- 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

One month after the presidential election, taxpayers are learning more about President-elect Donald Trump’s tax proposals for his administration. Although exact details, including legislative language, are likely months away, taxpayers have a snapshot of the president-elect’s tax proposals for individuals and businesses.

Note. At the time this article was prepared, the primary descriptions of President-elect Trump’s tax proposals are on his campaign and transition websites. The materials on these websites are not the same as legislation, which would amend the Tax Code. Rather, they discuss the President-elect’s tax proposals in very general and broad language.

Tax reform

Tax reform has been a regular topic in recent years. While numerous tax reform proposals were unveiled during the Obama administration, an overhaul of the Tax Code remained elusive. President Obama released a tax reform framework that called for a reduction in the corporate tax rate in exchange for the elimination of some energy tax preferences and other unspecified business tax preferences. Former House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp, R-Mich., made a detailed tax reform proposal several years ago. Many members of Congress have also introduced tax reform bills. The election of Trump, along with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, is expected to give momentum to tax reform in 2017.

Proposals

During the campaign, President-elect Trump described a number of tax reform proposals, including (not an exhaustive list):

Reduce the number of individual income tax rates from seven to three with rates at 12, 25 and 33 percent
Eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for individuals and businesses
Create new Dependent CARE Savings accounts
Provide “spending rebates” for lower-income taxpayers for childcare expenses through the earned income tax credit (EITC)
Increase standard deduction to $15,000 for single individuals and $30,000 for married couples filing a joint return
Enhance Code Sec. 179 small business expensing
Reduce the top corporate tax rate to 15 percent
Tax carried interest as ordinary income
Eliminate head of household filing status
Cap itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers

Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a number of taxes, such as the excise tax on medical devices and the excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans (often called the “Cadillac plan” tax), the net investment income (NII) tax, and the additional Medicare tax. The ACA also created new health-related tax incentives, including the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and the Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance tax credit.

During the campaign, President-elect Trump proposed to repeal the ACA. Post-election, it appears that the president-elect is open to retaining some of the ACA. The president-elect has mentioned coverage for children under age 26 as one provision of the ACA that he views favorably.

Congress

The 115^th Congress will convene in January. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate. Being the majority means that Republicans will chair the tax writing committees in the 115^th Congress: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.

Looking to 2017, tax reform legislation will likely have its start in the House Ways and Means Committee. In the House, Republicans have already unveiled a tax reform blueprint. There are similarities between the House GOP blueprint and President-elect Trump’s tax proposals. For example, both call for reducing the federal income tax rates for individuals along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about these or any other tax proposals. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Close

Virtual currency – with ‘bitcoin” the most popular – is a mystery for many people but an everyday currency for others. As virtual currency grows in popularity, questions arise about its taxation. So far, the IRS continues to treat virtual currency as property and not as currency. This means that general tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.

Virtual currency

Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account or a store of value. Many types of virtual currencies have been created recently for use in lieu of currency issued by a government to purchase goods and services in the real economy. Bitcoin is one example.

A 2015 federal government report described how virtual currency is generally obtained. An individual can exchange conventional money for virtual currency as a fee on an online exchange. An individual can obtain virtual currency in exchange for the sale of goods or services. An individual can also acquire virtual currency by serving as “miner.” This approach requires significant computer processing power.

Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as “convertible” virtual currency. While virtual currency may operate like “real” money, it does not have legal tender status in the U.S.

IRS guidance

In Notice 2014-21, the IRS announced that it will treat virtual currency as property. The IRS explained that transactions using virtual currency must be reported in U.S. dollars for U.S. tax purposes. Taxpayers must determine the fair market value of virtual currency in U.S. dollars as of the date of payment or receipt. If a virtual currency is listed on an exchange and the exchange rate is established by market supply and demand, the fair market value of the virtual currency is determined by converting the virtual currency into U.S. dollars (or into another real currency which in turn can be converted into U.S. dollars) at the exchange rate, in a reasonable manner that is consistently applied, the IRS explained.

More guidance coming?

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) asked the IRS to review its approach to virtual currency in November 2016. The IRS has established a virtual currency task force but TIGTA reported that the IRS could better coordinate some of its intra-agency activities. TIGTA also found that while employers and businesses are required to report taxable virtual currency transactions, current third-party information reporting documents did not provide the IRS with any means to ascertain whether the taxable transaction amounts being reported were specifically related to virtual currencies.

TIGTA recommended that the IRS provide updated virtual currency guidance. TIGTA also recommended that the IRS revise third-party information reporting documents to identify the amounts of virtual currencies used in taxable transactions. The IRS agreed with the recommendations but did not identify when more guidance may be issued. Based upon Bitcoin’s growing popularity and its space in the news as speculation as to its value continues, many tax professionals are expecting the IRS to weigh in soon. Our office will keep you posted on developments.

Close

An early glimpse at the income tax picture for 2017 is now available. The new information includes estimated ranges for each 2017 tax bracket as well as projections for a growing number of inflation-sensitive tax figures, such as the tax rate brackets, personal exemption and the standard deduction. Projections – made available by Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting US – are based on the relevant inflation data recently released by the U.S. Department of Labor. The IRS is expected to release the official figures by early November. Here are a few of the more widely-applicable projected amounts:

Tax Brackets

For 2017, for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses, the maximum taxable income for the:

10-percent bracket is $18,650, (up from $18,550 for 2016);
15-percent tax bracket, $75,900 (up from $75,300 for 2016);
25-percent tax bracket, $153,100 (up from $151,900 for 2016);
28-percent tax bracket, $233,350 (up from $231,450 for 2016);
33-percent tax bracket, $416,700 (up from $413,350 for 2016);
35-percent tax bracket, $470,700 (up from $466,950 for 2016); and
6 percent for all taxable income above that 35-percent bracket’s maximum income level.

For heads of household, the maximum taxable income for the:

10-percent bracket is $13,350 (up from $13,250 for 2016);
15-percent tax bracket, $50,800 (up from $50,400 for 2016);
25-percent tax bracket, $131,201 (up from $130,150 for 2016);
28-percent tax bracket, $212,500 (up from $210,800 for 2016);
33-percent tax bracket, $416,700 (up from $413,350 for 2016);
35-percent tax bracket, $446,700 (up from $441,000 for 2016);
6 percent for all taxable income above that 35-percent bracket’s maximum income level.

For unmarried, single filers who are not heads of household or surviving spouses, the maximum taxable income for the:

10-percent bracket is $9,325 (up from $9,275 for 2016);
15-percent tax bracket, $37,950 (up from $37,650 for 2016);
25-percent tax bracket, $91,900 (up from $91,150 for 2016);
28-percent tax bracket, $191,650 (up from $190,150 for 2016);
33-percent tax bracket, $416,700 (up from $413,350 for 2016);
35-percent tax bracket, $418,400 (up from $415,050 for 2016); and
6 percent for all taxable income above that 35-percent bracket’s maximum income level.

For married taxpayers filing separately, the maximum taxable income for the:

10-percent bracket is $9,325 (up from $9,275 for 2016);
15-percent tax bracket, $37,950 (up from $37,650 for 2016);
25-percent tax bracket, $76,550 (up from $75,950 for 2016);
28-percent tax bracket, $116,675 (up from $115,725 for 2016);
33-percent tax bracket, $208,350 (up from $206,675 for 2016);
35-percent tax bracket, $235,350 (up from $233,475 for 2016); and
6 percent for all taxable income above that 35-percent bracket’s maximum income level.

Standard Deduction

The 2017 standard deduction will rise $50, to $6,350 for single taxpayers. For married joint filers, the standard deduction will rise $100, to $12,700. For heads of household, the standard deduction will rise to $9,350, up from $9,300 for 2016. The additional standard deduction for blind and aged married taxpayers will remain at $1,250. For unmarried taxpayers who are blind or aged, the amount of the additional standard deduction will also remain the same ($1,550).

For 2017 the so-called "kiddie" deduction used on the returns of children claimed as dependents on their parents’ returns remains $1,050 or $350 plus the individual’s earned income.

Personal Exemptions

The personal exemption will be $4,050 for 2017, the same as for 2016. The phaseout of the personal exemption for higher-income taxpayers will begin after taxpayers pass the same income thresholds set forth for the limitation on itemized deductions.

Limitation on Itemized Deductions

For higher-income taxpayers who itemize their deductions, the limitation on itemized deductions will be imposed as follows:

For married couples filing joint returns or surviving spouses, the income threshold will begin to phase out at income over $313,800, up from $311,300 for 2016.
For heads of household, the beginning threshold will be $287,650 in 2016, up from $285,350 for 2016.
For single taxpayers, the beginning threshold will be $261,500, up from $259,400 for 2016.
For married taxpayers filing separate returns, the 2016 threshold will be $156,900, up from $155,650 for 2016.

Estate and Gift Tax

Gift Tax. The 2017 gift tax annual exemption will remain the same as for 2016, at $14,000.

Estate Tax. The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion will increase from $5,450,000 in 2016 to $5,490,000 in 2017.

Gifts to Noncitizen Spouses. The first $149,000 of gifts made in 2017 to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen will not be included in taxable gifts, up $1,000 from $148,000 for 2016.

AMT Exemptions

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 provided for the annual inflation adjustment of the exemption from alternative minimum tax (AMT) income. Previously, this inflation adjustment had to be enacted by Congress each year. For 2017, the AMT exemption for married joint filers and surviving spouses is projected to be $84,500 (up from $83,800 for 2016). For heads of household and unmarried single filers, the exemption will be $54,300 (up from $53,900 for 2016). For married separate filers, the exemption will be $42,250 (up from $41,900 for 2016).

Close

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional (E.S. Windsor, SCt., June 26, 2013). Immediately after the decision, President Obama directed all federal agencies, including the IRS, to revise their regulations to reflect the Court's order. How the IRS will revise its tax regulations - and when - remains to be seen; but in the meantime, the Court's decision opens a number of planning tax opportunities for same-sex couples.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional (E.S. Windsor, SCt., June 26, 2013). Immediately after the decision, President Obama directed all federal agencies, including the IRS, to revise their regulations to reflect the Court's order. How the IRS will revise its tax regulations - and when - remains to be seen; but in the meantime, the Court's decision opens a number of planning tax opportunities for same-sex couples.

Background

The Supreme Court agreed in 2012 to hear an appeal of a federal estate tax case. Due to DOMA, the surviving spouse of a same-sex married couple was ineligible for the federal unlimited marital deduction under Code Sec. 2056(a). The survivor sued for a refund of estate taxes. A federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Supreme Court's decision

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that "DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next." Kennedy explained that "by creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."

Chief Justice John Roberts, who would have upheld DOMA, cautioned that "the Supreme Court did not decide if states could continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage." Roberts noted that the majority held that the decision and its holding "are confined to those lawful marriages-referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized."

Tax planning

The Supreme Court's decision impacts countless provisions in the Tax Code, covering all life events, such as marriage, employment, retirement and death. The affect on the Tax Code cannot be overstated. It is expected that the IRS will move quickly to clarify how the decision impacts many of the more far-reaching provisions, such as filing status and employee benefits. Other provisions, especially the complex estate and gift tax provisions, will likely require more time from the IRS to issue guidance.

For federal tax purposes, only married individuals can file their returns as married filing jointly or married filing separately. Because of DOMA, the IRS limited these married filing statuses to opposite-sex married couples. The IRS is expected to issue guidance. Same-sex couples who filed separate returns may want to explore the benefits of filing amended returns (as married filing jointly), if applicable. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Among the other provisions in the Tax Code affected by the Supreme Court's decision are:

Adoption benefits
Child tax credit
Education tax credits and deductions
Estate tax marital deduction
Estate tax portability between spouses
Gifts made by spouses
Retirement plans

Looking ahead

Will the federal government look to where the same-sex couple was married (state of celebration) or where the same-sex couple reside (state of residence) for purposes of federal benefits? The Supreme Court did not rule on Section 2 of DOMA, which provides that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, 12 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage.

In some cases, the rules for marital status are determined by federal regulations, which can be changed without action by Congress. In other cases, the rules are set by statute, which would require Congressional action. Sometimes, a federal agency follows one rule for some purposes but another rule for other purposes. Generally, the IRS has used place of domicile for determining marital status. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

If you have any questions about the Supreme Court's decision and its impact on tax planning, please contact our office.

Close

For many individuals, volunteering for a charitable organization is a very emotionally rewarding experience. In some cases, your volunteer activities may also qualify for certain federal tax breaks. Although individuals cannot deduct the value of their labor on behalf of a charitable organization, they may be eligible for other tax-related benefits.

Before claiming any charity-related tax benefit, whether for a donation or volunteer activity, you must determine if the charity is a "qualified organization." Under the tax rules, most charitable organizations, other than churches, must apply to the IRS to become a qualified organization. If you are uncertain about an organization's status as a qualified organization, you can ask the charity. The IRS has a toll-free number (1-877-829-5500) for questions from taxpayers about charities and also maintains an online tool at www.irs.gov/charities.

Time or services

An individual may spend 10, 20, 30 or more hours a week volunteering for a charitable organization. Precisely because the individual is a volunteer, he or she receives no remuneration for his or her time or services and cannot deduct the value of his or her time or services spent on activities for the charitable organization. Unpaid volunteer work is not tax deductible.

Vehicle expenses

Vehicle expenses associated with volunteer activity should not be overlooked. For example, many individuals use their personal vehicles to transport others to medical treatment or to deliver food to shut-ins. Taxpayers can deduct as a charitable contribution qualified unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses, such as the cost of gas and oil, directly related to the use of their vehicle in giving services to a charitable organization. However, certain expenses, such as registration fees, or the costs of tires or insurance, are not deductible. Alternatively, taxpayers can use a standard mileage rate of 14 cents per mile to calculate the amount of their contribution. Do not confuse the charitable mileage rate, which is set by statute, with business mileage rate (56.5 cents per mile for 2013), which generally changes from year to year. Parking fees and tolls are deductible whether the taxpayer uses the actual expense method or the standard mileage rate.

Uniforms

Some volunteers are required to wear a uniform, such as a jacket that identifies the wearer as a volunteer for the charitable organization, while engaged in activity for the charity. In this case, the tax rules generally allow taxpayers to deduct the cost and upkeep of uniforms that are not suitable for everyday use and that the taxpayer must wear while performing donated services for a charitable organization.

Hosting a foreign student

Qualifying expenses for a foreign student who lives in the taxpayer's home as part of a program of the organization to provide educational opportunities for the student may be deductible. The student must not be a relative, such as a child or stepchild, or dependent of the taxpayer and also must be a full-time student in secondary school or any lower grade at a school in the U.S. Among the expenses that may be deductible are the costs of food and certain transportation spent on behalf of the student. The cost of lodging is not deductible. If you are planning to host a foreign-exchange student, please contact our office and we can explore the possible tax benefits.

Travel

Volunteers may be asked to travel on behalf of the charitable organization, for example, to attend a convention or meeting. Generally, qualified unreimbursed expenses may be deductible subject to complicated rules. Very broadly speaking, there must not be a significant element of personal pleasure, recreation, or vacation in the travel. Special rules apply if the charitable organization pays a daily travel allowance to the volunteer. There are also special rules for attendance at a church meeting or convention and the capacity in which the volunteer attends the church meeting or convention. If you plan to travel as part of your volunteer activity for a charitable organization, please contact our office and we can review your plans in greater detail.

If you have any questions, please contact our office.

Close

Vacation homes offer owners tax breaks similar-but not identical-to those for primary residences. Vacation homes also offer owners the opportunity to earn tax-advantaged and even tax-free income. This combination of current income and tax breaks, combined with the potential for long-term appreciation, can make a second home an attractive investment.

Homeowners can deduct mortgage interest they pay on up to $1 million of "acquisition indebtedness" incurred to buy their primary residence and one additional residence. If their total mortgage indebtedness exceeds $1 million, they can still deduct the interest they pay on their first $1 million. If one mortgage carries a substantially higher rate than the second, it makes sense to deduct the higher interest first to maximize deductions.

Vacation homeowners don't need to buy an actual house (or even a condominium) to take advantage of second-home mortgage interest deductions. They can deduct interest they pay on a loan secured by a timeshare, yacht, or motorhome so long as it includes sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.

Gains from selling a vacation home are generally taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains. While gain on the sale of a principal residence can be excludable, gain on the sale of a vacation home is not. Recent rules limit the amount of prior gain on a vacation residence that can be sheltered if a vacation home is converted into a primary residence.

Vacation home rentals. Many vacation home owners rent vacation homes to draw income and help finance the cost of owning the home. These rentals are taxed under one of three sets of rules depending on how long the homeowner rents the property.

Income from rentals totaling not more than 14 days per year is nontaxable.
Income from rentals totaling more than 14 days per year is taxable and is generally reported on Schedule E (Form 1040), Supplemental Income and Loss. Homeowners who rent their properties for more than 14 days can deduct a portion of their mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other expenses to offset that income. That deduction depends on how many days they use the residence personally versus how many days they rent it.
Owners who use their home personally for less than 14 days and less than 10% of the total rental days can treat the property as true "rental" property if certain rules are followed.

If you are considering the purchase of a vacation home, our offices can help compute your true, "after-tax" cost of ownership in determining whether such a purchase makes sense.

Close

The government continues to push out guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Several major provisions of the law take effect January 1, 2014, including the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the premium assistance tax credit, and the operation of health insurance exchanges. The three agencies responsible for administering PPACA - the IRS, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - are under pressure to provide needed guidance, and they are responding with regulations, notices, and frequently asked questions.

The health law provisions interact. Individuals are supposed to carry health insurance or pay a tax. Employers are supposed to offer coverage or pay a tax. The exchanges will provide information about the availability of different health care plans and will certify individuals eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Individuals who cannot obtain affordable coverage may purchase insurance through an exchange and may be entitled to a premium assistance tax credit.

Exchanges

The DOL, in a technical release, provided temporary guidance to employers about their obligation to notify their employees of the availability of health insurance through an exchange and of the potential to qualify for the premium assistance tax credit if they purchase insurance through an exchange. Exchanges will begin operating January 1, 2014 and will provide open enrollment for their coverage beginning October 1, 2013. DOL provided model notices for employers to send out beginning October 1, 2013. Notices must be issued to all employees, whether or not the employer offers insurance and whether or not the employee enrolls in the employer's insurance.

Employer mandate

As part of the regulatory process, the IRS recently held a hearing on proposed regulations regarding the employer mandate, which imposes a penalty on employers who fail to provide adequate health insurance coverage in certain circumstances. The employer mandate takes effect January 1, 2014. Twenty different groups testified on relevant issues, including: the definition of a large employer subject to the penalty, the definition of a full-time employee who must be offered coverage, and the determination whether the coverage is affordable.

Minimum value

The IRS issued proposed regulations to clarify the minimum value requirement for employer-provided health insurance. The regulations provide additional guidance on how to determine whether an individual is eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Taxpayers will not be eligible for the credit if they are eligible for other "minimum essential (health insurance) coverage" (MEC). MEC includes employer-sponsored coverage that is affordable and that provides minimum value. Employer coverage fails to provide minimum value if the employer pays less than 60 percent of the cost of plan benefits. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for years ending before January 1, 2015.

Medical loss ratio (MLR)

The IRS issued proposed regulations on MLRs. Insurance companies must provide premium rebates to their customers if they fail to spend at least 80 percent (85 percent for large companies) of their premiums directly on health care, as opposed to executive salaries and other expenses. The provision took effect in 2012; and the first round of MLR rebates was distributed in 2012. The IRS issued several notices to implement the program; the proposed regulation would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2013.

Annual limits on benefits

PPACA generally prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer group or individual health insurance from imposing annual or lifetime limits on the value of essential health benefits. Although some limits are allowed for plan years beginning before January 1, 2014, HHS regulations provide that HHS may waive the limits if they would cause a significant decrease in benefits or significant increase in premiums. IRS, DOL, and HHS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify that plan or issuer receiving a waiver may not extend the waiver to a different plan or policy year.

Summary of benefits and coverage

PPACA generally requires insurers, employers and other health care plan providers to give a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) to participants and other affected individuals. In recent FAQs, the three government agencies advised that an updated SBC template and a sample SBC are available on the DOL's website. These documents can be used for coverage beginning in 2014. The agencies also extended certain enforcement relief. The agencies issued final regulations in 2012, and indicated that providers can continue to use coverage examples in current guidance, without adding new examples to their SBC.

Employer reporting

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a recent report on some of the new information reporting requirements that PPACA has imposed on employers. For example, health insurance providers must report information for each individual who receives coverage. Large employers must report details about the coverage offered to employees and their dependents, including the premiums and the employer's share of costs. Employers must also report the cost of coverage to employees on their Forms W-2. The IRS will use these reports to administer PPACA's requirements.

PPACA is a complicated law. Many of its most important provisions take effect in 2014. The IRS and other responsible federal agencies continue to issue guidance and to take comments on the administration of the law.

If you have any questions about PPACA and what strategies you or your business might adopt, please contact our office.

Close

Did you owe tax on your 2012 tax return? Did you receive a sizeable refund? Or, conversely, did you receive a smaller refund than you expected? If so, take another look at your tax return from this past year. It is quite possible that by making a few changes, you could put more money in your pocket in the short term. And by examining your investments as they are reported on your tax return, you may be able to strategize for the long-term future. Trying to implement this type of plan may seem difficult at first. However, just by looking at your tax return, you can start the critical planning that can lead you to broader goals of financial independence and a comfortable retirement.

Federal withholding

If you received a large tax refund, it might be time for you to adjust the amount of tax the federal government withholds from your paycheck. Although next year your refund check may not be as large, you will have the advantage of seeing a larger sum deposited directly into your pocket every month. To adjust your withholding, fill out and sign a Form W-4, and submit it to your employer. You would want to do this in cases where your adjustments to income, exemptions, and deductions remain relatively steady from year-to-year, and where the government consistently is required to give you a large refund.

If you do not change your withholding allowances, the government essentially is holding your money for a year without paying any interest on it. You may lose some potential investment opportunity or, at the very least, the ability to increase your monthly discretionary income. On the other hand, many taxpayers prefer to receive the large refund check after tax filing season because it is a no-hassle way to ensure large savings at the end of the year.

Conversely, many taxpayers may want to change their withholding allowances because they owe the government a significant amount of money at the end of the year. Taxpayers who expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for the 2013 tax year, after subtracting withholding and any refundable credits, and who also expect their 2013 withholding and credits to be significantly less than the projected tax owed for 2013, may need to file estimated taxes. Failure to do so could result in penalties. Alternatively, taxpayers should consider making quarterly estimated tax payments, especially if they anticipate a significant amount of investment gains for the year or other income unrelated to wage compensation.

State withholding

Some people are entirely exempt from state tax, but it is withheld from their paychecks nevertheless. At the end of each year, they may include the amount of their state taxes in their itemized deductions, but then receive a refund which they have to declare as income in the next year. This problem particularly applies to active duty military families, many of whom are posted in states other than their state of residency. Military families can check with their state income tax authority to see if there is an appropriate form that can be completed and filed, which would exempt them from withholding. A higher adjusted gross income (AGI), even if it is subsequently reduced by itemized deductions, can erode other adjustments to income, such as a deduction for student loans, IRA contributions, higher education expenses, and more because of certain AGI caps on these benefits.

Tax rates and adjusted gross income

As you may have heard, Congress allowed the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for higher-income earners. That means joint filers with more than $450,000 of adjusted gross income ($400,000 for single individuals) are now in the 39.6-percent tax bracket. Taxpayers at this level of income or above are also subject to a higher long-term capital gains tax rate: 20 percent, up from 15 percent paid by other taxpayers.

In addition, for tax years beginning in 2013, the 33-percent tax bracket for individual taxpayers ends at $398,350 for married individuals filing joint returns, heads of households, and single individuals. If you were hovering near the bottom of the 35-percent bracket for the 2012 tax year, then you might want to see if you can readjust your income so that you fall within the 33-percent category.

Higher-income taxpayers also have two new taxes to worry about for 2013 and beyond. Joint-filing taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers) are also subject to the 3.8-percent surtax on net investment income and a .9-percent Additional Medicare Tax. Look at your adjusted gross income for last year. Does it approach these figures? Is it on the edge of the income brackets? Will stock market increases this year put you over the top of those income thresholds? If so, it may be time to find ways to reduce your income for 2013.

Investments

At some point in your efforts over the years to accumulate a savings nest egg, you will need to consider diversification, the process of putting your money in the right kind of investment vehicles to satisfy your personal risk strategy and achieve your goals. Looking at your tax return will help you decide whether the investments you now have are the right ones for you. For example, if you are in a high tax bracket and need to diversify away from common stocks, investing in tax-exempt bonds might help, especially if you have state income taxes to worry about, too.

Reviewing the Schedule D and Form 8949, which cover Capital Gains and Losses from last year's return and from the past three or four years, can be an eye-opener for many. Did you hold stocks long enough to be entitled to the long-term capital gains rate? Did you try to balance short-term gains with short-term losses? Are you bouncing from one investment trend to another without a long-term investment plan that achieves long-term needs? Are your mutual funds "tax smart"? Become familiar with different types of banking institutions and their products. Find out about CDs, money-market funds, government securities, mutual funds, index funds, and sector funds and how they interrelate with the determination of your tax liability each year. You may want to put that knowledge to work in your investment strategy.

Medical costs

Should you be taking advantage of the medical expense deduction? Many people assume that with the 10 percent adjusted gross income floor on medical expenses now imposed for tax years starting in 2013 (7.5 percent for seniors) that it doesn't pay for them to keep track of expenses to test whether they are entitled to itemize. But with the premiums for certain long-term care insurance contracts now counted as a medical expense, some individuals are discovering that along with other health insurance premiums, deductibles and timing of elective treatments, the medical tax deduction may be theirs for the taking.

Retirement planning

Don't forget to protect for eventualities. Are you maximizing the amount that Uncle Sam allows you to save tax-free for retirement? A look at your W-2 for the year, and at the retirement contribution deductions allowed in determining adjusted gross income should tell you a lot. Should your spouse set up his or her own retirement fund, too? Are you over-invested in tax-deferred retirement plans? If so, you may lose a significant amount of your nest egg to tax after retirement.

When you are reviewing last year's tax return, it may help to review some of what you've learned from it. This could foster an important conversation with your tax advisor about how to establish or modify your plan for your financial future. If you would like to review last year's completed tax return with future planning in mind, please feel free to give us a call and set up a time when we can meet and discuss this matter.

Close

Questions over the operation of the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on net investment income (the NII Tax) continue to be placed on the IRS's doorstep as it tries to better explain the operation of the new tax. Proposed "reliance regulations" issued at the end in 2012 (NPRM REG-130507-11) "are insufficient in many respects," tax experts complain, as the IRS struggles to turn its earlier guidance into final rules.

A public hearing on the existing regulations, held at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., in early April 2013, only confirmed how the application of the NII Tax to certain categories of income—particularly income arising from "passive activities"—is challenging even the experts. Nevertheless, taxpayers are not getting a reprieve from the immediate application of this new tax. The 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on net investment income (NII) became effective January 1, 2013. Current confusion over exactly how the 3.8 percent operates can impact on tax strategies that should be put into motion in 2013. Any misinterpretation can also bear on 2013 estimated tax that may be due to cover any 3.8 percent NII Tax liability.

NII Tax Thresholds

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2012, the NII surtax on individuals equals 3.8 percent of the lesser of: net investment income for the tax year, or the excess, if any, of:

the individual's modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year, over
the threshold amount.

The threshold amount in turn is equal to:

$250,000 in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return or a surviving spouse,
$125,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return, and
$200,000 in any other case.

Trusts and estates are also subject to the NII surtax, to the extent of the lesser of: (i) undistributed net investment income, or (ii) the excess of adjusted gross income over the dollar amount at which the highest tax bracket begins (which, for 2013, is $11,950).

Net Investment Income

The primary confusion over application of the 3.8 percent NII Tax revolves around finding a precise definition of "net investment income" as enacted by Congress. To appreciate the complexity of the task, just look at the applicable Internal Revenue Code provision. Code Sec. 1411(c)(1) defines net investment income as the sum of:

Category (i) income: Gross income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business not described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2);
Category (ii) income: Other gross income derived from a trade or business described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2); and
Category (iii) income: Net gain attributable to the disposition of property, other than property held in a trade or business not described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2); over

Deductions properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.

A Code Sec. 1411(c)(2) trade or business includes a passive activity under Code Sec. 469 with respect to the taxpayer or trading in financial instruments or commodities.

Comment. Code Sec 1411 effectively creates a new tax and a new tax base, on top of the income tax, alternative minimum tax, self-employment tax and payroll taxes. Nevertheless the Preamble to the proposed regs states that, except as otherwise provided, the income tax rules should apply to Code Sec. 1411 unless good cause otherwise exists. Practitioners have asked the IRS that the final regulations give greater reassurance of this general rule.

Complexity

The IRS has stated that the principal purpose of Code Sec. 1411 is "to impose a tax on unearned income or investments of certain individuals, estates, and trusts." Unfortunately, Code Sec. 1411 is not so direct and simple, with its three categories of income (that is, (i), (ii) and (iii), above), complicating matters, albeit in an effort to close every door to those who try to "game the system."

Application of the 3.8 percent NII Tax to capital gains and dividends from a personal stock portfolio is clear under this rule of thumb. But clarity breaks down when a "trade or business" is thrown into the mix and the concept of "passive activity" is added to it.

If gain or other income is the result of an active business activity, it generally escapes NII Tax. However, when the "active" business is a passive activity (for example, a rental business), it may be deemed to generate income that is subject to the NII Tax. Furthermore, when a passive activity is not merely incidental to a business however otherwise active that business should be, the NII Tax also becomes an issue.

Passive Activity

Any revised or additional rules from the IRS on the application of the NII Tax on passive activities should be made more user friendly to the broad middle range of taxpayers and their advisors, one expert at the hearing recommended. The IRS should err on the side of explaining things clearly and simply, even at the expense of not covering every possible nuance of interpretation.

At the same time, however, other experts are asking for more detail, at least in the way of clarification. For example, the IRS has stated that passive activity for NII Tax purposes should be applied within a narrower scope than the passive activity loss rules under Code 469. Those Code Sec. 469 rules restrict "passive losses" from reducing income that is not "passive income." Experts want the IRS to explain exactly what they mean by a "narrower scope."

Self-Rental Activities/Grouping

The self-rental recharacterization rule under Code Sec. 469 affects taxpayers who rent property to a trade or business in which they materially participate. Concern has been expressed over the possibility of interpreting net investment income under Code Sec. 1411 to include rental income from a self-rental activity grouped with a trade or business activity in which the taxpayer materially participates.

The material participation and trade or business requirements should be tested on the grouped activity as a whole rather than on a component basis, one expert in particular stressed at the hearing. If that test is passed, he argued, the trade or business income and rental income from the grouped activity should be excluded from the reach of the NII Tax. For example, the owners of self-rental properties should not have that rent considered as separate from their overall business activity and subject to the net investment tax simply because properties are held in a separate LLC to avoid tort liability.

Regrouping deadline

The proposed regulations permit businesses subject to the NII Tax to elect to regroup their activities for passive-loss purposes in 2013 or 2014. This regrouping election allows taxpayers with a fresh start to accommodate the new NII surtax. Without permitting regroupings, taxpayers would be bound by their original grouping decisions, some of which may have been made as many as 20 years ago, only for purpose of Code Sec. 469 passive loss rules and not the NII Tax. Some small business representatives are also concerned that, because of the complexity of the rules, the final regulations should extend the deadline for a regrouping election through 2015.

Application of the net investment income tax is particularly difficult to get a handle on in a variety of situations. Unfortunately, however, at 3.8 percent, it is costly enough not to be ignored.

If you have any questions about how the NII Tax may apply to your business, rental operations, or overall investment strategy, please do not hesitate to call our office.

Close