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.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2021 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2021.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2021 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2021.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps
The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2021 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

• $10,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $18,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $16,400 for the second year
• $9,800 for the third year
• $5,860 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans
The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2021 are:

• $10,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $18,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $16,400 for the second year
• $9,800 for the third year
• $5,860 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles
If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

• $5,860 for passenger cars and
• $5,860 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans
If a vehicle is first leased in 2021, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

• $51,000 for a passenger car, or
• $51,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2021 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Vehicles Exempt from Depreciation Caps and Lease Inclusion Amounts
The depreciation caps and lease inclusion amounts do not apply to:

• cars with an unloaded gross vehicle weight of more than 6,000 pounds; or
• SUVs, trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds.

So taxpayers who want to avoid these limits should "think big."

The IRS has issued guidance for employers claiming the employee retention credit under Code Sec. 3134, enacted by section 9651 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), P.L. 117-2, which provides a credit for wages paid after June 30, 2021, and before January 1, 2022. The guidance amplifies previous notices which addressed the employee retention credit under section 2301 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136, as amended by sections 206 and 207 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, P.L. 116-260.

The IRS has issued guidance for employers claiming the employee retention credit under Code Sec. 3134, enacted by section 9651 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), P.L. 117-2, which provides a credit for wages paid after June 30, 2021, and before January 1, 2022. The guidance amplifies previous notices which addressed the employee retention credit under section 2301 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136, as amended by sections 206 and 207 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, P.L. 116-260.

In general, eligible employers can claim a refundable employee retention credit against the employer share of Social Security tax equal to 70 percent of the qualified wages they pay to employees after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2021. Qualified wages are limited to $10,000 per employee per calendar quarter in 2021. Thus, the maximum employee retention credit available is $7,000 per employee per calendar quarter, for a total of $14,000 for the first two calendar quarters of 2021. Under Code Secs. 3134(a) and (b)(1)(A), these limits continue to apply in the third and fourth calendar quarters in 2021.

The guidance explains changes made to the employee retention credit for the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, including:

• making the credit available to eligible employers that pay qualified wages after June 30, 2021, and before January 1, 2022;
• expanding the definition of eligible employer to include "recovery startup businesses";
• modifying the definition of qualified wages for "severely financially distressed employers"; and
• providing that the credit does not apply to qualified wages taken into account as payroll costs in connection with a shuttered venue grant under section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Venues Act, or a restaurant revitalization grant under section 5003 of the ARP.

The guidance also provides guidance on several miscellaneous issues with respect to the employee retention credit for both 2020 and 2021, including:

• the definition of full-time employee and whether that definition includes full-time equivalents;
• the treatment of tips as qualified wages and the interaction with the Code Sec. 45B credit;
• the timing of the qualified wages deduction disallowance and whether taxpayers that already filed an income tax return must amend that return after claiming the credit on an adjusted employment tax return; and
• whether wages paid to majority owners and their spouses may be treated as qualified wages.

Highlights of some of the items addressed in the guidance are summarized below.

Recovery Startup Businesses
A separate credit limit under Code Sec. 3134(b)(1)(B) applies to "recovery startup businesses." A "recovery startup business" is an employer (i) that began carrying on any trade or business after February 15, 2020; (ii) for which the average annual gross receipts of the employer for the three-tax-year period ending with the tax year that precedes the calendar quarter for which the credit is determined does not exceed $1,000,000; and (iii) that is not otherwise an eligible employer due to a full or partial suspension of operations or a decline in gross receipts. For an eligible employer that is a recovery startup business, the amount of the credit allowed under Code Sec. 3134(a) (after application of the limit under Code Sec. 3134(b)(1)(A)) for each of the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021 cannot exceed $50,000.

The determination of when a recovery startup business "began carrying on a trade or business" is made in the same manner as for purposes of Code Sec. 162. It is appropriate for the term "qualified wages" to include wages paid by a recovery startup business. In the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, a recovery startup business that is a small eligible employer may treat all wages paid with respect to an employee during the quarter as qualified wages. Whether an employer is a recovery startup business is determined separately for each calendar quarter.

Qualified Wages
The rules in Notice 2021-20 for determining the average number of full-time employees continue to apply in the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021. However, Code Sec. 3134(c)(3)(C) provides a different rule for qualified wages paid by "severely financially distressed employers." For the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, an eligible employer with gross receipts that are less than 10 percent of the gross receipts for the same calendar quarter in calendar year 2019 (or 2020, if the employer was not in existence in 2019) is a severely financially distressed employer.

Further, the rules for determining whether an employer is an eligible employer based on a decline in gross receipts also apply, in the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, for determining whether an eligible employer is a severely financially distressed employer based on the 10 percent threshold. For the third and fourth calendar quarters of 2021, a severely financially distressed employer that is a large eligible employer may treat all wages paid to its employees during the quarter in which the employer is considered severely financially distressed as qualified wages.

Claiming the Credit
Notice 2021-20 and Notice 2021-23 set forth the rules for claiming the employee retention credit in 2020 and the first and second calendar quarters in 2021, respectively. These rules, including the rules pertaining to claiming an advance and relevant limitations, continue to apply for the third and fourth quarters in 2021.

Reporting
Eligible employers will report their total qualified wages and the related health insurance costs for each quarter on their employment tax returns (Form 941) for the applicable period. If a reduction in the employer's employment tax deposits is not sufficient to cover the credit, certain employers may receive an advance payment from the IRS by submitting Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19.

Effect on Other Documents
Notice 2021-20, I.R.B. 2021-11, 922 and Notice 2021-23, I.R.B. 2021-16, 1113, are amplified.

The Treasury and IRS have provided an optional safe harbor allowing employers to exclude the following amounts from their gross receipts solely for determining eligibility for the employee retention credit.

The Treasury and IRS have provided an optional safe harbor allowing employers to exclude the following amounts from their gross receipts solely for determining eligibility for the employee retention credit:

• the amount of the forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan;
• the amount of any Shuttered Venue Operators Grants under the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Venues Act; and
• the amount of any Restaurant Revitalization Grants under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2).

Certain employers may be eligible for an employee retention credit against applicable federal employment taxes if their gross receipts for a calendar quarter decline by a certain percentage as compared to a prior calendar quarter. For most employers, gross receipts are defined by Code Sec. 448(c). For tax-exempt employers, gross receipts are defined by Code Sec. 6033.

Applying Safe Harbor Consistently
Employers must apply the safe harbor consistently in order to exclude these amounts from gross receipts for determining employee retention credit eligibility. An employer consistently applies the safe harbor by:

• excluding these amounts from its gross receipts for each calendar quarter in which gross receipts are relevant to determining eligibility to claim the employee retention credit; and
• applying the safe harbor to all employers treated as a single employer under the aggregation rules.

An employer must also retain in its records substantiating support for the credit claimed, including the use of the safe harbor.

If an employer revokes its safe harbor election, it must adjust all employment tax returns affected by the revocation.

Claiming the Employee Retention Credit
Employers claim the employee retention credit on their employment tax return, generally Form 941, Employers Quarterly Federal Tax Return, or on an adjusted employment tax return, generally Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund. An employer is not required to apply the safe harbor.

The safe harbor does not permit the exclusion of these amounts from gross receipts for any other federal tax purpose.

Effect on Other Documents
This guidance updates and amplifies Notice 2021-20, I.R.B. 2021-11, 922, Notice 2021-23, I.R.B. 2021-16, 1113, and Notice 2021-49, I.R.B. 2021-34.

The IRS issued transition relief for certain employers claiming the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) under Code Sec. 51. This would apply for certain employees beginning work after December 31, 2020, in response to legislation permitting the designation of an Empowerment Zone under Code Sec. 1393(b) to be extended from December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2025. Specifically, section IV of this notice provides transition relief by extending the 28-day deadline for employers to request certification from a designated local agency that an individual who begins work on or after January 1, 2021, and before October 9, 2021, is a member of the Designated Community Resident targeted group or the Qualified Summer Youth Employee targeted group.

The IRS issued transition relief for certain employers claiming the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) under Code Sec. 51. This would apply for certain employees beginning work after December 31, 2020, in response to legislation permitting the designation of an Empowerment Zone under Code Sec. 1393(b) to be extended from December 31, 2020, through December 31, 2025. Specifically, section IV of this notice provides transition relief by extending the 28-day deadline for employers to request certification from a designated local agency that an individual who begins work on or after January 1, 2021, and before October 9, 2021, is a member of the Designated Community Resident targeted group or the Qualified Summer Youth Employee targeted group.

Additional Time to Submit Form 8850
The IRS stated that employers may need additional time to comply with the certification requirements of Code Sec. 51(d)(13)(A)(ii). Because the termination dates designated in Empowerment Zone nominations are not automatically extended until after the deadline in Rev. Proc. 2021-18, I.R.B. 2021-15 for submitting a written declination has passed, employers that hired an individual who is a Designated Community Resident or a Qualified Summer Youth Employee and who began work for that employer on or after January 1, 2021, may not have submitted Form 8850 to the designated local agency within 28 days of the individual beginning work. To be eligible for the relief provided by this notice, an employer that did not submit Form 8850 to the DLA within 28 days of an individual beginning work must submit the completed Form 8850 to the DLA.

An employer that hires an individual who is a Designated Community Resident or a Qualified Summer Youth Employee and who begins work for the employer on or after October 9, 2021, is not eligible for the transition relief described in this notice with respect to that new employee.

Effective Date
The effective date of this notice is August 10, 2021

The U.S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) is launching a streamlined application portal to allow certain borrowers to apply for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan forgiveness directly through the SBA. The SBA also is explaining why it discontinued use of Loan Necessity Questionnaires for PPP borrowers.

The U.S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) is launching a streamlined application portal to allow certain borrowers to apply for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan forgiveness directly through the SBA. The SBA also is explaining why it discontinued use of Loan Necessity Questionnaires for PPP borrowers.

PPP Direct Forgiveness Portal
The SBA announced that it is launching a streamlined application portal to allow borrowers with PPP loans $150,000 or less through participating lenders to apply for forgiveness directly through the SBA. The new forgiveness platform will begin accepting applications from borrowers on August 4th, 2021.

In addition to the technology platform, the SBA is setting up a PPP customer service team to answer questions and directly assist borrowers with their forgiveness applications. Borrowers that need assistance or have questions should call (877) 552-2692, Monday to Friday, 8 a.m.-8 p.m. EST. More information on the PPP direct forgiveness portal is available at https://www.sba.gov/article/2021/jul/28/sba-announces-opening-paycheck-protection-program-direct-forgiveness-portal.

Loan Necessity Questionnaires
In updated FAQs, the SBA has explained why it discontinued use of the Loan Necessity Questionnaire. According to Treasury, based on the results of loan reviews that it has completed thus far, the SBA believes audit resources will be more efficiently deployed across all loans if the loan necessity questionnaire is discontinued. The loan necessity reviews, including the review of the borrower’s completed Loan Necessity Questionnaire, are lengthy and have caused delays beyond the 90-day statutory timeline for forgiveness, thus negatively impacting those borrowers that made their loan necessity certification in good faith. For these reasons, SBA is discontinuing any reliance on the Loan Necessity Questionnaires.

The Loan Necessity Questionnaires (SBA Forms 3509 and 3510) were used to facilitate the collection of supplemental information that would be used by SBA loan reviewers to evaluate the good faith certification made by PPP borrowers on their loan application that economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary to support ongoing operations. Each borrower, that together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of $2 million or greater was required to complete the form. In July, the SBA said it would no longer request either version of the Loan Necessity Questionnaire. In addition, Loan Necessity Questionnaires previously requested by the SBA are no longer required to be submitted.

The IRS stated that families should use the Child Tax Credit (CTC) Update Portal to confirm their eligibility for the payments. If eligible, the tool also indicates whether taxpayers are enrolled to receive their payments by direct deposit. More information can be found at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021.

The IRS stated that families should use the Child Tax Credit (CTC) Update Portal to confirm their eligibility for the payments. If eligible, the tool also indicates whether taxpayers are enrolled to receive their payments by direct deposit. More information can be found at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021.

Direct Deposit
For taxpayers currently using direct deposit, the tool will list the full bank routing number and the last four digits of their account number. This account is where the IRS sent their payments so far and will continue to do so. If necessary, the account can now be changed starting with the September 15 payment.

Monthly Payments
Eligible families for monthly payments include those who (1) filed either a 2019 or 2020 federal income tax return; (2) used the Non-Filers tool on IRS.gov in 2020 to register for an Economic Impact Payment; and (3) registered for the advance CTC this year using the new Non-Filer Sign-Up Tool on IRS.gov. The new maximum credit is available to taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of (1) $75,000 or less for singles; (2) $112,500 or less for heads of household; and (3) $150,000 or less for married couples filing a joint return and qualified widows and widowers.

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2) raised the maximum Child Tax Credit in 2021 to $3,600 for children under the age of 6 and to $3,000 per child for children ages 6 through 17. Before 2021, the credit was worth up to $2,000 per eligible child.

The IRS provided additional guidance on the application of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2) relating to temporary premium assistance for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) continuation coverage. This notice supplements Notice 2021-31, I.R.B. 2021-23, and addresses additional issues.

The IRS provided additional guidance on the application of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (P.L. 117-2) relating to temporary premium assistance for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) continuation coverage. This notice supplements Notice 2021-31, I.R.B. 2021-23, and addresses additional issues.

Eligibility
The IRS noted that if the original qualifying event was a reduction in hours or an involuntary termination of employment, COBRA premium assistance is available to an individual entitled to elect COBRA continuation coverage for an extended period due to a disability determination, second qualifying event, or an extension under State mini-COBRA. This should fall under the extended period of coverage between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021, even if the taxpayer had not notified the plan or insurer of the intent to elect extended COBRA continuation coverage before the start of that period.

Next, the eligibility ends when the taxpayer becomes eligible for coverage under any other disqualifying group health plan or Medicare. This includes the other coverage not including all of the benefits provided by the previously elected COBRA continuation coverage.

Finally, if a plan (other than a multiemployer plan) subject to Federal COBRA covers employees of two or more members of a controlled group, each common law employer that is a member of the controlled group is the premium payee entitled to claim the COBRA premium assistance credit with respect to its employees or former employees.

The foreign tax credit did not apply against the net investment income tax (NIIT). The structure of the Internal Revenue Code made the credit inapplicable to the NIIT, and tax treaties did not override that fact.

The foreign tax credit did not apply against the net investment income tax (NIIT). The structure of the Internal Revenue Code made the credit inapplicable to the NIIT, and tax treaties did not override that fact.

Under Code, Foreign Tax Credit Did Not Apply to NIIT
The foreign tax credit is in chapter 1, subtitle A of the Code, and it expressly applies only against taxes imposed by chapter 1. However, the NIIT is in chapter 2A. Thus, the credit does not apply against the NIIT. Although Reg. §1.1411-1(a) provides that all Code provisions that apply to the determination of taxable income under chapter 1 also apply to the NIIT, tax credits are not taken into account in determining taxable income. In fact, Reg. §1.1411-1(e) explicitly provides that credits against the tax imposed by chapter 1, including the foreign tax credit, are not allowed against the NIIT unless specifically provided by the Code.

Tax Treaties Did Not Override Code
Provisions in the U.S.-France and U.S.-Italy tax treaties that provided a foreign tax credit against U.S. income tax also did not provide an independent foreign tax credit against the NIIT. Although the treaties were intended to limit double taxation, they were expressly subject to the provisions and limitations of the Code. Thus, any allowable foreign tax credit had to be determined in accordance with the Code, and was limited by the Code’s provision of a credit. Although the taxpayer claimed that the Code was silent as to whether there was a foreign tax credit against the NIIT, the placement of the NIIT in chapter 2A made the foreign tax credit inapplicable. The creation of a new chapter for the NIIT was not happenstance or a mere clerical choice; rather, it was a deliberate decision by Congress and part of the Code’s fundamental structure.

No Summary Judgment on Penalty
Finally, issues of material fact precluded summary judgement as to the taxpayer’s liability for the penalty for failing to pay tax shown due on a return. She reported zero tax due on her Form 1040, though she did show the correct amount of the NIIT on her attached Form 8060, Net Investment Income Tax. Even if her Form 8960 constituted a return, the taxpayer argued that she had reasonable cause for her failure to pay because when she filed her return, she included a disclosure that she was claiming the foreign tax credit against the NIIT.

A missing or unknown federal gift tax return could constitute reasonable cause for the late filing of an estate tax return.

A missing or unknown federal gift tax return could constitute reasonable cause for the late filing of an estate tax return.

To understand the appropriate steps to take after the decedent’s death, the executor was in contact with the decedent’s tax preparer, a family office service, and an attorney. Several months after the decedent’s death, the attorney advised that no estate tax return needed to be filed because the gross estate was below the basic exclusion amount for the year of death. Nearly two years after the decedent’s death, the decedent’s son, who had not been involved in the estate preparation and administration, indicated that various trusts might have been created. The attorney asked the tax preparer about the trusts and the tax preparer provided a gift tax return reporting gifts to the trusts. The amount of the gifts put the estate over the threshold amount for an estate tax return.

Complaint Established Reasonable Cause
Calling the government’s argument circular, the court concluded that it would not dismiss the complaint based on the position that the attorney’s advice on whether to file an estate tax return was objectively unreasonable. If the court sided with the government on this point, missing information could never constitute reasonable cause because the advice would never be based on all pertinent facts and circumstances. Relying on the complaint alone, the court could not decide whether the attorney’s investigation constituted reasonable due diligence.

The executor is ultimately responsible for providing all of the information available to prepare a tax return. In this case, the question of whether the executor acted reasonably was dependent on the availability of the missing gift tax return. Absent more information from the tax preparer about the gift tax return, the complaint could not be dismissed.

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.