Newsletters

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

Year-End Tax Package
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, (HR 1865), logs just over 700 pages and serves as only half of the government spending package for fiscal year 2020, which runs through September 30. Most notably, HR 1865 serves as the legislative vehicle for a year-end tax package, which carries a costly $426 billion price tag over a 10-year budget window, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), JCX-54R-19.

Some of the tax-related provisions in the year-end package include, among other items:

• Retroactive and current renewal of over two dozen temporary tax breaks known as tax extenders, which have expired or would soon be expired, spanning from 2017 to 2019. Generally, the renewed tax breaks are extended through 2020, and the biodiesel and short-line railroad maintenance tax credits are extended until 2022;
• The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) (HR 1994), which makes sweeping changes to retirement savings and employer retirement contributions provisions;
• Certain fixes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• Full repeal of three tax-related provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148), two of which include the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the 40 percent excise "Cadillac" tax on high-dollar employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

The House approved HR 1865 on December 17 by a 297-to-120 vote. The Senate cleared the measure on December 19 by a 71-to-23 vote.

"So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

"There were numerous fits and starts, but this result is a reminder that Congressional muscle memory on extenders is very strong, so ultimately the members did what they always do – extend them," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of the federal legislative and regulatory services group in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP told Wolters Kluwer. "Some might be surprised to see the ACA taxes rolled back, but it has always felt like those items were on borrowed time; it was really just a question of when and how they were repealed, not whether. So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

SECURE ACT
The bipartisan SECURE Act, which cleared the House in May but remained stalled in the Senate most of the year, makes a number of major as well as administrative changes for retirement savings affecting both individuals and employers.

Some of those changes are noted as follows:

IRA Changes

• Moving the start date for requirement required minimum distributions (RMDs) to the year the owner turns 72;
• Ending the 70 1/2 age limit for contribute contributions to an IRA; and
• Shortening the distribution period for nonspouse inherited IRAs to a 10-year maximum.
  The 10-year window for distributions to a nonspouse beneficiary applies regardless of when the IRA owner dies. Thus, the change will severely limit the use of "stretch IRAs" as an effective planning tool. Limited exceptions are available.

401(k) Changes

• Requiring plans to offer participation to long-term, part-time employees;
• Encouraging auto-enrollment by increasing the cap; and
• Streamlining the safe harbor for non-elective contributions.

Employers with 401(k) plans must offer employees who work between 500 and 1000 hours year an additional means to participate in the plan. The rule change would only affect 401(k) cash or deferral arrangements, and no other qualified plans.

Retirement Plans for Small Employers

Several changes are made to encourage more small employers to offer retirement benefits to their employees, such as:

• Adding a new tax credit for small employers using auto-enrollment plans;
• Increasing the credit for small employer pension plan start-up costs; and
• Allow small employers of two or more to band together to participate in a new class of pooled multiple employer plans (MEPs).

Congress Adjourns Until 2020
After an eventful two-week sprint to the finish line, Congress adjourned for the year on December 20. Lawmakers are expected to return to Washington, D.C. during the week of January 6, 2020.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

District Court
According to the opinion, "the rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today." Therefore, the opinion directs the district court to carefully consider whether the mandate can be legally distinct from the rest of the law. The opinion instructs the district court to answer two questions: Which parts of the ACA "are indeed inseverable" now that the mandate is no longer enforced and whether a ruling in the case should apply only to the Republican-led states that sued to overturn the law, an issue raised by Trump administration lawyers.

Dissenting Opinion
A dissenting opinion discussed that Congress made it clear that it wanted the rest of the ACA to stand and sending the case back to the lower court was criticized. The opinion also highlighted that sending the case back to the lower court merely identifies serious flaws in the district court’s analysis and remands for a do-over, which will unnecessarily prolong this litigation and the concomitant uncertainty over the future of the health care sector.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

The regulations address issued related to all aspects of the gain deferral rules and also various requirements that must be met for an entity to qualify as a qualified opportunity fund (QOF) or as a qualified opportunity zone business. Duplicative rules regarding QOFs and qualified opportunity zone businesses have been combined and definitions of key terms added. The regulations detail which taxpayers are eligible to make the election, the types of capital gains eligible for deferral, and the method of making deferral elections. Revisions are made to the rules applying the statutory 180-period and other requirements with regard to the making of a qualifying investment in a QOF.

The IRS will reflect these regulations in updated forms, instructions, and other guidance in January 2020.

Benefits of QOF Investments
Taxpayers may elect to temporarily defer capital gain in income if the gain is invested within 180 days in a QOF. The gain is recognized on Dec. 31, 2026, or if earlier, upon the occurrence of an inclusion event such as the sale of the QOF investment. However, 10 percent of the deferred gain is not recognized if the investment is held five years and 15 percent is not recognized after seven years. In addition, taxpayers may exclude recognition of gain on appreciation in the investment if the investment in the qualified opportunity fund is held for at least 10 years.

Section 1231 gains
The final regulations provide that eligible gains include the gross amount of eligible section 1231 gains unreduced by section 1231 losses regardless of character. The proposed regulations took a "netting" approach. The 180-day period for an eligible taxpayer to invest an amount with respect to an eligible section 1231 gain begins on the date of the sale of the section 1231 asset rather than at the end of the tax year.

RICS and REITS
The 180-day period for RIC or REIT capital gain dividends generally begins at the close of the shareholder’s tax year in which the capital gain dividend would otherwise be recognized by the shareholder. To ensure that RIC and REIT shareholders do not have to wait until the close of their tax year to invest capital gain dividends received during the tax year, the final regulations also provide that shareholders may elect to begin the 180-day period on the day each capital gain dividend is paid. The 180-day period for undistributed capital gain dividends, however, begins on either the last day of the shareholder’s tax year in which the dividend would otherwise be recognized or the last day of the RIC or REIT’s tax year, at the shareholder’s election.

The aggregate amount of a shareholder’s eligible gain with respect to capital gain dividends received from a RIC or a REIT cannot exceed the aggregate amount of capital gain dividends that the shareholder receives as reported or designated by that RIC or that REIT for the shareholder’s tax year.

Installment Sales
The final regulations allow an eligible taxpayer to elect to choose the 180- day period to begin on either (i) the date a payment under an installment sale is received for that tax year, or (ii) the last day of the tax year the eligible gain under the installment method would be recognized. Therefore, if the taxpayer defers gain from multiple payments under an installment sale, there might be multiple 180-day periods, or a single 180-day period at the end of the taxpayer’s tax year, depending upon taxpayer’s election.

Partners, S Corporation Shareholders, and Trust Beneficiaries
The final regulations provide partners, S shareholders, and beneficiaries of decedents’ estates and non-grantor trusts with the option to treat the 180-day period as commencing upon the due date of the related entity’s tax return, not including any extensions. This rule does not apply to grantor trusts.

Gain from Disposal of Partial Interest in QOF Investment
Gain arising from an inclusion event is eligible for deferral even though the taxpayer retains a portion of its qualifying investment after the inclusion event. If an inclusion event relates only to a portion of a taxpayer’s qualifying investment in the QOF, (i) the deferred gain that otherwise would be required to be included in income (inclusion gain amount) may be invested in a different QOF, and (ii) the taxpayer may make a deferral election with respect to the inclusion gain amount, so long as the taxpayer satisfies all requirements for a deferral election on the inclusion gain amount.

Post-December 31, 2026 Gain Ineligible
Gain arising after December 31, 2026 (including gain mandatorily recognized on that date) is not eligible for deferral.

Death Related Transfers of QOF Investments
A qualifying investment received by a beneficiary in a transfer by reason of death remains a qualifying investment in the hands of the beneficiary.

Acquisition of Eligible Interest from Person Other than a QOF
A taxpayer may make a deferral election for an eligible interest acquired from a person other than a QOF. The final regulations do not require the transferor to have made a prior deferral election for the acquirer of an eligible interest to make the election.

Further, for interests in entities that existed before the enactment of the deferral provision, if such entities become QOFs, then the interests in those entities, even though not qualifying investments in the hands of a transferor, are eligible interests that may (i) be acquired by an investor and (ii) result in a qualifying investment of the acquirer if the acquirer has eligible gain and the acquisition was during the 180-day period with respect to that gain.

Built in Gains
Built-in gain of a REIT, a RIC, or an S corporation potentially subject to corporate-level tax is eligible for deferral. If the deferral election is made, the amount of gain is not included in the calculation of the entity’s net recognized built-in gain.

Identification of Disposed Interests in a QOF
The final regulations permit taxpayers to specifically identify QOF stock that is sold or otherwise disposed. If a taxpayer fails to adequately identify which QOF shares are disposed of, then the FIFO identification method applies. If, after application of the FIFO method, a taxpayer is treated as having disposed of less than all of its investment interests that the taxpayer acquired on one day and the investments vary in its characteristics, then a pro-rata method applies to the remainder.

The specific identification method does not apply to the disposition of interests in a QOF partnership.

Deferred Gain Retains Tax Attributes
The final regulations make it clear that if a taxpayer is required to include in income some or all of a previously deferred gain, the gain so included has the same attributes that the gain would have had if the recognition of gain had not been deferred. If a deferred gain cannot be clearly associated with an investment in a particular QOF, an ordering rule applies to make this determination.

Effective Date
The final regulations are generally applicable to tax years beginning after 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

With respect to the portion of a taxpayer’s first tax year ending after December 21, 2017, that began on December 22, 2017, and for tax years beginning after December 21, 2017, and on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register taxpayers may rely on either the proposed regulations or the final regulations but not both.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

Background
Code Sec. 721(a) generally provides that no gain or loss is recognized by either a partnership or any of its partners upon a contribution of property to the partnership in exchange for a partnership interest. In Code Sec. 721(c), the Treasury Secretary has regulatory authority to override this nonrecognition provision for gain realized on the transfer of property to a domestic or foreign partnership if the gain, when recognized, would be includible in the gross income of a person other than a U.S. person.

Under temporary regulations issued in 2017, if a U.S. person contributes certain property with built-in gain to a partnership that has foreign partners related to the transferor, then gain will be recognized unless the gain deferral method is applied with respect to the property ( Temporary Reg. §§1.721(c)-2T; 1.721(c)-3T). Under a de minimis exception, nonrecognition continues to apply if the sum of all built-in gain property contributed to the partnership during the tax year does not exceed $1 million.

The final regulations adopt the temporary regulations with certain modifications.

Related Person Definition
The final regulations modify the definition of related person in certain situations. This modification provides relief when certain foreign individual partners of a partnership would be treated as a related person with respect to a domestic corporation by reason of Code Sec. 267(c)(3).

Consistent Allocation Method
The final regulations add a new sentence in Reg. §1.721(c)-3(c)(1). Upon a variation (as described in Reg. §1.706-4(a)(1)) of a U.S. transferor’s interest in a Code Sec. 721(c) partnership, book items with respect to section 721(c) property that are allocated under the interim closing method (as described in Reg. §1.706-4) will be treated as allocated in the same percentage for applying the consistent allocation method in a single tax year, unless the variation results from a transaction undertaken with a principal purpose of avoiding the tax consequences of the gain deferral method.

Reporting Requirements
The 2017 regulations required much of the reporting to be on statements attached to returns. Since the 2017 regulations were issued, however, the IRS has updated and added new schedules to Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, to facilitate compliance with these reporting requirements. The IRS has also issued new Form 8838-P, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Pursuant to the Gain Deferral Method (Section 721(c)). The final regulations generally require taxpayers to use these forms and schedules.

The final regulations also clarify the duration for which the U.S. transferor must extend the period of limitations on the assessment of tax under Reg. §1.721(c)-6(b).

Technical Termination Rules
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, ( P.L. 115-97) (the "TCJA") eliminated technical terminations. However, the applicability date for these final regulations relates back to the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations, which is before the effective date provided in the TCJA. Accordingly, the final regulations retain technical termination rules, but their application will be limited. The rules will only apply to technical terminations occurring on or after the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations but before the effective date for the repeal of Code Sec. 708(b)(1)(B) provided in the TCJA.

Effective Date
The regulations are effective on the date of filing with the Federal Register. For dates of applicability, see Reg. §§1.197-2(l)(5)(i), 1.704-1(f), 1.704-3(g)(1), 1.721(c)-1(e), 1.721(c)-2(e), 1.721(c)-3(e), 1.721(c)-4(d), 1.721(c)-5(g), 1.721(c)-6(g), and 1.6038B-2(j)(4).

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

"This report is about more than what happened during the past year," IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig wrote in the report’s opening message to taxpayers. "It’s also designed to provide insight into the people serving this country on behalf of the IRS, and provide a glimpse into the future," he added.

IRS Pub. 5382 also focuses criminal investigation results and efforts involving civil enforcement. Also discussed are ongoing compliance areas, including micro-captives, syndicated conservation easements, and virtual currency. The report further covers the IRS’s implementation of new tax laws, and the IRS’s ongoing work on the new Taxpayer First Act of 2019.

Individual Audits Down
Taxpayers are now half as likely to be audited by the IRS for their individual income tax returns as they were a decade ago. As described in IRS Pub. 5382, the IRS audited 0.45 percent of individual (1040) income tax returns during fiscal year (FY) 2019. This number is down from 1.1 percent of tax returns audited in 2010. The IRS’s ongoing loss to its total workforce is largely to blame for the consistent decline in IRS audits, according to the report.

"The IRS lost more than 29,618 full time positions between FY 2010 and FY 2019, which includes Information Technology, Operations Support, Taxpayer Service and Enforcement personnel. These losses directly correlate with a steady decline in the number of individual audits during the past nine years," the report notes.

Hill Reaction
Although individual audits have significantly decreased, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are criticizing the fact that the IRS continues to conduct more examinations on lower-income individual taxpayers than it does on higher-income taxpayers or corporations. However, the IRS has said previously that audits on higher-income individuals and businesses are significantly more complex and require more resources.

"IRS audit rates are at their lowest levels in 40 years, allowing the wealthy and well-connected to steal from taxpayers with no consequences," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a January 7 statement. "The bulk of tax avoidance and fraud comes from corporations, pass-through business and those at the top. Ensuring the wealthy and corporations pay what they owe takes the most resources and manpower, and I’m working with the IRS to get a clear picture on funding and staffing levels needed to audit top earners at 2010 levels," Wyden added.

Currently, the IRS anticipates that up to 31 percent of its workforce (nearly 19,719 full-time employees) will retire within the next five years. The IRS’s workforce decline is expected to create a "significant risk of a large knowledge and experience gap for the nation’s tax agency," according to the IRS report.

Bridget Roberts, the Acting National Taxpayer Advocate, released her 2019 Annual Report to Congress. The report discusses the key challenges facing the IRS regarding the implementation of the Taxpayer First Act, inadequate taxpayer service and limited funding of the agency. Further, Roberts released the third edition of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s "Purple Book," which presents 58 legislative recommendations designed to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration.

Bridget Roberts, the Acting National Taxpayer Advocate, released her 2019 Annual Report to Congress. The report discusses the key challenges facing the IRS regarding the implementation of the Taxpayer First Act, inadequate taxpayer service and limited funding of the agency. Further, Roberts released the third edition of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s "Purple Book," which presents 58 legislative recommendations designed to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration.

Taxpayer First Act
The report highlighted that the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25) had made the most comprehensive revisions to IRS procedures since the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, including some 23 provisions previously recommended by the National Taxpayer Advocate. Further, the Taxpayer First Act also required the IRS to develop four strategic plans:

• a comprehensive taxpayer service strategy (due to Congress by July 1, 2020);
• a comprehensive plan to redesign the IRS’s organizational structure (due to Congress by Sept. 30, 2020);
• a comprehensive employee training strategy that includes taxpayer rights training (due to Congress by July 1, 2020); and
• a multi-year plan to meet IRS information technology (IT) needs.

Key IRS Challenges
The biggest challenge facing the IRS is its struggle to complete its mission. The IRS aims to "provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all." The report emphasizes that the IRS is struggling to meet both of those goals, and attributes the IRS’s shortcomings mostly to budget constraints but also to a culture in which the agency focuses on its own priorities without adequately factoring in the needs of taxpayers.

The report states that the IRS is among the lowest-performing federal agencies in providing a positive customer experience. During fiscal year (FY) 2019, the report said that the IRS received approximately 100 million telephone calls, and customer service representatives answered only 29 percent. The report further states that the IRS has also struggled to enforce the law with "fairness to all". The report urges the IRS to prioritize phone service for taxpayers against whom it takes collection action.

Low Budget
Since 2010, the IRS budget has been reduced by about 20 percent after adjusting for inflation, and the number of full-time equivalent employees has declined by about 22 percent. The report points out that answering 100 million telephone calls, conducting audits, and taking enforcement actions require adequate staffing, and the IRS cannot substantially improve its performance without additional resources. The report urges Congress to increase IRS funding and particularly for taxpayer service and IT modernization, and to change the budget rules to account for the revenue additional IRS appropriations are likely to generate.

Identifying Taxpayer Needs and Preferences
Despite the IRS’s significant funding limitations, the report urges the IRS to utilize the Taxpayer First Act requirements – to develop plans to revamp its taxpayer service strategy, organizational structure, employee training strategy, and technology priorities – as a roadmap for a once-in-a-generation reassessment of its objectives and operations.

While noting that the IRS has developed strategies in a vacuum without soliciting taxpayer feedback and taking into account taxpayer needs and preferences, the report suggests a full-scale cultural shift. The report also expressed concern that the IRS has declined to include the National Taxpayer Advocate or a Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) representative as part of a core team created to coordinate its Taxpayer First Act implementation activities.

The report also makes numerous recommendations to improve the customer experience, including that the IRS take the following actions:

• Conduct multi-disciplined, comprehensive research into taxpayer needs and preferences.
• Require that all IRS business units, including those charged primarily with enforcement, develop a detailed customer service strategy.
• Appoint a Chief Customer Experience Officer to coordinate service initiatives across IRS business units.
• Ensure that taxpayers who cannot work with the IRS digitally, or whose issues are not resolved online, can reach and work with an IRS employee.
• Address the needs of practitioners who interact with the IRS on behalf of large numbers of taxpayers.
• For each proposal included in its customer service strategy, include cost estimates, milestones, and taxpayer-focused performance measures so the effectiveness of the strategy in improving customer service can be measured over time.

Other Matters
The report also:

• identified 10 "most serious problems";
• provided status updates on two problems identified in previous reports;
• made dozens of recommendations for administrative change;
• made 58 recommendations for legislative change;
• analyzed the 10 tax issues most frequently litigated in the federal courts; and
• presented four research studies.

The IRS has modified the applicability dates for proposed regulations under Code Sec. 382 that were issued with NPRM REG-125710-18, September 10, 2019 (2019 proposed regulations). The IRS is withdrawing the text of the proposed applicability dates, and proposing revised applicability dates. The newly issued proposed rules would also provide transition relief.

The IRS has modified the applicability dates for proposed regulations under Code Sec. 382 that were issued with NPRM REG-125710-18, September 10, 2019 (2019 proposed regulations). The IRS is withdrawing the text of the proposed applicability dates, and proposing revised applicability dates. The newly issued proposed rules would also provide transition relief.

Proposed Regulations and Notice 2003-65
The 2019 proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of items of income and deductions in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would apply to ownership changes that occur after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, provides interim guidance for identifying 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.

Delay of Applicability Date
To address concerns raised by taxpayers and practitioners, the IRS has withdrawn the text of Proposed Reg. §1.382-2(b)(4) and Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(g) contained in the 2019 proposed regulations, and replaced it with a revised proposed applicability date text. To avoid any gap between the date on which taxpayers can no longer rely on Notice 2003-65 and the date on which the final regulations are applicable, the applicability date of the final regulations would be 30 days after the date such regulations are published in the Federal Register (delayed applicability date). Exceptions exist for two situations discussed below.

Notice 2003-65 will remain applicable to ownership changes to which the final regulations do not apply.

Limiting Duplicative Application
The first exception to the delayed applicability date relates to the rule in Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5), which provides that certain carryforwards of business interest expense disallowed under Code Sec. 163(j) would not be treated as recognized built-in losses under Code Sec. 382(h)(6)(B), if such amounts were allowable as deductions during the five-year recognition period set forth in Code Sec. 382(h)(7)(A). This rule eliminates the possible duplicative application of Code Sec. 382 to certain disallowed business interest expense carryforwards.

The IRS has determined that Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5) should be finalized before the remainder of the rules in the 2019 proposed regulations, and that taxpayers should be allowed to retroactively apply this rule. To that end, the IRS expects that Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5) will be finalized as part of the Treasury decision that finalizes the proposed Code Sec. 163(j) regulations (see 83 FR 67490), and that taxpayers will be permitted to apply the rule to prior periods. The IRS continues to study the remainder of the rules in the 2019 proposed regulations.

Transition Relief
Under the proposed transition relief provisions, the final regulations would not apply to certain ownership changes that occur after the delayed applicability date. To qualify for the transition relief, the ownership change must occur immediately after an owner shift or equity structure shift that occurs pursuant to:

• a binding agreement in effect on or before the delayed applicability date and at all times thereafter;
• a specific transaction described in a public announcement made on or before the delayed applicability date;
• a specific transaction described in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission submitted on or before the delayed applicability date;
• a transaction described in a private letter ruling request submitted to the IRS on or before the delayed applicability date; or
• a court order (or a plan confirmed, or a sale approved, by court order) in a title 11 or similar case, provided that the taxpayer was a debtor in a case before such court on or before the delayed applicability date.

The relevant owner shift or equity structure shift must be a specific, identifiable transaction.

Taxpayers may continue to rely on Notice 2003-65 for to any ownership change qualifying for transition relief, even though the notice will be obsoleted on the delayed applicability date. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations to such an ownership change.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations on the due diligence and reporting rules for persons making certain U.S. source payments to foreign persons. Guidance is also provided on reporting by foreign financial institutions on U.S. accounts. The regulations are effective on the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations on the due diligence and reporting rules for persons making certain U.S. source payments to foreign persons. Guidance is also provided on reporting by foreign financial institutions on U.S. accounts. The regulations are effective on the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Obtaining a Foreign TIN and Date of Birth
Temporary regulations provided that beginning January 1, 2017, a beneficial withholding certificate provided to document an account maintained at a U.S. branch or office of a financial institution was required to include a foreign taxpayer identification number (TIN) and the date of birth for an individual, in order to treat the certificate as valid. In response to comments regarding the difficulty of the requirements, the Treasury and IRS issued Notice 2017-46.

The notice provided a one-year delay in the implementation of the requirements for payments made on or after January 1, 2018, and a transitional rules to phase in the foreign TIN requirement for certificates provided before January 1, 2018. The transitional rules allow an otherwise valid certificate to remain valid until January 1, 2020. For payments made after January 1, 2020, a withholding agent may treat a pre-2018 as valid if the foreign TIN is obtained on a written statement or is in the withholding agent’s files. In Notice 2018-20, the IRS stated that it intended to expand its list of jurisdictions that do not issue foreign TINs to their residents to include jurisdictions that requested to be on the list, even if they issue foreign TINs.

The final regulations incorporate the temporary regulations and Notices with minor changes, by:

• providing, with respect to withholding certificates signed on or after January 1, 2018, that a separate written statement is an acceptable way to collect a foreign TIN, if the written statement contains an acknowledgment that the statement is part of the withholding certificate;
• clarifying the exception to the foreign TIN requirement for an account holder that is a government, international organization, foreign central bank or resident of a U.S. territory; and
• clarifying that a withholding agent may rely on the date of birth on a withholding certificate, unless it knows or has reason to know that the date of birth is incorrect.

Nonqualified Intermediaries
A nonqualified intermediary is generally required to provide a withholding agent a Form W-8IMY, a withholding statement, and documentation for each payee for which the intermediary receives a payment. The final regulations clarify that the general standards of knowledge that apply to withholding agents apply to a nonqualified intermediary for reliance on payee documentation, for making the representation that the information on the certificate is not inconsistent with other account information that the nonqualified intermediary has.

A nonqualified intermediary may provide a withholding statement that does not include a chapter 4 recipient code for one or more payees if the withholding agent can determine the appropriate code based on other information included on or associated with the withholding statement, or contained in the withholding agent’s records.

Electronic Signatures
A withholding agent can accept an electronically signed withholding certificate if the certificate reasonably demonstrates to the withholding agent that it has been electronically signed by the recipient identified on the form or authorized by the recipient to sign the form.

The final regulations allow the withholding agent to also consider documentation or other information that the withholding agent has that supports that the withholding certificate was electronically signed, absent actual knowledge that the information or documentation is incorrect.

Additional Changes
The final regulations also make clarifications with respect to withholding certificates and statements furnished through a third party repository.

Regarding the claim of a reduced rate of withholding under a treaty, the final regulations modify the general standard of knowledge by providing that:

• the withholding agent has reason to know that a claim of reduced rate under a treaty is unreliable or incorrect when it can check a list on the IRS website regarding the existence of the treaty, and
• a withholding agent can rely on a beneficial owner’s claim regarding a limitation of benefits (LOB) provision, absent actual knowledge that the claim is unreliable or incorrect.

The final regulation also extend the time for withholding agents to obtain treaty statements, with respect to specific LOB provisions for preexisting accounts, to January 1, 2020.

Taxpayers have been provided with additional guidance for complying with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations on dividend equivalent payments for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to amend the regulations to delay the effective/applicability date of certain rules. Further, the phase-in period provided in Notice 2018-762, I.R.B. 2018-40, 522, has been extended.

Taxpayers have been provided with additional guidance for complying with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations on dividend equivalent payments for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to amend the regulations to delay the effective/applicability date of certain rules. Further, the phase-in period provided in Notice 2018-762, I.R.B. 2018-40, 522, has been extended.

Dividend Equivalent Payments
A dividend equivalent amount is essentially an amount directly or indirectly determined by reference to a U.S. dividend. Code Sec. 871(m) treats dividend equivalent payments as U.S. source dividends. These payments are subject to 30-percent withholding (or a lower treaty rate) if received by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.

The Code Sec. 871(m) regulations include final and temporary regulations under Code Secs. 871(m), 1441, 1461, and 1473.

Phase-in Year Extended
The effective/applicability date for the specified notional principal contract (NPC) rules under Reg. §1.871-15(d)(2) and the specified equity-linked instrument (ELI) rules under Reg. §1.871-15(e) will be revised. These rules will not apply to any payment made with respect to any non-delta-one transaction issued before January 1, 2023.

The IRS will take into account the extent to which the taxpayer or withholding agent made a good faith effort to comply with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations in enforcing those regulations—

• for any delta-one transaction in 2017 through 2022; and
• for any non-delta-one transaction that is a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction under Reg. §1.871-15(d)(2) or Reg. §1.871-15(e) in 2023.

Further, the period when the IRS will take into account the extent to which a qualified derivatives dealer made a good faith effort to comply with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2017 Qualified Intermediary (QI) Agreement is extended through 2022.

The 2017 QI Agreement will be revised so that a QDD will be treated as satisfying the obligations that specifically apply to a QDD under that agreement for 2017 through 2022.

Simplified Standard Extended
The period when the simplified standard applies for withholding agents to determine whether transactions entered into were combined transactions is extended to include 2021 and 2022. Transactions entered into in 2017 through 2022 that are combined under the simplified standard will continue to be treated as combined for future years. They will not stop being combined transactions by applying Reg. §1.871-15(n) (the combined transactions rule in the regulations), or by disposing of less than all of the potential Code Sec. 871(m) transactions that are combined under this rule.

Transactions entered into in 2017 through 2022 that are not combined under the simplified standard will not become combined transactions by applying Reg. §1.871-15(n) to them in future years, unless a reissuance or other event causes the transactions to be retested to determine whether they are Code Sec. 871(m) transactions.

Phase-In Relief for Qualified Derivatives Dealers Extended
Regarding qualified derivatives dealers (QDDs), Reg. §1.871-15(q)(1), Reg. §1.871-15(r)(3), and Reg. §1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii)(C) will be amended so that a QDD will not be subject to tax on dividends and dividend equivalents received in 2021 and 2022 in its equity derivatives dealer capacity or withholding on those dividends (including deemed dividends). A QDD will have to compute its Code Sec. 871(m) amount using the net delta approach beginning in 2023.

A QDD will remain liable under Code Sec. 881(a)(1) for tax on dividends and dividend equivalents that it receives in any other capacity, and on any other U.S. source FDAP payments that it receives (whether or not in its equity derivatives dealer capacity). A QDD is also responsible for withholding on dividend equivalents it pays to a foreign person on a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction.

Transition Rules Extended
Withholding agents may apply the qualified securities lender (QSL) transition rules described in Notice 2010-46, I.R.B. 2010-24, 757, for payments made in calendar years 2021 and 2022.

Anti-Abuse Rule
The anti-abuse rule in Reg. §1.871-15(o) will continue to apply during the phase-in years. This means that a transaction that would not otherwise be treated as a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction (including as a result of the new guidance) might still be a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction under the anti-abuse rule.

Taxpayer Reliance
Taxpayers and withholding agents can rely on the new guidance before the Treasury and IRS amend the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations and the 2017 QI Agreement.

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.