations provide that such property is treated as self-constructed property, and the contract is ignored for purposes of determining when the property is deemed acquired. The acquisition date is now the date that the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property as determined under rules similar to those that apply to 50 percent bonus property.

Acquisition date. The final regulations provide that the acquisition date of property acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the later of:

• the date on which the contract is entered into;
• the date on which the contract is enforceable under state law;
• if the contract has one or more cancellation periods, the date on which all cancellation periods end; or
• if the contract has one or more contingency clauses, the date on which all conditions subject to such clauses are satisfied.

Liquidated damage clause. When a contract has multiple damage provisions, the final regulations clarify that only the provision with the highest damages is taken into account in determining whether the contract limits damages.

Qualified Improvement Property
The IRS once again declined to make qualified improvement property placed in service after 2017 eligible for bonus depreciation. A legislative change is required to give this property its intended 15-year recovery period. With a 15-year recovery period, qualified improvement property will qualify for bonus depreciation under the general rule that allows bonus depreciation on property with an MACRS recovery period of 20 years or less.

Used Property
Predecessor defined. Property previously used by the taxpayer or a predecessor of a taxpayer does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the taxpayer or predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property. The final regulations define "predecessor" as:

• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies;
• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction in which the transferee’s basis in the asset is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the asset in the transferor’s hands;
• a partnership that is considered as continuing under Code Sec. 708(b)(2);
• the decedent in the case of an asset acquired by an estate; or
• a transferor of an asset to a trust.

Depreciable interest look back rule. The final regulations do not define a "depreciable interest" because this is a facts and circumstances issue. However, a five-year look back period is provided for determining whether a taxpayer or predecessor held a depreciable interest in property.

Substantially renovated property. If a taxpayer places substantially renovated property in service and the taxpayer or a predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property before it was substantially renovated, the taxpayer’s or predecessor’s prior depreciable interest does not prevent the taxpayer from claiming bonus depreciation. Property is substantially renovated if the cost of the used parts is not more than 20 percent of the total cost of the substantially renovated property, whether acquired or self-constructed.

Syndication transactions. A lessor who reacquires property in a syndication transaction is not treated as having a prior depreciable interest in the property.

Partnerships
The final regulations permit a partnership to claim bonus depreciation on the portion of a Code Sec. 743(b) basis increase that is attributable to built-in gain under Code Sec. 704(c), even if the partnership is using the remedial allocation method. An exception is provided for publicly traded partnerships that need to maintain fungibility for publicly traded partnership units.

If a partnership interest is acquired and disposed of during the same tax year, the bonus deduction is not allowed for any Code Sec. 743(b) adjustment arising from the initial acquisition. However, if a partnership interest is purchased and disposed of in a "step-in-the shoes" Code Sec. 168(i)(7) transaction in the same tax year, bonus on the section 743(b) adjustment is allowed. The section 743(b) adjustment is apportioned between the purchaser/transferor and the transferee.

The final regulations also clarify the treatment of qualified property transferred in a Code Sec. 721(a) transaction to a partnership in the same tax year that the qualified property is acquired by the transferor if the partnership has another partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the qualified property. In this situation, the qualified property is deemed placed in service by the transferor during that tax year, and the bonus deduction is allocated entirely to the transferor and not to the partnership. Thus, the contributing partner has contributed property with a zero basis to the partnership, and the contributed property is Code Sec. 704(c) property in the hands of the partnership.

Film, Television, and Theatrical Productions
The final regulations clarify that a used qualified film, television, or live theatrical production does not qualify for bonus depreciation. Also, the basis of a qualified film, television, or live theatrical production is reduced by the deduction claimed under Code Sec. 181 before computing the bonus deduction.

Using ADS
Using the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to determine the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s qualified business investment (under Code Sec. 250(b)(2)(B) or Code Sec. 951A(d)(3)) or the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s tangible assets for allocating business interests expense between excepted and non-excepted trades or businesses (under Code Sec. 163(j)) does not cause a taxpayer’s tangible property to be ineligible for bonus depreciation.

Public Utility Property
An example is added to clarify that the 100 percent bonus rate does not apply to self-constructed property of a regulated public utility if construction begins after September 27, 2017, and the property is placed in service in a tax year beginning after 2017.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, provided the taxpayer consistently applies all rules in the final regulations. Additionally, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations issued on August 8, 2018, to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, in tax years ending before the date of publication of the final regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Acquired and Self-Constructed Components
A taxpayer may elect to treat components of a larger self-constructed property that are acquired or self constructed after September 27, 2017, as eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate, even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger self-constructed began before September 28, 2017. The larger property must be eligible for bonus depreciation at the 50 percent rate.

Businesses With Floor Plan Financing
Property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the floor plan financing interest related to the indebtedness is taken into account under Code Sec. 163(j)(1)(C) in determining the allowable business interest deduction.

The proposals provide rules for determining whether interest in floor plan financing indebtedness has been taken into account during a tax year. In general, floor plan interest is not considered taken into account for a tax year if the sum of interest business income for the tax year and 30 percent of the adjusted taxable income for the tax year equals or exceeds business interest as defined in Code Sec. 163(j)(5). The proposals clarify that the determination of whether a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness has taken floor plan financing interest into account is made annually.

Leased Property
The proposals clarify that taxpayers leasing property to a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness or a rate-regulated utility may claim bonus depreciation. The taxpayer, however, may not be a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that prevents it from claiming bonus depreciation or a rate-regulated utility.

Used Property
Five-year lookback. A safe harbor provides that a taxpayer who disposes of property within 90 days after placing it in service did not hold a prior depreciable interest in the property. Consequently, the property is eligible for bonus depreciation if subsequently reacquired.

Partnerships. A taxpayer has a prior depreciable interest in a portion of property if the taxpayer was a partner in a partnership at any time the partnership owned the property. The amount of the prior depreciable interest is based on the partner’s total share of depreciation deductions with respect to the property.

Series of related transactions. Special rules in the original proposed regulations governing the treatment of a series of related transactions for purposes of the used property acquisition requirements are modified and expanded.

Consolidated groups. Significant clarifications to the rules governing the used property acquisition requirements for consolidated groups are also made.

Written Binding Contract Rules
Property not acquired pursuant to a contract. The acquisition date of property that is not acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the date on which the taxpayer paid or incurred more than 10 percent of the total cost of the property. The cost of land and preliminary activities are excluded from cost for this purpose.

Purchase of entities. Binding contract rules that apply to the purchase of an entity are proposed. The current binding contract rules only deal with purchases of assets.

A contract to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a trade or business, or to acquire an entity such as a corporation, a partnership, or a limited liability company, is binding if it is enforceable under state law against the parties to the contract. The presence of a condition outside the parties’ control (including, for example, regulatory agency approval) will not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. Further, the fact that insubstantial terms remain to be negotiated by the parties to the contract, or that customary conditions remain to be satisfied, does not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. This proposed rule also applies to a contract for the sale of the stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as a result of a deemed asset acquisition election under Code Sec. 338.

Long Production Property
The proposals provide rules for determining qualifying basis attributable to the manufacture, construction, or production of long production property and certain aircraft eligible for an extended placed in service deadline.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The mid-quarter convention applies to property placed in service during the tax year if 40 percent or more of the basis of the property was placed in service in the last three months of the tax year. The proposals clarify that the basis of property is not reduced by the 100 percent bonus allowance. This rule has always applied to 50 percent bonus property.

Effective Date of Proposals
In general, the proposed regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date the proposals are finalized. A taxpayer may rely on the proposals in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017.

Proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of income and deduction items in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would:

• simplify the application of Code Sec. 382;
• provide more certainty to taxpayers in determining built-in gains and losses for Code Sec. 382(h) purposes; and
• ensure that the application of certain law changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA) does not further complicate the application of Code Sec. 382(h).

Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are issued. When these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, it is expected that Notice 87-79, 1987-2 CB 387, Notice 90-27, 1990-1 CB 336, Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, and Notice 2018-30, 2018-21 I.R.B. 610, will be withdrawn and declared obsolete.

Built-in Gains and Losses
Generally, Code Sec. 382 imposes a value-based limitation (section 382 limitation) on the ability of a loss corporation to offset its taxable income in periods subsequent to an ownership change with losses attributable to periods prior to that ownership change.

Code Sec. 382(h) provides rules relating to the determination of a loss corporation’s built-in gains and losses as of the date of the ownership change (change date). In general, built-in gains recognized during the five-year period beginning on the change date (recognition period) allow a loss corporation to increase its section 382 limitation. Built-in losses recognized during the recognition period are subject to the loss corporation’s section 382 limitation.

Specifically, if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG), the section 382 limitation for any tax year ending during the recognition period is increased by the recognized built-in gain (RBIG) for the year, with cumulative increases limited to the amount of the NUBIG. If a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), the use of any recognized built-in loss (RBIL) during the recognition period is subject to the section 382 limitation.

IRS Guidance and TCJA
Notice 2003-65 provides interim guidance on the identification of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). This notice permits taxpayers to rely on safe harbor approaches for applying Code Sec. 382(h) to an ownership change prior to the effective date of temporary or final regulations issued under that provision.

Notice 2003-65 provides (i) a single safe harbor for computing the NUBIG or NUBIL of a loss corporation, based on principles underlying the calculation of net recognized built-in gain under Code Sec. 1374, and (ii) two safe harbors for the computation of a loss corporation’s RBIG or RBIL: the 1374 approach and the 338 approach.

The 1374 approach identifies RBIG and RBIL at the time of the disposition of a loss corporation’s assets during the recognition period. Generally, this approach relies on accrual method of accounting principles to identify built-in income and deduction items at the time of the ownership change, with certain exceptions.

In contrast, the 338 approach identifies items of RBIG and RBIL generally by comparing the loss corporation’s actual items of income, gain, deduction, and loss recognized during the recognition period with those that would have been recognized had an election under Code Sec. 338 (section 338 election) been made with respect to a hypothetical purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the loss corporation on the change date.

Taxpayers may rely on either the 338 approach or the 1374 approach until the IRS issues temporary or final regulations under Code Sec. 382(h). Compared to the 338 approach, the accrual-based 1374 approach is simpler to apply and administer and provides greater certainty for taxpayers.

Prior to the issuance of Notice 2003-65, the IRS had issued Notice 87-79 and Notice 90-27, which provided much more limited guidance regarding the determination of built-in gains and losses. After the TCJA, the IRS issued Notice 2018-30, which makes the 338 approach unavailable when computing items arising from bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k).

The law changes made by the TCJA created additional uncertainty regarding the application of Code Sec. 382 in general, and Notice 2003-65 in particular. Specifically, certain important changes under the TCJA could potentially compromise the mechanics of the 338 approach and further complicate its application.

1374 Approach
For purposes of computing NUBIG and NUBIL, the proposed regulations would adopt as mandatory the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65, with certain modifications. These modifications would include technical fixes to calculations involving cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income, deductions for contingent liabilities, and cost recovery deductions. Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that carryovers of Code Sec. 163(j) disallowed business interest are counted only once for purposes of Code Sec. 382.

The modifications to the existing NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach would ensure greater consistency between:

• amounts that are included in the NUBIG/NUBIL computation; and
• items that could become RBIG or RBIL during the recognition period.

Comment 
According to the IRS, the proposed regulations would modestly restrict net operating loss usage by reducing the amount that would qualify as RBIG, reducing the incentive to engage in inefficient, tax-motivated mergers and acquisitions.

NUBIG or NUBIL Computation
The proposed rules for the computation of NUBIG/NUBIL would capture a range of items that closely tracks the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor computation in Notice 2003-65. However, the component steps of the proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would be more explicit, as follows:

• The proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would first take into account the aggregate amount that would be realized in a hypothetical disposition of all of the loss corporation’s assets in two steps treated as taking place immediately before the ownership change:
  • —Step 1: the loss corporation would be treated as satisfying any inadequately secured nonrecourse liability by surrendering to each creditor the assets securing such debt.
  • —Step 2 : the loss corporation would be treated as selling all remaining assets pertinent to the NUBIG/NUBIL computation in a sale to an unrelated third party, with the hypothetical buyer assuming no amount of the seller’s liabilities.
  • That total hypothetical amount realized by the loss corporation pursuant to Steps 1 and 2, above, would be then decreased by (i) the sum of the loss corporation’s deductible liabilities (both fixed and contingent), and (ii) the loss corporation’s basis in its assets.
  • Finally, the decreased hypothetical total would be then increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following:
  • —(i) the net amount of the total RBIG and RBIL income and deduction items that could be recognized during the recognition period (excluding COD income); and
  • —(ii) the net amount of positive and negative section 481 adjustments that would be required to be included on the previously-described hypothetical disposal of all of the loss corporation’s assets.

The proposed regulations generally would not allow COD income to be included in the calculation of NUBIG/NUBIL, but would provide certain exceptions.

RBIG and RBIL Items
As mentioned above, the proposed regulations would apply a methodology for identifying RBIG or RBIL that closely tracks the accrual based 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65. However, the proposed regulations would significantly modify the 1374 approach to include as RBIL the amount of any deductible contingent liabilities paid or accrued during the recognition period, to the extent of the estimated value of those liabilities on the change date.

The proposed regulations also would add a rule clarifying that certain items do not constitute RBIG (such as dividends paid during the recognition period). In addition, limitations would be provided on the extent to which excluded COD income is treated as RBIG. Further, the proposed regulations would provide two different RBIG ceilings with regard to COD on recourse debt, and would provide special rules for COD income on nonrecourse debt.

Finally, rules would be provided for the interaction between Code Sec. 163(j) and Code Sec. 382. To eliminate the possibility of duplication of RBIL items, the proposed regulations would provide that Code Sec. 382 disallowed business interest carryforwards would not be treated as RBIL if such amounts were allowable as a deduction during the recognition period. The proposed regulations also would clarify the treatment of certain items allocated from a partnership.

Applicability Date
The regulations are proposed to be effective for ownership changes occurring after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers and their related parties may apply these proposed regulations to any ownership change occurring during a tax year with respect to which the period described in Code Sec. 6511(a) has not expired, so long as the taxpayers and all of their related parties consistently apply the rules of these proposed regulations to such ownership change and all subsequent ownership changes that occur before the applicability date of the final regulations.

Comments and Requests for Hearing
Written or electronic comments must be received by November 9, 2019. Written or electronic requests for a public hearing and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by November 9, 2019. Electronic submissions must be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-125710-18) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Treasury and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to its public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.

Hard copy submissions must be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125710-18), Room 5203, Post Office Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (indicate REG-125710-18), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The final regulations:

• reflect statutory changes affecting Code Sec. 401(k) plans, including changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123); and
• affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of plans that include cash or deferred arrangements or provide for employee or matching contributions.

Deemed Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need. The final regulations:

• add "primary beneficiary under the plan" as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
• modify the expense listed in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to provide that the limitations in Code Sec. 165(h)(5) do not apply for this purpose; and
• add to the list a new type of expense, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

Distribution Necessary to Satisfy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need, by:

• eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution; and
• eliminating any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.

In particular, the final regulations, like the proposed regulations, eliminate the safe harbor in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E), under which a distribution is deemed necessary to satisfy the financial need only if elective contributions and employee contributions are suspended for at least six months after a hardship distribution is made and, if available, nontaxable plan loans are taken before the hardship distribution is made.

Expanded Sources for Hardship Distributions
The final regulations modify existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3) to permit hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned.

Section 403(b) Plans
A hardship distribution of Code Sec. 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3). Accordingly, the preamble to the proposed regulations had stated that the new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Code Sec. 401(k) plan generally apply to Code Sec. 403(b) plans. Because this requirement is retained in the final regulations, at Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B), it applies to Code Sec. 403(b) plans.

Applicability Dates
The changes to the hardship distribution rules made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Plan Amendments
The Treasury Department and IRS expect that plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions to reflect the final regulations, and any such amendment must be effective for distributions beginning no later than January 1, 2020. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Rev. Proc. 2016-37, I.R.B. 2016-29,136.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

Year-by-Year Application
The proposed regulations provide that the AFS income inclusion rule generally applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS when the timing of income inclusion for one or more items of income is determined using the all events test. They further clarify that the AFS income inclusion rule applies only to taxpayers that have one or more AFS covering the entire tax year.

The AFS income inclusion rule applies on a year-by-year basis and, therefore, an accrual taxpayer with an AFS in one tax year that does not have an AFS in another tax year must apply the AFS income inclusion rule in the tax year that it has an AFS, and does not apply the rule in the tax year in which it does not have an AFS.

No Change to Income Tax Treatment
The proposed regulations also clarify that AFS income inclusion rule does not change the treatment of a transaction for federal income tax purposes:

• The treatment of a transaction or event in a tax year may be different for federal income tax and AFS purposes.
• The applicability of any exclusion provision, or the treatment of nonrecognition transactions, in the Code, the Income Tax Regulations, or other guidance does not change.

Partial Payment
The proposed regulations provide that an amount included in the transaction price for AFS purposes may not be treated as contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event if the taxpayer has been paid or has an equitable, contractual, or other right to partial payment for performance completed to date. Additionally, that transaction price may not be reduced for amounts subject to Code Sec. 461, including reward amounts in credit card transactions.

Special Methods and Multi-Year Contracts
The proposed regulations clarify that when a taxpayer uses a special method of accounting, the special method of accounting determines the timing of the income inclusion.

Proposed regulations also provide guidance for taxpayers with a financial reporting period that is different than the taxpayer’s tax year. The taxpayer must use one of three permissible methods in order to determine whether an item of income has been included in revenue on an AFS.

For a contract with multiple performance obligations, the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation equals the amount allocated to each performance obligation for purposes of including the item in revenue in the taxpayer's AFS. The proposed regulations clarify that a transaction price does not include amounts collected on behalf of third parties, or amounts that are contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event.

A taxpayer with a multi-year contract applies the all events test by applying a cumulative approach reflecting amounts previously included under Code Sec. 451 rather than an annualized approach.

Fees
Under the proposed regulations if the taxpayer does not treat a fee as discount or as an adjustment to the yield of a debt instrument over the life of the instrument (such as points) in its AFS, and the fee otherwise would be treated as creating or increasing original issue discount (OID) for federal income tax purposes (specified fee), then the rules in the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 451(b) apply before the rules in Code Secs. 1271 through Code Sec. 1275. Removing specified fees and specified credit card fees from the calculation of OID will permit taxpayers to apply only the rules of Code Sec. 451(b) to these fees, without also having to apply the rules relevant to OID.

The proposed section regulations would not apply to determine the time at which OID generally is includible in income.

Effective Date
The regulations are proposed generally to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, in the case of a specified fee, Proposed Reg. §1.451-3(i)(2) is proposed to apply for a taxpayer’s first tax year beginning one year after the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final is published in the Federal Register.

A taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations (other than the proposed regulations relating to specified fees) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 (after December 31, 2018, for specified credit card fees), as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in the proposed regulations for specified credit card fees; and (2) consistently applies the proposed regulations to all items of income during the tax year (other than specified fees).

Proposed regulations provide rules for accrual method taxpayers who receive advance payments. The proposed regulations include provisions affecting both taxpayers both with and without applicable financial statements (AFS), and describe and clarify the statutory requirements of Code Sec. 451(c).

Similar to Rev. Proc. 2004-34
The proposed regulations include many provisions similar to those of Rev. Proc. 2004-34, I.R.B. 2004-22, 991. For example the proposed regulations:

• provide a similar deferral method for non-AFS taxpayers;
• provide a list of items excluded from the definition of advance payment;
• provide rules consistent with Rev. Proc. 2004-34 to ensure the acceleration of an advance payment when a taxpayer dies or ceases to exist, or when a taxpayer’s obligation is satisfied or otherwise ends; and
• use the short tax year rules of Rev. Proc. 2004-34 for the AFS and non-AFS deferral methods
  The proposed regulations also provide additional definitions and clarifications.

Change in Accounting Method
The IRS intends to provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may change its method of accounting to use one of the deferral methods described in these proposed regulations. Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 2004-34, as described in Notice 2018-35, I.R.B. 2018-18, 520.

Effective Date
The proposed regulations are to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. Until the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register, a taxpayer may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in these proposed regulations, and (2) consistently applies these proposed regulations to all advance payments.

Taxpayers may use the automatic consent procedures to change accounting methods to comply with the recent proposed regulations described above. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

Taxpayers may use the automatic consent procedures to change accounting methods to comply with the recent proposed regulations described above. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

The proposed regulations provide rules for:

• inclusion in gross income under the all events test for taxpayers with an applicable financial statement (AFS) ( NPRM REG-104870-18); and
• use of the deferral method for advance payments for taxpayers with or without an AFS ( NPRM REG-104554-18).

Certain qualifying taxpayers may apply for a change to comply with the proposed regulations without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.

Taxpayers Affected
The accounting change procedures for inclusion in gross income for taxpayers with an AFS generally apply to taxpayers with an AFS that want to:

• change to a method of accounting that treats an item of gross income as meeting the all events test no later than when the item is taken into account as revenue in its AFS under Code Sec. 451(b)(1)(A);
• in certain cases, allocate the transaction price to performance obligations under Code Sec. 451(b)(4);
• change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-3; or
• change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(c).

The procedures also apply to taxpayers that do not have an AFS and that want to change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(d).

In addition, the procedures apply to a change in AFS in order to apply certain revenue recognition methods of accounting.

Pending Nonautomatic Applications
The IRS will return any Form 3115 requesting a change in method of accounting available under this revenue procedure that:

• was filed on or before September 9, 2019, under the non-automatic procedures for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2017; and
• is pending with the National Office on September 9, 2019.

The National Office will send a letter to the taxpayer acknowledging the return of the Form 3115, and will return the user fee submitted with the form. A timely resubmitted Form 3115 will be considered filed as of the date the taxpayer originally filed the Form 3115 under the nonautomatic change procedures.

Effective Date
This revenue procedure is generally effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. For specified credit card fees, it is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Amendments to have been proposed to update the information reporting regulations under Code Sec. 6033, which generally apply to organizations exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a). The proposed regulations reflect statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced through guidance that has been made since the current regulations were adopted. The amendments and grants of relief apply particularly with respect to tax-exempt organizations required to file an annual Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or a Form 990-EZ information return.

Amendments to have been proposed to update the information reporting regulations under Code Sec. 6033, which generally apply to organizations exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a). The proposed regulations reflect statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced through guidance that has been made since the current regulations were adopted. The amendments and grants of relief apply particularly with respect to tax-exempt organizations required to file an annual Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or a Form 990-EZ information return.

Annual Return and Reporting Requirements
Code Sec. 6033 outlines various requirements for an annual information return to be filed by organizations that are exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) or are described in Code Sec. 527, including exceptions to the filing requirement. The reporting requirements under Code Sec. 6033(h) mandate controlling organizations to include on their returns:

• interest, annuities, royalties, or rents received from each controlled entity under Code Sec. 512(b)(13);
• any loans made to each such controlled entity; and
• any transfers of funds between such controlling organization and each such controlled entity.

Penalty Relief
Under Code Sec. 6104(b), the IRS must make the filed annual returns available to the public. Under Rev. Proc. 2018-38, I.R.B. 2018-31, 280, tax-exempt organizations (other than charities exempt under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) and Code Sec. 527 political organizations) were no longer required to report the names and addresses of contributors on Schedule B when filing their information returns. This change applied to information reporting for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, for donations above certain applicable thresholds.

However, Rev. Proc. 2018-38 has been overturned by a federal district court ( S.C. Bullock, DC Mont., 2019-2 ustc ¶50,245), which held that the IRS failed to follow the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Code Sec. 6652(c)(1)(A) imposes penalties for a failure to file a return required under Code Sec. 6033, failure to include any required information, or failure to provide correct information. Under Code Sec. 6652(c)(5), the penalty is not imposed if it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause. Notice 2019-47 provides that the IRS will consider there to be a reasonable cause based on reliance on Rev. Proc. 2018-38 for any organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ and did not include on their 2018 information return such donor information as Rev. Proc. 2018-38 indicated was not required.

Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments to the regulations would restore relief from the requirement to report contributor names and addresses on the annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations that was previously provided in Rev. Proc. 2018-38 before the federal district court overturned that rule. Therefore, only organizations exempt under Code Secs. 501(c)(3) and 527 would need to continue reporting their donor information on their Forms 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

In addition, the proposed amendments would incorporate into the regulations the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, found in Rev. Proc. 2011-15, I.R.B. 2011-3, 322.

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.