Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

Immediate Expensing

The Restoring Investment in Improvements Act (HR 1869), sponsored by House tax writers Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., would allow restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders to immediately write off the cost of certain improvements. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, inadvertently excludes qualified improvement property (QIP) from the new 100 percent bonus depreciation provision.

The measure is a "small but critical fix for our job creators, and technical corrections like this are a normal part of the process when Congress enacts major reforms," Walorski said in a recent press release. "This bipartisan, commonsense bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses to unlock the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our nation’s economic growth."

Similarly, Panetta highlighted the negative impact that the loss of immediate expensing has caused many small businesses. "Our bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other businesses to make the improvements they need to keep their stores competitive and safe and plan for the future," he said.

Although the "retail glitch" measure has solid bipartisan support, Democrats in general have seemed hesitant to fix any errors in the GOP tax law. To that end, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has said he would like to hold a hearing on technical corrections for the TCJA. The committee’s March 27 hearing on the TCJA did not specifically address technical corrections.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

IRS Reform

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (HR 1957), as amended, cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by voice on April 2. The House and Senate both introduced the bicameral, bipartisan measure on March 28. If enacted, the bill would make numerous reforms to the IRS, some of which include modernizing antiquated information technology systems and enhancing taxpayer services and identity protections.

"With a new tax code, it is time for a new tax administrator," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 9 statement. "I applaud the House for passing the Taxpayer First Act—a bold step to redesign the IRS to be an agency with one singular mission: putting taxpayers first."

The IRS Reform bill has been "years in the making," Brady said on April 9, echoing a joint statement that he and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with other bipartisan tax writers recently issued. "The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have carefully and thoughtfully developed this legislation over several years, after numerous hearings and roundtables, in a bipartisan, bicameral manner," the lawmakers said.

AICPA Applauds Taxpayer First Act

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) issued an April 9 statement commending the House for passing HR 1957. "The AICPA appreciates the bipartisan recognition by members of the U.S. House of Representatives for bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st Century," Edward S. Karl, vice president of taxation, said in a statement on behalf of the AICPA. "The AICPA has long been interested in and active in working to find ways to modernize the IRS so that it can better serve the needs of taxpayers and tax practitioners."

Free File Alliance

However, the bipartisan, bicameral bill has not advanced without its share of criticism. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized a provision within the bill that would codify the Free File Alliance, which is an agreement between the IRS and certain tax preparation companies that includes the IRS being unable to directly assist in tax return preparation.

"Again and again in my service in the Senate I have battled the tax-preparation software industry to simplify filing taxes for the typical American," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an April 9 statement. "During the debate on the tax administration bill, my staff pushed back on a prohibition on the agency competing with private tax preparation services, and I will continue to push for my proposal for the pre-filed ‘simple’ return and the principle that a taxpayer should not have to use a private company to pay their taxes online," he added.

Looking Ahead

It remains unclear when the Senate will take up the Taxpayer First Act bill. However, the bill is presently expected on Capitol Hill to easily be approved in the Senate.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

The proposed regulations also withdraw and replace placeholder provisions in an earlier set of proposed regulations ( REG-115420-18). These concern:

• the definition of "substantially all"regulations
• transactions that can trigger includible gain;
• the timing and amount of deferred gain that is included;
• treatment of leased property used in the qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) business;
• use of QOZ business property in the QOZ;
• sourcing of income to the QOZ business; and
• the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets.

In addition, within a few months the IRS expects to address administrative rules for a QOF that fails to maintain the required 90-percent investment standard, as well as information reporting requirements.

Finally, the IRS expects to revise Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, for 2019 and subsequent tax years. These revisions may require additional information, including the employer identification number (EIN) for the QOF business, and the amounts invested by QOFs and QOZ businesses located in particular QOZs.

"Substantially All" for QOZ Business

The 2018 regulations provided that a trade or business satisfies the "substantially all" test for a QOZ business if at least 70 percent of its tangible property is qualified opportunity zone business property. The new proposed regulations generally extend this 70-percent threshold to the "substantially all" tests for use. However, in the holding period context, the "substantially all" threshold is 90 percent.

Original Use of Purchased Tangible Property

The proposed regulations generally provide that the "original use" of tangible property acquired by purchase by any person starts on the date when that person or a prior person:

• first places the property in service in the qualified opportunity zone for purposes of depreciation or amortization; or
• first uses the property in the qualified opportunity zone in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property’s owner.

Used tangible property will satisfy the original use requirement with respect to a QOZ so long as the property has not been previously used (that is, has not previously been used within that QOZ in a manner that would have allowed it to depreciated or amortized) by any taxpayer

In addition, a building or other structure that has been vacant for at least five years before being purchased by a QOF or QOZ business satisfies the original use requirement. Improvements made by a lessee to leased property satisfy the original use requirement and are considered purchased property for the amount of the unadjusted cost basis of the improvements.

Land can be treated as QOZ business property only if it is used in a trade or business of a QOF or QOZ business. The holding of land for investment does not give rise to a trade or business, and the land cannot be QOZ business property. Anti-abuse rules determine whether unimproved land can be qualifying property. However, other purchased real property generally must be substantially improved, determined on an asset-by-asset basis.

Leased Tangible Property in QOZ

Leased tangible property may be QOZ property if:

• the lease is entered into after 2017; and
• substantially all of the property’s use is in a QOZ during substantially all of the lease period.

However, the first-use requirement does not apply to leased tangible property. The leased property can generally also be acquired from a related person, though several conditions apply. The proposed regulations also provide methods for valuing the leased property.

QOZ Businesses

The proposed regulations:

• provide that in determining whether a substantial portion of intangible property of a QOZ is used in the active conduct of a trade or business, a substantial portion is at least 40 percent;
• address real property that straddles a QOZ;
• provide three safe harbors and a facts-and-circumstances test for determining whether a corporation or partnership derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business;
• define "trade or business" by reference to Code Sec. 162, except that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property used in a trade or business can also be the active conduct of a trade or business; and
• provide a safe harbor for working capital.

Other Business Rules

The proposed regulations also address:

• Section 1231 gains;
• relief regarding the 90 percent asset test, including relief for newly contributed assets and QOF reinvestments;
• the amount of an investment for purposes of the deferral election;
• inclusion events, the timing on basis adjustments, includible amounts, and special rules for partnerships and S corporations;
• gifts and bequests;
• exceptions for disregarded transfers and some nonrecognition transactions;
• distributions and contributions;
• consolidated return provisions;
• holding periods and tacking rules;
• anti-abuse rules;
• special rules for Indian tribes and tribally leased property.

Comments Requested; Public Hearing Scheduled

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for 10 am on July 9, 2019, at the New Carrollton Federal Building in Latnham, MD. Public comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120186-18).

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

Value of Professional Sports Contracts

Professional sports teams enter into contracts with their personnel (e.g., managers, coaches, players, etc.). Typical personnel contracts provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for a certain duration of service. The value of such a contract may fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including:

• player performance;
• the changing needs of the team and of other teams;
• a player’s effect on fan attendance; and
• the number of years until a player becomes a free agent and is able to sign a contract to play for any team in a league.

Other considerations affecting the value of a player contract include:

• the size of the team’s market (i.e., whether a smaller city or a major urban population);
• the cost of player development; and
• the impact of injuries and slumps on player performance.

In most cases, teams do not trade personnel contracts or draft picks unless the team thinks that it is receiving contracts of an equal or greater value. Because each party believes that they are receiving personnel contracts or draft picks of an equal or greater value, it is difficult to assign a monetary value to them. Accordingly, the IRS developed a safe harbor whereby each team is able to treat the traded contracts or draft picks as having a basis of zero, thus avoiding the recognition of gain or loss on the trade.

Safe Harbor Requirements

In order to use the safe harbor, professional sports teams must meet the following requirements:

• all teams involved in the trade must use the safe harbor;
• teams may only trade personnel contracts, draft picks, and/or cash;
• personnel contracts and/or draft picks cannot be Code Sec. 197 intangibles; and
• the financial statements of all teams involved in the trade must not reflect assets or liabilities resulting from the trade other than cash.

Application

Sports teams using the safe harbor will not recognize any gain or loss if they only trade personnel contracts or draft picks. However, teams that receive cash in a trade will recognize the amount of cash received as gain. In addition, the team providing cash to another team in the trade will receive basis in the personnel contract or draft pick equal to the amount of cash that it provided. A team providing cash to another team in a trade for two or more draft picks or personnel contracts must allocate its basis to each personnel contract or draft pick received from the other team by dividing the basis by the number of personnel contracts or draft picks received.

In certain cases, a team may have unrecovered basis in a draft pick or personnel contract under Code Sec. 167(c). In those instances, the team may recognize gain or loss based on the difference between the unrecovered basis and any cash received.

Effective Date

Teams may use the safe harbor for any trades involving personnel contracts or draft picks entered into after April 10, 2019. However, teams may choose to apply these rules in any open tax year.

Eleventh-hour votes in Congress in December renewed a package of tax extenders for 2014, created new savings accounts for individuals with disabilities, cut the IRS’ budget, and more. At the same time, the votes helped to set the stage for the 114th Congress that convenes this month. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and have indicated that taxes are one of the top items on their agenda for 2015.

Eleventh-hour votes in Congress in December renewed a package of tax extenders for 2014, created new savings accounts for individuals with disabilities, cut the IRS’ budget, and more. At the same time, the votes helped to set the stage for the 114th Congress that convenes this month. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and have indicated that taxes are one of the top items on their agenda for 2015.

Extenders

The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, signed into law by President Obama in December extends more than 50 individual, business and energy tax incentives retroactively to January 1, 2014. As a result, taxpayers can claim these incentives on their 2014 returns filed in 2015. The Act includes all of the popular incentives for individuals, such as the state and local sales tax deduction and higher education tuition deduction, as well as many business incentives, including the research tax credit, bonus depreciation and enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing. A handful of extenders were not renewed, mostly targeted to energy efficiency. If you have any questions about the renewal of the extenders for 2014, please contact our office.

ABLE Act

As part of the extenders package, Congress approved the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014. The Act establishes ABLE accounts for individuals with disabilities. Funds in ABLE accounts may be used for qualified expenses of persons with disabilities. To fund these accounts, the Act:

• Adjusts for inflation some civil tax penalties
• Authorizes the IRS to certify qualifying professional employer organizations
• Excludes dividends from controlled foreign corporations from the definition of personal holding company income
• Increases the IRS’ levy authority on payments to Medicare providers
• Raises the Inland Waterways Trust Fund financing rate

IRS budget

The IRS goes into the 2015 filing season with a reduced budget. The omnibus spending agreement, signed into law by President Obama on December 16, cuts the IRS’ fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget by some $345 million. The omnibus spending agreement also instructs the IRS to improve its response times in helping victims of identity theft and reduce refund fraud. In response to the budget cuts, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said the agency will freeze hiring and take other steps to reduce expenses. Koskinen also cautioned that revenue collection and tax enforcement could be impaired by the budget cuts as the agency will have to make do with less. Taxpayer audits were singled out by Koskinen as one area where cutbacks could have a negative effect.

Affordable Care Act

Congress also clarified the status of so-called expatriate health plans under the Affordable Care Act. These plans cover very specific groups of people, including participants in a group health plan who are aliens residing outside the United States and U.S. nationals about whom there is a good faith expectation of being abroad, in connection with his or her employment, for at least 180 days in a 12-month period.

The omnibus spending agreement exempts expatriate health plans, employer sponsors of these plans, and insurance issuers providing coverage under these plans from the health care coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, the omnibus spending agreement treats these plans as providing minimum essential coverage for purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

Multi-employer pension plans

The extenders package and the omnibus spending agreement amend the rules governing multi-employer pension plans. The provisions, supporters argued, are intended to shore-up many struggling plans. Opponents countered that the changes weaken protections for beneficiaries. The amendments to the multi-employer pension rules are very technical. Please contact our office for more details

114th Congress

The Tax Increase Prevention Act did not extend the extenders beyond 2014. As of January 1, 2015, they all expired again. During 2014, proposals to extend the incentives for two years or make them permanent were floated in Congress. The GOP-controlled House vote to make permanent bonus depreciation, enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing and some charitable giving breaks, but these bills were not taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. This could change in the 114th Congress. The new leaders of the tax-writing committees, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, have both indicated their interest in addressing the extenders as part of comprehensive tax reform.

Any movement toward comprehensive tax reform will require cooperation between the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress. In December, President Obama said that he would be willing to work with Republicans on corporate tax reform but any decrease in the corporate tax rate would need to be paid for by revenue raisers elsewhere. The President also said that he wants to preserve and make permanent some temporary enhancements to individual tax breaks, such as the earned income credit. New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also said in December that he could work with the White House.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the 2014 year-end legislation or the new Congress.

2014 was a notable year for tax developments on a number of fronts. Selecting the "top ten" tax developments for 2014 necessarily requires judgment calls based upon uniqueness, taxpayers affected, and forward-looking impact on 2015 and beyond. The following "top ten" list of 2014 tax developments is such a prioritization. Nevertheless, other 2014 developments may prove more significant to any particular client, depending upon circumstances. Please feel free to contact this office for a more customized look at the impact of 2014 developments upon your unique tax situation.

2014 was a notable year for tax developments on a number of fronts. Selecting the "top ten" tax developments for 2014 necessarily requires judgment calls based upon uniqueness, taxpayers affected, and forward-looking impact on 2015 and beyond. The following "top ten" list of 2014 tax developments is such a prioritization. Nevertheless, other 2014 developments may prove more significant to any particular client, depending upon circumstances. Please feel free to contact this office for a more customized look at the impact of 2014 developments upon your unique tax situation.

Passage of the Extenders Package

2014 was not a year for major tax legislation in Congress. In fact, Congress even failed to pass its usual two-year Extenders package, instead settling on a one-year retroactive extension to January 1, 2014. As one Senator put it, "This tax bill doesn't have the shelf life of a carton of eggs," referring to the fact that the 50-plus extenders provisions, signed by the President on December 19, 2014, expired again on January 1, 2015. Instead, it has been left to the 114^th Congress to debate the extension of these tax breaks in 2015 and beyond, and for taxpayers to guess what expenses in 2015 will again be entitled to a tax break. 

Affordable Care Act

In many ways, 2014 was a transition year for the Affordable Care Act. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual shared responsibility provision, took effect on January 1, 2014. Another key provision, the employer shared responsibility, was delayed (in 2013) to 2015. However, employer reporting under Code Sec. 6605 was not delayed. The IRS also issued guidance on the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court announced it would review a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding IRS regulations on the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit, a critical component to making the Affordable Care Act viable nationwide.

International Compliance

The IRS and Treasury increased their focus on requirements that U.S. taxpayers report foreign income and assets. The government took the final steps to implement the requirements for U.S. taxpayers and foreign financial institutions to report foreign assets under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The government also tweaked its programs to induce U.S. taxpayers to report undisclosed income and assets from prior past years. At the same time, the IRS and the Department of Justice went to court to seek civil and criminal penalties, including jail time, against willful tax evaders.

Repair Regulations

In 2014, the IRS finished issuing the necessary guidance on the treatment of costs for tangible property under the sweeping so-called “repair” regulations, which impact most businesses. The most important development was the issuance of final regulations on the treatment of dispositions of tangible property under MACRS and under Code Sec. 168, including the identification of assets, the treatment of dispositions, and the computation of gain and loss, particularly in the context of general asset accounts (TD 9689). The IRS also issued several revenue procedures that granted automatic consent for taxpayers to change to the accounting methods allowed by the final regulations (including Rev. Proc. 2014-16 & 54).

IRS Operations

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen predicted a complex and challenging filing season due to cuts in the Service’s funding. Koskinen highlighted the Service’s having to do more with less because of reduced funding. In addition, the IRS is funded at $10.9 billion for FY 2015, which is $1.5 billion below the amount requested by the White House. The FY 2015 budget reduction "undercuts our ability to enforce the Tax Code," Koskinen said. "We will do everything we can to protect the integrity of the filing season." More budget cuts could cause "the wheels to start to fall off," he noted.

Net Investment Income (NII) Tax

Many higher-income individuals were surprised to learn the full impact of the net investment income (NII) tax on their overall tax liability only during the 2014 filing season when their 2013 returns were filed. Starting in 2013, taxpayers with qualifying income have been liable for the 3.8 percent net investment income (NII) tax. The threshold amounts for the NII tax are: $250,000 in the case of joint returns or a surviving spouse, $125,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return, and $200,000 in any other case. Recent run ups in the financial markets, and the fact that the NII thresholds are not adjusted for inflation, have increased the need to implement strategies that can avoid or minimize the NII tax. Issues persist that reduce certainty surrounding NII tax liability, in particular determining how a taxpayer "materially participates" in an activity to the extent it is exempt from the NII tax.

Retirement Planning

A number of changes have been made during 2014 affecting IRAs and other qualified plans which, cumulatively, rise to the level of a “top tax development” for 2014:

• Notice 2014-54 now permits a distribution from a 401(k), 403(b) or 457(b) account to have the taxable and non-taxable portions of the distribution directed to separate accounts.  
• TD 9673 now permits IRA holders and defined contribution plan participants to obtain a “longevity” annuity to help insure that they will not outlive their required minimum distributions (RMDs).
• Notice 2014-66 now permits 401(k) plans to offer deferred annuities through target date funds (TDFs).
• Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, held that, in contrast to the IRS guidance in Publication 590, a taxpayer is limited to one 60-day rollover per year for all IRA accounts under the tax code rather than one 60-day rollover per year for each IRA account. The IRS in Announcement 2014-32 stated that the new interpretation of the rollover rules would be applied to rollover distributions received on or after January 1, 2015.
• Clark v. Rameker, a 2014 Supreme Court decision, found that inherited IRA accounts were not retirement assets and therefore not subject to creditor protection under the Bankruptcy Code.

Identity Theft

Although clearly not confined to the area of federal tax, identity theft has been a major issue for both the IRS and taxpayers. In 2014, the IRS put new filters in place and took other measures to curb tax-related identity theft. The agency also worked with software developers, financial institutions and the prepaid debit card industry to combat identity theft. "We rejected 5.7 million suspicious returns last year that may have been tied to identity theft," IRS Commissioner Koskinen said. Nevertheless, few believe that the IRS has yet turned the tide.

Same-sex Marriage

After the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor, the IRS issued guidance in 2013 adopting a place of celebration approach to recognizing same-sex marriage. The IRS followed-up with additional guidance in 2014 that required employers to take note of Windsor with regard to workplace tax benefits. Notably, the IRS focused on what changes needed to be made to retirement plan benefits in light of Windsor.

Tax Reform

Although 2014 was clearly not the year for tax reform (despite some 2013 forecasts that it would be), the foundations for serious tax reform discussions were laid in 2013 and 2014, when Congressional hearings and studies took place. Looking ahead to 2015 and beyond, there is optimism that Congress will complete some form of tax reform in 2015 or 2016.

The major difference of opinion, however, surrounds whether or not the reform would only address corporate tax provisions or also include individual provisions. Corporate reform has been pushed into the spotlight lately both by the controversy surrounding corporate inversions in changing foreign headquarters and by the general concern that American international business competitiveness is lessened by high U.S. corporate tax rates. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., on the other hand has called for tackling comprehensive tax reform on both the business and individual side. His Tax Reform Bill of 2014 (HR 1) would make the Code "more effective and efficient," according to Camp, by getting rid of narrowly targeted provisions to lower tax rates across the board. "This will enable small and large businesses alike to expand operations, hire new workers, and increase benefits and take-home pay," he said.