Newsletters

As summer officially begins this week and we move further away from the April 15th filing deadline, we wanted to share a few words with our clients, colleagues, and community partners regarding the state of our firm. Primarily, we are a vibrant and growing client-oriented business committed to the same quality and service that has been the foundation of our firm.

As summer officially begins this week and we move further away from the April 15th filing deadline, we wanted to share a few words with our clients, colleagues, and community partners regarding the state of our firm. Primarily, we are a vibrant and growing client-oriented business committed to the same quality and service that has been the foundation of our firm.

The past three years have proven to be a continual stream of challenges, many stemming directly from the pandemic. This has not only been true for us, as in speaking with a number of those reading this, we know you have been tested as well. With challenges come opportunity, and we have been able to advise many clients since March 2020 on government issued relief programs, tax planning strategies related to tax law changes and help navigate decisions for clients experiencing major business and life changes. Client relationships are what drives our success, and we stand true to our tag line “we care about the story behind the numbers.” 

Being transparent, this past tax season was a difficult one for our firm and we are still working through 2021 return backlog. For both clients in which we have completed your return filing and clients in which we have not, thank you for your patience. The season was difficult for a number of reasons – continued tax law complexities and late issued government changes, late form and corrected form issuance from banks, brokerages, and other firms issuing K-1’s, to name a few. We have come to expect those things and are both accustomed to and good at managing them. This year was different; however, in that we also had several team members lose time during March and early April due to illness.  

Peppered into the past two years, our firm has experienced employee turnover in our accounting positions. Many of our business clients have been faced with similar turnover. By now, the term “the Great Resignation” has become part of the vernacular and the elevated rate at which U.S. workers have quit their jobs not only nationwide, but also in our own Shenandoah Valley region, has become a real issue for companies of all sizes and in all industries. Companies now must be even more creative, compassionate, and accommodating to attract and retain employees.  

We are a professional service firm that relies on employing talented human capital to succeed and grow.  As the “Great Resignation” goes, accountants have been leaving their jobs in record numbers and firms nationwide have been strained on capacity. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) recently issued the results of their 2022 Private Companies Practice Section CPA Top Issues Survey, which lists finding qualified staff as the top concern for firms employing greater than eleven professionals.  

 IRS challenges emerge as top concern for firms (JOFA 06.08.22)

As we continue to recruit the best talent in a near impossible labor market, we recognize the importance of taking care of our loyal team members. No one works well when they are burned out, so we are committed to offering the best support and accommodating work arrangements to retain them. As such, we will begin summer office hours this week. Our team will be adding hours to their workdays on Monday-Thursday, and our office will be closed on Fridays through the summer.

Our firm has a 50-year history of commitment to quality and a first-class reputation in our community. In March 2021, we began making strategic shifts in the services we provide to best serve our clients. We recognize that we cannot move returns and other work product through at the same pace we did just five short years ago. We just will not compromise accuracy to do so. As clients and partners, we appreciate your understanding, your continued loyalty and trust, and commitment to us as we navigate through these times. As Paul Harvey once said, “In times like these, it helps to recall there have always been times like these.”  

We will be working on some client transitions this summer to better pair clients with team members to align both personalities and experience. We are also engaging in initiatives to increase our social media presence and electronic client communications so that you can have the most relevant and up-to-date tax and advisory information direct from us. 

In closing, we would be remiss if we didn’t say this – our best hires have been from referrals, friendships, and those familiar with our firm, our values and our culture – if you know of someone who would be a great candidate – please have them check out our website for open positions, or have them submit their resume or contact information to hwmail@hottelandwillis.com.

Thanks for making our 50^th tax season a success and your continued trust and confidence in our firm.  We look forward to continuing our relationship with you in the years to come.

The IRS has updated its simplified procedure for estates requesting an extension of time to make a portability election under Code Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A). The updated procedure replaces that provided in Rev. Proc. 2017-34. If the portability election is made, a decedent’s unused exclusion amount (the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount) is available to a surviving spouse to apply to transfers made during life or at death.

The IRS has updated its simplified procedure for estates requesting an extension of time to make a portability election under Code Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A). The updated procedure replaces that provided in Rev. Proc. 2017-34. If the portability election is made, a decedent’s unused exclusion amount (the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount) is available to a surviving spouse to apply to transfers made during life or at death. The simplified method is to be used instead of the letter ruling process. No user fee is due for submissions filed in accordance with the revenue procedure.

A simplified method to obtain an extension of time was available to decedents dying after December 31, 2010, if the estate was only required to file an estate tax return for the purpose of electing portability. However, that method was only available on or before December 31, 2014. Since December 31, 2014, the IRS has issued numerous letter rulings under Reg. §301.9100-3 granting extensions of time to elect portability in situations in which the estate was not required to file a return under Code Sec. 6018(a). The number of ruling requests that were received after December 31, 2014, and the related burden imposed on the IRS, prompted the continued relief for estates that have no filing requirement under Code Sec. 6018(a). Rev. Proc. 2017-34 provided a simplified method to obtain an extension of time to elect portability that is available to the estates of decedents having no filing obligation under Code Sec. 6018(a) for a period the last day of which is the later of January 2, 2018, or the second anniversary of the decedent’s death. An estate seeking relief after the second anniversary of the decedent’s death could do so by requesting a letter ruling in accordance with Reg. §301.9100-3.

Despite this simplified procedure, there remained a significant number of estates seeking relief through letter ruling requests in which the decedent died within five years of the date of the request. The number of these requests has placed a continuing burden on the IRS. Therefore, the updated procedure extends the period within which the estate of a decedent may make the portability election under that simplified method to on or before the fifth anniversary of the decedent’s date of death.

Section 3 provides that the simplified procedure is only available if certain criteria are met. The taxpayer must be the executor of the estate of a decedent who: (1) was survived by a spouse; (2) died after December 31, 2010; and (3) was a U.S. citizen or resident at the time of death. In addition, the estate must not be required to file an estate tax return under Code Sec. 6018(a) and did not file an estate tax return within the time prescribed by Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(1) for filing a return required to elect portability. Finally, all requirements of section 4.01 of the revenue procedure must be met.

The revenue procedure does not apply to estates that filed an estate tax return within the time prescribed by Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(1) to elect portability. For taxpayers that do not qualify for relief because the requirements of section 4.01 are not met, the estate can request an extension of time to file the estate tax return to make the portability election by requesting a letter ruling.

Under Section 4.01, the requirements for relief are: (1) a person permitted to make the election on behalf of a decedent must file a complete and properly-prepared Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, (as provided in Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(7)) on or before the fifth annual anniversary of the decedent’s date of death; and (2) "FILED PURSUANT TO REV. PROC. 2022-32 TO ELECT PORTABILITY UNDER §2010(c)(5)(A)" must be written at the top of the Form 706. If the requirements of sections 3.01 and 4.01 are met, the estate will be deemed to meet the requirements for relief under Reg. §301.9100-3 and relief will be granted to extend the time to elect portability. If relief is granted pursuant to the revenue procedure and it is later determined that the estate was required to file a federal estate tax return, based on the value of the gross estate, plus any adjusted taxable gifts, the extension of time granted to make the portability election is deemed null and void.

If a decedent’s estate is granted relief under this revenue procedure so that the estate tax return is considered timely for electing portability, the decedent’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount that is available to the surviving spouse or the surviving spouse’s estate for application to the transfers made by the surviving spouse on or after the decedent’s date of death. If the increase in the surviving spouse’s applicable exclusion amount attributable to the addition of the decedent’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount as of the date of the decedent’s death result in an overpayment of gift or estate tax by the surviving spouse or his or her estate, no claim for credit or refund may be made if the limitations period for filing a claim for credit or refund with respect to that transfer has expired. A surviving spouse will be deemed to have filed a protective claim for refund or credit of tax if such a claim is filed within the time prescribed in Code Sec. 6511(a) in anticipation of a Form 706 being filed to elect portability pursuant to the revenue procedure.

The revenue procedure is effective July 8, 2022. Through the fifth anniversary of a decedent’s date of death, the procedure described in section 4.01 of this revenue procedure is the exclusive procedure for obtaining an extension of time to make portability election if the decedent and the executor meet the requirements of section 3.01 of this revenue procedure. If a letter ruling request is pending on July 8, 2022, and the estate is within the scope of the revenue procedure, the file on the ruling request will be closed and the user fee will be refunded. The estate may obtain relief as outlined in the revenue procedure by complying with section 4.01. Rev. Proc. 2017-34, I.R.B. 2017-26, 1282, is superceded.

The IRS intends to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A to defer the applicability date of the reporting of qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

The IRS intends to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A to defer the applicability date of the reporting of qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Background

Final BEAT regulations adopted with T.D. 9885 include rules under Code Secs. 59A and 6038A addressing the reporting of QDPs, which are not treated as base erosion payments for BEAT purposes. The final regulations generally apply to tax years ending on or after December 17, 2018.

In general, a payment qualifies for the QDP exception if the taxpayer satisfies certain reporting requirements. Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) requires a taxpayer subject to the BEAT to report on Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts, the aggregate amount of QDPs for the tax year, and make a representation that all payments satisfy the reporting requirements of Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2). If a taxpayer fails to satisfy these reporting requirements with respect to any payments, those payments are not eligible for the QDP exception and are treated as base erosion payments, unless another exception applies.

The QDP reporting rules of Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) apply to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021. Before these rules are applicable (the transition period), a taxpayer is treated as satisfying the QDP reporting requirements to the extent that the taxpayer reports the aggregate amount of QDPs on Form 8991, Schedule A, provided that the taxpayer reports this amount in good faith ( Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2)(iv); Reg. §1.6038A-2(g)).

In Notice 2021-36, I.R.B. 2021-26, 1227, the IRS announced the intention to extend the transition period through tax years beginning before January 1, 2023, while the IRS studies the interaction of the QDP exception, the BEAT netting rule in Reg. §1.59A-2(e)(3)(vi), and the QDP reporting requirements. The IRS has not yet issued regulations amending the applicability date of Reg. §1.6038A-2(g). The IRS continue to study these provisions and has determined that it is appropriate to further extend the transition period.

Deferred Applicability Date of QDP Reporting and Taxpayer Reliance

The IRS intends to amend Reg. §1.6038A-2(g) to provide that the QDP reporting rules of Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. Until these rules apply, the transition period rules described above will continue to apply. Taxpayers may rely on this Notice before the amendments to the final regulations are issued.

John Hinman, Director, IRS Whistleblower Office highlighted the importance of whistleblower information in identifying noncompliance and reducing the tax gap in an executive column published by the IRS. Each year, the IRS receives thousands of award claims from individuals who identify taxpayers who may not be abiding by U.S. tax laws. The IRS Whistleblower Office ensures that award claims are reviewed by the appropriate IRS business unit, determines whether an award should be paid and the percentage of any award and ensures that approved awards are paid. The IRS has paid over $1.05 billion in over 2,500 awards to whistleblowers since 2007.

John Hinman, Director, IRS Whistleblower Office highlighted the importance of whistleblower information in identifying noncompliance and reducing the tax gap in an executive column published by the IRS. Each year, the IRS receives thousands of award claims from individuals who identify taxpayers who may not be abiding by U.S. tax laws. The IRS Whistleblower Office ensures that award claims are reviewed by the appropriate IRS business unit, determines whether an award should be paid and the percentage of any award and ensures that approved awards are paid. The IRS has paid over $1.05 billion in over 2,500 awards to whistleblowers since 2007.

Further, Hinman stated that according to the IRS’s Large Business and International (LB&I) division, whistleblowers have provided invaluable insights into violations perpetuated by large corporations, wealthy individuals and their planners. Further, since the inception of the Whistleblower Office, information from whistleblowers has resulted in over 900 criminal tax cases. Hinman stated that individuals can file a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, to be considered for an award. Specific, credible and timely claims are most likely to be accepted for additional consideration and referred to one of IRS’s operating divisions. A subject matter expert may contact the whistleblower to ensure the IRS fully understands the information submitted. The IRS will notify whistleblowers when a case for which they provided information is referred for audit or examination.

Further, Hinman noted that the IRS takes the protection of whistleblower identity very seriously.The IRS prevents the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity, and even the fact that they have provided information, to the maximum extent that the law allows. Additionally, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by their employers under a law passed in 2019. Finally, Hinman noted that going forward, the Whistleblower Office team will continue to make improvements to this important program, raise awareness about the program for potential whistleblowers and look for ways to gain internal efficiencies to move cases forward as quickly as possible.

A group of Senate Democrats is calling on the IRS to extend the filing deadline for those unable to file for and receive the advanced child tax credit (CTC) due to the processing backlog of individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) applications.

A group of Senate Democrats is calling on the IRS to extend the filing deadline for those unable to file for and receive the advanced child tax credit (CTC) due to the processing backlog of individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) applications.

In a July 14, 2022, letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, the Senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), called on the IRS to "allow families who applied for an ITIN or ITIN renewal prior to April 15, 2022, to file for and receive the advanced CTC if they file a return before or on October 15, 2022."

An ITIN is needed for taxpayers who do not have and are not eligible to receive a Social Security number but still have a U.S. tax filing requirement. This includes individuals who are nonresident aliens; U.S. resident aliens; dependents or spouses of U.S. citizen/resident alien; dependent or spouse of a nonresident alien visa holder; nonresident alien claiming a tax treaty benefit; or nonresident alien student, professor, or researcher filing a U.S. tax return claiming an exception.

The senators cite figures from the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration stating that prior to COVID-19 pandemic, it generally took between seven and 11 weeks to process an ITIN application (depending on if it was filed during tax season).

"But, as reported by TIGTA and the IRS’ own website, processing times have increased—with ITIN application processing averaging three to four months and renewal times doubling to 41 days," the letter states.

"Given that the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act required that an ITIN had to be issued on or before the due date of the return in order to file for the CTC, many families may not have received their ITIN prior to April 15, 2022," the letter adds, preventing access to the benefit.

The IRS has released a Fact Sheet to help taxpayers understand how and why agency representatives may contact them and how to identify them and avoid scams. Generally, the IRS sends a letter or written notice to a taxpayer in advance, but not always.

The IRS has released a Fact Sheet to help taxpayers understand how and why agency representatives may contact them and how to identify them and avoid scams. Generally, the IRS sends a letter or written notice to a taxpayer in advance, but not always. Depending on the situation, IRS employees may first call or visit with a taxpayer. Further, the IRS clarified that other than IRS Secure Access, the agency does not use text messages to discuss personal tax issues, such as those involving bills or refunds. The IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information. The IRS initiates most contacts through regular mail. Taxpayers can report fraudulent emails and text messages by sending an email to phishing@irs.gov.

Further, taxpayers will generally first receive several letters from the IRS in the mail before receiving a phone call. However, the IRS may call taxpayers if they have an overdue tax bill, a delinquent or unfiled tax return or have not made an employment tax deposit. The IRS does not leave pre-recorded, urgent or threatening voice messages and will never call to demand immediate payment using a specific payment method, threaten to immediately bring in law enforcement groups, demand tax payment without giving the taxpayer an opportunity or ask for credit or debit cards over the phone.

Additionally, IRS revenue officers generally make unannounced visits to a taxpayers home or place of business to discuss taxes owed or tax returns due. However, taxpayers would have first been notified by mail of their balance due or missing return. Taxpayers should always ask for credentials or identification when visited by IRS personnel. Finally, the IRS clarified that taxpayers who have filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court may receive a call or voicemail message from an Appeals Officer. However, the Appeals Officer will provide self-identifying information such as their name, title, badge number and contact information.

The American Institute of CPAs offered the Internal Revenue Service a series of recommendations related to proposed regulations for required minimum distributions from individual retirement accounts.

The American Institute of CPAs offered the Internal Revenue Service a series of recommendations related to proposed regulations for required minimum distributions from individual retirement accounts.

The July 1, 2022, comment letter to the agency covered two specific areas: minimum distribution requirements for designated beneficiaries when death of the employee or IRA owner occurs after the required beginning date, and the definition of employer and guidance for multiple arrangements.

Regarding the minimum distribution requirements, AICPA recommended in the letter that the agency "eliminate the requirement … mandating that a designated beneficiary who is not an eligible designated beneficiary take distribution in each of the 10 years following the death of an employee."

AICPA also recommended that "the final regulations follow the rule … requiring only that the entire interest is to be distributed no later than by the end of the tenth year following the death of the employee/IRA owner."

Regarding the definition of employer and guidance related to multiple employer agreements, AICPA recommended "defining the retirement requirement in section 401 (a)(9)-2(b)(1)(ii) as met at the plan level in reference to MEPs [multiple employer plans] and PEPs [pooled employer plans]; when an employee terminates employment with the employer after attaining age 72 and is reemployed with either the same employer or another employer sponsoring the same MEP or PEP prior to attaining their RBD of April 1 the following year."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on stimulus checks during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From April 2020 to December 2021, the federal government made direct payments to taxpayers totaling $931 billion to address pandemic-related financial stress.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on stimulus checks during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From April 2020 to December 2021, the federal government made direct payments to taxpayers totaling $931 billion to address pandemic-related financial stress.

Report Findings

Some eligible taxpayers never received payments. Eligible taxpayers can still claim their payments through October 17. There were challenges for the Service and Treasury to get payments especially to nonfilers, or those who were not required to file tax returns. Taxpayers who think they may be eligible but did not receive the third economic impact payment (EIP) or child tax credit (CTC) can request an extension and file a simplified return at https://www.childtaxcredit.gov/. Although no new EIP and advance CTC payments are underway, the Treasury and Service could learn to manage other refundable tax credits such as the earned income tax credit (EITC). Further, the IRS’s new Taxpayer Experience Office could help improve outreach and improve taxpayer experience.

Recommendations

GAO made two recommendations. First, the Treasury and IRS could use available data to update their estimate of eligible taxpayers to better tailor and redirect their ongoing outreach and communications efforts for similar tax credits. Second, both agencies could focus on improving interagency collaboration. They could use data to assess their efforts to educate more taxpayers about refundable tax credits and eligibility requirements.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operations and Development (OECD) is delaying the implementation of Pillar One of the landmark agreement on international tax reform.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operations and Development (OECD) is delaying the implementation of Pillar One of the landmark agreement on international tax reform.

A new Progress Report on Pillar One, which includes "a comprehensive draft of the technical model rules to implement a new taxing right that will allow market jurisdictions to tax profits from some of the largest multinational enterprises," will be open to stakeholder comment through August 19, 2022, OECD said in a statement.

That report notes that the plan is to finalize Pillar One by mid-2023, with the more than 135 countries and jurisdictions that are a part of the agreement able to put the framework into operation in 2024.

The revised timeline "is designed to allow greater engagement with citizens, businesses, and parliamentary bodies which will ultimately have to ratify the agreement," OECD said.

The Department of the Treasury welcomed the delay.

"Treasury welcomes the additional year agreed to at the OECD to allow further time for negotiations among governments and consultations with stakeholders on implementation of the Pillar One agreement, which will make the international tax system more stable and fair for businesses and workers in the United States and globally," a spokesperson for the agency said. "Tremendous progress has been made, and additional time will ensure we all get this historic agreement right."

OECD also noted that technical work under Pillar Two, which will introduce the 15 percent global minimum corporate tax rate, "is largely complete." The implementation framework is expected to be released later this year.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.