Newsletters

Last year's sweeping tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), introduced a new tax break for owners of many businesses called the deduction for qualified business income. It’s also known as code Section 199A deduction. If you qualify for it, you will receive a 20% deduction on your qualified business income.

Last year's sweeping tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), introduced a new tax break for owners of many businesses called the deduction for qualified business income. It’s also known as code Section 199A deduction. If you qualify for it, you will receive a 20% deduction on your qualified business income.

Qualified Business Income - Qualified business income means the net income from a qualified trade or business. However, qualified business income does not include certain investment-related income, including:

1. Short and long-term capital gain and losses;
2. Dividend income, income equivalent to a dividend, or payment in lieu of a dividend;
3. Any interest income other than interest income properly allocable to a trade or business;
4. Net gain from foreign currency transactions and commodities transactions;
5. Income from notional principal contracts, other than items attributable to notional principal contracts entered into as hedging transactions;
6. Any amount received from an annuity that is not received in connection with the trade or business; and
7. Any deduction or loss properly allocable to any of these bulleted items described above.

Qualified Trade or Business – Qualified trade or business means any trade or business other than:

1. Employee
2. A Specified Service Trade or Business

Employee - As an employee you can never qualify for this deduction no matter what.

Specified Service Trade or Business – A specified service trade or business is defined as any trade or business involving the performance of services in the following fields:

1. Health.
2. Law.
3. Accounting.
4. Actuarial science.
5. Performing arts.
6. Consulting.
7. Athletics.
8. Financial services.
9. Brokerage services, including investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities,
10. Any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees. Catch all rule.

Engineering & Architecture Services - Are specifically excluded from the definition of a specified service trade or business. Therefore, they qualify.

Some of the categories and fields listed above are fairly clear in their meaning. Others - such as "consulting" and "any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees" - are vague, and will be difficult to apply until the IRS provides guidance.

While doctors, accountants, and attorneys will clearly fall victim to the specified fields found in this definition, many businesses will not fit so neatly into one of the disqualified categories. For example, while an actor is in the field of performing arts, is a director? A makeup artist? A producer?

The catch all definition is a bit concerning that a disqualified business includes any trade or business of which the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners. The most obvious problem posed by the catch-all is that it threatens any taxpayer who is not engaged in one of the businesses specifically listed as a disqualified field. Consider the case of a "personal trainer to the stars": Using the definition of "a specified service business" in the law the argument can be made that the trainer is not in the fields of health or athletics. Application of the catch-all, however, would likely yield a different result. What is the principal asset of a celebrity? personal trainer if not the reputation and expertise of that trainer?

To further illustrate the complications caused by the catch-all, compare two restaurants - the first a prominent chain, the second a stand-alone bistro with a world-renowned, five-star chef. Neither restaurant is in a listed disqualified service nor so the initial presumption is that both eateries generate qualified business income eligible for the deduction. Now, consider the application of the catch-all. The principal asset of the chain restaurant is clearly not the skill of its employees or owners; after all, if the chef at one of the locations leaves the restaurant, he or she will be replaced and life will go on. As a result, the chain restaurant should not fall victim to the catch-all. The bistro, however, may not be so fortunate. In this scenario, it is much more likely that the business's principal asset is the skill and reputation of the five-star chef who prepares its food. Put in simple terms, if that chef leaves the bistro, the business probably shutters its doors, adding further evidence that it is the expertise of the chef that drives the business. Thus, based on the current structure of the law it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the second restaurant is a specified service business. But why should the owners of the two restaurants be treated differently when they both provide the same mix of food and services to customers?

As one can see, until further guidance is issued that narrows the scope of the catch-all, it threatens to ensnare far more taxpayers than the specifically delineated disqualified fields.

Real Estate Activities – An emerging consensus among practitioners and expert commentators is that most rental real estate activities other than those involving triple net (NNN) rentals will qualify as trades or businesses, because such rental activities typically involve the regular provision of substantial services to tenants. Also, the fact that last-minute changes were made to the bill to make the deduction more readily available to rental property owners is seen an indication that Congress intended that rental income would be eligible for the deduction.

Limitations – There are three limitations that come into play at different income levels. They are:

1. Specified Service Trade or Business Limitation – if you are a specific service trade or business, married and your taxable income is $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500, your deduction will be limited. Above these thresholds it will be completely denied and you will not qualify for the deduction. The limitation is based on the amount that you are over the $100,000 allowed for married and $50,000 for single.
2. Wage Limitation – The W-2 wage limitation on the deduction for qualified business income is based on either W-2 wages paid by the trade or business, or W-2 wages paid plus tangible assets owned by the trade or business. It is the greater of:
3.  

1. 50% of the W-2 wages paid with respect to the qualified trade or business, or
2.  
3. The sum of 25% of the W-2 wages paid with respect to the qualified trade or business plus 2.5% of the unadjusted tax basis, immediately after acquisition, of all qualified property.

1. Taxable Income Limitation – The qualified business income deduction can never be more than 20% of your taxable income.
2.  

Wages – Only W-2 wages paid and reported to the Social Security Administrator qualify. Thus wages paid by an S Corporation to its sole shareholder/employee qualify. However, guaranteed payments paid by a partnership (LLC, GP, LP or LLP) to its member(s) do not. Therefore, in some cases an S Corporation will qualify for the deduction while partnerships that have no employees will not.

Furthermore, IRS is very specific that a partnership cannot pay/issue a W-2 to its members. Only to its non-member employees.

Who Can Claim the Deduction – Shareholders of S Corporations, members/partners of Limited Liability Company (LLC), partners of a general partnership (GP), partners of a limited partnership (LP), members/partners of a limited liability partnership (LLP), independent contractors and sole proprietorships. Going forward the Code refers to these businesses as a “Pass-Through Business”. Trusts and estates qualify for the tax break as well.

Different Rules Apply at Different Levels of Taxable Income – Therefore, we have created three categories of income to address each rule that is applicable to that category. They are:

Category 1 – Married with taxable income of less than $315,000 or single less than $157,500.

Category 2 - Married with taxable income of $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500.

Category 3 - Married with taxable income over $415,001 or single over $207,501.

Category 1 – Married with taxable income of less than $315,000 or single less than $157,500

If you fall under this category, everyone who is a Pass-Through Business, regardless of what trade or business you are in, will qualify for the deduction. However, the taxable income limitation applies.

For simplicity in all examples below, we will assume either the taxpayer is married or single, has no dependents, mortgage interest or property taxes to deduct.

Example 1A:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse receives $50,000 of W-2 income and the other $250,000 from any trade or business. Their qualified business income deduction is $50,000 ($250,000 x 20%). Therefore, they will pay federal income tax on $250,000 ($300,000 - $50,000) not $300,000. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $42,900.

Example 1B:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse receives $50,000 of W-2 income and the other $250,000. They do not qualify for the qualified business income deduction because both are employees. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $55,300.

As employees the taxpayers will pay approximately $12,400 more in federal tax.

Example 1C:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse does not work. The other spouse has $300,000 of income from any trade or business. Their qualified business income deduction should be $60,000 ($300,000 x 20%). However, their taxable income is $276,000 ($300,000 minus the standard deduction of $24,000). Based on the taxable income limitation their qualified business income deduction is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $60,000 ($300,000 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid – Not applicable since they are below the threshold of $315,000 or
3. 20% of their taxable income, $55,200 ($276,000 x 20%).
4.  

Their qualified business income deduction is $55,200. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $41,600.

Example 1D:    Taxpayer is single and an employee, but not an owner, of a qualified business. Taxpayer receives a salary of $100,000 in 2018. Taxpayer does not qualify for the deduction because he or she is only the employee of the qualified business and not an owner.

If you are an employee, it may be tax advantageous for you to consider becoming a Pass-Through Business such as an S Corporation.

Category 2 - Married with taxable income of $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500

If you fall under this category you can still claim the qualified business income deduction but you are subject to the specified service trade or business, wage and taxable income limitations. Therefore, your deduction can either be limited or denied.

Example 2A:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Assume that the specified service trade or business has paid sufficient W-2 wages to its employees. He or she is over the threshold allowed by $30,000 ($187,500 - $157,500). The maximum amount allowed that a single taxpayer can be over is $50,000. Therefore, he or she is 60% ($30,000 / $50,000) over the maximum amount allowed. Thus, he or she is only allowed 40% (100% - 60%) of the maximum amount of the qualified business income. The qualified business income is $150,000 x 20% = $30,000. However, he or she only claim 40% of it. Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $12,000 ($30,000 x 40%).

Example 2B:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Assume that the specified service trade or business has paid $40,000 in W-2 wages to its employees. He or she is over the threshold allowed by $30,000 ($187,500 - $157,500). The maximum amount allowed that a single taxpayer can be over is $50,000. Therefore, he or she is 60% ($30,000 / $50,000) over the maximum amount allowed. Thus, he or she is only allowed 40% (100% - 60%) of the maximum amount of the qualified business income. But, he or she has only paid $40,000 in wages. Thus, the maximum qualified business income that the taxpayer qualifies for is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $30,000 ($150,000 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid, $20,000 ($40,000 x 50%).
3.  

However, the taxpayer can only claim 40% of the lesser amount since he or she was over the threshold. Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $8,000 ($20,000 x 40%).

Example 2C:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $217,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Since its taxable income is more than the maximum threshold allowed, $207,500, the taxpayer does not qualify for the qualified business deduction.

Example 2D:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which all of it is from a qualified trade or business and it paid $60,000 in W-2 wages to its employees. The qualified business income deduction is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $37,500 ($187,500 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid, $30,000 ($60,000 x 50%).

Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $30,000, the lesser of the two figures above.

Category 3 - Married with taxable income over $415,001 or single over $207,501

If you fall under this category the only way that you will qualify for the deduction is if you have a qualified trade or business. You will not qualify for the deduction if your only source of income is from a specified service trade or business. The wage and taxable income limitations apply.

Example 3A:    Robert is single and the sole shareholder/employee of ABC, Inc., an S corporation that is a qualified trade or business. ABC has net income in 2018 of $250,000 after deducting Robert's salary of $150,000. Assume that the $150,000 salary paid to Robert is the only W-2 wages paid. Robert’s tentative qualified business income deduction is $50,000 ($250,000 x 20%). However, he has to calculate the wage limitation to determine if its less. The wage limitation is $75,000 ($150,000 x 50%). Therefore, Robert can deduct the $50,000 because the wage limitation is bigger.

Example 3B:    Taxpayers owns residential or commercial rental properties through an LLC. His or her share of the rental income earned by the LLC is $800,000. The LLC pays no W-2 wages, but taxpayer’s share of the unadjusted basis of the building is $5 million. Taxpayer’s tentative qualified business income deduction is $160,000 ($800,000 x 20%). However, taxpayer has to calculate the wage limitation to see if its less. Taxpayer has the option of choosing the greater of the following for the wage limitation calculation:

1. 50% of W-2 wages= $0; or
2. 25% of W-2 wages, $0, plus 2.5% of qualified property = $125,000 ($5M x 2.5%).

Therefore the taxpayer’s qualified business income deduction is $125,000.

Example 3C:    Taxpayer is a sole proprietor. During 2018, the business generates $400,000 of qualified business income, pays $120,000 of W-2 wages, and has $1.5M of qualified property. Taxpayer flies jointly with his or her spouse and their combined taxable income for the year, including the qualified business income, is $600,000. Taxpayers’ tentative deduction is $80,000 ($400,000 x 20%). However, taxpayers’ have to calculate the wage limitation to determine if its less. Taxpayers have the option of choosing the greater of the following for the wage limitation calculation:

1. 50% of W-2 wages = $60,000 ($120,000 x 50%)
2. 25% of W-2 wages, $30,000 ($120,000 x 25%) plus 2.5% of unadjusted basis of qualified property $37,500 ($1.5M x 2.5%) = $67,500 ($30,000 + $37,500).

Therefore, taxpayers’ qualified business income deduction is $67,500.

Reasonable Compensation - S corporations have long had an incentive to classify payments made to shareholder-employees as dividends rather than wages, because wages are subject to employment taxes such as social security and Medicare dividends are not. The IRS, however, can re-characterize "dividends" that are paid lieu of reasonable compensation for services performed for the S corporation to wages. So, "reasonable compensation" of an S corporation shareholder refers to any amounts paid by the S corporation to the shareholder, up to the amount that would constitute reasonable compensation.

Example 4A:    Assume taxpayers A & B own identical businesses. Neither business has any employees or quailed property. Each business generates $500,000 of qualified business income before any wages are paid. A operates his business as a sole proprietor; B an S corporation.

Because A's business has no employees and because, as a sole proprietor, A cannot pay himself a wage, A has a W-2 wage limitation and its zero. Thus, A does not get a deduction.

B as the shareholder of his S Corporation, must comply with the reasonable-compensation requirement. As a result, assume B pays himself $80,000 in 2018.

B's is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $84,000 (20% x $420,000) or
2. 50% of wages $40,000 ($80,000 x 50%).

B’s qualified business income deduction is $40,000 because B paid him or herself $80,000 of W-2 wages and was able to qualify for the deduction. If B was a member/partner of a LLC and received an $80,000 in guaranteed payments, he or she would not have qualified for the deduction because guaranteed payments do not count as wages.

Example 4B:    Assume the same facts as in the previous example, except the income earned in each business is $150,000, not $500,000. Assume further that both A and B have taxable income below the $315,000/$157,500 thresholds. A, the sole proprietor, is entitled to a deduction of $30,000 (20% of

$150,000). B, the sole shareholder of the S corporation, remains required to pay himself reasonable compensation. Assume he is paid W-2 wages of $70,000.

This reduces the qualified business income B receives from the S corporation to $80,000 ($150,000 - $70,000) and in turn reduces B's deduction to $16,000 ($80,000 x 20%). Thus, when income is below the threshold, the reasonable-compensation requirement works against the shareholder in the S corporation, reducing both his qualified business income and deduction. A, the sole proprietor, has no such requirement and thus preserves the full amount of his qualified business income, giving him a deduction of $30,000, when his S corporation shareholder counterpart receives a deduction of only $16,000.

Netting of Qualified Business Income and Loss – The deduction must be determined separately for each qualified trade or business. After calculating the qualified business income deduction for each trade or business, the taxpayer totals the amounts. If there is an overall loss, no deduction is allowed for that year and the loss is carried over to next year.

Example 5A:    In 2018 taxpayer is allocated qualified business income of $20,000 from qualified business 1 and a qualified business loss of $50,000 from qualified business 2. Taxpayer is not permitted a deduction in 2018 and has a carryover qualified business loss of $30,000 to 2019.

Unadjusted Tax Basis - Only the unadjusted basis of qualified property is counted toward the limitation. Qualified property is tangible property subject to depreciation. As a result, the basis of raw land and inventory, for example, would not be taken into account.

The basis of property used to determine the limitation is unadjusted basis determined before the close of the tax year. The depreciable period begins on the date the property is placed in service and ends on the later of:

• 10 years after the date placed in service; or
• The last day of the last full year in the applicable recovery period that would apply to the property under Sec. 168

Example 6A:    On April12, 2010, Partnership AB, a calendar-year partnership, places in service a

piece of machinery purchased for $50,000 that has a five-year life. The partners may take into account their allocable share of the $50,000 unadjusted basis of the property in 2018, despite the fact that the asset was fully depreciated before the year began. This is because the depreciable period runs for the longer of:

• 10 full years from April12, 2010 (to April12, 2020); or
• The last day of the last full year in the recovery period, which for a five-year asset placed in service during 2010 would have been 2014.

The partners will also take into account the $50,000 unadjusted basis of the property in 2019. The basis will not be taken into account in 2020, however, because the depreciable period ends on April12, 2020, before the end of the 2020 tax year. Alternatively, assume the machinery

was placed in service on June 1, 2008. The partners of Partnership AB would not take the $50,000 unadjusted basis into account in 2018 because the depreciable period ended on June 1, 2018, before the close of the 2018 tax year.

How to Avoid Specified Service Trade or Business Status – We are constantly being asked by clients that are a specified service trade or business, what they can do to qualify for the deduction?

Option 1 - One strategy that has been discussed is to infuse a qualified business into a disqualified business - for example, a law firm might acquire commercial real estate that it rents to tenants, or a famous actor might launch a clothing line – in the hopes that it "muddies the waters" enough to convert the entire enterprise into a qualified business. This strategy faces two significant hurdles. First, because the law requires that the deduction be determined on a business-by-business basis, the IRS may force a taxpayer to distinguish among multiple lines of business within the same entity, denying a deduction attributable to any disqualified business line. But even if the businesses could be commingled, the law treats as a disqualified specified service business any business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, etc. Thus, the language suggests that even a small amount of services provided in a disqualified field could taint an entire business. Thus, in the examples above involving the law firm/real estate company or actor/clothing line scenarios, because each business would continue to provide some element of personal services in a disqualified field, those services could taint the entire business, potentially preventing the rental income or the income from the clothing line from being treated as qualified business income.

Option 2 - Perhaps a more prudent alternative to maximizing the deduction involves the opposite approach: Having a disqualified business "spin off" the activities of a potentially qualifying business into a separate entity.

Example 7A:    Assume Doctor A currently owns a medical/dental S Corporation, S Corporation 1. He or she is the sole shareholder/owner. It has a net income of $500,000 after it pays Doctor A wages of $200,000 and $300,000 to other employees. Doctor A is married. If Doctor A does nothing, he/she will not qualify for the deduction because being a doctor or dentist a specified service trade or business and his or her taxable income is over $415,000.

                            Doctor A’s federal tax liability will be approximately $189,500.

Example 7B:    Same facts as Example 7A. Doctor A creates two new S Corporations. S Corporation 2 which will do the billing for S Corporation 1. S Corporation 2 which will provide professional services such as administration, purchasing, billing paying and hiring non-licensed professionals for S Corporation 1. These types of organizations are know by many names such as Professional Service Organizations (PSO), Professional Employer Organizations (PEO), Management or Medical Service Organizations (MSO), Dental Service Organization (DSO) and etc.

To make the math simple, assume the only expenses S Corporations 2 and 3 have are the employees that used work for S Corporation 1 to the billing, $50,000, and the non-licensed employees, $100,000. Thus, S Corporation’s 1 salaries and wages expense will decrease by $150,000 ($50,000 + $100,000) because going forward they will be paid by S Corporations 2 and 3.

S Corporation 1 pays fair market fees to S Corporation 2 of $100,000 and $200,000 to S Corporation 3 for the services that they provide it. S Corporation 1 now has a net income of $350,000 ($500,000 - $100,000 - $200,000 + $150,000). Assume S Corporation 2 pays $50,000 in wages so its net income is $50,000 ($100,000 - $50,000) and S Corporation 3 pays $100,000 in wages so its net income is $100,000 ($200,000 - $100,000).

Doctor A’s federal tax liability will be approximately $178,400.

By “spinning-off” the activities of his or her medical/dental practice into three separate entities that two qualify as a qualified trade or business, Doctor A was able to reduce his or her federal tax liability by approximately $11,100.

The above structure is not limited to medical or health professionals. Law firms can do the same. Real estate management companies can “spin off” the janitorial and repair divisions into separate entities. Financial planners can hire their spouses to provide them with administrative services and etc.

The “spin off” division would take the position that because its new business not in the field of health, it is not a specified service trade or business. The IRS could craft regulations which provide that administrative and support services provided to a specified service trade or business are treated as the provision of services in that same specified service trade or business. If this were the case, rendering administrative and support services to a doctor group would be treated as services provided in the field of health, converting that business from a qualified to a disqualified or specified service trade or business.

Furthermore, you need to take into account the cost, management & etc. associated with opening new entities.

Option 3 - Perhaps a safer alternative is for a specified service trade or business - for example, a doctor - forms a new LLC that purchases the building it currently leasing, which then rents the building to the medical practice at the highest justifiable rate. It is unlikely future regulations would deny such a structure, provided the rent were fairly valued, because, in this example, it is property, rather than services, that is being provided to a specified service trade or business.

Example 7C:    Same facts as Example 7B. However, Doctor A purchases the building he or she practices out of for $5M. Assume the rent that was paid to the old landlord, $60,000 per year, is now paid to Doctor A’s LLC. Assume the LLC has no other income, expenses or employees.

                            The LLC qualifies for the deduction it even though it has no employees. The tentative deduction is 20% of the qualified business income, $12,000 ($60,000 x 20%). Or the lesser of:

1. 50% of the W-2 wages paid, which is zero or,
2. The sum of 25% of the W-2 wages, zero, plus 2.5% of the unadjusted tax basis which is $125,000 ($5M x 2.5%).

Thus the deduction is $12,000.

Advantages & Disadvantages S Corporation versus Sole Proprietorships – The following are the advantages of conducting your business through an S Corporation versus a sole proprietorship:

1. Payroll Tax Savings – S Corporations pay payroll taxes on the wages paid to its shareholder/employee(s). Sole proprietorships pay payroll taxes on the net income of the business. Payroll tax is made up of:

1. Social Security or FICA – 12.4% on the first $128,400 of wages and
2. Medicare – 2.9% and there is no limit.
3. Hospital Insurance (HI) - 0.9% of wages over $250,000 for married and $200,000 for single.

Example 8A:    Taxpayer is single and the sole shareholder/employee of his or her S Corporation. Its net income is $330,000 before wages. The S Corporation pays the taxpayer wages of $80,000. Taxpayer will pay the following payroll taxes:

                            $9,920 in Social Security or FICA – 12.4% x 80,000

                            $2,320 in Medicare – 2.9% x $80,000

                            $0 in Hospital Insurance

                            Total payroll tax paid by the taxpayer is $12,240.

Example 8B:    Same facts as above except that the taxpayer is a sole proprietorship. Thus, its net income is $330,000. Taxpayer will pay the following payroll taxes:

                            $15,923 in Social Security or FICA – 12.4% x $128,400

                            $9,571 in Medicare – 2.9% x $330,000

                            $943 in Hospital Insurance - .9% x ($330,000 – $200,000 - $15,922 - $9,570)

Total payroll tax paid by the taxpayer is $26,437. By being an S Corporation and receiving a reasonable compensation the taxpayer saved $14,197 ($26,437 - $12,240) in payroll taxes.

In Example 4B, A the sole proprietorship received a bigger deduction than B the sole shareholder/employee of the S Corporation. However, you have to take into account the additional payroll tax cost to accurately calculate if there is a tax savings as a sole proprietorship.

1. Liability Protection – Generally S Corporations provide liability protection to their shareholders. A sole proprietor is liable for his or her business. This is a legal issue and it should be discussed with an attorney.
2.  
3. Audit Protection – S Corporations have the least chance of being audited by IRS. Sole proprietors have a higher chance.
4.  

The following are the disadvantages of conducting your business through an S Corporation versus a sole proprietorship:

1. Incorporation Fee – There is a one-time fee to incorporate with the Secretary of State.
2.  
3. Annual Minimum Franchise Tax – State a California charges the greater of $800 or 1.5% of the S Corporation’s net income as a franchise tax. Thus, at minimum you will pay $800 a year in franchise tax.
4.  
5. Quarterly & Annual Federal and State Payroll Tax Returns – You have to file quarterly and annual federal and state payroll tax returns.
6.  
7. Annual S Corporation Income Tax Returns – You have to file annual federal and California S Corporation income tax returns. Furthermore, you need to keep separate books and records for the corporation. Therefore, you should have some kind of a bookkeeping system implemented.

We are able to provide you with any and all of the services listed above. We can incorporate your business, provide bookkeeping services, prepare the required quarterly and annual payroll tax returns and prepare your annual S Corporation income tax returns.

Gain on the Sale of Depreciable Asset Used in a Trade or Business, Section 1231 Gain – The law is silent on the treatment of the gain when you sell an asset that you have used in your trade or business for more than one year. This is called a Section 1231 gain.

Is the gain qualified business income? Since Section 1231 asset is specifically excluded from the definition of a capital asset it seems like until guidance from the IRS provides otherwise, it is reasonable to include the gains and losses in qualified business income.

Like-Kind Exchanges - Regulations will provide rules for determining the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition of qualified property acquired in like-kind exchanges or involuntary conversions.

Tiered Entities - Future regulations will provide guidance on how to determine the deduction in the case of tiered entities.

Commonly Controlled Entities - At present, the law does not allow for an allocation of the W-2 wages paid by the management company to each of the operating companies. As a result,

assuming the shareholders of the operating companies have taxable income exceeding the threshold amounts, they would be precluded from claiming a deduction, courtesy of the W-2 limitations. Similar problems arise in the case of employees leased through a professional

employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing firm.

Increased Exposure to Underpayment Penalty - Generally, for taxpayers other than C corporations, the understatement is substantial if its amount for the tax year exceeds the greater of:

• 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return for the tax year; or
• $5,000

Under the new law, substantial understatement penalty is applied when:

• 5% of the tax required to be shown on the return for the tax year; or
• $5,000

This lower threshold is particularly harsh, given the lack of guidance surrounding key aspects of this new law and the resulting challenges taxpayers and their advisers face in implementing the

provision. Importantly, the changes do not require the substantial understatement to be attributable to the qualified business income deduction. Thus, any taxpayer who claims the deduction will be subject to the lower threshold, even if the understatement on the return is unrelated to the qualified business income deduction.

Conclusion - While the purpose of the deduction is clear, its statutory construction and legislative text is anything but clear. The provision is rife with limitations, exceptions to limitations, phase-ins and phase-out’s, and critical but poorly defined terms of art. As a result, the new law has created ample controversy since its enactment, with many tax advisers anticipating that until further guidance is issued, the uncertainty surrounding the provision will lead to countless disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. Adding concern is that, despite the ambiguity inherent in the law, Congress saw fit to lower the threshold at which any taxpayer claiming the deduction can be subject to a substantial understatement penalty.

Right now is a great time for tax planning and creating an analysis specific to your business to determine if you qualify for the deduction. If you do not qualify for the deduction we can advise you on other options that may be available to you. Please do not hesitate to call us.

The information within this email is an accumulation from many sources; especially, Parker Tax Pro Library and The Tax Adviser April 2018 issue.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules. The regulations finalize with revisions 2020 proposed regulations ( REG-123652-18).

Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA, P.L. 114-74) replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248) partnership procedures with a centralized partnership audit regime for making partnership adjustments and tax determinations, assessments, and collections at the partnership level. These changes were further amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act, P.L. 114-113) and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018 (TTCA, P.L. 115-141). The centralized audit regime, as amended, generally applies to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. A partnership with no more than 100 partners may generally elect out of the centralized audit regime if all the partners are eligible partners.

Under the post-2017 centralized partnership audit regime, the IRS examines “partnership-related items” of all domestic and foreign partnerships and their partners. A "partnership-related item" is any item relevant to the determination of the income tax liability of any person. However, Code Sec. 6241(11), added by the BBA, authorizes Treasury to except “special enforcement matters” from the centralized partnership audit regime and to issue regulations providing alternative assessment and collection rules for those matters. The 2020 proposed regulations and these final regulations implement Code Sec. 6241(11) and make changes to previously issued final regulations pertaining to the centralized partnership audit regime.

Special Enforcement Matters

Code Sec. 6241(11) sets forth six categories of "special enforcement matters":

• (1) failures to comply with the requirements for a partnership partner or S corporation partner to furnish statements or compute and pay an imputed underpayment;
• (2) assessments relating to termination assessments of income tax or jeopardy assessments of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes;
• (3) criminal investigations;
• (4) indirect methods of proof of income;
• (5) foreign partners or partnerships; and
• (6) other matters identified in IRS regulations.

The final regulations add three new types of special enforcement matters:

• partnership-related items underlying non-partnership-related items;
• relationship of a partner to the partnership under the Code Sec. 267(b) or Code Sec. 707(b) related-party rules and extensions of the partner’s period of limitations; and
• penalties and taxes imposed on the partnership under chapter 1.

The final regulations also require the IRS to provide written notice of most special enforcement matters to taxpayers to whom the adjustments are being made.

In addition, the final regulations clarify that the IRS may adjust partnership-level items for a partner or indirect partner without regard to the centralized audit regime if the adjustment relates to termination and jeopardy assessments, the partner is under criminal investigation, or the adjustment is based on an indirect method of proof of income.

However, the final regulations provide that a determination about partnership-related items made outside of the centralized partnership regime is not binding on any person who is not a party to that proceeding. The final regulations clarify that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by a determination regarding a partnership-related item from a partner-level examination and that neither the partnership nor the other partners need to adjust their returns.

In addition, the special-enforcement-matter rules do not apply to the extent a partner can demonstrate that adjustments to partnership-related items in the deficiency or an adjustment by the IRS were (i) previously taken into account under the centralized audit regime by the person being examined or (ii) included in an imputed underpayment paid by a partnership (or pass-through partner) for any tax year in which the partner was a reviewed-year partner (but only if the amount exceeds the amount reported by the partnership to the partner that was either reported by the partner or included in the deficiency or adjustment).

Imputed Underpayments

The IRS and Treasury believe that a mechanism must exist for including adjustments from a centralized-regime audit in the partnership’s imputed underpayment, even if the partnership elects to “push out” the adjustment to its partners.

Under existing regulations for calculating imputed underpayments, an adjustment to a non-income item (that is, an item that is not an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit) that is related to, or results from, an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is generally treated as zero. The final regulations require a partnership to take into account an adjustment to a non-income item on its adjustment-year return by adjusting the item to be consistent with the adjustment, but only to the extent the item would appear on that return without regard to the adjustment. If the item already appeared on the partnership’s adjustment-year return as a non-income item or the item appeared as a non-income item on any return of the partnership for a tax year between the reviewed year and the adjustment year, the partnership does not create a new item on the partnership’s adjustment-year return.

The final regulations provide that if the partnership is required to adjust its basis in an asset, the partnership does so in the adjustment year; however, the partnership only recognizes income and gain as a result of the basis adjustment in situations in which income or gain would be recognized. The final regulations also demonstrate how adjustments to liabilities are taken into account when they do not result in an imputed underpayment, and how an amended return should reflect adjustments to non-income items.

The final regulations follow the proposed regulations in allowing either the IRS or the partnership to treat an adjustment to a non-income item as zero. The final regulations also permit a partnership to treat such an adjustment as zero if the adjustment is related to, or results from, another adjustment to a non-income item. The partnership may not, however, treat such an adjustment as zero if one adjustment is positive and the other is negative.

Partnership Ceasing to Exist

Code Sec. 6241 states that if a partnership ceases to exist before any partnership adjustments take effect, the former partners of the partnership must take the adjustments into account in the manner prescribed in regulations. The final regulations clarify that even if a partnership has ceased to exist, it may make the election to push out the adjustments, request modification of the imputed underpayment, or pay the imputed underpayment within ten days of notice and demand for payment.

A section of the proposed regulations that would define "former partners" is not included in the final regulations and remains proposed.

Effective and Applicability Dates

The final regulations, which are effective December 8, 2022, apply to tax years ending on or after November 20, 2020 (except that final Reg. § 301.6241-7(b) applies to tax years beginning after December 20, 2018).

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions.

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions. The IRS also anticipates issuing proposed regulations and other guidance with respect to the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

These requirements generally apply if construction of a qualified facility, or installation of qualified property in an energy efficient commercial building, begins on or after the date that is 60 days after the IRS publishes guidance. This notice serves as the guidance that starts the 60-day clock. Thus, these rules apply when a qualified facility begins construction or the installation of qualified property begins on or after January 29, 2023.

The notice also provides guidance for determining the beginning of construction of a facility for certain credits, and the beginning of installation of certain property with respect to the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

The notice includes examples to illustrate these rules.

Prevailing Wage Requirements

For purposes of the credits, a taxpayer must satisfy the prevailing wage requirements with respect to any laborer or mechanic employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of a facility, property, project, or equipment by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s contractors and subcontractors. The taxpayer must also maintain and preserve sufficient records to establish compliance, including books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

The prevailing wage rate is generally the one published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov for the geographic area and type of construction applicable to the facility, including all labor classifications for the construction, alteration, or repair work that will be done on the facility by laborers or mechanics.

If the Secretary has not published a prevailing wage rate for the geographic area or the particular type of work, the taxpayer may request a wage determination or wage rate from the Wage and Hour Division. The taxpayer must follow prescribed procedures in order to rely on the provided wage or rate.

Similarly, for purposes of the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings, the prevailing wage rate for installation of energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan, is determined with respect to the prevailing wage rate for construction, alteration, or repair of a similar character in the locality in which the property is located, as most recently determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Apprenticeship Requirements

A taxpayer satisfies the apprenticeship requirements if:

1. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Labor Hour Requirements, subject to any applicable Apprenticeship Ratio Requirements;
2. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Participation Requirements; and
3. The taxpayer maintains sufficient records.

Under the Good Faith Effort Exception, the taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort in requesting qualified apprentices if the taxpayer requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry.

Beginning of Construction or Installation

The beginning of construction is determined under the Physical Work Test and the Five-Percent Safe Harbor established in Notice 2013-29. The Continuity Safe Harbor established by Notice 2016-31 also applies.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires. The Service also reminded taxpayers that they must meet the deadlines to avoid penalties and that such RMDs may not be rolled over to another IRA or retirement plan. The Service also informed taxpayers that not taking a required distribution, or not withdrawing enough, could mean a 50% excise tax on the amount not distributed.

The deadlines for the different RMDs are as follows:

• Taxpayers holding traditional IRAs , and SEP, SARSEP, and SIMPLE IRA should take their first RMD, even if they’re still working, by April 1, 2023, and the second RMD by Dec. 31, 2023, and each year thereafter.
• For taxpayers with retirement plans, the first RMD is due by April 1 of the later of the year they reach age 72, or the participant is no longer employed. A 5% owner of the employer must begin taking RMDs at age 72.
• An IRA trustee, or plan administrator, must either report the amount of the RMD to the IRA owner or offer to calculate it. They may be able to withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. However, RMDs from workplace retirement plans must be taken separately from each plan.

An RMD may be required for an IRA, retirement plan account or Roth IRA inherited from the original owner. A 2020 RMD that qualified as a coronavirus-related distribution may be repaid over a 3-year period or the taxes due on the distribution may be spread over three years. A 2020 withdrawal from an inherited IRA could not be repaid to the inherited IRA but may be spread over three years for income inclusion.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information. The proposed regulations address the circumstances under which beneficial ownership information may be disclosed to certain governmental authorities and financial institutions, and how that information must be protected.

The proposed regulations would—

• specify how government officials would access beneficial ownership information in support of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence activities;
• describe how certain financial institutions and their regulators would access that information to fulfill customer due diligence requirements and conduct supervision; and
• set high standards for protecting this sensitive information, consistent with CTA goals and requirements.

The NPRM also proposes amendments to the final reporting rule issued on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024, to specify when reporting companies may report FinCEN identifiers associated with entities.

Limiting Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

The NPRM follows the final reporting rule which requires most corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States, to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Per CTA requirements, the proposed regulations limit access to beneficial ownership information to—

• federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities;
• state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements, and federal regulators supervising them for compliance with those requirements;
• foreign law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, central authorities, and other agencies that meet specific criteria, and whose requests are made under an international treaty, agreement, or convention, or via law enforcement, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities in a trusted foreign country; and
• U.S. Treasury officers and employees whose official duties require beneficial ownership information inspection or disclosure, or for tax administration.

The proposed regulation would subject each authorized recipient category to unique security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

FinCEN is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2024, to align with the date when the final beneficial ownership information reporting rule becomes effective.

Request for Comments

Interested parties can submit written comments on the NPRM by or before February 14, 2023 (60 days following publication in the Federal Register). Comments may be submitted by the Federal E-rulemaking Portal ( regulations.gov), or by mail to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49/AB59.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The final regulations provide that the term "minimum essential coverage" does not include Medicaid coverage limited to COVID-19 testing and diagnostic services provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127). If an individual qualifies solely for this coverage, then it does not prevent them from claiming the premium tax credit under Code Sec. 36B. This amendment to Reg.§ 1.5000A-2 applies for months beginning after September 28, 2020.

The final regulations also provide:

• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6056 for "applicable large employers" (generally employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) to furnish statements relating to health insurance that the applicable large employers offer to their full-time employees; ·
• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6055 for providers of minimum essential coverage (such as health insurance issuers) that would provide an automatic extension of time for furnishing statements to responsible individuals; and
• An alternative method for reporting entities to furnish statements to their insured members when their shared responsibility payment is zero. The regulations under Reg.§1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) provide sample language for furnishing these statements.

The regulations under Reg. §§1.6055-1 and 301.6056-1 apply for years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The final regulations affect some taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit; health insurance issuers, self-insured employers, government agencies, and other persons that provide minimum essential coverage to individuals; and applicable large employers.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

"It's time, as we leave some of those pandemic issues behind us, to focus more on our core mission in appeals, which is the quality resolution of taxpayer cases," Independent Office of Appeals Chief Andy Keyso said in a recent interview with Federal Tax Daily. "I think that's the theme you see throughout the focus guide," which was issued November 4, 2022.

To that end, Keyso highlighted two key areas that will enable the office to meet that core mission – staffing and technology upgrades.

Rebuilding Staff

On the staffing side, Keyso noted that 10 years ago, the Appeals staff was at 2,100 employees, but in that window dropped to a low of about 1,100.

"We have made a big push to restack, using any kind of approval we could get here internally, and we currently are sitting at about 1,500 employees," he said, adding that the office currently has about 1,500 employees, with a goal in 2023 to get up to 1,725.

Keyso noted that the office is different from other parts of the IRS that have an exam or a collections function.

"If you don’t have the number of people you’d like to have, you just do fewer collection actions or you do fewer audits," Keyso said. "In Appeals, we have unique challenges. We’ve got to work every case that comes in the door. We can’t say, ‘We don’t have enough people, so we are not going to work your case.’ So for us, hiring is particularly an acute issue and recruiting and hiring will be one of our focus areas for this year."

He added that the staffing targets are based on the IRS’ set budget for 2023 and do not include potential increases that could come with the additional funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Improving Technology

Like the rest of the agency, the Office of Appeals is working through its own technology issues and is in need of upgrades.

In particular, Keyso highlighted the need to get away from paper.

"I think we learned during the pandemic a few things about technology and how paper can really be our Achilles heel when you have to move paper case files," he said. "That was a particular issue during the pandemic when you didn’t have all of your people in the office to ship case files around."

Moving to a more paperless environment is a "continuing challenge," Keyso said, not only for communicating between Appeals employees, but between staff and taxpayers. "Should we really be mailing things back and forth through the U.S. Postal Service? Or is there a better way to communicate with taxpayers that’s faster and maybe preferable to taxpayers?"

As part of the technology challenges, the Independent Office of Appeals also is looking to continue to use video conferencing, something that gained traction during the pandemic.

"With the service wide return to the office, we are again offering in person conferences, which is something Appeals is very excited about," Amy Giuliano, senior advisor to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the Office of Appeal, said. "But we want video conferences to remain a permanent option to alongside in person. We requested comments in August … for people to submit input on experiences they had with video conferences with appeals that should inform our longer term guidelines. And we've received a lot of positive feedback that video conferences, when they're managed effectively, are a great way for a taxpayer to present their case to appeals."

She applauded the fact that video conferences have the benefits of a face-to-face conference in that one can see the IRS agent they are dealing with, but they avoid the logistical issues with traveling to an IRS office to conduct the meeting. It makes things more accessible, especially if the taxpayer has medical or other mobility issues.

"That's why it's so important that it remain an option going forward alongside in person and alongside telephone," she said.

Improving Overall Access

Keyso also noted that a key area of focus going forward is improving the overall access to the Independent Office of Appeals now that access has been codified into law through the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Treasury is currently working on regulations that will implement the law.

"Our position in the Appeals Office is, you know, we want the broadest access to appeals possible for us to hear controversies or disputes between IRS and taxpayer," Keyso said. "So we will continue to push for broad access to taxpayers to appeals."

Giuliano added that "enhancing the taxpayer experience is really what sort of animates and informs everything else that we're doing."

Keyso also mentioned that Appeals is planning on continuing convening practitioner panels, during which the office invites practitioners to talk about issues they are facing as they deal with the appeals process. He noted that it was through these panels that the office made changes to letters that went out to taxpayers and their representatives that included more contact information on managers so taxpayers and their representatives have it handy if they need to escalate a situation.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The report, dated November 29, 2022, but released December 1, found that "key decisions and information related to the tax return selection process for Tax Years 2017 and 2019 were determined prior to the start of each year’s respective filing season and prior to the selection of any returns," the Treasury watchdog said in a statement. "TIGTA also confirmed that the computer program used to select tax returns worked as designed and di not included any malicious code that would force the selection of specific taxpayers for an NRP [National Research Program] audit."

TIGTA conducted the analysis of the audit selection process following a July 2022 media report that suggested the selection for those tax years may not have been random. To answer the allegations, TIGTA hired a contractor that, according to the report, "replicated the process. Specifically, the contractor replicated each week’s original sample selection file through April 2018 and July 2020 for TYs 2017 and 2019, respectively."

Once replicated, a return-by-return comparison of the replicated files and the original sample selection was conducted to verify the files matched.

"They concluded that the tax returns in the original samples were the same tax returns selected when the process was replicated using the respective seed numbers," the report states. "TIGTA also compared the contractor’s replicated weekly output files to the original weekly output files, and same as the IRS, TIGTA determined they matched."

The report noted that a line-by-line review of the original source code was conducted "to determine whether information (i.e., TIN) was improperly coded in the program that would result in a specific taxpayer being selected for an NRP audit. The contractor concluded that no specific taxpayer information was included in the original source code."