The 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.

WASHINGTON–With Congress in its lame duck session to close out the remainder of 2024 and with Republicans taking control over both chambers of Congress in the just completed election cycle, no major tax legislation is expected, although there is potential for minor legislation before the year ends.

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. 

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. For those aged 73 or older, QCDs also count toward the year's required minimum distribution (RMD). Following are the steps for reporting and documenting QCDs for 2024:

• IRA trustees issue Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., in early 2025 documenting IRA distributions.
• Record the full amount of any IRA distribution on Line 4a of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors.
• Enter "0" on Line 4b if the entire amount qualifies as a QCD, marking it accordingly.
• Obtain a written acknowledgment from the charity, confirming the contribution date, amount, and that no goods or services were received.

Additionally, to ensure QCDs for 2024 are processed by year-end, IRA owners should contact their trustee soon. Each eligible IRA owner can exclude up to $105,000 in QCDs from taxable income. Married couples, if both meet qualifications and have separate IRAs, can donate up to $210,000 combined. QCDs did not require itemizing deductions. New this year, the QCD limit was subject to annual adjustments based on inflation. For 2025, the limit rises to $108,000.

Further, for more details, see Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, and Publication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).

IR-2024-289

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

Background

Code Sec. 6417, applicable to tax years beginning after 2022, was added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), P.L. 117-169, to allow “applicable entities” to elect to treat certain tax credits as payments against income tax. “Applicable entities” include tax-exempt organizations, the District of Columbia, state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and rural electric cooperatives. Code Sec. 6417 also contains rules specific to partnerships and directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations on making the election (“elective payment election”).

Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1), issued under T.D. 9988 in March 2024, provides that partnerships are not applicable entities for Code Sec. 6417 purposes. The 2024 regulations permit a taxpayer that is not an applicable entity to make an election to be treated as an applicable entity, but only with respect to certain credits. The only credits for which a partnership could make an elective payment election were those under Code Secs. 45Q, 45V, and 45X.

However, Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1) of the March 2024 final regulations also provides that if an applicable entity co-owns Reg. §1.6417-1(e) “applicable credit property” through an organization that has made Code Sec. 761(a) election to be excluded from application of the rules of subchapter K, then the applicable entity’s undivided ownership share of the applicable credit property is treated as (i) separate applicable credit property that is (ii) owned by the applicable entity. The applicable entity in that case may make an elective payment election for the applicable credit related to that property.

At the same time as they issued final regulations under T.D. 9988, the Treasury and IRS published proposed regulations (REG-101552-24, the “March 2024 proposed regulations”) under Code Sec. 761(a) permitting unincorporated organizations that meet certain requirements to make modifications (called “exceptions”) to the then-existing requirements for a Code Sec. 761(a) election in light of Code Sec. 6417.

Code Sec. 761(a) authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations permitting an unincorporated organization to exclude itself from application of subchapter K if all the organization’s members so elect. The organization must be “availed of”: (1) for investment purposes rather than for the active conduct of a business; (2) for the joint production, extraction, or use of property but not for the sale of services or property; or (3) by dealers in securities, for a short period, to underwrite, sell, or distribute a particular issue of securities. In any of these three cases, the members’ income must be adequately determinable without computation of partnership taxable income. The IRS believes that most unincorporated organizations seeking exclusion from subchapter K so that their members can make Code Sec. 6417 elections are likely to be availed of for one of the three purposes listed in Code Sec. 761(a).

Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) before amendment by T.D. 10012 required that participants in the joint production, extraction, or use of property (i) own that property as co-owners in a form granting exclusive ownership rights, (ii) reserve the right separately to take in kind or dispose of their shares of any such property, and (iii) not jointly sell services or the property (subject to exceptions). The March 2024 proposed regulations would have modified some of these Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) requirements.

The regulations under T.D. 10012 finalize some of the March 2024 proposed regulations. Concurrently with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury and IRS are issuing proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) that would make additional amendments to Reg. §1.761-2.

The Final Regulations

The final regulations issued under T.D. 10012 revise the definition in the March 2024 proposed regulations of “applicable unincorporated organization” to include organizations existing exclusively to own and operate “applicable credit property” as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(e). The IRS cautions, however, that this definition should not be read to imply that any particular arrangement permits a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The final regulations also add examples to Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5), not found in the March 2024 proposed regulations, to illustrate (1) a rule that the determination of the members’ shares of property produced, extracted, or used be based on their ownership interests as if they co-owned the underlying properties, and (2) details of a rule regarding “agent delegation agreements.”

In addition, the final regulations clarify that renewable energy certificates (RECs) produced through the generation of clean energy are included in “renewable energy credits or similar credits,” with the result that each member of an unincorporated organization must reserve the right separately to take in or dispose of that member’s proportionate share of any RECs generated.

The Treasury and IRS also clarify in T.D. 10012 that “partnership flip structures,” in which allocations of income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits change at some after the partnership is formed, violate existing statutory requirements for electing out of subchapter K and, thus, are by existing definition not eligible to make a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The Proposed Regulations

The preamble to the March 2024 proposed regulations noted that the Treasury and IRS were considering rules to prevent abuse of the Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) modifications. For instance, a rule mentioned in the preamble would have prevented the deemed-election rule in prior Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) from applying to any unincorporated organization that relies on a modification in then-proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii). The final regulations under T.D. 10012 do not contain any rules on deemed elections, but the Treasury and the IRS believe that more guidance is needed under Code Sec. 761(a) to implement Code Sec. 6417. Therefore, proposed rules (REG-116017-24, the “November 2024 proposed regulations”) are published concurrently with the final regulations to address the validity of Code Sec. 761(a) elections by applicable unincorporated organizations with elections that would not be valid without application of revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii).

Specifically, Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iv)(A) would provide that a specified applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election terminates as a result of the acquisition or disposition of an interest in a specified applicable unincorporated organization, other than as the result of a transfer between a disregarded entity (as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(f)) and its owner.

Such an acquisition or disposition would not, however, terminate an applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election if the organization (a) met the requirements for making a new Code Sec. 761(a) election and (b) in fact made such an election no later than the time in Reg. §1.6031(a)-1(e) (including extensions) for filing a partnership return with respect to the period of time that would have been the organization’s tax year if, after the tax year for which the organization first made the election, the organization continued to have tax years and those tax years were determined by reference to the tax year in which the organization made the election (“hypothetical partnership tax year”).

Such an election would protect the organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election against all terminating acquisitions and dispositions in a hypothetical year only if it contained, in addition to the information required by Reg. §1.761-2(b), information about every terminating transaction that occurred in the hypothetical partnership tax year. If a new election was not timely made, the Code Sec. 761(a) election would terminate on the first day of the tax year beginning after the hypothetical partnership taxable year in which one or more terminating transactions occurred. Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5)(iv) would add an example to illustrate this new rule.

These provisions would not apply to an organization that is no longer eligible to elect to be excluded from subchapter K. Such an organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election automatically terminates, and the organization must begin complying with the requirements of subchapter K.

The proposed regulations would also clarify that the deemed election rule in Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) does not apply to specified applicable unincorporated organizations. The purpose of this rule, according to the IRS, is to prevent an unincorporated organization from benefiting from the modifications in revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) without providing written information to the IRS about its members, and to prevent a specified applicable unincorporated organization terminating as the result of a terminating transaction from having its election restored without making a new election in writing.

In addition, the proposed regulations would require an applicable unincorporated organization making a Code Sec. 761(a) election to submit all information listed in the instructions to Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for making a Code Sec. 761(a) election. The IRS explains that this requirement is intended to ensure that the organization provides all the information necessary for the IRS to properly administer Code Sec. 6417 with respect to applicable unincorporated organizations making Code Sec. 761(a) elections.

The proposed regulations would also clarify the procedure for obtaining permission to revoke a Code Sec. 761(a) election. An application for permission to revoke would need to be made in a letter ruling request meeting the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance. The IRS indicates that taxpayers may continue to submit applications for permission to revoke an election by requesting a private letter ruling and can rely on Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance before the proposed regulations are finalized.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. apply to tax years ending on or after March 11, 2024 (i.e., the date on which the March 2024 proposed regulations were published). The IRS states that an applicable unincorporated organization that made a Code Sec. 761(a) election meeting the requirements of the final regulations for an earlier tax year will be treated as if it had made a valid Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) would apply to tax years ending on or after the date on which they are published as final.

T.D. 10012

NPRM REG-116017-24

IR-2024-292

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is criticizing the Internal Revenue Service for proposing changed to how it contacts third parties in an effort to assess or collect a tax on a taxpayer.

Current rules call for the IRS to provide a 45-day notice when it intends to contact a third party with three exceptions, including when the taxpayer authorizes the contact; the IRS determines that notice would jeopardize tax collection or involve reprisal; or if the contact involves criminal investigations.

The agency is proposing to shorten the length of proposing to shorten the statutory 45-day notice to 10 days when the when there is a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations for collection or certain other circumstances exist.

"The IRS’s proposed regulations … erode an important taxpayer protection and could punish taxpayers for IRS delays," Collins wrote in a November 7, 2024, blog post. The agency generally has three years to assess additional tax and ten years to collect unpaid tax. By shortening the timeframe, it could cause personal embarrassment, damage a business’s reputation, or otherwise put unreasonable pressure on a taxpayer to extend the statute of limitations to avoid embarrassment.

"Furthermore, the ten-day timeframe is so short, it is possible that some taxpayers may not receive the notice with enough time to reply," Collins wrote. "As a result, those taxpayers may incur the embarrassment and reputational damage caused by having their sensitive tax information shared with a third party on an expedited basis without adequate time to respond."

"The statute of limitations is an important component of the right to finality because it sets forth clear and certain boundaries for the IRS to act to assess or collect taxes," she wrote, adding that the agency "should reconsider these proposed regulations and Congress should consider enacting additional taxpayer protections for third-party contacts."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

Code Sec. 6335 governs how the IRS sells seized property and requires the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate, as soon as practicable after a seizure, to give written notice of the seizure to the owner of the property that was seized. The amended regulation updates the prescribed manner and conditions of sales of seized property to match modern practices. Further, the regulation as updated will benefit taxpayers by making the sales process both more efficient and more likely to produce higher sales prices.

The final regulation provides that the sale will be held at the time and place stated in the notice of sale. Further, the place of an in-person sale must be within the county in which the property is seized. For online sales, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(1) provides that the place of sale will generally be within the county in which the property is seized. so that a special order is not needed. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(5) provides that the IRS will choose the method of grouping property selling that will likely produce that highest overall sale amount and is most feasible.

The final regulation, as amended, removes the previous requirement that (on a sale of more than $200) the bidder make an initial payment of $200 or 20 percent of the purchase price, whichever is greater. Instead, it provides that the public notice of sale, or the instructions referenced in the notice, will specify the amount of the initial payment that must be made when full payment is not required upon acceptance of the bid. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1 updates details regarding permissible methods of sale and personnel involved in sale.

T.D. 10011

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The relief extends the BOI filing deadlines for reporting companies that (1) have an original reporting deadline beginning one day before the date the specified disaster began and ending 90 days after that date, and (2) are located in an area that is designated both by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as qualifying for individual or public assistance and by the IRS as eligible for tax filing relief.

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Beryl; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC7)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Debby; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC8)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Francine; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC9)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Helene; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC10)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Milton; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC11)

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

In an October 24, 2024, blog post, Collins noted that the IRS has "ended its practice of automatically assessing penalties at the time of filing for late-filed Forms 3250, Part IV, which deal with reporting foreign gifts and bequests."

She continued: "By the end of the year the IRS will begin reviewing any reasonable cause statements taxpayers attach to late-filed Forms 3520 and 3520-A for the trust portion of the form before assessing any Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6677 penalty."

Collins said this change will "reduce unwarranted assessments and relieve burden on taxpayers" by giving them an opportunity to explain the circumstances for a late file to be considered before the agency takes any punitive action.

She noted this has been a change the Taxpayer Advocate Service has recommended for years and the agency finally made the change. The change is an important one as Collins suggests it will encourage more taxpayers to file corrected returns voluntarily if they can fix a discovered error or mistake voluntarily without being penalized.

"Our tax system should reward taxpayers’ efforts to do the right thing," she wrote. "We all benefit when taxpayers willingly come into the system by filing or correcting their returns."

Collins also noted that there are "numerous examples of taxpayers who received a once-in-a-lifetime tax-free gift or inheritance and were unaware of their reporting requirement. Upon learning of the filing requirement, these taxpayers did the right thing and filed a late information return only to be greeted with substantial penalties, which were automatically assessed by the IRS upon the late filing of the form 3520," which could have penalized taxpayers up to 25 percent of their gift or inheritance despite having no tax obligation related to the gift or inheritance.

She wrote that the abatement rate of these penalties was 67 percent between 2018 and 2021, with an abatement rate of 78 percent of the $179 million in penalties assessed.

"The significant abetment rate illustrates how often these penalties were erroneously assessed," she wrote. "The automatic assessment of the penalties causes undue hardship, burdens taxpayers, and creates unnecessary work for the IRS. Stopping this practice will benefit everyone."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has released initial guidance on the new Code Sec. 83(i), added by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Code Sec. 83 generally provides for the federal income tax treatment of property transferred in connection with the performance of services. Code Sec. 83(i) allows certain employees to elect to defer recognition of income attributable to the receipt or vesting of qualified stock for up to five years.

The IRS has released initial guidance on the new Code Sec. 83(i), added by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Code Sec. 83 generally provides for the federal income tax treatment of property transferred in connection with the performance of services. Code Sec. 83(i) allows certain employees to elect to defer recognition of income attributable to the receipt or vesting of qualified stock for up to five years.

The guidance clarifies three key issues related to Code Sec. 83(i):

• the application of the requirement that eligible corporations must make grants to not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States;
• the application of federal income tax withholding to the deferred income related to the qualified stock; and
• the ability of an employer to opt out of permitting employees to elect the deferred tax treatment even if the requirements under Code Sec. 83(i) are otherwise met.

Code Sec. 83(i) applies to stock attributable to stock options exercised, or restricted stock units (RSUs) settled, after December 31, 2017. Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Eligible Corporations
Companies who wish to be eligible corporations and offer the Code Sec. 83(i) election must have a written plan under which, in such calendar year, not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States (or any possession of the United States) are granted stock options, or are granted RSUs, with the same rights and privileges to receive qualified stock.

The IRS clarifies that the determination of whether a corporation qualifies as an eligible corporation is made "with respect to any calendar year." Furthermore, to meet the 80-percent requirement, the corporation must have granted "in such calendar year" stock options to 80 percent of its employees or RSUs to 80 percent of its employees. So the determination that the corporation is an eligible corporation must be made on a calendar-year basis, and whether the corporation has satisfied the 80-percent requirement is based solely on the stock options or the RSUs granted in that calendar year to employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States. In calculating whether the 80 percent requirement is satisfied, the corporation must take into account the total number of individuals employed at any time during the year in question as well as the total number of employees receiving grants during the year.

Employment Taxes
Employment taxes include Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax, and federal income tax withholding. FICA and FUTA taxes related to deferral stock remain unaffected.

Deferral stock are considered wages under Code Sec. 3402. When the wages are treated as paid, the employer must make a reasonable estimate of the value of the stock and make deposits of the amount of income tax withholding liability based on that estimate. The wages are subject to withholding at the maximum rate of tax, and withholding is determined without regard to the employee’s Form W-4. By January 31 of the following year, the employer must determine the actual value of the deferral stock on the date it is includible in the employee’s income, and report that amount and the withholding on Form W-2 and Form 941. With respect to income tax withholding for the deferral stock that the employer pays from its own funds, the employer may recover that income tax withholding from the employee until April 1 of the year following the calendar year in which the wages were paid. An employer that fails to deduct and withhold federal income tax is liable for the payment of the tax whether or not the employer collects it from the employee.

Not Eligible Stock
Code Sec. 83(i) imposes a number of requirements and limitations that must be met for an election to be allowed. Although the election, if allowed, may be made by an employee, the corporation is responsible for creating the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election. If a corporation does not intend to create the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election, the terms of a stock option or RSU may provide that no election under Code Sec. 83(i) will be available with respect to stock received upon the exercise of the stock option or settlement of the RSU. This designation would inform employees that no Code Sec. 83(i) election may be made with respect to stock received upon exercise of the option or settlement of the RSU, even if the stock is qualified stock.

Highly anticipated foreign tax credit regulations have been issued that provide guidance on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Highly anticipated foreign tax credit regulations have been issued that provide guidance on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations address:

• allocation and apportionment of the deductions under Code Secs. 861 through 865, and adjustments to the foreign tax credit limitation under Code Sec. 904(b)(4);
• transition rules for overall foreign loss, separate limitation loss, and overall domestic loss accounts under Code Sec. 904(f) and (g), and for the carryover and carryback of unused foreign taxes under Code Sec. 904(c);
• addition of separate foreign tax credit limitation categories for foreign branch income and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), and other updates to the foreign tax credit limitation rules;
• calculation of the high-tax income exception from subpart F income;
• determination of the Code Sec. 960 deemed paid credits and the gross-up under Code Sec. 78; and
• the election under Code Sec. 965(n) not to apply the net operating loss deduction when calculating the Code Sec. 965 transition tax.

Deduction Allocation and Apportionment
The proposed regulations generally apply the existing approach of the expense allocation rules to income in the new Code Sec. 951A (GILTI) and foreign branch categories. The proposed regulations also provide for exempt income and exempt asset treatment for income in the GILTI category that is offset by the Code Sec. 250 deduction. This will reduce the amount of expenses apportioned to the GILTI category.

Rules are provided for the allocation and apportionment of the Code Sec. 250 deduction. A new rule addresses loans to partnerships by certain partners and their affiliates to prevent abusive borrowing arrangements that artificially increase foreign source income. Under the proposed regulations, interest income attributable to borrowing through a partnership is allocated across the foreign tax credit separate categories in the same manner as the associated interest expense.

The proposed allocation and apportionment regulations also revise the netting rule for controlled foreign corporations (CFCs), and provide rules for: valuing assets, characterizing stock for elections related to research and experimentation (R&E) expenses, and applying the Code Sec. 904(b)(4) adjustment.

Because the existing expense allocation rules have not been updated since 1988, the Treasury Department and IRS expect to reexamine existing approaches to allocating and apportioning expenses, including for example the rules for allocating interest, R&E expenses, stewardship and general and administrative expenses.

Limitations
The proposed regulations eliminate deadwood, and reflect statutory amendments made prior to the TCJA. New and transitional rules account for the separate categories for GILTI and foreign branch income. For example, foreign tax credit carryovers will by default remain in the general category, but taxpayers are allowed to allocate the transitional FTC carryovers to the foreign branch category. Also, the look-through rules are revised to clarify that nonpassive look-through payments cannot be assigned to a Code Sec. 951A category, and are generally assigned to the general category or the foreign branch category.

Additionally, changes are made to the rules relating to the passive category for high-taxed income, export financing income, and financial services income. Also addressed is the separate category for income resourced under a treaty, and rules for assigning the Code Sec. 78 gross-up and Code Sec. 986(c) gain or loss to a separate category.

Deemed Paid Tax Credits
The proposed regulations provide rules for determining a domestic corporation’s deemed paid taxes under Code Sec. 960, as revised by the TCJA. The proposed regulations treat a GILTI inclusion as a subpart F inclusion for purposes of Code Sec. 960(c). The proposed regulations also reflect the changes made by the TCJA to the Code Sec. 78 gross-up.

The IRS has issued transition relief from the "once-in-always-in" condition for excluding part-time employees under Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B). Under the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, once an employee is eligible to make elective deferrals, the employee may not be excluded from making elective deferrals in any later exclusion year on the basis that he or she is a part-time employee.

The IRS has issued transition relief from the "once-in-always-in" condition for excluding part-time employees under Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B). Under the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, once an employee is eligible to make elective deferrals, the employee may not be excluded from making elective deferrals in any later exclusion year on the basis that he or she is a part-time employee.

Part-Time Employee Exclusion Conditions Under Final 403(b) Regulations
The Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued final regulations under Code Sec. 403(b) that were generally effective starting after 2008. Part of the final regulations include Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B), which covers the conditions that an employer must satisfy before excluding a part-time employee from the plan. The IRS parses the regulation to impose three separate conditions for an employee to be excluded—

• a "first-year" exclusion condition, under which the employer must reasonably expect the employee to work fewer than 1,000 hours during the employee’s first year of employment;
• a "preceding-year" exclusion condition, under which the employee must have actually worked fewer than 1,000 hours in the preceding 12-month period; and
• the "once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, under which the employee may be excluded under the part-time exclusion if and only if, in the employee’s first year of employment, the employee meets the first-year exclusion condition, and, in each exclusion year ending after the first year of employment, the employee has met the preceding-year exclusion condition.

The effect of the once-in-always-in exclusion condition is that once an employee does not meet the part-time exclusion conditions, whether in the initial year of employment or for any exclusion year, the employee may no longer be excluded from making elective deferrals under the part-time exclusion.

Employers Surprised by Once-In-Always-In Condition
Employers requested transition relief because many were unaware that the part-time exclusion included the once-in-always-in exclusion condition. Many employers applied the first-year exclusion condition for an employee’s first year, and applied the preceding-year exclusion condition separately for each succeeding exclusion year, but did not apply the once-in-always-in exclusion condition to prevent an employee who failed to meet either the first-year exclusion condition or the preceding-year exclusion condition from being excluded in all subsequent exclusion years.

Transition Relief for Once-In-Always-In Condition
The IRS is providing transition relief, including—

• operations relief for a transition period referred to as the "Relief Period";
• relief regarding plan language; and
• a fresh-start opportunity after the "Relief Period" ends.

The operations "Relief Period" begins with tax years beginning after December 31, 2008. For plans with exclusion years based on plan years, the "Relief Period" ends for all employees on the last day of the last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019. For plans with exclusion years based on employee anniversary years, the "Relief Period" ends, with respect to any employee, on the last day of that employee’s last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019.

Last year’s tax reform created a new Opportunity Zone program, which offers qualifying investors certain tax incentives aimed to spur investment in economically distressed areas. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has predicted that the Opportunity Zone program will create $100 billion in private capital that will be invested in designated opportunity zones.

Last year’s tax reform created a new Opportunity Zone program, which offers qualifying investors certain tax incentives aimed to spur investment in economically distressed areas. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has predicted that the Opportunity Zone program will create $100 billion in private capital that will be invested in designated opportunity zones.

The IRS released the much anticipated proposed regulations for the Opportunity Zone program in October ( REG-115420-18). The proposed rules provide "clarity and some good news for taxpayers," Micheal Bernier, partner at Ernst & Young’s National Tax practice, told Wolters Kluwer in an emailed statement.

Opportunity Zones

The Opportunity Zone program was created under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) enacted in December 2017. The TCJA added Code Secs. 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2, which include procedural rules for designating opportunity zones and provisions allowing qualifying taxpayers to elect certain income tax benefits. Although not a single Democrat voted for the TCJA, the Opportunity Zone program was based on a bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. The program "creates tax incentives to help stimulate the flow of capital into communities that need opportunity the most," Cory Booker said in an October 29 tweet.

Generally, the proposed rules have been considered on Capitol Hill as leaning favorably toward taxpayers. However, stakeholders and practitioners are reporting that many questions remain. To that end, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), housed under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has announced that a second package of regulations is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Qualified Opportunity Funds

The TCJA’s Opportunity Zone program generally established the following investor tax benefits:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF);
• the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
• the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

"Most importantly, taxpayers can use the fund as collateral. This was a surprise and is important," Bernier told Wolters Kluwer. "The type of investments made by Opportunity Funds do have some strings attached, which are designed to make sure the investments are creating economic activity in the Opportunity Zones, not just buying and holding existing assets," he added. "Under an Opportunity Zone structure, if you refinance the property and take cash out of the Opportunity Zone fund, that would be a disposition and would trigger the gain, thus reducing the amount of investment that is eligible for the 10-year deferral."

Real Estate Investors

Additionally, real estate investors stand to receive significant tax advantages through the Opportunity Zone program, according to Bernier. "As collateral, it is possible to borrow against the Opportunity Zone fund, a very important option for real estate investors," he said. "There are a few extra hurdles to using that strategy, but it’s valuable in the real estate world and would be the rough equivalent of a cash-out refinancing."

Additionally, Bernier noted the generous latitude that Treasury and the IRS used in defining certain statutory terms. For example, "‘substantially all’ of owned or leased assets was defined as 70 percent [in the proposed regulations]; this could have been as high as 90 percent or more," Bernier said. Further, "the time allowance for working capital is set at 30 months to deal with cash. This helps in getting the development done," he added.

Too Flexible?

The proposed regulations for the Opportunity Zone program may be too flexible, according to an October article released by the liberal-leaning Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC). "Neither the statute nor the guidance ensure that the investments will benefit low- and moderate-income residents of these communities,"the TPC article noted. "The investment flexibility makes it very difficult to evaluate the success of Opportunity Zones."

Additionally, TPC researchers noted the need for proper reporting under the Opportunity Zone program. "The next round of IRS regulations and tax forms is expected to detail those reporting requirements,"the TPC article said. "It will be vital that this disclosure provide the public with the answers to a series of basic questions: Who is investing in Opportunity Zones? How much is being invested? How is the money being used?"

Likewise, the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation noted in an October 23 article that the proposed regulations do nothing to ensure the program’s success. "The benefits given to investors through opportunity funds are remarkably generous, and many of these regulations only increase and widen those benefits without regard to the results," the article said.

Further, stakeholders testifying before the Senate Small Business Committee in early October also emphasized the importance of establishing proper reporting metrics for the program.

Questions Remain

Although stakeholder feedback has been largely positive, stakeholders and practitioners have noted several areas where additional IRS guidance is needed. Particularly, uncertainties surrounding the application of the QOF penalty, tax treatment of the sale of a QOF asset, and clarity on the definition of qualified opportunity zone business property are reportedly among items circulating the tax community as needing further guidance.

After the IRS released the proposed regulations, Sen. Scott praised the guidance while also noting that it is incomplete. "The first set of rules released by the Treasury Department today reinforce that this will not be another bureaucratic process burdened by red tape, but rather a streamlined, efficient process that allows for investments to truly help communities in need," Scott said.

Additionally, Bernier told Wolters Kluwer that future regulations are needed to "fill in gaps." The next package of proposed regulations are "anticipated in November and December, "he added.

To that end, the House’s top tax writer has urged stakeholders in a recent statement to provide feedback on the proposed regulations. Moreover, those comments should include "identifying any areas where additional technical guidance would be valuable in providing certainty to potential investors and project managers," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said.

The IRS is expected to soon release proposed regulations for tax reform’s new business interest limitation. "They are so broad that nearly every domestic taxpayer will be impacted," Daniel G. Strickland, an associate at Eversheds Sutherland, told Wolters Kluwer.

The IRS is expected to soon release proposed regulations for tax reform’s new business interest limitation. "They are so broad that nearly every domestic taxpayer will be impacted," Daniel G. Strickland, an associate at Eversheds Sutherland, told Wolters Kluwer.

The first set of proposed regulations for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation is expected to focus primarily on corporations. A second package of proposed regulations, expected sometime in December, will reportedly address the business interest limitation’s treatment of partnerships and S corporations.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted last December, amended Code Sec. 163(j) to include a broader limitation on the business interest expense deduction. Before last year’s tax reform, the former Code Sec. 163(j) "earnings stripping" rules were applied much more narrowly to a specific type of debt-to-equity ratio held by corporations. Now, the amended Code Sec. 163(j)limitation encompasses all debt, regardless of entity or individual. The new business interest limitation was intended by Republicans, at least in part, to serve as a revenue raiser to help offset tax reform’s significant corporate tax rate reduction from 35 to 21 percent.

OMB Review

Currently, the proposed regulations for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation are under review at the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA received the proposed regulations from Treasury and the IRS on October 25, according to OIRA’s website.

It is expected on Capitol Hill that a 10-day expedited review process that is available for tax reform-related regulations was requested.

Business Interest Limitation

Under the amended Code Sec. 163(j), a taxpayer’s annual business interest expense for the tax year, effective for tax years after December 31, 2017, is limited to the following three factors:

• business interest income;
• 30 percent of adjustable taxable income (ATI); and
• floor plan financing interest.

Under the TCJA, business interest excludes "investment interest" as defined in Code Sec. 163(d). Additionally, the calculation requirements for "adjusted taxable income" are set to change in 2022.

Practitioner Insight

"In terms of statutory language, phrases like ‘properly allocable’ jump off the page,"Strickland told Wolters Kluwer. Under the TCJA, "business interest" is defined as any interest paid or accrued on indebtedness that is properly allocable to a trade or business. It remains to be seen how the IRS will identify what is "properly allocable,"according to Strickland.

"Since propriety differs between taxpayers and the government, it will be interesting to see how the regulations handle it," Strickland said. "Will we get a two-pronged objective and subjective test or will there be a bright line rule?" he posited.

Additionally, Strickland said that tax practitioners expect allocation rules will be included, but noted that it remains unclear what form the rules will take. Whether there will be separate rules for different types of entities and how the IRS will treat allocation between exempt and non-exempt entities and within consolidated groups are all interesting yet unsettled components, according to Strickland.

Further, Strickland predicted that the forthcoming regulations will clarify how Code Sec. 951A’s global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) provision will interact with Code Sec. 163(j). "In the same vein, I expect that we will see how 163(j) plays with 168(k) and 267A, among other sections," he added. "As we get each new piece of the puzzle, the whole picture comes into focus."

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

Code Sec. 199A allows business owners to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships, partnerships, trusts, and S corporations. The deduction is one of the most high-profile pieces of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

In addition to providing general definitions and computational rules, the new guidance helps clarify several concepts that were of special interest to many taxpayers.

Trade or Business

The proposed regulations incorporate the Code Sec. 162 rules for determining what constitutes a trade or business. A taxpayer may have more than one trade or business, but a single trade or business generally cannot be conducted through more than one entity.

Taxpayers cannot use the grouping rules of the passive activity provisions of Code Sec. 469 to group multiple activities into a single business. However, a taxpayer may aggregate trades or businesses if:

• each trade or business is itself a trade or business;
• the same person or group owns a majority interest in each business to be aggregated;
• none of the aggregated trades or businesses can be a specified service trade or business; and
• the trades or businesses meet at least two of three factors which demonstrate that they are in fact part of a larger, integrated trade or business.

Specified Service Business

Income from a specified service business generally cannot be qualified business income, although this exclusion is phased in for lower-income taxpayers.

A new de minimis exception allows some business to escape being designated as a specified service trade or business (SSTB). A business qualifies for this de minimis exception if:

• gross receipts do not exceed $25 million, and less than 10 percent is attributable to services; or
• gross receipts exceed $25 million, and less than five percent is attributable to services.

The regulations largely adopt existing rules for what activities constitute a service. However, a business receives income because of an employee/owner’s reputation or skill only when the business is engaged in:

• endorsing products or services;
• licensing the use of an individual’s image, name, trademark, etc.; or
• receiving appearance fees.

In addition, the regulations try to limit attempts to spin-off parts of a service business into independent qualified businesses. Thus, a business that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to a related service business is part of that service business. Similarly, the portion of property or services that a business provides to a related service business is treated as a service business. Businesses are related if they have at least 50-percent common ownership.

Wages/Capital Limit

A higher-income taxpayer’s qualified business income may be reduced by the wages/capital limit. This limit is based on the taxpayer’s share of the business’s:

• W-2 wages that are allocable to QBI; and
• unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition.

The proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-34, provide detailed rules for determining the business’s W-2 wages. These rules generally follow the rules that applied to the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction.

The proposed regulations also address unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The regulations largely adopt the existing capitalization rules for determining unadjusted basis. However, "immediately after acquisition" is the date the business places the property in service. Thus, UBIA is generally the cost of the property as of the date the business places it in service.

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

• definitions;
• basic computations;
• loss carryovers;
• Puerto Rico businesses;
• coordination with other Code Sections;
• penalties;
• special basis rules;
• previously suspended losses and net operating losses;
• other exclusions from qualified business income;
• allocations of items that are not attributable to a single trade or business;
• anti-abuse rules;
• application to trusts and estates; and
• special rules for the related deduction for agricultural cooperatives.

Effective Dates

Taxpayers may generally rely on the proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64 until they are issued as final. The regulations and proposed revenue procedure will be effective for tax years ending after they are published as final. However:

• several proposed anti-abuse rules are proposed to apply to tax years ending after December 22, 2017;
• anti-abuse rules that apply specifically to the use of trusts are proposed to apply to tax years ending after August 9, 2018; and
• if a qualified business’s tax year begins before January 1, 2018, and ends after December 31, 2017, the taxpayer’s items are treated as having been incurred in the taxpayer’s tax year during which business’s tax year ends.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-107892-18). Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS also requests comments on the proposed revenue procedure for calculating W-2 wages, especially with respect to amounts paid for services in Puerto Rico. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov, with “ Notice 2018-64” in the subject line. These comments must also be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

A legislative package that would make permanent the pass-through deduction, as well as other individual tax cuts, is expected to move though the House this fall. However, the House’s legislative efforts are not expected, at this time, to pass muster in the more narrowly GOP-controlled Senate.

Criticism

Several Democratic lawmakers and tax policy experts have already started to weigh in on the proposed regulations, which were released on August 8 while Congress remained in its annual August recess. Democrats have criticized the new deduction for primarily benefiting the wealthy. Meanwhile, several tax policy experts have taken to Twitter to note that the deduction is overly complex and administratively burdensome.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has reportedly said that the proposed regulations "confirm that the fortunate few win," under the new tax law. "Tax planners are already scouring through the nearly 200 pages of regulations in search of new ways to keep wealthy clients from paying their fair share."

Compliance Burdens

The pass-through deduction could add 25 million hours to taxpayers’ annual reporting burden, according to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the IRS has estimated that gross reporting annualized costs to taxpayers will total approximately $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, the IRS has estimated that the compliance burden will vary between taxpayers, averaging between 30 minutes and 20 hours. The administrative burden on smaller pass-through entities is anticipated to be on the lower end of the estimate, according to the IRS.

Comment. Ryan Kelly, partner at Alston & Bird LLP, told Wolters Kluwer on August 13 that the IRS’s 25 million-hour estimate, whether accurate or not, suggests that there will be a significant increase in administrative compliance costs. "There is a real cost to tax compliance in lost time and productivity for taxpayers," Kelly said. However, Kelly predicted that taxpayers’ Code Sec. 199A compliance burden will eventually decrease. "Time will reveal the extent of taxpayers’ administrative burden to comply; however, it is likely that as time goes on the taxpayers’ compliance burden will fall as taxpayers, tax practitioners, and the Service all become more familiar with section 199A and how it is intended to operate."
Meanwhile, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees have both praised Treasury and the IRS for quickly releasing the much anticipated regulations. Additionally, several tax policy experts have also praised the proposed regulations for alleviating confusion, as well as taxpayer anxiety, about ambiguous provisions of the law.

"This first-ever 20 percent deduction for small businesses allows our local job creators to keep more of their money so they can hire, invest, and grow in their communities," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a statement. "These proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty and flexibility for Main Street businesses in this historic new small business deduction."

Improvements to the proposed regulations are expected in the coming months as stakeholders submit comments. A public hearing at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been scheduled for October 16. "Evolution of tax regulations is generally never a pretty process, but it is a necessary process that in this case will hopefully happen sooner rather than later," Kelly told Wolters Kluwer.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not directly change the tax rate on capital gains: they remain at 0, 10, 15 and 20 percent, respectively (with the 25- and 28-percent rates also reserved for the same special situations). However, changes within the new law impact both when the favorable rates are applied and the level to which to may be enjoyed.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not directly change the tax rate on capital gains: they remain at 0, 10, 15 and 20 percent, respectively (with the 25- and 28-percent rates also reserved for the same special situations). However, changes within the new law impact both when the favorable rates are applied and the level to which to may be enjoyed.

Capital gains rates

The maximum rates on net capital gain and qualified dividends are generally retained after 2017 and are 0 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. The breakpoints between the zero- and 15-percent rates ("15-percent breakpoint") and the 15- and 20-percent rates ("20-percent breakpoint") are generally the same amounts as the breakpoints under prior law, except the breakpoints are indexed using the new C-CPI-U factor in tax years beginning after 2018. For 2018:

• the 15-percent breakpoint is $77,200 for joint returns and surviving spouses (one-half of this amount ($38,600) for married taxpayers filing separately), $51,700 for heads of household, $2,600 for estates and trusts, and $38,600 for other unmarried individuals; and
• The 20-percent breakpoint is $479,000 for joint returns and surviving spouses (one-half of this amount for married taxpayers filing separately), $452,400 for heads of household, $12,700 for estates and trusts, and $425,800 for other unmarried individuals.

“Zero” rate. In the case of an individual (including an estate or trust) with adjusted net capital gain, to the extent the gain would not result in taxable income exceeding the 15-percent breakpoint, such gain is not taxed.

Comment. The breakpoints are not aligned with the new general income tax rate brackets. For example, alignment for joint filers would have the 15-percent breakpoint at $77,400 rather than $77,200; and, more significantly, 20 percent at $600,000 rather than at $479,000. Instead, they continue the alignment themselves more closely to the prior-law rate brackets.

Comment. As under prior law, unrecaptured section 1250 gain generally is taxed at a maximum rate of 25 percent, and 28-percent rate gain is taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. In addition, an individual, estate, or trust also remains subject to the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income (NII tax).

Kiddie tax

Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the "kiddie tax" is simplified by effectively applying ordinary and capital gains rates applicable to trusts and estates to the net unearned income of a child. A child’s "kiddie tax" is no longer affected by the tax situation of his or her parent or the unearned income of any siblings.

Taxable income attributable to net unearned income is taxed according to the brackets applicable to trusts and estates, with respect to both ordinary income and income taxed at preferential rates. For 2018, that means that the 15-percent capital gain rate starts at $2,600 and rising to 20 percent when $12,700 is reached.

Carried interest

Capital gain passed through to fund managers via a partnership profits interest (carried interest) in exchange for investment management services must meet an extended three-year holding period to qualify for long-term capital gain treatment. Under new Code 1061(a), if a taxpayer holds an applicable partnership interest at any time during the tax year, this rule treats carried interest as short-term capital gain—taxed at ordinary income rates— based on a three-year holding period instead of the usual one-year period.

SSBIC rollovers

For sales after 2017, the new law repeals the election to defer recognition of capital gain realized on the sale of publicly traded securities if the taxpayer used the sale proceeds to purchase common stock or a partnership interest in a specialized small business investment company (SSBIC). Prior to 2018 under former Code Sec. 1044, C corporations and individuals could elect to defer recognition of capital gain realized on the sale of publicly traded securities if the taxpayer used the sales proceeds within 60 days to purchase common stock or a partnership interest in a specialized small business investment company (SSBIC).

Like-kind exchanges

Like-kind exchanges have often been used to defer taxable gains. Going forward, like-kind exchanges are allowed only for real property after 2017 (Code Sec. 1031(a)(1)). Like-kind exchanges are no longer available for depreciable tangible personal property, and intangible and nondepreciable personal property after 2017. Gain on those assets will no longer be allowed to be deferred.

Code Sec. 199A deduction

The concept of capital gain is intertwined within the new passthrough deduction for partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships under Code Sec. 199A in several ways. A noncorporate taxpayer can claim a Code Sec. 199A deduction for a tax year for the sum of—

(1)

the lesser of —

(a) the taxpayer’s "combined qualified business income amount"; or

(b) 20 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s taxable income over the sum of (i) the taxpayer’s net capital gain under Code Sec. 1(h) and (ii) the taxpayer’s aggregate qualified cooperative dividends; plus

(2)

the lesser of —

(a) 20 percent of the taxpayer’s aggregate qualified cooperative dividends; or

(b) the taxpayer’s taxable income minus the taxpayer’s net capital gain (Code Sec. 199A(a), as added by the 2017 Tax Cuts Act).

Comment. As a result, the Code Sec. 199A deduction cannot be more than the taxpayer’s taxable income reduced by net capital gain for the tax year, making monitoring of capital gains a “must” for some taxpayers.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases bonus depreciation rate to 100 percent for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The rate phases down thereafter. Used property, films, television shows, and theatrical productions are eligible for bonus depreciation. Property used by rate-regulated utilities, and property of certain motor vehicle, boat, and farm machinery retail and lease businesses that use floor financing indebtedness, is excluded from bonus depreciation.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases bonus depreciation rate to 100 percent for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The rate phases down thereafter. Used property, films, television shows, and theatrical productions are eligible for bonus depreciation. Property used by rate-regulated utilities, and property of certain motor vehicle, boat, and farm machinery retail and lease businesses that use floor financing indebtedness, are excluded from bonus depreciation.

Timing Details

The 50-percent bonus depreciation rate applicable before the new law took effect has been increased to 100 percent for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The 100-percent allowance continues for five years, after which it is then phased down by 20 percent per calendar year for property placed in service after 2022. In general, the bonus depreciation percentage rates are as follows:

• 100 percent for property placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023;
• 80 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2022, and before January 1, 2024;
• 60 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2023, and before January 1, 2025;
• 40 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2026;
• 20 percent for property placed in service after December 31, 2025, and before January 1, 2027;
• 0 percent (bonus expires) for property placed in service after December 31, 2026.

Property acquired before September 28, 2017. Property acquired before September 28, 2017, is subject to the 50-percent rate if placed in service in 2017, a 40-percent rate if placed in service in 2018, and a 30-percent rate if placed in service in 2019. Property acquired before September 28, 2017, and placed in service after 2019 is not eligible for bonus depreciation. However, in the case of longer production property (LPP) and noncommercial aircraft (NCA), each of these placed-in-service dates is extended one year. Thus, a 50 percent rate applies to LPP and NCA acquired before September 28, 2017 and placed in service in 2017 or 2018, a 40 percent rate applies if such property is placed in service in 2019, and a 30 percent rate applies if such property is placed in service in 2020. They continue to apply to property acquired before the September 28, 2017, cut-off date set by Congress.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act modifies Section 529 qualified tuition plans to allow the plans to distribute up to $10,000 in tuition expenses incurred during the tax year for designated beneficiaries enrolled at a public, private, or religious elementary or secondary school. Section 529 plans used to only be allowed for college tuition, up to full tuition amounts. That provision for college tuition remains the same.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act modifies Section 529 qualified tuition plans to allow the plans to distribute up to $10,000 in tuition expenses incurred during the tax year for designated beneficiaries enrolled at a public, private, or religious elementary or secondary school. Section 529 plans used to only be allowed for college tuition, up to full tuition amounts. That provision for college tuition remains the same.

Although contributions are not tax deductible for federal tax purposes, funds within a Section 529 plan can accumulate tax-free within the plan until they are distributed tax-free to the educational institution for the child-beneficiary. The new $10,000 limitation applies on a per-student, not per-account basis. As a result, if an individual is a designated beneficiary of multiple accounts, a maximum of $10,000 in distributions will be free of income tax, regardless of whether the funds are distributed from multiple accounts. Some state plans provide a limited deduction against state income taxes for contributions to Section 529 plans. They may also provide caps on contributions.

The expansion of Section 529 plans to cover elementary and secondary school education applies to distributions made after December 31, 2017. Since existing Section 529 set up for a child-beneficiary’s college education may now be redirected earlier to primary and secondary tuition, parents, grandparents and other contributors will need to decide how best to manage each child’s combined accounts: whether amounts needed to cover college tuition should accumulate tax-free until those years, or whether they should be used earlier. Generally, if contributions are limited either by a donor’s financial resources or by state caps, use for college tuition will allow a greater amount to accumulate tax-free. If projected accumulated contributions can cover more than college tuition, then using remaining Section 529 balances for secondary and even elementary school may make sense.

These expanded rules are still young, however, with expected IRS regulations and other guidance overlaid onto the basic law under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sure to come. But although the tax-free growth benefits of any Section 529 plans have a long-term perspective, giving some thought to how these expanded Section 529 plans might be used in your family situation might start soon. Please contact our offices for further details.

Yes, conversions from regular (traditional) tax-deferred individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs are still allowed after enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, in some instances, such Roth conversions are more beneficial than they were prior to 2018, since the tax rates on all income, including conversion income, are now lower. However, the special rule that allows a contribution to one type of an IRA to be recharacterized as a contribution to the other type of IRA will no longer apply to a conversion contribution to a Roth IRA after 2017.

Yes, conversions from regular (traditional) tax-deferred individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs are still allowed after enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In fact, in some instances, such Roth conversions are more beneficial than they were prior to 2018, since the tax rates on all income, including conversion income, are now lower. However, the special rule that allows a contribution to one type of an IRA to be recharacterized as a contribution to the other type of IRA will no longer apply to a conversion contribution to a Roth IRA after 2017.

Note, however, that recharacterization is still permitted with respect to other contributions. For example, an individual may make a contribution for a year to a Roth IRA and, before the due date for the individual’s income tax return for that year, recharacterize it as a contribution to a traditional IRA. The provision is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Comment. Earlier versions of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act enacted by both the House and Senate eliminated recharacterization entirely. The provision was narrowed considerably in the reconciled version to target only conversions to Roth IRAs. So, for example, an individual may still make a contribution for a year to a Roth IRA and, before the due date for the individual’s income tax return for that year, recharacterize it as a contribution to a traditional IRA. In addition, an individual may still make a contribution to a traditional IRA and convert the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, but the individual is precluded from later unwinding the conversion through a recharacterization.

Life insurance proceeds are received tax-free. However, any interest earned on life insurance proceeds, usually referred to as its cash value, is subject to tax. Special rules apply to transfers of ownership in a life insurance policy, accelerated death benefits, and viatical settlements.

Life insurance proceeds are received tax-free. However, any interest earned on life insurance proceeds, usually referred to as its cash value, is subject to tax. Special rules apply to transfers of ownership in a life insurance policy, accelerated death benefits, and viatical settlements.

An insurance policyholder might purchase one of many different types of life insurance covering the life of the insured. Term insurance covers a certain period of time, most often one year. If the insured does not die during the term of coverage, no policy proceeds are paid and the policy lapses. Other types of policies, including ordinary life insurance, whole life insurance, variable life insurance, and universal life insurance, provide insurance (and, often, an investment component) during the insured's life span.

Regardless of the type of policy, the beneficiary pays no tax on the proceeds when the insured dies. However, sometimes, usually due to a delay in paying the policy proceeds, the life insurance company pays the beneficiary interest in addition to proceeds. Any interest paid by the life insurance company must be included in income. The exclusion from gross income applies only to the policy proceeds.

If a policy owner surrenders a life insurance policy in exchange for its cash value, the amount received is not the result of the insured's death. Therefore, it is not tax-free and is considered ordinary income to the policyholder. Only the amounts paid by the policy owner, which are a return of capital, are not taxed. The remainder is subject to tax.

Traditionally, life insurance was intended to provide financial assistance to the insured's survivors. In some cases, however, terminally or chronically ill policyholders may sell the policy to meet their financial needs prior to death. When a policyholder sells the policy back to the insurance company for a percentage of its face value, the proceeds are called "accelerated death benefits."

The policyholder might also sell the policy to a third party for a lump-sum payment. The proceeds are referred to as a "viatical settlement" and the third party is usually a viatical settlement company. The third party becomes the policyholder and beneficiary.

Accelerated death benefits and viatical settlement payments are not paid on account of the death of the insured. However, they may be excluded from income only if the person is diagnosed with a terminal illness (or a chronic illness, but only to cover long-term care expenses).

Life insurance may also be used for tax planning purposes, either in a personal or business setting. For these and other refinements as applied to the general rules, please contact this office for details.

The method and systems by which a taxpayer calculates the amount of income, gains, losses, deductions, and credits and determines when these items must be reported, constitute the taxpayer's method of tax accounting. Although the Tax Code and the regulations authorize the use of several accounting methods, and permit certain combinations of methods, a taxpayer must use the accounting method on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes book income. Further, the method must be used consistently and must clearly reflect income.

The method and systems by which a taxpayer calculates the amount of income, gains, losses, deductions, and credits and determines when these items must be reported, constitute the taxpayer's method of tax accounting. Although the Tax Code and the regulations authorize the use of several accounting methods, and permit certain combinations of methods, a taxpayer must use the accounting method on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes book income. Further, the method must be used consistently and must clearly reflect income.

A taxpayer's method of accounting includes not only the overall method of accounting, but also the accounting treatment of any item. The taxpayer may not treat a particular item in a manner that differs from the overall method.

After a taxpayer has adopted a particular method of accounting, either as an overall method of accounting or as a method of accounting for a particular material item, any changes in accounting method must first be approved by the IRS. The IRS may exercise its sole discretion in accepting a taxpayer's return as computed under the new method of accounting, unless the taxpayer has properly obtained its prior consent to the change.

A change in accounting method may be requested by a taxpayer or required by the IRS. The IRS usually must approve all changes in methods and may specify conditions for implementing the change. The IRS grants automatic consent to many accounting changes. Catch-up adjustments that prevent items of income and expenses from being omitted or reported twice, thereby avoiding possible post-change distortion of income, may be required.

The IRS has provided procedures for obtaining its consent to a change in accounting method. There are two types of consent—automatic consent and advance (non-automatic) consent. Both types of consent require taxpayers to file a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method. The advance consent procedures require payment of a user fee. The current IRS List of Automatic Changes is found in Rev. Proc. 2017-30.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

Staffing

"Examination is a vitally important aspect of maintaining a voluntary tax compliance system because 85 percent of the Gross Tax Gap is comprised of underreported tax on timely filed returns," TIGTA reported. Although hiring increased in FY 2016, it did not make up for recent attrition and retirements, TIGTA found. Examination staffing in FY 2016 reached a 20-year low with 8,847 employees, a decrease of four percent from FY 2015 (9,189 employees) and 23 percent lower than FY 2012 (11,432 employees).

Overall, the number of IRS full-time employees has declined by some 14 percent since FY 2012. The decline in the number of employees is likely to continue, TIGTA predicted. Approximately 22 percent of full-time permanent employees in the IRS are eligible to retire, and the IRS expects this number to increase to 34 percent by 2019, TIGTA found. "Should this loss of staffing be realized, the gap created by the loss of knowledge and experience has the potential to materially affect the administration and enforcement of tax laws," TIGTA reported.

Audit coverage

Individuals. TIGTA reported that the IRS examined one of every 143 individual income tax returns in FY 2016. This reflected a 16 percent decline compared to FY 2015 and 30 percent fewer examinations than the five-year high reported in FY 2012. The IRS examined one in 17 returns in FY 2016 with more than $1 million in income, which, according to TIGTA, is a decline of 29 percent compared to FY 2015.

Corporations and S corps. TIGTA found that fewer corporate tax returns were examined during FY 2016 than any year since FY 2004. The number of S corp examinations fell 15 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016 (one in every 295 S corp returns in FY 2016 compared to one in every 248 S corp returns in FY 2015).

Partnerships. Partnership examinations also declined, TIGTA found. The number of partnership returns examined decreased 24 percent from FY 2015 to 14,645 in FY 2016. "Due to a focus on partnership examinations in FY 2015, one of every 196 returns filed were examined; however, this number decreased to one of every 263 returns being examined in FY 2016," TIGTA reported.

TIGTA Ref. No. 2017-30-072

Parents incur a variety of expenses associated with children. As a general rule, personal expenditures are not deductible. However, there are several deductions and credits that help defray some of the costs associated with raising children, including some costs related to education. Some of the most common deductions and credits related to minors are the dependency exemption, the child tax credit, and the dependent care credit. Also not to be overlooked are tax-sheltered savings plans used for education, such as the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

Parents incur a variety of expenses associated with children. As a general rule, personal expenditures are not deductible. However, there are several deductions and credits that help defray some of the costs associated with raising children, including some costs related to education. Some of the most common deductions and credits related to minors are the dependency exemption, the child tax credit, and the dependent care credit. Also not to be overlooked are tax-sheltered savings plans used for education, such as the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

Dependency exemption. The dependency exemption is a type of deduction that is available for children and other qualifying dependents, subject to phase out if the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds prescribed threshold amounts. The amount of the personal exemption, adjusted for inflation, is $4,050 for tax years beginning in 2016 and 2017. The dependency exemption is available for each qualifying child under the age of 19 (under the age of 24 if a full-time student) and with no age restriction for a qualifying individual who is permanently and totally disabled. For 2017, the personal exemption begins to phase out for joint filers starting at $313,800 AGI and completely phasing out at $436,300 AGI ($261,500 and $384,000, respectively for single filers).

Child credit. The child tax credit is available for parents of qualifying children under the age of 17. The credit amount is $1,000 per qualifying child, but once again is subject to phase out if the taxpayer's AGI exceeds prescribed threshold amounts. The phaseout of the child tax credit starts at $110,000 of modified AGI (for unmarried taxpayers, it starts at $75,000). These thresholds are not adjusted for inflation.

Dependent care credit. The dependent care credit may be available to working parents for qualifying children under the age of 13, or for dependents who are physically or mentally incapable of self care. This credit is available not only for direct employment-related expenses that take place at home, but also child-care expenses for tuition paid for pre-K programs, as well as fees paid for after-school activities that double as child care. The dependent care credit is a percentage of eligible work-related expenses. The percentage goes down as adjusted gross income (AGI) goes up. The maximum amount of eligible expenses is $3,000 for taxpayers with one qualifying individual, and $6,000 for taxpayers with two or more qualifying individuals.

The amount of the credit is further determined by multiplying work-related expenses by the “applicable percentage,” which is 35 percent reduced by one percentage point for each $2,000 by which AGI for the tax year exceeds $15,000. However, the applicable percentage cannot go below 20 percent (for those with AGI over $43,000). Thus, the maximum dependent care credit amount overall is $1,050 for one qualifying dependent and $2,100 for two or more qualifying dependents. For those with income above $43,000, the maximum credit for $3,000 of qualifying expenses is $600. Finally, the amount of the employment-related expenses taken into account in calculating the credit may not exceed the lesser of the taxpayer's earned income or the earned income of his spouse if the taxpayer is married at the end of the tax year.

Coverdell education savings accounts. Two education savings entities let individuals pay for education on a tax-favored basis: a Coverdell Education Savings Account (Coverdell ESA or ESA) and a qualified tuition program (QTP, also referred to as a Code Sec. 529 plan). In contrast to Sec. 529 plans, which can only be used to cover college expenses, ESAs can cover expenses from kindergarten through college.

Individuals may open a Coverdell ESA to help pay for the qualified education expenses of a designated beneficiary. Contributions to a Coverdell ESA must be made in cash and are not deductible. In addition, the maximum annual contribution that can be made is limited to $2,000 a year. The annual contribution is phased out for joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) at or above $190,000 and less than $220,000 (at or above $95,000 and less than $110,000 for single filers).

Distributions from Coverdell ESAs are not included in the income of the donor or the beneficiary, as long as payouts do not exceed the beneficiary's adjusted qualified education expenses. For purposes of excludable distributions from an ESA, qualified elementary and secondary school expenses (kindergarten through grade 12), include the following costs:

• expenses for tuition, fees, academic tutoring, services for beneficiaries with special needs, books, supplies, and other equipment that are incurred in connection with the designated beneficiary's enrollment or attendance at a public, private or religious school;
• expenses for room and board, uniforms, transportation, and supplementary items and services (including extended day programs) that are required or provided by the school in connection with enrollment or attendance; and
• expenses for the purchase of computer technology or equipment or internet access and related services that will be used by the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s family during any of the years the beneficiary is in school. This category does not include software designed for sports, games or hobbies unless it is predominantly educational in nature.

Medical expense deduction. For parents who itemize deductions, medical and dental costs paid for their children may be deductible.

If you have any questions regarding tax breaks associated with child care or education expenses, please contact our office.

Two recent court cases indicate that, although use of a conservation easement to gain a charitable deduction must continue to be arranged with care, some flexibility in determining ultimate deductibility may be beginning to be easier to come by. The IRS had been winning a string of cases that affirmed its strict interpretation of Internal Revenue Code Section 170 on conservation easement. The two latest judicial opinions, however, help give taxpayers some much-needed leeway in proving that the rules were followed, keeping in mind that Congress wanted to encourage conservation easements rather than have its rules interpreted so strictly that they thwart that purpose.

Two recent court cases indicate that, although use of a conservation easement to gain a charitable deduction must continue to be arranged with care, some flexibility in determining ultimate deductibility may be beginning to be easier to come by. The IRS had been winning a string of cases that affirmed its strict interpretation of Internal Revenue Code Section 170 on conservation easement. The two latest judicial opinions, however, help give taxpayers some much-needed leeway in proving that the rules were followed, keeping in mind that Congress wanted to encourage conservation easements rather than have its rules interpreted so strictly that they thwart that purpose.

In the first case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that a homesite adjustment provision did not prevent a conservation easement from satisfying the perpetuity requirement of Code Sec. 170 that controls charitable deductions. Modifications (or "tweaks as the court characterized them) would not violate the perpetuity requirement.

In the second case, a taxpayer satisfied the substantiation requirements for a charitable contribution of an easement to a landmark preservation council. Although the taxpayer had not received from the donee organization a timely letter that could have acted as a contemporaneous written acknowledgment, the Tax Court considered the deed of easement a good enough de facto qualified acknowledgment.

Comment. The first decision potentially opens up many more vacation-type properties on large tracts of land to be more susceptible to a "win-win" in terms of a charitable tax deduction for the homeowner and preserved acreage for the community. The second decision gives some flexibility to the rules on “contemporaneous” substantiation.

What Happened?

In the first case (BC Ranch II, L.P., CA-5, August 11, 2017), the taxpayer owned some 1,800 acres of land in Texas. The taxpayer donated a conservation easement to a tax-exempt organization. The easement aimed to protect the habitat for certain birds and to preserve the watershed, scenic vistas, and mature forest. The easement gave the grantee, its successors and assigns, perpetual easements in gross over the conservation areas, subjecting the property to a series of covenants and restrictions that prohibited most residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. The easement also included a boundary modification provision, affecting certain five-acre homesite parcels. The IRS disallowed the purported charitable deduction for the conservation easement. The Tax Court had found that the conservation easement was not given in perpetuity because the five-acre homesite parcels could be changed to include property within the easement.

In the second case (310 Retail, LLC, TC Memo 2017-164), the taxpayer (an LLC) donated a façade easement (also considered a “conservation easement”) in connection with an historic building in downtown Chicago. On audit, the IRS disallowed a $26 million charitable deduction by the taxpayer on the grounds that a contemporaneous written acknowledgment within the meaning of Code Sec. 170 was not provided. Although the LLC did not receive from the donee organization a timely letter of the sort that normally acts as a “contemporaneous written acknowledgment,” the taxpayer claimed that it nevertheless satisfied the statutory substantiation requirements, pointing to the deed of easement that the donee organization executed contemporaneously with the gift.

Courts’ Analysis

Rearranging parcels. The Fifth Circuit found that the easement in this case was different from the easement in Belk, a prior Tax Court case upon which the IRS was relying. The easement in Belk could be moved to a tract or tracts of land entirely different and remote from the property originally covered by that easement. The easement in this case did not allow any change in the exterior boundaries or acreage. "Neither the exterior boundaries nor the total acreage of the instant easements will ever change: Only the lot lines of one or more of the five-acre homesite parcels are potentially subject to change and then only within the easements and with the grantee’s consent," the court found.

Contemporaneous acknowledgement. The Tax Court in its case found that the deed of easement constituted a contemporaneous written acknowledgment sufficient to substantiate the taxpayer’s gift because it was properly executed and recorded. The Court also found that the deed also sufficiently included what should be considered “an affirmative indication that the donee organization had supplied no goods or services to the taxpayer in exchange for its gift.” The deed explicitly stated that it represented the parties’ "entire agreement" and, thus, negated the provision or receipt of any consideration not stated in that deed.

Gross income is taxed to the individual who earns it or to owner of property that generates the income. Under the so-called “assignment of income doctrine,” a taxpayer may not avoid tax by assigning the right to income to another.

Gross income is taxed to the individual who earns it or to owner of property that generates the income. Under the so-called “assignment of income doctrine,” a taxpayer may not avoid tax by assigning the right to income to another.

Specifically, the assignment of income doctrine holds that a taxpayer who earns income from services that the taxpayer performs or property that the taxpayer owns generally cannot avoid liability for tax on that income by assigning it to another person or entity. The doctrine is frequently applied to assignments to creditors, controlled entities, family trusts and charities.

A taxpayer cannot, for tax purposes, assign income that has already accrued from property the taxpayer owns. This aspect of the assignment of income doctrine is often applied to interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and trust income. And, under the same rationale, an assignment of an interest in a lottery ticket is effective only if it occurs before the ticket is ascertained to be a winning ticket.

However, a taxpayer can shift liability for capital gains on property not yet sold by making a bona fide gift of the underlying property. In that case, the donee of a gift of securities takes the “carryover” basis of the donor.  For example, shares now valued at $50 gifted to a donee in which the donor has a tax basis of $10, would yield a taxable gain to the donee of its eventual sale price less the $10 carryover basis. The donor escapes income tax on any of the appreciation.

The IRS remains focused on an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away: the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Recently, the IRS issued still another fact sheet “reminding” employers about the importance of correctly classifying workers for purposes of federal employment taxes (FS-2017-9). Generally, employers must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to employees. They are lifted of these obligations entirely for independent contractors, with usually the only IRS-related responsibility being information reporting on amounts of $600 or more paid to a contractor.

The IRS remains focused on an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away: the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Recently, the IRS issued still another fact sheet “reminding” employers about the importance of correctly classifying workers for purposes of federal employment taxes (FS-2017-9). Generally, employers must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to employees. They are lifted of these obligations entirely for independent contractors, with usually the only IRS-related responsibility being information reporting on amounts of $600 or more paid to a contractor.

Weighing the factors

Whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor depends on a number of considerations that fall into three categories: behavioral control, financial control and the type of relationship between the worker and the service recipient. Within these categories, the IRS has identified 20 factors that can be used to determine whether an individual is an independent contractor or effectively an "employee."  

The determination of independent contractor versus employee status is based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the relationship. None of the identified factors is determinative. In addition, not all factors are present in all employee or independent contractor relationships. Frequently, the relationship of a worker is clear cut using these factors; but sometimes a worker can fall into a gray area.

The Form SS-8 route

An employer who is unsure of how to classify its workers can file a Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding. There is no fee for requesting a worker classification determination. Because worker classification has become such a “hot” audit trigger, many employers opt for the Form SS-8 route, particularly because penalties on top of back employment taxes can result from a classification misstep.

Other relief

After emphasizing in its latest Fact Sheet that employee misclassification as independent contractors exposes the employer to employment tax liability, the IRS also highlighted two ways to escape or ameliorate liability, even for an after-the-fact classification: “Section 530 relief” and relief under the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program.

Section 530 relief: An employer that has a reasonable basis for classifying its workers as independent contractors may be entitled to special relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. "Section 530 relief" protects taxpayers who have consistently treated workers as independent contractors and have a reasonable basis for doing so. The rule covers workers who are common law employees, but it does not cover certain third-party-arranged technical service workers.

A reasonable basis for classification for purposes of Section 530 relief generally includes an employer's treatment of the individual based on any of the following:

• judicial precedent, published rulings, technical advice to the employer or a letter ruling to the employer;
• a past examination of the taxpayer by the IRS in which there was no assessment attributable to the treatment for employment tax purposes of individuals holding positions substantially similar to the position held by this individual; or
• long-standing recognized practice of a significant segment of the industry in which the individual was engaged.

Voluntary Classification Settlement Program.  Entry into the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VSCP) can provide an opportunity to reclassify workers as employees for future tax periods, with partial relief from federal employment taxes. Under the program, the employer:

• Agrees to prospectively treat the class of workers as employees for future tax periods;
• Will pay 10 percent of the employment tax liability that may have been due on compensation paid to the workers for the most recent tax year, determined under reduced rates;
• Will not be subject to an employment tax audit with respect to the worker classification of the workers being reclassified under the VCSP for prior years; and
• Will not be liable for any interest or penalties on the liability.

Under the VCSP, an employer may reclassify some or all of their workers. Once reclassified, all workers in the same class must be treated as employees for employment tax purposes.

Worker initiative

The IRS also makes it clear in its latest Fact Sheet on employee misclassification that action on its part may take place not only based on an employer-based initiative; workers can also have indirect input on whether an audit will take place. “Workers who believe an employer improperly classified them as independent contractors may use Form 8919, Uncollected Social Security and Medicare Tax on Wages, to figure and report the employee’s share of uncollected social security and Medicare taxes,” the IRS Fact Sheet concludes.

If you have any concerns surrounding possible worker misclassification within your business, please feel free to contact this office for a more targeted discussion.

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

Scope

Under the proposed regulations, to which Congress left many details to be filled in, the new audit regime covers any adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership and any partner’s distributive share of those adjusted items. Further, any income tax resulting from an adjustment to items under the centralized partnership audit regime is assessed and collected at the partnership level. The applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to any such item or share is also determined at the partnership level.

Immediate Impact

Although perhaps streamlined and eventually destined to simplify partnership audits for the IRS, the new centralized audit regime may prove more complicated in several respects for many partnerships. Of immediate concern for most partnerships, whether benefiting or not, is how to reflect this new centralized audit regime within partnership agreements, especially when some of the procedural issues within the new regime are yet to be ironed out.

Issues for many partnerships that have either been generated or heightened by the new regulations include:

• Selecting a method of satisfying an imputed underpayment;
• Designation of a partnership representative;
• Allocating economic responsibility for an imputed underpayment among partners including situations in which partners’ interests change between a reviewed year and the adjustment year; and
• Indemnifications between partnerships and partnership representatives, as well as among current partners and those who were partners during the tax year under audit.

Election out

Starting for tax year 2018, virtually all partnerships will be subject to the new partnership audit regime …unless an “election out” option is affirmatively elected. Only an eligible partnership may elect out of the centralized partnership audit regime. A partnership is an eligible partnership if it has 100 or fewer partners during the year and, if at all times during the tax year, all partners are eligible partners. A special rule applies to partnerships that have S corporation partners.

Consistent returns

A partner’s treatment of each item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership must be consistent with the treatment of those items on the partnership return, including treatment with respect to the amount, timing, and characterization of those items. Under the new rules, the IRS may assess and collect any underpayment of tax that results from adjusting a partner’s inconsistently reported item to conform that item with the treatment on the partnership return as if the resulting underpayment of tax were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. A partner may not request an abatement of that assessment.

Partnership representative

The new regulations require a partnership to designate a partnership representative, as well as provide rules describing the eligibility requirements for a partnership representative, the designation of the partnership representative, and the representative’s authority. Actions by the partnership representative bind all the partners as far as the IRS is concerned. Indemnification agreements among partners may ameliorate some, but not all, of the liability triggered by this rule.

Imputed underpayment, alternatives and "push-outs"

Generally, if a partnership adjustment results in an imputed underpayment, the partnership must pay the imputed underpayment in the adjustment year. The partnership may request modification with respect to an imputed underpayment only under the procedures described in the new rules.

In multi-tiered partnership arrangements, the new rules provide that a partnership may elect to "push out" adjustments to its reviewed year partners. If a partnership makes a valid election, the partnership is no longer liable for the imputed underpayment. Rather, the reviewed year partners of the partnership are liable for tax, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts plus interest, after taking into account their share of the partnership adjustments determined in the final partnership adjustment (FPA). The new regulations provide rules for making the election, the requirements for partners to file statements with the IRS and furnish statements to reviewed year partners, and the computation of tax resulting from taking adjustments into account.

Retiring, disappearing partners

Partnership agreements that reflect the new partnership audit regime must especially consider the problems that may be created by partners that have withdrawn, and partnerships that have since dissolved, between the tax year being audited and the year in which a deficiency involving that tax year is to be resolved. Collection of prior-year taxes due from a former partner, especially as time lapses, becomes more difficult as a practical matter unless specific remedies are set forth in the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement might specify that if any partner withdraws and disposes of their interest, they must keep the partnership advised of their contact information until released by the partnership in writing.

If you have any questions about how your partnership may be impacted by these new rules, please feel free to call our office.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost. 

Meals and entertainment directly connected to business. To be considered directly connected to business, the meal or entertainment event must meet three conditions:

• It must have been scheduled with more than a general expectation of deriving future income or a specific business benefit from the event. In other words, a meal or dinner date arranged for general goodwill purposes does not qualify.
• A business meeting, negotiation, or transaction must actually occur during the meal or entertainment, or immediately preceding and following it. In other words, business actually must be discussed.
• The main character of the event, considering the facts and circumstances, is the active conduct of your company's trade or business.

For example, an executive employee who treats a client to a golf game in order to discuss the general parameters of a business deal in an informal atmosphere is engaged in entertainment that is directly connected to business. So is a manager who discusses sensitive business plans with a subordinate over lunch at an off-premises restaurant.

Applicable limitations. In general, only 50 percent of expenses incurred for entertainment and meal expenses is deductible. A limited exception applies to entertainment or on-premise meals provided to employees.

Expenses with respect to entertainment facilities generally are not deductible at all. A facility includes any item of personal or real property owned, rented, or used by a taxpayer if it is used during the tax year for or in connection with entertainment. They include yachts, hunting lodges, fishing camps, swimming pools, tennis courts, bowling alleys, automobiles, airplanes, apartments, hotel suites and homes in vacation resorts.

Country club dues are not deductible (although the meals purchased with business clients at the club are, up to the 50 percent limit). Deductions for skyboxes or other private luxury boxes at sporting events are limited to the face value of a nonluxury box seat ticket multiplied by the number of seats in the box.

Record-keeping requirements. Even if a meal or entertainment expense qualifies as a business expense, none of the cost is deductible unless strict and detailed substantiation and recordkeeping requirements are met to the letter.

Please contact our offices for assistance on how to comply with these requirements at minimum cost and expense, and how your business’s typical meal and entertainment expenses fare under the deduction rules.

Audit coverage rates are at low levels, the IRS has reported. According to the IRS, the audit coverage rate for individuals fell 16 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016. The 0.7 percent audit coverage rate for individuals was the lowest coverage rate in more than a decade, the agency added.

Audit coverage rates are at low levels, the IRS has reported. According to the IRS, the audit coverage rate for individuals fell 16 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016. The 0.7 percent audit coverage rate for individuals was the lowest coverage rate in more than a decade, the agency added.

Selection Process

The raw audit numbers, of course, do not answer the more specific question regarding “my chances of being audited by the IRS.” The IRS does very little random selection of returns for being audited these days. Computer analysis flags certain suspect items but, there again, randomly.  For example, taking the home office deduction increases a taxpayer’s odds of an audit on the item, but odds remain that it still will not be pulled for audit. Another “audit trigger” is not reporting income for which an information return (Form 1099-MISC, for example) has been generated.

Audit campaigns. The IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) Division has revealed new corporate compliance campaigns. The campaigns, as explained by LB&I, offer "a holistic response to an item of either known or potential compliance risks." Whether "audit campaigns" will be initiated within the other major IRS divisions in part will depend upon the success of the LB&I division's rollout. So far, IRS leadership appears optimistic over its prospects.

The campaigns currently address:

• Code Sec. 48C energy credit;
• Offshore voluntary disclosure program declines and withdrawals;
• Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deductions;
• Micro-captive insurance;
• Related-party transactions;
• Deferred variable annuity reserves and life insurance reserves;
• Basket transactions;
• Completed contract method of accounting;
• TEFRA linkage plan strategy;
• S corporation losses claimed in excess of basis;
• Repatriation;
• Form 1120-F Nonfiler.

Automatic Underreporter Program. The IRS reported that the Automatic Underreporter Program continues to generate significant revenues. The agency closed more than 3.5 million cases under the Automatic Underreporter Program, generating some $6.8 billion in additional assessments. Further, the IRS closed nearly 400,000 cases under the Automatic Substitute for Return Program, generating some $600 million in additional assessments.

Comment. Intertwined with audit selection are the shrinking resources available to the IRS to conduct audits. President Trump has proposed a $239 million reduction in the IRS's budget for fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Audit Coverage Stats

Individuals. The audit coverage rate for individuals for FY 2016 was 0.7 percent. The audit coverage rate increased for higher income taxpayers: 1.7 percent for returns reporting more than $200,000 in income and 5.8 percent for returns reporting more than $1 million in income. Nearly 800,000 of individual audits in FY 2015 were correspondence audits. Some 240,000 were field audits. In total, the IRS audited roughly 1.03 million of the nearly 148 million individual returns filed.

Corporations. The audit coverage rate for corporations (excluding S corps) for FY 2016 was 1.1 percent. Here, more audits were field audits than correspondence exams. Some 19,000 were field audits and roughly 1,800 were correspondence audits.

Partnerships and S corps. For partnerships, the audit coverage rate for FY 2016 was 0.4 percent. The IRS audited roughly 15,000 of the 3.9 million partnership returns received. The audit coverage rate for S corps for FY 2016 was 0.3 percent. Of the approximately 4 million S corp returns received, the IRS selected some 16,000 for audit.

In a case that provides a lesson to anyone donating property to charity for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed – get proof in writing and get it at the time you donate the property. After-the-fact substantiation, no matter how convincing, is not acceptable under the tax law to support a deduction.

In a case that provides a lesson to anyone donating property to charity for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed – get proof in writing and get it at the time you donate the property. After-the-fact substantiation, no matter how convincing, is not acceptable under the tax law to support a deduction.

Case in point: The Tax Court, in Izen, Jr. v. Commissioner, 148 TC No. 5, found that a failure to follow the substantiation rules for donation of an aircraft precluded a taxpayer from claiming a deductions. The taxpayer’s evidence of donation did not satisfy the substantiation requirements, which are heightened for donations of vehicles, including aircrafts.

The taxpayer was assessed a deficiency on his federal income tax return for the year at issue. He then filed an amended return on which he claimed that he had donated a 50 percent interest in an aircraft to a tax-exempt historical society. His interest in the plane was appraised at $340,000, and he claimed a charitable contribution deduction in that amount.

The Tax Court observed that under Code Sec. 170(f)(12), contributions of used vehicles, including airplanes, whose claimed value exceeds $500, must satisfy special substantiation requirements. A taxpayer must obtain a contemporaneous written acknowledgment and include the acknowledgment with his or her return. Further, if the donee has not sold the vehicle or aircraft, the donee must certify the intended use or improvement to the property, among other requirements. Additionally, the donee must provide the IRS with a copy of the acknowledgment. The IRS developed Form 1098-C for this purpose.

The court found that the taxpayer did not include the requisite copy of Form 1098-C with his amended return, nor did the IRS receive the form from the historical society related to the taxpayer’s donation of the aircraft.

Although the taxpayer did include a copy of a letter to the IRS that was from the historical society thanking him for the donation, the court found that the letter failed to satisfy the contemporaneous written acknowledgement requirements. The letter failed to include the name and taxpayer identification number of the donor, among other items.

The court also rejected the taxpayer’s purported deed of a gift as satisfying the contemporaneous written acknowledgment requirement. The “aircraft donation agreement” did not meet the statutory requirements for a contemporaneous written acknowledgment. Like the letter, the deed failed to include the taxpayer identification number of the donor. The deed also did not include a certification of intended use.

A new year may find a number of individuals with the pressing urge to take stock, clean house and become a bit more organized. With such a desire to declutter, a taxpayer may want to undergo a housecleaning of documents, receipts and papers that he or she may have stored over the years in the event of an IRS audit. Year to year, fears of an audit for claims for tax deductions, allowances and credits may have led to the accumulation of a number of tax related documents—many of which may no longer need to be kept.

A new year may find a number of individuals with the pressing urge to take stock, clean house and become a bit more organized. With such a desire to declutter, a taxpayer may want to undergo a housecleaning of documents, receipts and papers that he or she may have stored over the years in the event of an IRS audit. Year to year, fears of an audit for claims for tax deductions, allowances and credits may have led to the accumulation of a number of tax related documents—many of which may no longer need to be kept.

However, it is of extreme importance for tax records to support the income, deductions and credits claimed on returns. Therefore, taxpayers must keep such records in the event the IRS inquires about a return or amended return.

Return-related documents

Generally, the IRS recommended that a taxpayer keep copies of tax returns and supporting documents at least three years. However, the IRS noted, there are some documents that should be kept for up to seven years, for those instances where a taxpayer needs to file an amended return or if questions may arise. As a rule of thumb, taxpayers should keep real estate related records for up to seven years following the disposition of property.

Health care related documents

Although health care information statements should be kept with other tax records, taxpayers are to remember that such statements do not need to be sent to the IRS as proof of health coverage. Records that taxpayers are strongly encouraged to keep include records of employer-provided coverage, premiums paid, advance payments of the premium tax credit received and the type of coverage held. As with other tax records, the IRS recommended that taxpayers keep such information for three years from the time of filing the associated tax return.

Last year’s return

Taxpayers are encouraged to keep a copy of last year’s return. The IRS, in efforts to thwart tax related identity theft and refund fraud, continues to make changes to authenticate and protect taxpayer identity in online return-related interactions. Beginning in 2017, some taxpayers who e-file will need to enter either the prior-year adjusted gross income or the prior-year self-select PIN and date of birth—information associated with the prior year’s return—to authenticate their identity.

The term "sick pay" can refer to a variety of payments. Some of these payments are nontaxable, while others are treated as taxable income. Some of the taxable payments are treated as compensation, subject to income tax withholding and employment taxes; others are exempt from some employment taxes. 

Amounts received for personal injury or sickness through an accident or health plan are taxable income if the employer paid for the plan. If the coverage is provided through a cafeteria plan, the employer, not the employee, is considered to have paid the premiums; thus, the benefits are included in income. If, on the other hand, the employee paid the entire cost of the premiums (or included the premiums in income), then any amounts paid under the plan for personal injury or sickness are not included in income. 

An employee who is injured on the job may receive workers' compensation under a workers’ compensation act. These amounts are fully exempt from income and employment taxes. However, the exemption does not apply to retirement plan benefits that are based on age, length of service, or prior contributions, even if retirement was triggered by occupational sickness or injury. The exemption also does not apply to amounts that exceed the amount provided in the worker’s compensation act. There is no exemption under these plans for amounts received as compensation for a nonoccupational injury or sickness.

Compensatory damages paid for physical injury or physical sickness are not taxable, whether paid in a lump sum or as periodic payments. This applies to amounts received through prosecution of a legal suit or action or through a settlement agreement in lieu of prosecution.  Other nontaxable benefits include disability benefits paid for loss of income or earning capacity as a result of injuries under a no-fault automobile insurance policy.

Payments for permanent injury or loss of a bodily function under an employer-financed accident or health plan are excludible. The payments must be based on the nature of the injury rather than on the length of time the employee is absent from work.

Disability income plans are employer plans that provide full or partial income replacement for employees who become disabled. Employer-provided disability income benefits generally are taxable to employees. Similarly, sick pay that is a continuation of some or all of an employee’s compensation is subject to income tax withholding if paid by the employer. The first six months of payments for sickness or disability, when the employee is off work, are subject to employment taxes, but payments made after the expiration of six months are not subject to FICA (Social Security) and FUTA (unemployment) taxes.

Reimbursements from an employer’s plan for medical expenses are not includible in income and are not subject to income tax withholding. If the employer has no plan or system and pays medical expenses for sickness or disability, the payments are subject to FICA and FUTA for the first six months. Of course, reimbursements of amounts deducted in a prior year must be included in income. Medical reimbursements provided under a self-insured employer plan are not subject to income tax withholding, even if the amounts are included in income.

Payments for sick leave or accumulated sick leave are taxable compensation.