The 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.

WASHINGTON–With Congress in its lame duck session to close out the remainder of 2024 and with Republicans taking control over both chambers of Congress in the just completed election cycle, no major tax legislation is expected, although there is potential for minor legislation before the year ends.

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. 

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. For those aged 73 or older, QCDs also count toward the year's required minimum distribution (RMD). Following are the steps for reporting and documenting QCDs for 2024:

• IRA trustees issue Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., in early 2025 documenting IRA distributions.
• Record the full amount of any IRA distribution on Line 4a of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors.
• Enter "0" on Line 4b if the entire amount qualifies as a QCD, marking it accordingly.
• Obtain a written acknowledgment from the charity, confirming the contribution date, amount, and that no goods or services were received.

Additionally, to ensure QCDs for 2024 are processed by year-end, IRA owners should contact their trustee soon. Each eligible IRA owner can exclude up to $105,000 in QCDs from taxable income. Married couples, if both meet qualifications and have separate IRAs, can donate up to $210,000 combined. QCDs did not require itemizing deductions. New this year, the QCD limit was subject to annual adjustments based on inflation. For 2025, the limit rises to $108,000.

Further, for more details, see Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, and Publication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).

IR-2024-289

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

Background

Code Sec. 6417, applicable to tax years beginning after 2022, was added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), P.L. 117-169, to allow “applicable entities” to elect to treat certain tax credits as payments against income tax. “Applicable entities” include tax-exempt organizations, the District of Columbia, state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and rural electric cooperatives. Code Sec. 6417 also contains rules specific to partnerships and directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations on making the election (“elective payment election”).

Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1), issued under T.D. 9988 in March 2024, provides that partnerships are not applicable entities for Code Sec. 6417 purposes. The 2024 regulations permit a taxpayer that is not an applicable entity to make an election to be treated as an applicable entity, but only with respect to certain credits. The only credits for which a partnership could make an elective payment election were those under Code Secs. 45Q, 45V, and 45X.

However, Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1) of the March 2024 final regulations also provides that if an applicable entity co-owns Reg. §1.6417-1(e) “applicable credit property” through an organization that has made Code Sec. 761(a) election to be excluded from application of the rules of subchapter K, then the applicable entity’s undivided ownership share of the applicable credit property is treated as (i) separate applicable credit property that is (ii) owned by the applicable entity. The applicable entity in that case may make an elective payment election for the applicable credit related to that property.

At the same time as they issued final regulations under T.D. 9988, the Treasury and IRS published proposed regulations (REG-101552-24, the “March 2024 proposed regulations”) under Code Sec. 761(a) permitting unincorporated organizations that meet certain requirements to make modifications (called “exceptions”) to the then-existing requirements for a Code Sec. 761(a) election in light of Code Sec. 6417.

Code Sec. 761(a) authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations permitting an unincorporated organization to exclude itself from application of subchapter K if all the organization’s members so elect. The organization must be “availed of”: (1) for investment purposes rather than for the active conduct of a business; (2) for the joint production, extraction, or use of property but not for the sale of services or property; or (3) by dealers in securities, for a short period, to underwrite, sell, or distribute a particular issue of securities. In any of these three cases, the members’ income must be adequately determinable without computation of partnership taxable income. The IRS believes that most unincorporated organizations seeking exclusion from subchapter K so that their members can make Code Sec. 6417 elections are likely to be availed of for one of the three purposes listed in Code Sec. 761(a).

Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) before amendment by T.D. 10012 required that participants in the joint production, extraction, or use of property (i) own that property as co-owners in a form granting exclusive ownership rights, (ii) reserve the right separately to take in kind or dispose of their shares of any such property, and (iii) not jointly sell services or the property (subject to exceptions). The March 2024 proposed regulations would have modified some of these Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) requirements.

The regulations under T.D. 10012 finalize some of the March 2024 proposed regulations. Concurrently with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury and IRS are issuing proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) that would make additional amendments to Reg. §1.761-2.

The Final Regulations

The final regulations issued under T.D. 10012 revise the definition in the March 2024 proposed regulations of “applicable unincorporated organization” to include organizations existing exclusively to own and operate “applicable credit property” as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(e). The IRS cautions, however, that this definition should not be read to imply that any particular arrangement permits a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The final regulations also add examples to Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5), not found in the March 2024 proposed regulations, to illustrate (1) a rule that the determination of the members’ shares of property produced, extracted, or used be based on their ownership interests as if they co-owned the underlying properties, and (2) details of a rule regarding “agent delegation agreements.”

In addition, the final regulations clarify that renewable energy certificates (RECs) produced through the generation of clean energy are included in “renewable energy credits or similar credits,” with the result that each member of an unincorporated organization must reserve the right separately to take in or dispose of that member’s proportionate share of any RECs generated.

The Treasury and IRS also clarify in T.D. 10012 that “partnership flip structures,” in which allocations of income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits change at some after the partnership is formed, violate existing statutory requirements for electing out of subchapter K and, thus, are by existing definition not eligible to make a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The Proposed Regulations

The preamble to the March 2024 proposed regulations noted that the Treasury and IRS were considering rules to prevent abuse of the Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) modifications. For instance, a rule mentioned in the preamble would have prevented the deemed-election rule in prior Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) from applying to any unincorporated organization that relies on a modification in then-proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii). The final regulations under T.D. 10012 do not contain any rules on deemed elections, but the Treasury and the IRS believe that more guidance is needed under Code Sec. 761(a) to implement Code Sec. 6417. Therefore, proposed rules (REG-116017-24, the “November 2024 proposed regulations”) are published concurrently with the final regulations to address the validity of Code Sec. 761(a) elections by applicable unincorporated organizations with elections that would not be valid without application of revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii).

Specifically, Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iv)(A) would provide that a specified applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election terminates as a result of the acquisition or disposition of an interest in a specified applicable unincorporated organization, other than as the result of a transfer between a disregarded entity (as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(f)) and its owner.

Such an acquisition or disposition would not, however, terminate an applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election if the organization (a) met the requirements for making a new Code Sec. 761(a) election and (b) in fact made such an election no later than the time in Reg. §1.6031(a)-1(e) (including extensions) for filing a partnership return with respect to the period of time that would have been the organization’s tax year if, after the tax year for which the organization first made the election, the organization continued to have tax years and those tax years were determined by reference to the tax year in which the organization made the election (“hypothetical partnership tax year”).

Such an election would protect the organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election against all terminating acquisitions and dispositions in a hypothetical year only if it contained, in addition to the information required by Reg. §1.761-2(b), information about every terminating transaction that occurred in the hypothetical partnership tax year. If a new election was not timely made, the Code Sec. 761(a) election would terminate on the first day of the tax year beginning after the hypothetical partnership taxable year in which one or more terminating transactions occurred. Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5)(iv) would add an example to illustrate this new rule.

These provisions would not apply to an organization that is no longer eligible to elect to be excluded from subchapter K. Such an organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election automatically terminates, and the organization must begin complying with the requirements of subchapter K.

The proposed regulations would also clarify that the deemed election rule in Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) does not apply to specified applicable unincorporated organizations. The purpose of this rule, according to the IRS, is to prevent an unincorporated organization from benefiting from the modifications in revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) without providing written information to the IRS about its members, and to prevent a specified applicable unincorporated organization terminating as the result of a terminating transaction from having its election restored without making a new election in writing.

In addition, the proposed regulations would require an applicable unincorporated organization making a Code Sec. 761(a) election to submit all information listed in the instructions to Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for making a Code Sec. 761(a) election. The IRS explains that this requirement is intended to ensure that the organization provides all the information necessary for the IRS to properly administer Code Sec. 6417 with respect to applicable unincorporated organizations making Code Sec. 761(a) elections.

The proposed regulations would also clarify the procedure for obtaining permission to revoke a Code Sec. 761(a) election. An application for permission to revoke would need to be made in a letter ruling request meeting the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance. The IRS indicates that taxpayers may continue to submit applications for permission to revoke an election by requesting a private letter ruling and can rely on Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance before the proposed regulations are finalized.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. apply to tax years ending on or after March 11, 2024 (i.e., the date on which the March 2024 proposed regulations were published). The IRS states that an applicable unincorporated organization that made a Code Sec. 761(a) election meeting the requirements of the final regulations for an earlier tax year will be treated as if it had made a valid Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) would apply to tax years ending on or after the date on which they are published as final.

T.D. 10012

NPRM REG-116017-24

IR-2024-292

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is criticizing the Internal Revenue Service for proposing changed to how it contacts third parties in an effort to assess or collect a tax on a taxpayer.

Current rules call for the IRS to provide a 45-day notice when it intends to contact a third party with three exceptions, including when the taxpayer authorizes the contact; the IRS determines that notice would jeopardize tax collection or involve reprisal; or if the contact involves criminal investigations.

The agency is proposing to shorten the length of proposing to shorten the statutory 45-day notice to 10 days when the when there is a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations for collection or certain other circumstances exist.

"The IRS’s proposed regulations … erode an important taxpayer protection and could punish taxpayers for IRS delays," Collins wrote in a November 7, 2024, blog post. The agency generally has three years to assess additional tax and ten years to collect unpaid tax. By shortening the timeframe, it could cause personal embarrassment, damage a business’s reputation, or otherwise put unreasonable pressure on a taxpayer to extend the statute of limitations to avoid embarrassment.

"Furthermore, the ten-day timeframe is so short, it is possible that some taxpayers may not receive the notice with enough time to reply," Collins wrote. "As a result, those taxpayers may incur the embarrassment and reputational damage caused by having their sensitive tax information shared with a third party on an expedited basis without adequate time to respond."

"The statute of limitations is an important component of the right to finality because it sets forth clear and certain boundaries for the IRS to act to assess or collect taxes," she wrote, adding that the agency "should reconsider these proposed regulations and Congress should consider enacting additional taxpayer protections for third-party contacts."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

Code Sec. 6335 governs how the IRS sells seized property and requires the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate, as soon as practicable after a seizure, to give written notice of the seizure to the owner of the property that was seized. The amended regulation updates the prescribed manner and conditions of sales of seized property to match modern practices. Further, the regulation as updated will benefit taxpayers by making the sales process both more efficient and more likely to produce higher sales prices.

The final regulation provides that the sale will be held at the time and place stated in the notice of sale. Further, the place of an in-person sale must be within the county in which the property is seized. For online sales, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(1) provides that the place of sale will generally be within the county in which the property is seized. so that a special order is not needed. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(5) provides that the IRS will choose the method of grouping property selling that will likely produce that highest overall sale amount and is most feasible.

The final regulation, as amended, removes the previous requirement that (on a sale of more than $200) the bidder make an initial payment of $200 or 20 percent of the purchase price, whichever is greater. Instead, it provides that the public notice of sale, or the instructions referenced in the notice, will specify the amount of the initial payment that must be made when full payment is not required upon acceptance of the bid. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1 updates details regarding permissible methods of sale and personnel involved in sale.

T.D. 10011

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The relief extends the BOI filing deadlines for reporting companies that (1) have an original reporting deadline beginning one day before the date the specified disaster began and ending 90 days after that date, and (2) are located in an area that is designated both by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as qualifying for individual or public assistance and by the IRS as eligible for tax filing relief.

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Beryl; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC7)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Debby; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC8)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Francine; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC9)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Helene; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC10)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Milton; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC11)

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

In an October 24, 2024, blog post, Collins noted that the IRS has "ended its practice of automatically assessing penalties at the time of filing for late-filed Forms 3250, Part IV, which deal with reporting foreign gifts and bequests."

She continued: "By the end of the year the IRS will begin reviewing any reasonable cause statements taxpayers attach to late-filed Forms 3520 and 3520-A for the trust portion of the form before assessing any Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6677 penalty."

Collins said this change will "reduce unwarranted assessments and relieve burden on taxpayers" by giving them an opportunity to explain the circumstances for a late file to be considered before the agency takes any punitive action.

She noted this has been a change the Taxpayer Advocate Service has recommended for years and the agency finally made the change. The change is an important one as Collins suggests it will encourage more taxpayers to file corrected returns voluntarily if they can fix a discovered error or mistake voluntarily without being penalized.

"Our tax system should reward taxpayers’ efforts to do the right thing," she wrote. "We all benefit when taxpayers willingly come into the system by filing or correcting their returns."

Collins also noted that there are "numerous examples of taxpayers who received a once-in-a-lifetime tax-free gift or inheritance and were unaware of their reporting requirement. Upon learning of the filing requirement, these taxpayers did the right thing and filed a late information return only to be greeted with substantial penalties, which were automatically assessed by the IRS upon the late filing of the form 3520," which could have penalized taxpayers up to 25 percent of their gift or inheritance despite having no tax obligation related to the gift or inheritance.

She wrote that the abatement rate of these penalties was 67 percent between 2018 and 2021, with an abatement rate of 78 percent of the $179 million in penalties assessed.

"The significant abetment rate illustrates how often these penalties were erroneously assessed," she wrote. "The automatic assessment of the penalties causes undue hardship, burdens taxpayers, and creates unnecessary work for the IRS. Stopping this practice will benefit everyone."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

A new, 10 percent middle-income tax cut is conditionally expected to be advanced in 2019, according to the House’s top tax writer. This timeline, although largely already expected on Capitol Hill, departs sharply from President Donald Trump’s original prediction that the measure would surface by November.

A new, 10 percent middle-income tax cut is conditionally expected to be advanced in 2019, according to the House’s top tax writer. This timeline, although largely already expected on Capitol Hill, departs sharply from President Donald Trump’s original prediction that the measure would surface by November.

Middle-Income Tax Cut

President Donald Trump announced on October 22 that a new 10 percent tax cut would soon be unveiled that will focus specifically on middle-income taxpayers. "President Trump is determined to provide further tax relief for middle-class families," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an October 23 statement. "We will continue to work with the White House and Treasury over the coming weeks to develop an additional 10 percent tax cut focused specifically on middle-class families and workers, to be advanced as Republicans retain the House and Senate," Brady added.

Comment. Notably, Brady is essentially highlighting in his statement that any such additional tax cut measure would require a Republican majority for congressional approval. As November midterm elections near, there is "talk" on Capitol Hill that Republicans may lose control of the House.

The additional 10 percent tax cut for middle-income taxpayers would aim to build upon the individual tax cuts enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). To that end, the House passed a "Tax Reform 2.0"package last month, which would make permanent the TCJA’s individual and small business tax credits. The TCJA’s individual tax cut provisions were enacted temporarily through 2025 in accordance with certain Senate budget rules. Although the TCJA did not receive one Democratic vote, the Tax Reform 2.0 package did clear the House with some bipartisan support.

New Congress, New Tax Cut

"We expect to advance this in the new session of Congress if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate," Brady, said of the tax cut in an October 26 televised interview. However, President Trump said a couple of days before that a " resolution" would be introduced for the tax cut by the week of October 29.

Democratic lawmakers have been criticizing Trump’s announcement as nothing more than politically-driven rhetoric ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. Several top congressional Democrats have voiced intent to repeal, at least in part, the TCJA enacted last December. While Republicans, on the other hand, want to continue building upon the TCJA’s tax cuts.

"What President Trump is looking at is a 10 percent cut focused on middle-class workers and families…he still believes middle-class families are the ones always in the squeeze," Brady said on October 26. "We’ve been working with the White House and the Treasury on some ideas about how best to do it," he added.

Net Neutral

Trump has predicted that the tax cut will be net neutral. A chief complaint of last year’s tax reform among Democrats is the TCJA estimated $1.4 trillion price tag over a 10-year budget window.

"If you speak to Brady and a group of people, we're putting in a tax reduction of 10 percent, which I think will be a net neutral because we're doing other things, which I don't have to explain now," Trump said. A spokesperson for Brady has reportedly said that cost measures for the tax cut will be addressed once the proposal has been scored.

Looking Ahead

At this time, it is considered likely on Capitol Hill that Republicans will retain control of the Senate, but several predictions continue to float that the GOP will lose its House majority. Republicans would likely need to retain control of both chambers for any chance of approving further individual tax cuts or making permanent those enacted under the TCJA.

Although, the House approved its "Tax Reform 2.0" package last month, which includes measures to make permanent the TCJA’s individual tax cuts and enhance various savings accounts and business innovation, the Senate has showed little interest in taking up the package as a whole before the end of the year. However, consideration of the retirement and savings measure in the lame-duck session remains a possibility.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation are urging the IRS to make extensive changes to proposed "transition tax" rules.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation are urging the IRS to make extensive changes to proposed "transition tax" rules.

Transition Tax

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted last December, revived and amended Code Sec. 965. The new Code Sec. 965 generally requires U.S. shareholders pay a mandatory one-time repatriation "transition" tax on untaxed foreign earnings of certain foreign corporations.

"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act treats these foreign earnings as repatriated and places a 15.5 percent tax on cash or cash equivalents, and an 8 percent tax on the remaining earnings. Generally, the transition tax can be paid in installments over an eight-year period when a taxpayer files a timely election under section 965(h),"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

The IRS held an October 22 public hearing on NPRM REG-104226-18, which provides rules for implementing the transition tax created under last year’s tax reform. IRS officials did not provide any feedback at the hearing.

AICPA Recommendations

In an October 31 comment letter to the IRS, the AICPA offered 15 recommendations to provide taxpayers further clarity and guidance on tax reform’s transition tax requirements. The AICPA’s recommendations include the following:

• Clarify that previously taxed earnings (PTI) under Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) are deemed included in Code Sec. 951 for purposes of applying Code Sec. 1248(d).
• Clarify that the portion of a Code Sec. 965 inclusion liability attributable to Code Sec. 956 is eligible for the appropriate reduced rate of tax as a consequence of the deduction provided for in Code Sec. 965(c).
• Provide taxpayers with additional flexibility when making the basis adjustment election under Proposed Reg. §1.965-2(f) by including the ability to make partial basis adjustments, elect adjustments on an entity-by-entity basis, and modify the proposed consistency provision on related persons.
• Provide guidance as to the ordering of distributions of PTI between Code Sec. 965(a) PTI and Code Sec. 965(b) PTI for purposes of applying Code Sec. 959(c) and Code Sec. 986(c).
• Provide relief to taxpayers that make or have made late elections under the proposed regulations and clarify the procedure for obtaining such relief.
• Provide that U.S. shareholders that are members of the same consolidated group are treated as a single U.S. shareholder for all purposes with respect to Code Sec. 965.
• Clarify that the PTI amount created under Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) is not taken into account under Code Sec. 864(e)(4)(D) for purposes of allocating and apportioning interest expense.
• Exercise the authority under Code Sec. 965(o) to provide relief from the income inclusion to certain affected taxpayers. Specifically, provide guidance excluding a foreign corporation that is considered a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) solely as a result of the "downward attribution" rules of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) from the definition of an specified foreign corporation (SFC) for any U.S. shareholder not considered a related party (within the meaning of Code Sec. 954(d)(3)) with respect to the domestic corporation to which ownership was attributed.
• Provide a carve-out for certain "triggering events" of an S corporation Code Sec. 965(i), such as where the S corporation and relevant shareholders maintain direct or indirect ownership of the transferred assets (e.g., tax-free transfers).
• Provide guidance on the interaction between a Code Sec. 962 election and a Code Sec. 965(i) election, including clarifying that an eligible taxpayer may make a Code Sec. 962 election for a Code Sec. 965 tax liability for which they intend to defer inclusion under Code Sec. 965(i).

ABA Recommendations

Likewise, the ABA made similar recommendations on the proposed regulations and related guidance in an October 29 letter sent to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. The ABA’s 80-page letter grouped its principal recommendations into the three categories:

• the application of Code Sec. 965 to passthrough entities (other than S corporations) and individuals;
• the application of the netting of accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income with deficits in other related entities; and
• issues in applying the foreign tax credit.

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.

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.