- Newsletters

House Republican tax writers have advanced a "Tax Reform 2.0" legislative package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.

The House Ways and Means Committee debated the GOP Tax Reform 2.0 three-bill package in a September 13 markup that ran almost seven hours. The package focuses on making permanent individual and small business tax cuts, and creating incentives for retirement savings and business innovation. The following three bills were approved along party lines:

Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 ( HR 6760);
Family Savings Act of 2018 ( HR 6757); and
American Innovation Act of 2018 ( HR 6756).

Individual, Small Business Tax Cuts

HR 6757 would make permanent the individual and small business tax cuts that were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). These provisions were made temporary to comply with certain Senate budget rules applicable to the reconciliation process Republicans used to pass tax reform with only a simple GOP majority. Notable TCJA provisions that would be made permanent under HR 6750 include, among others:

lowered individual income tax rates;
20-percent deduction of income for qualifying passthrough entities;
$12,000 (individual) and $24,000 (married filing jointly) standard deduction; and
$10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.

Family Savings and Business Innovation

HR 6757 aims to simplify certain rules for employer retirement plans, and eliminates the age limit on IRA contributions, among other things. Additionally, it would create a Universal Savings Account (USA), while also allowing tax-advantaged 529 Plans to be used for expenses related to trade schools, home schooling, and up to $10,000 in total distributions for repayment of student loans.

HR 6756 would improve the tax treatment of certain start-up businesses. The bill would allow new businesses to write off up to $20,000 of start-up and organization expenditures. Additionally, HR 6756 would allow for a change in start-up ownership without triggering limits on certain tax benefits.

JCT

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has estimated that all three bills will cost the federal government revenue. As noted in JCX-71-18, the JCT estimates that making permanent the individual and small business tax cuts under the TCJA, as proposed by HR 6750, would cost the federal government $631 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. Additionally, the JCT has estimated that HR 6756 and HR 6757, collectively, would cost approximately $26 billion in lost federal revenue over the next 10 years ( JCX-75-18, JCX-78-18).

Tax Reform 2.0’s Fate Uncertain

Tax Reform 2.0’s fate remains largely uncertain as it makes its way through the legislative process. While the measure is expected to garner enough Republican support in the House, despite certain GOP criticisms of the SALT deduction cap, it is not expected as a whole to fare well in the Senate. There is talk on Capitol Hill that Democrats could potentially support the retirement savings and business innovation bills in some form. However, it is considered unlikely that Democrats will support making permanent certain provisions of a law (the TCJA) for which not a single Democrat voted.

Close

Charles P. "Chuck" Rettig was confirmed as the new IRS Commissioner on September 12. The Senate confirmed the nomination by a 64-to-33 vote. Rettig received both Democratic and Republican support.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, praised Rettig, saying that he is both "qualified and ready" to lead the IRS. Although SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., previously said that Rettig is a "qualified nominee," he urged colleagues to oppose Rettig’s nomination. Wyden previously said he would only support Rettig’s nomination if he promised to reverse recent IRS guidance which limits Schedule B donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38).

Rettig will oversee implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). His term as IRS Commissioner will expire on November 12, 2022.

Close

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

SALT Deduction

The SALT deduction limit is one of the most controversial temporarily enacted provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) signed into law last December. Under the TCJA, beginning in 2018 and running through 2025, taxpayers may not claim more than $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for all state and local sales, income and property taxes.

After the tax code overhaul, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (considered high-tax states) passed legislation that essentially allows taxpayers to circumvent the SALT deduction cap by making charitable contributions to state-run charitable organizations. Indeed, similar workarounds for private-school tuition already exists in other states.

"Congress limited the deduction for state and local taxes that predominantly benefited high-income earners to help pay for major tax cuts for American families,"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "The proposed rule will uphold that limitation by preventing attempts to convert tax payments into charitable contributions."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats, as with the TCJA, are mostly divided on the topic. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., praised the IRS proposal for aiming to prevent tax evasion. "These Treasury regulations rightly close the door on improper tax evasion schemes conjured up by state and local politicians who insist on brutally taxing local families and businesses," Brady said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are criticizing the regulations. "The Trump administration doubled down on its attack on the middle class," Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement. "The administration’s new regulations block affected states’ attempts to cope with this significant change and protect residents."

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

Several tax policy experts have criticized states’ efforts to circumvent the SALT deduction cap. Carl Davis, research director at the Democratic-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, has called the workarounds an "abuse" of the charitable giving deduction. "Anyone who wants a fair and transparent tax system should be cautiously optimistic that these rules will put an end…to the workaround provisions enacted by states more recently," Davis wrote in a recent op-ed about the proposed IRS guidance.

Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, has said that states’ strategies to re-characterize SALT payments were pursued to primarily help high-income taxpayers. Additionally, the top one percent of the wealthiest households would reap more than half of the benefit if the SALT cap were eliminated, according to an estimate from the Democratic-leaning Tax Policy Center.

Close

The IRS has proposed to remove the Code Sec. 385 documentation regulations provided in Reg. §1.385-2. Although the proposed removal of the documentation rules will apply as of the date the proposed regulations are published as final in the Federal Register, taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations until the final regulations are published.

The documentation regulations provide minimum documentation requirements that must be satisfied in order for certain related-party instruments to be treated as debt for federal tax purposes. They are part of final and temporary Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790, I.R.B. 2016-45, 540. In addition to the documentation requirements, the Section 385 regulations also include rules that recharacterize as equity certain debt issued in connection with distributions and acquisitions that do not result in new investment in the operations of the issuer. The Section 385 regulations apply generally to debt instruments issued by a domestic corporations (or its disregarded entity) and held by members of the domestic corporation’s expanded group.

Documentation Regulations

The documentation rules generally require large corporations to document related-party loans just as all businesses do when they borrow from unrelated lenders. Reg. §1.385-2 prescribes the nature of the documentation necessary to substantiate the tax treatment of related-party instruments as debt. Taxpayers must be able to provide written evidence of four indebtedness factors analogous to those found in third-party loans.

Compliance with the documentation rules does not establish that an interest is debt. Instead, it serves only to satisfy the minimum documentation for making the determination under general federal tax principles. If a debt instrument is reclassified as stock due to a failure to meet the documentation requirements, it is treated as stock for all federal tax purposes.

Corporations must document relevant transactions under these rules if they are part of expanded affiliated groups and:

stock of any member of the group is publicly traded;
one or more members have total assets that exceed $100 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements; or
one or more members have annual total revenue that exceeds $50 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements.

The documentation regulations apply to relevant intercompany debt issued beginning in 2019, and require that the taxpayer’s documentation for a given tax year be prepared by the time the borrower’s return is filed.

Executive Order 13789

Executive Order 13789, issued on April 21, 2017 (E.O. 13789), instructs the Treasury Secretary to identify significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers, add undue complexity to the federal tax laws, or exceed the statutory authority of the IRS. The Treasury Secretary is instructed to take concrete actions to alleviate these burdens.

Based on E.O. 13789, the Treasury Department identified, among others, the Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790 as significant tax regulations that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers and/or add undue complexity to the federal tax laws ( Notice 2017-38, I.R.B. 2017-30, 147).

In light of further actions in connection with the required review of the Section 385 regulations, and in response to continued taxpayer concern, the IRS has delayed the applicability date of the documentation regulations for 12 months. As a result, the documentation requirements apply to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2019. As originally adopted, the final regulations applied to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018 ( Notice 2017-36, I.R.B. 2017-33, 208).

In a later report, the Treasury has proposed to revoke the current documentation rules and replace them with substantially simplified and streamlined documentation rules ( TDNR SM-0172, October 4, 2017; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Second Report to the President on Executive Order 13789, October 2, 2017).

Proposed Removal of Documentation Rules

The IRS has proposed to remove the documentation regulations after considering the comments received in connection with E.O. 13789, including with respect to Notice 2017-36 and Notice 2017-38. However, the IRS will continue to study the issues addressed by the documentation regulations, When the study is complete, the IRS may propose a modified version of the documentation regulations. The revised documentation rules:

would be substantially simplified and streamlined to reduce the burden on U.S. corporations;
would still require sufficient documentation and other information for tax administration purposes; and
would be proposed with a prospective effective date to allow sufficient lead time for taxpayers to design and implement systems to comply with the revised requirements.

Comments

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 23, 2018. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-130244-17).

Close

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

Close

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction and its recently-released proposed regulations, REG-107892-18. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: How do the proposed regulations provide both limitations and flexibility regarding the available election to aggregate trades or businesses?

Joshua Wu: Treasury agreed with various comments that some level of aggregation should be permitted to account for the legal, economic and other non-tax reasons that taxpayers operate a single business across multiple entities. Permissive aggregation allows taxpayers the benefit of combining trades or businesses for applying the W-2 wage limitation, potentially resulting in a higher limit. Under Proposed Reg. §1.199A-4, aggregation is allowed but not required. To use this method, the business must (1) qualify as a trade or business, (2) have common ownership, (3) not be a SSTB, and (4) demonstrate that the businesses are part of a larger, integrated trade or business (for individuals and trusts). The proposed regulations give businesses the benefits of electing aggregation without having to restructure the businesses from a legal standpoint. Businesses failing to qualify under the above test will have to consider whether a legal restructuring would be possible.

Wolters Kluwer: How does Notice 2018-64 Methods for Calculating W-2 Wages for Purposes of Section 199A, which accompanied the release of the proposed regulations, coordinate with aggregation?

Joshua Wu: Notice 2018-64 contains a proposed revenue procedure with guidance on three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of section 199A. The Unmodified Box method uses the lesser of totals in Box 1 of Forms W-2 or Box 5 (Medicare wages). The Modified Box 1 method takes the total amounts in Box 1 of Forms W-2 minus amounts not wages for income withholding purposes, and adding total amounts in Box 12 (deferrals). The Tracking wages method is the most complex and tracks total wages subject to income tax withholding. The calculation method is dependent on the group of Forms W-2 included in the computation and, thus, will vary depending upon whether businesses are aggregated under §1.199A-4 or not. Taxpayers with businesses generating little or no Medicare wages may consider aggregating with businesses that report significant wages in Box 1 that are still subject to income tax withholding. Under the Modified Box 1 method, that may result in a higher wage limitation.

Crack & Pack

Wolters Kluwer: What noteworthy anti-abuse safeguards did the proposed regulations seek to establish? How do the rules address "cracking" or "crack and pack" strategies?

Joshua Wu: Treasury included some anti-abuse provisions in the proposed regulations. One area that Treasury noted was the use of multiple non-grantor trusts to avoid the income threshold limitations on the 199A deduction. Taxpayers could theoretically use multiple non-grantor trusts to increase the 199A deduction by taking advantage of each trust’s separate threshold amount. The proposed regulations, under the authority of 643(f), provide that two or more trusts will be aggregated and treated as a single trust if such trusts have substantially the same grantor(s) and substantially the same primary beneficiary or beneficiaries, and if a principal purpose is to avoid tax. The proposed regulations have a presumption of a principal purpose of avoiding tax if the structure results in a significant tax benefit, unless there is a significant non-tax purpose that could not have been achieved without the creation of the trusts.

Another anti-abuse issue relates to the "crack and pack" strategies. These strategies involve a business that is limited in its 199A deduction because it is an SSTB spinning off some of its business or assets to an entity that is not an SSTB and could claim the 199A deduction. For example, a law firm that owns its building could transfer the building to a separate entity and lease it back. The law firm is an SSTB and, thus, is subject to the 199A limitations. However, the real estate entity is not an SSTB and can generate a 199A deduction (based on the rental income) for the law partners. The proposed regulations provide that a SSTB includes any business with 50 percent common ownership (direct or indirect) that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to an excluded trade or business. Also, if a trade or business shares 50 percent or more common ownership with an SSTB, to the extent that trade or business provides property or services to the commonly-owned SSTB, the portion of the property or services provided to the SSTB will be treated as an SSTB. The proposed regulations provide an example of a dentist who owns a dental practice and also owns an office building. The dentist rents half the building to the dental practice and half to unrelated persons. Under [Proposed Reg.] §1.199A-5(c)(2), the renting of half of the building to the dental practice will be treated as an SSTB.

Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: Generally, what industries can be seen as "winners" and "losers" in light of the proposed regulations?

Joshua Wu: The most obvious "losers" in the proposed regulations are the specified services businesses (e.g., lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc.) who are further limited by the anti-abuse provisions in arranging their affairs to try and benefit from 199A. On the other hand, certain specific service providers benefit from the proposed regulations. For example, health clubs or spas are exempt from the SSTB limitation. Additionally, broadcasters of performing arts, real estate agents, real estate brokers, loan officers, ticket brokers, and art brokers are all exempt from the SSTB limitation.

Wolters Kluwer: What areas of the Code Sec. 199A provision stand out as most complex when calculating the deduction, and how does this complexity vary among taxpayers?

Joshua Wu: With respect to calculating the deduction, one complex area is planning to maximize the W-2 wages limitation. Because compensation as W-2 wages can reduce QBI, and potentially the 199A deduction, determining the efficient equilibrium point between having enough W-2 wages to limit the impact of the wage limitation, while preserving QBI, will be a fact-driven complex planning issue that must be determined by each taxpayer. Another area of complexity will be how taxpayers track losses which may reduce future QBI and, thus, the 199A deduction. The proposed regulations provide that losses disallowed for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, are not taken into account for purposes of computing QBI in a later taxable year. Taxpayers will be left to track pre-2018 and post-2018 losses and determine if a loss in a particular tax year reduces QBI or not.

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

Wolters Kluwer: An IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that the IRS did not expect the proposed regulations to answer all questions surrounding the deduction. Indeed, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said that stakeholder feedback would help finalize the regulations. What significant questions remain unanswered for taxpayers and tax practitioners, and has additional uncertainty been created with the release of the IRS guidance?

Joshua Wu: On the whole, the proposed regulations did a good job addressing the most important areas of Section 199A. However, there are many areas where additional guidance would be helpful. Such guidance may be in the form of additional regulations or other administrative pathways. For example, the proposed regulations did not address the differing treatment between a taxpayer operating as a sole proprietor versus an S corporation. Wages paid to an S corporation shareholder boosts the W-2 limitation but are not considered QBI. Thus, with the same underlying facts, the 199Adeduction may vary between taxpayers operating as a sole proprietor versus those operating as an S corporation.

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

Wolters Kluwer: In what ways do you see the passthrough deduction rules changing when the final regulations are released?

Joshua Wu: I suspect that the core components of the proposed regulations will not change significantly. However, I would not be surprised if Treasury were to include more specific examples with respect to real estate and whether certain types of activity constitute a trade or business. Additionally, the proposed regulations will likely generate comments and questions from various industry groups related to the SSTB definitions and specific types of services (e.g., do trustees and executors fall under the legal services definition). Treasury may change the definitions of SSTBs in response to comments and clarify definitions for industry groups.

Tax Reform 2.0

Wolters Kluwer: The White House and congressional Republicans are currently moving forward on legislative efforts known as "Tax Reform 2.0." The legislative package proposes making permanent the passthrough deduction. How does the impermanence of this deduction currently impact taxpayers? (Note: On September 13, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up a three-bill Tax Reform 2.0 package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.)

Joshua Wu: The 199A deduction has a significant impact on the choice of entity question for businesses. With the 21 percent corporate rate, we have seen many taxpayers considering restructuring away from passthrough entities to a C corporation structure. The 199A deduction is a large consideration in whether to restructure or not, but its limited effective time does raise questions about the cost effectiveness of planning to obtain the 199A deduction where the benefit will sunset in eight years.

Key Takeways

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners should remind clients who may benefit from the 199A deduction to keep detailed records of any losses for each line of business, as this may impact the calculation of QBI in the future. Practitioners should also help clients examine the whole of their activity to define their "trades or businesses." This will be essential to calculating the 199A deduction and planning to maximize any such deduction. Finally, practitioners should remember that some of the information that may be necessary to determine a 199A deduction may not be in their client’s possession. Practitioners need to plan in advance with their clients regarding how information about each trade or business will be obtained (e.g., how will a limited partner in a partnership obtain information regarding the partnership’s W-2 wages and/or UBIA of qualified property).

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners and taxpayers should remember that the regulations are only proposed and may change before they become final. Any planning undertaken this year should carefully weigh the economic costs and be rooted in the statutory language of 199A. It will be some time before case law helps clarify the nuances of Section 199A, and claiming the deduction allows the IRS to more easily impose the substantial understatement penalty if a taxpayer gets it wrong.

Close

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) mandated a change from the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U). Official amounts for 2019 should be released by the IRS later in 2018.

Individual Tax Brackets

The projected bracket ranges for individuals in 2019 are as follows.

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $19,400
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $19,400 and up to $78,900
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $78,900 and up to $168,400
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $168,400 and up to $321,450
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $321,450 and up to $408,200
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $408,200 and up to $612,350
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $612,350

For heads of households:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $13,850
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $13,850 and up to $52,850
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $52,850 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For unmarried taxpayers:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For married taxpayers filing separately:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,725
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,725 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $306,175
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $306,175

For estates and trusts:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $2,600
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $2,600 and up to $9,300
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,300 and up to $12,750
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $12,750

Standard Deduction

TCJA also roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction. For 2019, the following standard deduction amounts are projected:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $24,400
For heads of households, $18,350
For unmarried taxpayers and well as married taxpayers filing separately, $12,200

AMT Exemptions

TCJA eliminated the AMT for corporations, and increased the exemption amounts, and the exemption phaseouts, for individuals. For 2019, the AMT exemption amounts are projected to be:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $111,700
For unmarried individuals and heads of households, $71,700
For married taxpayers filing separately, $55,850

Estate and Gift Tax

The following amounts related to transfer taxes (estate, generation-skipping, and gift taxes) are projected for 2019:

The gift tax annual exemption is projected to be $15,000 in 2019

The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion (increased under TCJA) is projected to be $11,400,000 for decedents dying in 2019

The exclusion for gifts made in 2019 to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen is projected to be $155,000 for 2019

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

The adoption credit for 2019 is projected to be $14,080 for 2019.

For 2019, the allowed Roth IRA contribution amount is projected to phase out for married taxpayers filing jointly with income between $193,000 and $203,000 For heads of household and unmarried filers, the projected phaseout range is between $122,000 to $137,000.

The maximum amount of deductible contributions that can be made to an IRA is projected to be $6,000 for 2019. The increased contribution amount for taxpayers age 50 and over will, therefore, be $7,000.

The deduction for traditional IRA contributions is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers whose income is greater than $103,000 if both spouses are covered by a retirement plan at work. If only one spouse is covered by a retirement plan at work, the phaseout is projected to begin when modified adjusted gross income reaches $193,000. For heads of household and unmarried filers who are covered by a retirement plan at work, the 2019 income phaseout range for deductible IRA contributions is projected to begin at $64,000.

For 2019, the $2,500 student loan interest deduction is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $140,000. For single taxpayers, the 2019 deduction is projected to begin to phase out at a MAGI level of over $70,000.

The amount of the 2019 foreign earned income exclusion under Code Sec. 911 is projected to be $105,900.

Close

With the U.S. and world financial markets in turmoil, many individual investors may be watching the value of their stock seesaw, or have seen it plummet in value. If the value of your shares are trading at very low prices, or have no value at all, you may be wondering if you can claim a worthless securities deduction for the stock on your 2008 tax return.

Capital or ordinary loss treatment

When stock you own in a corporation becomes totally worthless during the tax year, you may be able to report a loss in the stock equal to its tax basis. Generally, a worthless stock loss is characterized as a capital loss because securities like stock that become worthless are usually treated as capital assets. When a security that is not a capital asset becomes wholly worthless, the loss is deductible as an ordinary loss. For example, if worthless stock is Code Sec. 1244 stock, ordinary loss treatment applies. Worthless stock is treated as if it was sold on the last day of the tax year.

Note. You may only deduct a loss on worthless securities if the loss is incurred in a trade or business, in a transaction entered into for profit, or as the result of a fire, storm, shipwreck, another casualty, or theft. It is generally assumed that an individual acquires securities for profit (although this assumption may be refuted).

Your stock is trading at $1.08 a share: Is it "worthlessness?"

A worthless stock deduction may only be taken when your securities have become totally worthless. You can not take the deduction for stock that has become only partially worthless. The Internal Revenue Code, however, does not define "worthlessness." Nonetheless, in the IRS's eyes, a company's stock is not going to be automatically considered worthless simply because the stock or security has plummeted in value and is now trading at mere dollars and cents.

With the current market turmoil, many stocks have taken big hits and dropped significantly in value, perhaps even trading for a $1.08 per share, but are nonetheless still alive and trading on an exchange. Therefore, you can not take a worthless stock deduction for a mere decline in value of stock caused by a fluctuation in market price or other similar cause, no matter how steep the decline, if your stock has any recognizable value on the date you claim as the date of loss. Even if a company in which you have stock files for bankruptcy, or lawsuits are filed against it, does not automatically qualify the stock or securities as worthlessness.

More hurdles to overcome

Even if you can establish that the stock you own has become totally worthless, the loss must be (1) evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, (2) fixed by identifiable events and (3) actually sustained during the tax year. First, you may only claim the deduction on your return for the tax year in which the stock has become completely worthless, and you must be able to show that the year in which you are claiming the loss is the appropriate tax year.

Generally, a worthless stock loss deduction can be taken in the year in which you abandon the stock. To abandon a security, you must permanently surrender and relinquish all rights in the security and receive no consideration in exchange for the security. But, whether the transaction qualifies as abandonment, and not an actual sale or exchange, is a facts and circumstances test.

If you would like to know whether the stock or other securities you own have become worthless, please contact our office. We can help you navigate these complex rules.

Close

Move over hybrids - buyers of Volkswagen and Mercedes diesel vehicles now qualify for the valuable alternative motor vehicle tax credit. Previously, the credit had gone only to hybrid vehicles. Now, the IRS has qualified certain VW and Mercedes diesels as "clean" as a hybrid.

Qualifying vehicles

The IRS has designated the following diesel-powered vehicles as advanced lean-burning technology motor vehicles that qualify for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit:

The 2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen models; and
The 2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320, R320 and ML320 Bluetec models.

The credit amounts vary depending on the vehicle's fuel economy. The credit amounts for each vehicle are as follows:

2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen: $1,300 credit;
2009 Mercedes ML320 Bluetec: $900;
2009 Mercedes R320 Bluetec: $1,550; and
2009 GL320 Bluetec: $1,800.

VW's diesels went on sale in August, while the Mercedes Bluetec models are expected to go on sale beginning this October.

The alternative motor vehicle tax credit, generally

The alternative motor vehicle tax credit is a lucrative tax credit for purchasers of qualifying automobiles. But, just as the situation is with hybrids, the full amount of the credit for each vehicle is available only during a limited period. The dollar value of the tax credit will begin to be reduced once the manufacturer sells 60,000 vehicles that qualify for the tax credit. Additionally, the credit is available only to the original purchaser of a new, qualifying vehicle. As such individuals who lease the vehicle are not eligible for the credit - the credit is allowed only to the vehicle's owner, such as the leasing company.

Taxpayers may claim the full amount of the allowable credit up to the end of the first calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer records its sale of the 60,000th advance lean burn technology motor vehicle or hybrid passenger automobile or light truck. For the second and third calendar quarters after the quarter in which the 60,000th vehicle is sold, taxpayers may claim 50 percent of the credit. For the fourth and fifth calendar quarters, taxpayers may claim 25 percent of the credit. No credit is allowed after the fifth quarter.

The credit - as Congress has allotted so far - may only be taken for qualified vehicles purchased before the end of 2010.

Close

To ease the pain of the ever-escalating costs of healthcare, many employers provide certain tax-driven health benefits and plans to their employees. To help employers understand the differences and similarities among three popular medical savings vehicles - health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) - here's an overview.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)

HSAs are relatively new. An HSA is a tax-exempt trust or custodial account that is established exclusively to pay for (or reimburse) the qualified medical expenses of the account holder (typically an employee), a spouse or dependents such as children. Individuals get to take an above-the-line deduction for HSA contributions, while employer contributions to an employee's HSA are neither included in the employee's gross income nor subject to employment taxes. HSA earnings grow tax-free and distributions to pay for qualified medical expenses are also tax-free.

For 2008, a deduction may be taken up to $2,900 by individuals with self-only coverage and $5,800 by individuals with family coverage. And, individuals age 55 or older may make additional "catch-up" contributions to an HSA.

HSA contributions in an account carry over from year to year until the employee uses them. HSAs are also portable, meaning that an employee can take their funds when they leave or change jobs.

To be eligible for an HSA, an individual must generally:

Have a high deductible health plan (HDHP);
Have no other health coverage except for certain types of permitted coverage (for example, coverage for accidents, disability, dental and vision care, and long-term care);
Not be enrolled in Medicare; and
Not be able to be claimed as a dependent on another person's tax return.

HDHPs feature higher annual deductibles than other traditional health plans. For 2008, the minimum HDHP deductible is $1,100 for self-only coverage, and $2,200 for family coverage. HSA annual contributions, however, are not limited to the annual deductible under an HDHP.

Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs)

An FSA is an employer-provided benefit program that reimburses employees for specified expenses as they are incurred. Employees must first incur and substantiate the expense before it is reimbursed by the employer. FSAs are also known as "cafeteria plans" or "Section 125 plans" because they are allowed under Code Sec. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. An FSA allows employees to contribute before-tax dollars to the account to be used to reimburse health care costs. Employers can also contribute to an employee's FSA. Generally, distributions may only be made to reimburse an employee for qualified medical expenses. They generally cannot be carried forward from year to year; specific "use-it-or-lose-it" rules apply.

Funds set aside in an FSA, typically through a voluntary salary reduction agreement, are not included in an employee's gross income or subject to employment taxes (with an exception for employer contributions used to pay for long-term care insurance). Withdrawals from an FSA are tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses. Employees can also withdraw funds from their account to pay for qualified medical expenses even if they have not yet placed the funds in the FSA.

Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs)

An HRA is a type of FSA in which an employer sets aside funds to reimburse employees for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount. Employer HRA contributions are not included in employees' gross income or subject to employment taxes. Additionally, employers get to deduct amounts contributed to employees' HRAs. HRAs can only be established and funded by an employer, and can be offered together with other employer-provided health benefits. Self-employed individuals are not eligible for HRAs.

Generally, there is no limit on the amount an employer can contribute to an employee's HRA, and any unused amounts in an HRA can be carried forward to later years. HRAs, however, are not portable and therefore do not follow employees if they change employment.

Distributions from HRAs can only be used to pay for qualified medical expenses that an employee has incurred on or after the date he or she enrolled in the HRA. If a distribution is made to pay for non-qualified medical expenses, those amounts are included in the employee's gross income. Moreover, distributions made to someone other than the employee, their spouse or dependents are taxable income.

If you need further analysis of which of these health-benefit plans may be right for you, and your employees if applicable, please call us.

Close