- Newsletters

Overlook on understanding the new business deductions and how it could impact your taxes.

l Understanding-sec-199A-business-income-deduction

Why Americans financial pain is lower

Americans continue to experience high levels of personal financial satisfaction thanks primarily to the stock market’s best June performance in decades. The AICPA’s Q2 2019 Personal Financial Satisfaction Index (PFSi) is down slightly from the prior quarter but still remains relatively close to its recent record high. The bull market, abundant job openings, and steadily rising home equity have Americans’ financial pleasure hovering near its all-time high. Further, as a result of delinquencies on loans continuing to trend down and underemployment reaching its lowest level on record in a tight labor market, financial pain is lower now than it was before the Great Recession.

The PFSi is calculated as the Personal Financial Pleasure Index (Pleasure Index) minus the Personal Financial Pain Index (Pain Index). Positive readings indicate that the average American should be feeling a strong sense of financial well-being. The Q2 2019 PFSi measures 37.8, a 0.8 point (2.0 percent) decrease from the prior quarter. The decrease was due to the slight 0.1 point (0.1 percent) increase in the Pleasure Index being outweighed by the 0.9 point (2.5 percent) increase in the Pain Index (an increase in the Pain Index brings down the PFSi overall). This is the second time in the past year that the index has decreased.

The Pleasure Index measures 74.1, a 0.1 point (0.1 percent) increase over the prior quarter. This gain puts the Pleasure index just shy of its all-time high of 75.0 which was set in Q3 2018. The component with the most notable improvement over the last quarter was the PFS 750 Market Index. This is the AICPA’s proprietary stock index comprised of the 750 largest companies trading on the US Market adjusted for inflation and per capita. With a Q2 2019 reading of 91.9, the PFS 750 remains the leading contributor to the Pleasure Index as well as the PFSi overall and is just shy of its all-time high of 92.7 set in Q3 2018. The S&P 500, the Dow Jones industrial average and the Nasdaq composite index were all close to all-time highs at the end of June. Their performance caps off a strong first half of 2019 and a big rebound from May’s market downturn. However, the good news is slightly tempered by the fact that the improvement relied on just five digital economy companies for a third of the gains over the past quarter.

“Having the bulk of your investments in one or two stocks is a risky strategy because of their individual volatility,” said Mark Astrinos, CPA/PFS member of the AICPA Personal Financial Specialist Credential Committee. “Pullbacks are a regular occurrence for risk assets, so it is crucial to not put all your eggs in one basket—or in this case, all your investments in one company or industry. Instead, build a financial plan with a diversified and balanced portfolio that will lend itself to smoother gains and downsize risk over a longer time horizon.”

The AICPA CPA Outlook Index, which captures the expectations of CPA executives in the year ahead for their companies and the U.S. economy, declined a slight 0.9 points (1.8 percent) below the previous quarter and is down 3.7 points (6.8 percent) from last year. Compared with the year ago CPA Outlook Index, all components show declines, strongly led by US Economic Optimism whose decline was almost 3 times that of any other factor. So, while Americans are experiencing near record high levels of financial satisfaction, CPA executives are becoming somewhat more worried about the potential for an economic downturn in the year ahead.

The Personal Financial Pain Index, at 36.3, saw inflation and taxes increase from the previous quarter, combining to raise the index 0.9 points (2.5 percent). The increase in the Pain Index contributed to the decline in the PFSi overall. The Inflation Index led the increase over the preceding quarter, jumping up 4.8 point (15.5 percent). Inflation is the most volatile factor contributing to the PFSi, and with absolute levels so low, small changes result in large percent gains. The Fed has indicated that they anticipate cutting rates in the future, possibly as soon as this month.

“With the potential that the Fed may lower rates on the horizon, Americans should revisit the inflation assumptions used in their financial plans, especially if they are in, or close to, retirement. Lower rates favor the borrower over the investor. While rates are holding steady, now is a good time to review your investments and make sure they are at a minimum keeping up with inflation. Otherwise, it may be time to update your portfolio,” added Astrinos.

Pain from personal taxes increased 1.5 points (3.1 percent) over the previous quarter and is now at a reading of 49.4 for Q2 2019. This is now the sixth quarter to reflect the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). After TCJA led to an initial decline of 3.9 points (7.5 percent) in Q1 2018, the quarterly levels remained relatively flat. However, compared to the year-ago level, pain from taxes is up 2.1 points (4.4 percent) and is now only 2.6 points (5.1 percent) lower than its pre-TCJA reading of 52.1 in Q4 2017. The personal taxes value uses information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on income tax, tax on realized net capital gains and taxes on personal property. Pain from personal taxes continues to be an outsize contributor to financial pain. In fact, over the last three years, the personal taxes factor has been the largest contributor to financial pain for 10 of 12 quarters.

Underemployment, at 31.2 points, is 1.1 points (3.3 percent) lower than the prior quarter and 3.2 points (9.3 percent) down from the prior year level. Since the Great Recession, underemployment has been steadily trending down and it is now tied for its all-time low which was last achieved in 2001. For comparison, its peak value of 84.3 was set in the fourth quarter of 2009. This BLS-calculated factor is a combination of full-title total unemployed numbers, all marginally attached workers, and total number of workers employed part-time for economic reasons.

Close

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Close

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Close

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Close

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

Close

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Close

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a 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.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
the value of the QOF’s investment; and
the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

Close

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

Close

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;
provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and
describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

Close

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

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

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

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

Reworked Bill

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

Service Improvements

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

waive the application fee for an offer in compromise (OIC) by a low-income taxpayer;
clarify information available about low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs);
codify the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program;
require notice regarding the closure of taxpayer assistance centers (TACs);
improve the IRS whistleblower program; and
modify the private debt collection program.

Identity Protection

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

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

Electronic Filing

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

COMMENT

The e-filing threshold for a partnership with 100 or fewer partners remains unchanged before 2022. The threshold is 150 returns for 2019, 100 returns for 2020, and 50 returns for 2021.

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

Other Electronic Services

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

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

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

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

Other Changes

Additional changes made by the Taxpayer First Act include:

clarifying procedures for equitable relief from joint liability;
establish new safeguards on the seizure of funds believed to be structured to avoid the $10,000 financial reporting requirement; and
modify procedures for the issuance of summons and notice of third party contacts by the IRS.

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

Close

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

Proposed regulations provide detailed rules for coop patrons and specified cooperatives to calculate the deduction.
A proposed revenue procedure provides three methods for specified cooperatives to calculate W-2 wages.

199A Deduction for Cooperatives and Patrons

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

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

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

Sec. 199A Deduction for Coop Patrons in General

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

are related to the patron’s trade or business,
are qualified items of income, gain, deduction or loss at the coop level,
are not from a specified service trade or business (SSTB), and
are properly reported to the patron.

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

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction for Specified Cooperatives

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

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

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

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

Patron,
Specified cooperative,
Agricultural or horticultural products (though the IRS is also considering broader definitions), and
In whole or significant part.

Sec. 199A(g) Deduction and DPAD

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

separate patronage and non-patronage gross receipts and related deductions;
identify patronage gross receipts that qualify as DPGR,
use the patronage DPGR from step (3) to calculate QPAI, and
calculate the 199A(g) deduction, which is generally nine percent of the lesser of QPAI from step (4), or taxable income

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

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

The proposed regulations also apply DPAD-types rules to:

determine the coop’s DPGR,
reduce a specified coop’s 199A(g) deduction to reflect oil-related QPAI, and
pass through the deduction to patrons.

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

Specified Coops and W-2 Wages

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

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

unmodified Box method
modified Box 1 method
tracking wages method.

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

Effective Dates for 199A Proposed Regulations and Revenue Procedure

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

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

IRS Invites Comments on Proposed Rules for Sec. 199A

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

A coop’s reporting of W-2 wages and UBIA,
The safe harbor for coop patrons,
Definitions,
A specified coop’s separation of patronage and non-patronage income,
DPGR treatment of minor assembly and contract work, and
W-2 wages and Puerto Rico.

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

Close

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

SALT Limit

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

Return Benefit

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

De Minimis Exception

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

Safe Harbor

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

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

Close

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

HRA Use Expanded

The final rules expand the use of HRAs by:

allowing integration of an HRA with individual health insurance coverage and thereby satisfy the Affordable Care Act’s annual dollar limit and preventive care cost sharing requirements;
creating "excepted benefit HRAs" limited in amount and to the types of coverage for which premiums may be reimbursed;
providing new premium tax credit eligibility rules for individuals who are offered an HRA integrated with individual health insurance coverage;
clarifying that individual health insurance coverage, the premiums of which are reimbursed by an HRA or qualified small employer HRA (QSEHRA), does not become part of an ERISA plan when certain conditions are met; and
adding new special enrollment for the individual market for individuals who gain access to HRAs integrated with individual health insurance coverage or who are provided a QSEHRA.

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

Integration With Individual Coverage

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

participants and dependents are actually enrolled in individual health insurance coverage (though not coverage that consists solely of excepted benefits) for each month they are covered by the HRA;
coverage is offered to a class of employees to whom a traditional group health plan is not offered;
coverage is offered on the same terms in amount and conditions to all employees within each class (though certain variations based on age are allowed);
an opt out option is provided for individuals who prefer Affordable Care Act Exchange coverage, but would not be eligible for the premium tax credit if enrolled in an employer health plan such as an HRA; and
substantiation and notice requirements are met.

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

Excepted Benefit HRAs

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

must not be an integral part of the plan;
must provide benefits that are limited in amount ($1,800 per year, adjusted for inflation after 2020);
cannot provide reimbursement for premiums for certain health insurance coverage; and
must be made available under the same terms to all similarly situated individuals.

Close