- Newsletters

During these continued uncertain and challenging times, we wanted to connect with our clients to manage expectations and to share important information early in this season. Our team has worked tirelessly over the past 10 months assisting clients through the COVID-19 economic crisis and the 2019 extended filing season. We continue to navigate and interpret guidance as it becomes available to take a proactive and meaningful approach with our clients’ needs. In this, the firm’s 50^th tax season, our commitment to quality remains key in the services we provide. Quality, in these times, coupled with prioritizing the health, safety and well-being of our clients, community, and team members, will take concentrated time and attention to ensure we are doing what is best for each client in light of the sweeping pandemic legislation enacted during 2020, and doing what is right to protect clients and team members alike from virus exposure.

February 5, 2021

A tax season note to our clients

During these continued uncertain and challenging times, we wanted to connect with our clients to manage expectations and to share important information early in this season. Our team has worked tirelessly over the past 10 months assisting clients through the COVID-19 economic crisis and the 2019 extended filing season. We continue to navigate and interpret guidance as it becomes available to take a proactive and meaningful approach with our clients’ needs. In this, the firm’s 50^th tax season, our commitment to quality remains key in the services we provide. Quality, in these times, coupled with prioritizing the health, safety and well-being of our clients, community, and team members, will take concentrated time and attention to ensure we are doing what is best for each client in light of the sweeping pandemic legislation enacted during 2020, and doing what is right to protect clients and team members alike from virus exposure.

Patience is key this filing season

Please expect that your return turnaround time will be longer than you may be accustomed to from year’s past. We are managing not only tax return workflow, but also a number of COVID-19 related services for clients that are time essential due to the passage of the December 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA). You may also find that we are asking questions or requesting information that is different from year’s past. There are a number of new compliance related matters we are required to fulfill based on IRS regulations. We have requested that all individual clients complete the questions provided on pages 5-9 of their 2020 tax organizer to aid in these compliance requirements. If you did not receive your 2020 individual tax organizer, please contact our office.

As previously communicated, business clients (those filing Forms 1065, 1120, and 1120s) will be put on extension if return information is not received by February 19, 2021.

As previously communicated to our individual and trust clients (those filing Forms 1040 and 1041), if substantial information necessary to prepare your tax return is not received by March 31, 2021, your return will be placed on extension. Extensions may also require an accompanying tax payment to avoid penalties and interest on any tax balance due with the return.

If you know that you cannot meet these deadlines and will need to file for an extension, please let us know immediately. We appreciate in advance all efforts in providing us with 2020 tax information early in the season so that we can give the necessary time and attention to preparing accurate returns.

All of this to say, we are asking for patience, with the understanding, that we are doing the very best we can for each client relationship.

Protecting our team members and clients

We continue to follow strict protocols in the office to keep both our team members and clients safe.

While our firm remains open and available to serve client needs, as we found last tax season, we can manage the entire tax return preparation process in both virtual and contactless ways while still providing the level of service our clients have come to expect from the firm.

We are limiting face-to-face client appointments this season to Tuesdays and Thursdays to minimize the risks of COVID exposure. If you need to schedule a face-to-face appointment, please contact the office to schedule a time. We are offering virtual appointments through Zoom, FaceTime, or Microsoft Teams. These virtual appointments can also be scheduled by contacting the office.

For clients, business partners, and vendors traveling to our office, please do not travel to our office if you are sick, but instead allow us to offer electronic means to meet your needs. All clients, business partners, and vendors entering our office are required to wear a mask.

Electronic methods to provide tax information

We are well positioned to operate remotely through the use of secure technology. We encourage clients and business partners to use the following additional options and ways to provide tax information to our firm:

o All tax documents and relevant information can be uploaded by using the following secure link in your web browser https://www.clientaxcess.com/sharesafe/#/HottelandWillis

o We can accept your e-file authorizations by the above link, e-mail, fax (540-662-1470) or mail.

Our commitment to you

We care about the story behind the numbers and appreciate the continued support and confidence our clients have in what we do. We will continue to share information during the season as guidance evolves and changes. Please contact us with any questions as we continue to work in partnership together during these unprecedented times.

Close

The Supreme Court has reversed and remanded California v. Texas, holding that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision.

In 2010, ACA, under the newly added Code Sec. 5000A, required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or pay a penalty. In 2017, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress effectively nullified the penalty by setting its amount at $0. The IRS issued guidance that the statute no longer required taxpayers to report whether they did or did not maintain coverage.

In 2018, Texas and 17 other states brought a lawsuit against the United States and federal officials. They were later joined by two individuals (Neill Hurley and John Nantz). The United States took the side of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that without the penalty, the minimum essential coverage requirement was unconstitutional and that the minimum essential coverage requirement was not severable from the rest of ACA. Hence, they believed ACA as a whole was invalid. California, along with fifteen other states and the District of Columbia, intervened to defend ACA.

The District Court found that the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision, Code Sec. 5000A(a). The court further held that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of ACA. It granted relief in the form of a declaration stating just that. On appeal, a panel majority agreed with the District Court that the plaintiffs had standing and that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional. It found that the District Court’s severability analysis, however, was "incomplete," and it remanded the case for further analysis.

The Supreme Court did not analyze whether the provision or ACA is unconstitutional, because it held that Texas and the other plaintiffs in the suit lack standing to bring the case. The plaintiffs do not have standing because they were not able to show a past or future injury, pocketbook or otherwise, fairly traceable to the government enforcing the minimum essential coverage requirement. The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss.

Close

The IRS issued two new, separate sets of frequently-asked-questions (FAQs) to assist families and small and mid-sized employers) in claiming credits under the American Rescue Plan (ARP). These FAQs provide information on eligibility, computing the credit amounts and how to claim these important tax benefits. Enacted in March to assist families and small businesses with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery underway, the ARP enhanced the child and dependent care credit and the paid sick and family leave credit.

Child and Dependent Care Credit
For 2021, the ARP increased the maximum amount of work-related expenses for qualifying care that may be taken into account in calculating the credit, increased the maximum percentage of those expenses for which the credit may be taken, modified how the credit is reduced for higher earners, and made it refundable. Additionally, eligible taxpayers can claim qualifying work-related expenses up to:

$8,000 for one qualifying person, up from $3,000 in prior years; or
$16,000 for two or more qualifying persons, up from $6,000 in prior years.

Further, the taxpayers are required to have earnings, and the amount of qualifying work-related expenses claimed cannot exceed the taxpayer’s earnings. Combined with the increase to 50-percent in the maximum credit rate, taxpayers with the maximum amount of qualifying work-related expenses would receive a credit of $4,000 for one qualifying person, or $8,000 for two or more qualifying persons.

A dependent under the age of 13 or a dependent of any age or spouse who is incapable of self-care and who lives with the taxpayer for more than half of the year is considered a qualifying person for this credit. Under the new ARP, more taxpayers will qualify for the new maximum 50-percent credit rate. However, the 50-percent credit rate goes down as income rises above $125,000. Taxpayers with adjusted gross income over $438,000 are not eligible for the credit.

The credit is fully refundable for the first time in 2021. This means eligible taxpayers can receive the credit even if they owe no federal income tax. To be eligible for the refundable credit, a taxpayer must reside in the U.S. for more than half of the year. However, special rules apply to military personnel stationed outside the U.S. To claim the credit for 2021, taxpayers need to complete Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses, and include the form when filing their tax returns in 2022.

Paid Sick and Family Leave Credit
The paid sick and family leave credits reimburse eligible employers for the cost of providing paid sick and family leave to their employees for reasons related to COVID-19, including leave taken by employees to receive or recover from COVID-19 vaccinations. Self-employed individuals are eligible for similar tax credits. Additionally, under the ARP, eligible employers may now claim the credit for paid family leave wages for the same reasons that they can claim the credit for paid sick leave wages.

Under the ARP, eligible employers, including businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees and certain governmental employers, may claim tax credits for qualified leave wages and certain other wage-related expenses (such as health plan expenses and certain collectively bargained benefits) paid with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. The ARP kept the daily wage thresholds that previously existed for these credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) ( P.L. 116-127). The aggregate cap on qualified sick leave wages remains at two weeks (up to a maximum of 80 hours), and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021. The aggregate cap on qualified family leave wages increases to $12,000 from $10,000, and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021.

The paid leave credits under the ARP are tax credits against the employer’s share of Medicare tax. This credit is refundable, which means that the employer is entitled to payment of the full amount of he credit to the extent it exceeds the employer’s share of Medicare tax. Self-employed individuals may claim comparable credits on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Close

The IRS has started sending letters to over 36 million families who, based on tax returns filed, may be eligible to receive monthly child tax credit payments starting July. Eligibility of these families are being evaluated based on information provided by taxpayers in their 2019 or 2020 tax returns, or through the Non-Filers tool while registering for an Economic Impact Payment. In addition, taxpayers who are eligible for advance child tax credit payments will receive a second, personalized letter listing an estimate of their monthly payment, starting July 15.

The IRS further announced that eligible families will begin receiving advance payments, either by direct deposit or check. Importantly, this payment will be up to $300 per month for each qualifying child under six years of age, and up to $250 per month, for each qualifying child from ages six to 17. Moreover, advance child tax credit payments will be issued on July 15, August 13, September 15, October 15, November 15 and December 15, 2021.

To avail themselves of these credits, taxpayers who have not yet filed their 2020 or 2019 return should do so as soon as possible, to receive advance payments. The IRS reminded taxpayers who do not normally file returns, such as families experiencing homelessness, that filing soon will ensure that their most current banking information would be applicable. Similarly, community groups, non-profits, associations, education organizations and others with connections to people with children to share this critical information about the child tax credit and other important benefits.

Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers of the changes to child tax credit by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2). The entire credit is fully refundable for 2021; meaning eligible families can avail themselves of the credit, even if they owe no federal income tax. The IRS also recommends that taxpayers visit the Advance Child Tax Credit Payments in 2021 page to learn more about these changes.

Close

The IRS has finalized regulations relating to the mandatory 60-day postponement of certain time-sensitive tax-related deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster. Further, the regulations clarify the definition of "federally declared disaster." The regulations affect individuals who reside in or were killed or injured in a disaster area, businesses that have a principal place of business in a disaster area, relief workers who provide assistance in a disaster area, or any taxpayer whose tax records necessary to meet a tax deadline are located in a disaster area.

Background
Section 205 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019, enacted as Division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94), amended Code Sec. 7508A relating to the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate to postpone certain time-sensitive tax deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster, by adding Code Sec. 7508A(d). This provision provides qualified taxpayers a mandatory 60-day period that is disregarded "in the same manner as a period specified" under Code Sec. 7508A(a).

On January 13, 2021, the IRS published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM REG-115057-20) to interpret and implement Code Secs. 165(i)(5) and 7508A(d). As described in the proposed regulations, Code Sec. 7508A(d) was ambiguous in at least two important respects—the time-sensitive acts to be postponed (beyond the pension-related actions described in Code Sec. 7508A(d)(4)) were not specified and it was unclear how the mandatory 60-day postponement period was to be calculated when the disaster declaration specified in Code Sec. 7508A(d) did not contain an incident date. The legislative history was also insufficient to explain these areas of ambiguity

Final Regulations
The final regulations adopt the proposed rules including providing that the definition of a federally declared disaster includes both a major disaster and emergencies declared under sections 401 or 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) ( P.L. 100-707). Also, one minor modification has been made to an example in the proposed rules to better illustrate the calculation of the mandatory 60-day postponement period in the event of multiple declarations and shifting "latest" incident dates.

Applicable Date
The final regulations under Code Sec. 7508A for a mandatory 60-day postponement period apply to disasters declared on or after December 21, 2019. The final regulations under Code Sec. 165 for the definition of a federally declared disaster apply June 11, 2021.

Close

The IRS has released a revenue procedure explaining how a taxpayer changes its method of computing depreciation for certain residential rental property. Automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method are available for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Residential Rental Property Allowed 30-Year ADS Depreciation
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) added residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to the list of property to which a 30 year recovery periods applies under the alternative depreciation system (ADS), thus changing the recovery period from 40 years to 30 years. The change applied to property placed in service after December 31, 2017, and therefore only to property newly placed in service.

The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act (Taxpayer Certainly Act) ( P.L. 116-260), enacted December 27, 2020, extended 30-year depreciation to apply to residential rental property placed in service before January 1, 2018 held by certain electing real property trade or businesses. To apply the 30-year recovery period to property already placed in service, taxpayers have to change their computation of depreciation for the property.

Procedures Provided for Changing Depreciation Method
This revenue procedure permits taxpayers who are affected by the Taxpayer Certainly Act's retroactive effective date to file an amended federal income tax return or information return, administrative adjustment request (AAR), or a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, to change their method of computing depreciation of certain residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to use a 30-year ADS recovery period. If the property is included in a general asset account, it permits taxpayers to change their general asset account treatment for the property to comply with Reg. §1.168(i)-1(h)(2).

The revenue procedure also provides automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method, and in certain cases simplified procedures, for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Close

An eligible partnership may file amended partnership returns for tax years beginning in 2018, 2019, and 2020 by filing a Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income (Form 1065), with the "Amended Return" box checked. The partnership may also issue an amended Schedule K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. (Schedule K-1), to each of its partners.

Partnerships Eligible for Amended-Return Procedures
The amended-return procedures apply to "BBA partnerships," which include most partnerships that are subject to the centralized audit regime provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) ( P.L. 114-74). The centralized audit regime replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) ( P.L. 97–248) partnership procedures.

An eligible BBA partnership may use amended returns to:

change its method of depreciation and/or general asset account treatment for its residential rental property, or
make a late election to be an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7) by filing an amended Form 1065 in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2020-22, 2020-18 IRB 745.

Amended Partnership Returns in Special Situations
If the partnership is currently under examination for a tax year beginning in 2018, 2019, or 2020, it must send written notice to the revenue agent coordinating the before or at the same time it files its amended Form 1065.

If the partnership previously filed an administrative adjustment request (AAR) for a tax year covered by the amended return, it should use the items as adjusted in the AAR on the amended return.

If, under Notice 2019-46, 2019-37 I.R.B. 695, a partnership has applied the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rules of Proposed Reg. §1.951A-5 for tax years ending before June 22, 2019, the partnership may continue to apply those rules to those tax years. However, the partnership must also furnish amended Schedules K-1 and appropriate notifications to its partners.

Close

An estate was allowed a marital deduction because the decedent’s marriage was valid in the country of celebration. The decedent, who was Jewish, obtained a religious divorce under rabbinical law in New York from his first wife after a New York court had declared his Mexican divorce invalid, which resulted in the declaration that his marriage to a second wife was null and void. The decedent traveled to Israel and married his third wife in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony. The Israeli marriage certificate noted that the decedent was free to marry because he was divorced. The government claimed that because the divorce was not valid under state law, no marital deduction was allowed because the property did not pass to the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Marriage Was Valid in New York
Under New York law, the marriage was valid since it was recognized in Israel unless it was contrary to public policy or violated "positive law." Because Code Sec. 2056(a) focuses on the identity of the surviving spouse, the initial question was whether the decedent and the surviving spouse were validly married, and not whether the religious divorce was valid. Under Israeli law, the decedent was validly divorced and could remarry. Thus, for purposes of New York law, the marriage was not bigamous and not contrary to public policy. New York divorce law was not violated by the finding because that law was not broken by a New York resident marrying outside of the state and recognizing a non-New York marriage was not equivalent to ruling on the divorce’s validity. However, the ruling was narrowly focused on whether the New York Court of Appeals would recognize the Israeli marriage, which was not contested by the prior spouse and left undisturbed by the lower courts.

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced that they intend to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Sec. 59A and Code Sec. 6038A to defer the information reporting requirements for qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. The current regulations provide that the QDP reporting requirements apply to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021.

Background
Under the BEAT rules, a base erosion minimum tax is imposed on certain corporations with annual average annual gross receipts of at least $500 million over the previous three tax years. The tax applies to base erosion payments paid or accrued in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Generally speaking, base erosion payments are certain types of payments made by a taxpayer to foreign related parties or foreign persons.

QDPs are not base erosion payments. A QDP is any payment made by a taxpayer to a foreign related party pursuant to a derivative for which:

the taxpayer recognizes gain or loss on the derivative on a mark-to-market basis (treats the derivative as sold on the last business day of the tax year);
the gain or loss is ordinary; and
any gain, loss, income or deduction on a payment made pursuant to the derivative is also treated as ordinary.

This QDP exception applies only 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).

Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) applies to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021. During the “transition period” before that date, a taxpayer is treated as satisfying the reporting requirements to the extent that it reports the aggregate amount of QDPs on Schedule A of Form 8991, provided the taxpayer reports this amount in good faith ( Reg. §§1.59A-6(b)(2)(iv); 1.6038A-2(g)).

QDP Reporting Deferred
The preamble to 2020 final regulations relating to Code Sec. 59A included a comment which recommended that Treasury and the IRS address the interaction of the QDP exception, the BEAT netting rule in Reg. §1.59A-2(e)(3)(vi), and the QDP reporting requirements in Reg. §1.59A-6 and Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix). While studying this matter, Treasury and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to extend the transition period.

Accordingly, Treasury and the IRS intend to amend Reg. §1.6038A-2(g) to provide that Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. Until that reporting requirement applies, the transition period rules described above continue to apply.

Taxpayer Reliance
Taxpayers may rely on this Notice before the amendments to the final regulations are issued.

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

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

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.

Close

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.

Close