Silkman & Associates - 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.

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:

Short and long-term capital gain and losses;
Dividend income, income equivalent to a dividend, or payment in lieu of a dividend;
Any interest income other than interest income properly allocable to a trade or business;
Net gain from foreign currency transactions and commodities transactions;
Income from notional principal contracts, other than items attributable to notional principal contracts entered into as hedging transactions;
Any amount received from an annuity that is not received in connection with the trade or business; and
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:

Employee
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:

Health.
Law.
Accounting.
Actuarial science.
Performing arts.
Consulting.
Athletics.
Financial services.
Brokerage services, including investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities,
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:

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.
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:

50% of the W-2 wages paid with respect to the qualified trade or business, or
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.

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

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:

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

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:

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

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:

20% of the qualified business income, $37,500 ($187,500 x 20%) or
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:

50% of W-2 wages= $0; or
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:

50% of W-2 wages = $60,000 ($120,000 x 50%)
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:

20% of the qualified business income, $84,000 (20% x $420,000) or
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:

50% of the W-2 wages paid, which is zero or,
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:

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:

Social Security or FICA – 12.4% on the first $128,400 of wages and
Medicare – 2.9% and there is no limit.
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.

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.
Audit Protection – S Corporations have the least chance of being audited by IRS. Sole proprietors have a higher chance.

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

Incorporation Fee – There is a one-time fee to incorporate with the Secretary of State.
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.
Quarterly & Annual Federal and State Payroll Tax Returns – You have to file quarterly and annual federal and state payroll tax returns.
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.

Close

The Supreme Court has reversed and remanded California v. Texas, holding that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision.

In 2010, ACA, under the newly added Code Sec. 5000A, required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage, or pay a penalty. In 2017, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress effectively nullified the penalty by setting its amount at $0. The IRS issued guidance that the statute no longer required taxpayers to report whether they did or did not maintain coverage.

In 2018, Texas and 17 other states brought a lawsuit against the United States and federal officials. They were later joined by two individuals (Neill Hurley and John Nantz). The United States took the side of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that without the penalty, the minimum essential coverage requirement was unconstitutional and that the minimum essential coverage requirement was not severable from the rest of ACA. Hence, they believed ACA as a whole was invalid. California, along with fifteen other states and the District of Columbia, intervened to defend ACA.

The District Court found that the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision, Code Sec. 5000A(a). The court further held that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of ACA. It granted relief in the form of a declaration stating just that. On appeal, a panel majority agreed with the District Court that the plaintiffs had standing and that the minimum essential coverage provision was unconstitutional. It found that the District Court’s severability analysis, however, was "incomplete," and it remanded the case for further analysis.

The Supreme Court did not analyze whether the provision or ACA is unconstitutional, because it held that Texas and the other plaintiffs in the suit lack standing to bring the case. The plaintiffs do not have standing because they were not able to show a past or future injury, pocketbook or otherwise, fairly traceable to the government enforcing the minimum essential coverage requirement. The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss.

Close

The IRS issued two new, separate sets of frequently-asked-questions (FAQs) to assist families and small and mid-sized employers) in claiming credits under the American Rescue Plan (ARP). These FAQs provide information on eligibility, computing the credit amounts and how to claim these important tax benefits. Enacted in March to assist families and small businesses with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery underway, the ARP enhanced the child and dependent care credit and the paid sick and family leave credit.

Child and Dependent Care Credit
For 2021, the ARP increased the maximum amount of work-related expenses for qualifying care that may be taken into account in calculating the credit, increased the maximum percentage of those expenses for which the credit may be taken, modified how the credit is reduced for higher earners, and made it refundable. Additionally, eligible taxpayers can claim qualifying work-related expenses up to:

$8,000 for one qualifying person, up from $3,000 in prior years; or
$16,000 for two or more qualifying persons, up from $6,000 in prior years.

Further, the taxpayers are required to have earnings, and the amount of qualifying work-related expenses claimed cannot exceed the taxpayer’s earnings. Combined with the increase to 50-percent in the maximum credit rate, taxpayers with the maximum amount of qualifying work-related expenses would receive a credit of $4,000 for one qualifying person, or $8,000 for two or more qualifying persons.

A dependent under the age of 13 or a dependent of any age or spouse who is incapable of self-care and who lives with the taxpayer for more than half of the year is considered a qualifying person for this credit. Under the new ARP, more taxpayers will qualify for the new maximum 50-percent credit rate. However, the 50-percent credit rate goes down as income rises above $125,000. Taxpayers with adjusted gross income over $438,000 are not eligible for the credit.

The credit is fully refundable for the first time in 2021. This means eligible taxpayers can receive the credit even if they owe no federal income tax. To be eligible for the refundable credit, a taxpayer must reside in the U.S. for more than half of the year. However, special rules apply to military personnel stationed outside the U.S. To claim the credit for 2021, taxpayers need to complete Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses, and include the form when filing their tax returns in 2022.

Paid Sick and Family Leave Credit
The paid sick and family leave credits reimburse eligible employers for the cost of providing paid sick and family leave to their employees for reasons related to COVID-19, including leave taken by employees to receive or recover from COVID-19 vaccinations. Self-employed individuals are eligible for similar tax credits. Additionally, under the ARP, eligible employers may now claim the credit for paid family leave wages for the same reasons that they can claim the credit for paid sick leave wages.

Under the ARP, eligible employers, including businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees and certain governmental employers, may claim tax credits for qualified leave wages and certain other wage-related expenses (such as health plan expenses and certain collectively bargained benefits) paid with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. The ARP kept the daily wage thresholds that previously existed for these credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) ( P.L. 116-127). The aggregate cap on qualified sick leave wages remains at two weeks (up to a maximum of 80 hours), and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021. The aggregate cap on qualified family leave wages increases to $12,000 from $10,000, and this aggregate cap reset with respect to leave taken by employees beginning on April 1, 2021.

The paid leave credits under the ARP are tax credits against the employer’s share of Medicare tax. This credit is refundable, which means that the employer is entitled to payment of the full amount of he credit to the extent it exceeds the employer’s share of Medicare tax. Self-employed individuals may claim comparable credits on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Close

The IRS has started sending letters to over 36 million families who, based on tax returns filed, may be eligible to receive monthly child tax credit payments starting July. Eligibility of these families are being evaluated based on information provided by taxpayers in their 2019 or 2020 tax returns, or through the Non-Filers tool while registering for an Economic Impact Payment. In addition, taxpayers who are eligible for advance child tax credit payments will receive a second, personalized letter listing an estimate of their monthly payment, starting July 15.

The IRS further announced that eligible families will begin receiving advance payments, either by direct deposit or check. Importantly, this payment will be up to $300 per month for each qualifying child under six years of age, and up to $250 per month, for each qualifying child from ages six to 17. Moreover, advance child tax credit payments will be issued on July 15, August 13, September 15, October 15, November 15 and December 15, 2021.

To avail themselves of these credits, taxpayers who have not yet filed their 2020 or 2019 return should do so as soon as possible, to receive advance payments. The IRS reminded taxpayers who do not normally file returns, such as families experiencing homelessness, that filing soon will ensure that their most current banking information would be applicable. Similarly, community groups, non-profits, associations, education organizations and others with connections to people with children to share this critical information about the child tax credit and other important benefits.

Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers of the changes to child tax credit by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) ( P.L. 117-2). The entire credit is fully refundable for 2021; meaning eligible families can avail themselves of the credit, even if they owe no federal income tax. The IRS also recommends that taxpayers visit the Advance Child Tax Credit Payments in 2021 page to learn more about these changes.

Close

The IRS has finalized regulations relating to the mandatory 60-day postponement of certain time-sensitive tax-related deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster. Further, the regulations clarify the definition of "federally declared disaster." The regulations affect individuals who reside in or were killed or injured in a disaster area, businesses that have a principal place of business in a disaster area, relief workers who provide assistance in a disaster area, or any taxpayer whose tax records necessary to meet a tax deadline are located in a disaster area.

Background
Section 205 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019, enacted as Division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94), amended Code Sec. 7508A relating to the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate to postpone certain time-sensitive tax deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster, by adding Code Sec. 7508A(d). This provision provides qualified taxpayers a mandatory 60-day period that is disregarded "in the same manner as a period specified" under Code Sec. 7508A(a).

On January 13, 2021, the IRS published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM REG-115057-20) to interpret and implement Code Secs. 165(i)(5) and 7508A(d). As described in the proposed regulations, Code Sec. 7508A(d) was ambiguous in at least two important respects—the time-sensitive acts to be postponed (beyond the pension-related actions described in Code Sec. 7508A(d)(4)) were not specified and it was unclear how the mandatory 60-day postponement period was to be calculated when the disaster declaration specified in Code Sec. 7508A(d) did not contain an incident date. The legislative history was also insufficient to explain these areas of ambiguity

Final Regulations
The final regulations adopt the proposed rules including providing that the definition of a federally declared disaster includes both a major disaster and emergencies declared under sections 401 or 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) ( P.L. 100-707). Also, one minor modification has been made to an example in the proposed rules to better illustrate the calculation of the mandatory 60-day postponement period in the event of multiple declarations and shifting "latest" incident dates.

Applicable Date
The final regulations under Code Sec. 7508A for a mandatory 60-day postponement period apply to disasters declared on or after December 21, 2019. The final regulations under Code Sec. 165 for the definition of a federally declared disaster apply June 11, 2021.

Close

The IRS has released a revenue procedure explaining how a taxpayer changes its method of computing depreciation for certain residential rental property. Automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method are available for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Residential Rental Property Allowed 30-Year ADS Depreciation
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) added residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to the list of property to which a 30 year recovery periods applies under the alternative depreciation system (ADS), thus changing the recovery period from 40 years to 30 years. The change applied to property placed in service after December 31, 2017, and therefore only to property newly placed in service.

The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act (Taxpayer Certainly Act) ( P.L. 116-260), enacted December 27, 2020, extended 30-year depreciation to apply to residential rental property placed in service before January 1, 2018 held by certain electing real property trade or businesses. To apply the 30-year recovery period to property already placed in service, taxpayers have to change their computation of depreciation for the property.

Procedures Provided for Changing Depreciation Method
This revenue procedure permits taxpayers who are affected by the Taxpayer Certainly Act's retroactive effective date to file an amended federal income tax return or information return, administrative adjustment request (AAR), or a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, to change their method of computing depreciation of certain residential rental property held by an electing real property trade or business to use a 30-year ADS recovery period. If the property is included in a general asset account, it permits taxpayers to change their general asset account treatment for the property to comply with Reg. §1.168(i)-1(h)(2).

The revenue procedure also provides automatic consent procedures for changing accounting method, and in certain cases simplified procedures, for taxpayers adopting the depreciation method changes.

Close

An eligible partnership may file amended partnership returns for tax years beginning in 2018, 2019, and 2020 by filing a Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income (Form 1065), with the "Amended Return" box checked. The partnership may also issue an amended Schedule K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. (Schedule K-1), to each of its partners.

Partnerships Eligible for Amended-Return Procedures
The amended-return procedures apply to "BBA partnerships," which include most partnerships that are subject to the centralized audit regime provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) ( P.L. 114-74). The centralized audit regime replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) ( P.L. 97–248) partnership procedures.

An eligible BBA partnership may use amended returns to:

change its method of depreciation and/or general asset account treatment for its residential rental property, or
make a late election to be an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7) by filing an amended Form 1065 in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2020-22, 2020-18 IRB 745.

Amended Partnership Returns in Special Situations
If the partnership is currently under examination for a tax year beginning in 2018, 2019, or 2020, it must send written notice to the revenue agent coordinating the before or at the same time it files its amended Form 1065.

If the partnership previously filed an administrative adjustment request (AAR) for a tax year covered by the amended return, it should use the items as adjusted in the AAR on the amended return.

If, under Notice 2019-46, 2019-37 I.R.B. 695, a partnership has applied the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rules of Proposed Reg. §1.951A-5 for tax years ending before June 22, 2019, the partnership may continue to apply those rules to those tax years. However, the partnership must also furnish amended Schedules K-1 and appropriate notifications to its partners.

Close

An estate was allowed a marital deduction because the decedent’s marriage was valid in the country of celebration. The decedent, who was Jewish, obtained a religious divorce under rabbinical law in New York from his first wife after a New York court had declared his Mexican divorce invalid, which resulted in the declaration that his marriage to a second wife was null and void. The decedent traveled to Israel and married his third wife in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony. The Israeli marriage certificate noted that the decedent was free to marry because he was divorced. The government claimed that because the divorce was not valid under state law, no marital deduction was allowed because the property did not pass to the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Marriage Was Valid in New York
Under New York law, the marriage was valid since it was recognized in Israel unless it was contrary to public policy or violated "positive law." Because Code Sec. 2056(a) focuses on the identity of the surviving spouse, the initial question was whether the decedent and the surviving spouse were validly married, and not whether the religious divorce was valid. Under Israeli law, the decedent was validly divorced and could remarry. Thus, for purposes of New York law, the marriage was not bigamous and not contrary to public policy. New York divorce law was not violated by the finding because that law was not broken by a New York resident marrying outside of the state and recognizing a non-New York marriage was not equivalent to ruling on the divorce’s validity. However, the ruling was narrowly focused on whether the New York Court of Appeals would recognize the Israeli marriage, which was not contested by the prior spouse and left undisturbed by the lower courts.

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced that they intend to amend the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) regulations under Code Sec. 59A and Code Sec. 6038A to defer the information reporting requirements for qualified derivative payments (QDPs) until tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. The current regulations provide that the QDP reporting requirements apply to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021.

Background
Under the BEAT rules, a base erosion minimum tax is imposed on certain corporations with annual average annual gross receipts of at least $500 million over the previous three tax years. The tax applies to base erosion payments paid or accrued in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Generally speaking, base erosion payments are certain types of payments made by a taxpayer to foreign related parties or foreign persons.

QDPs are not base erosion payments. A QDP is any payment made by a taxpayer to a foreign related party pursuant to a derivative for which:

the taxpayer recognizes gain or loss on the derivative on a mark-to-market basis (treats the derivative as sold on the last business day of the tax year);
the gain or loss is ordinary; and
any gain, loss, income or deduction on a payment made pursuant to the derivative is also treated as ordinary.

This QDP exception applies only if the taxpayer satisfies certain reporting requirements. Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) requires a taxpayer subject to the BEAT to report on Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts, the aggregate amount of QDPs for the tax year, and make a representation that all payments satisfy the reporting requirements of Reg. §1.59A-6(b)(2).

Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) applies to tax years beginning on or after June 7, 2021. During the “transition period” before that date, a taxpayer is treated as satisfying the reporting requirements to the extent that it reports the aggregate amount of QDPs on Schedule A of Form 8991, provided the taxpayer reports this amount in good faith ( Reg. §§1.59A-6(b)(2)(iv); 1.6038A-2(g)).

QDP Reporting Deferred
The preamble to 2020 final regulations relating to Code Sec. 59A included a comment which recommended that Treasury and the IRS address the interaction of the QDP exception, the BEAT netting rule in Reg. §1.59A-2(e)(3)(vi), and the QDP reporting requirements in Reg. §1.59A-6 and Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix). While studying this matter, Treasury and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to extend the transition period.

Accordingly, Treasury and the IRS intend to amend Reg. §1.6038A-2(g) to provide that Reg. §1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) will apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. Until that reporting requirement applies, the transition period rules described above continue to apply.

Taxpayer Reliance
Taxpayers may rely on this Notice before the amendments to the final regulations are issued.

Close