- Newsletters

About 830,000 taxpayers are having their tax refunds held up due to the move away from paper checks and Democratic leadership on the House Ways and Means Committee is seeking information on what the IRS is doing to expedite the issuance of those refunds.

House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support Ranking Member Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Subcommittee on Oversight Ranking Member Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), in a March 9, 2026, letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Scott Bessent, noted that to date 530,000 notices have been sent to individual taxpayers who did not include bank account information on their tax returns and are planning to send another 300,000 notices this week.

“As a result of President Trump’s Executive Order 14247 mandating electronic payments of tax refunds, these taxpayers could face more than a 10-week delay (over 2.5 months) in receiving their refunds by paper check,” the letter states, adding a National Taxpayer Advocate citation stating that more than 10 million individual taxpayers received their refunds by check.

They continued: “Having reviewed the IRS notice and called the IRS phone lines, we learned that there is no simple process for these taxpayers to request an immediate release of their refund by paper check without waiting at least 10 weeks. Effectively, the President, unilaterally through his Executive Order, is causing undue hardship on millions of Americans by delaying their paper refunds for months. This delay is not mandated by the Internal Revenue Code.”

The ranking members ask Bessent a series of questions, including how IRS taxpayers without an online account can apply for a paper check and immediate release of funds; how many notices have been sent and are expected to be released; how many tax payers have exceptions have been successfully filed; and how many paper checks have been mailed to date.

The representatives asked for answers by March 23, 2026.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2026 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2026.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2026 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

$12,300 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$20,300 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$19,800 for the second year
$11,900 for the third year
$7,160 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2026 are:

$12,300 for the first year without bonus depreciation
$20,300 for the first year with bonus depreciation
$19,800 for the second year
$11,900 for the third year
$7,160 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

$7,160 for passenger cars and
$7,160 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2026, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

$62,000 for a passenger car, or
$62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2026 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Vehicles Exempt from Depreciation Caps and Lease Inclusion Amounts

The depreciation caps and lease inclusion amounts do not apply to:

cars with an unloaded gross vehicle weight of more than 6,000 pounds; or
SUVs, trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds.

So taxpayers who want to avoid these limits should "think big."

Rev. Proc. 2026-15

Close

The IRS has released guidance on the withdrawal of an election to be an excepted trade or business for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The election is made by filing an amended income tax return, amended Form 1065, or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitation. The withdrawal allows a taxpayer to make depreciation adjustments or a late election not to deduct the additional first-year depreciation (bonus depreciation) for certain property in light of recent legislative changes.

The IRS has released guidance on the withdrawal of an election to be an excepted trade or business for the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest limitation for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The election is made by filing an amended income tax return, amended Form 1065, or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitation. The withdrawal allows a taxpayer to make depreciation adjustments or a late election not to deduct the additional first-year depreciation (bonus depreciation) for certain property in light of recent legislative changes. Guidance is also provided on the early election or revocation of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) CFC group election.

Background

A taxpayer’s deduction of business interest expenses paid or incurred for the tax year is generally limited under section 163(j) to the taxpayer’s business interest income for that year and 30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI). The deduction limit does not apply to certain excepted businesses, including an electing real property trade or business, electing farming business, or regulated utility trade or business.

The election applies to the current tax year and all subsequent tax years. The election is irrevocable but may automatically terminate in certain circumstances. An electing real property trade or business or electing farming business that elects out of the section 163(j) limit must depreciate certain property using alternative depreciation system (ADS) and as a result cannot claim bonus depreciation for that property.

Election Withdrawal

An election to be an excepted trade or business for the section 163(j) business interest limit may be withdrawn for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax year. The withdrawal is made by attaching a statement to the taxpayer’s amended income tax return, amended Form 1065 , or administrative adjustment request (AAR) on or before October 15, 2026, or applicable statute of limitations per the IRS guidance.

A taxpayer that receives an amended Schedule K-1 as a result of an amended return or Form 1065 should similarly file an amended return, amended Form 1065, or AAR with a similar attached statement. If a taxpayer withdraws an election, the taxpayer will be treated as if the election had never been made.

Depreciation Adjustments

A taxpayer that is withdrawing an excepted trade or business interest election under section 163(j) must determine its depreciation deduction and basis for the property that is affected by the withdrawn election in accordance with Code Sec. 168. A taxpayer that makes the withdrawals may make a late election under Code Sec. 168(k)(7) to opt certain property out of bonus depreciation on the same amended Federal income tax return, amended Form 1065, or AAR filed for withdrawing the section 163(j) excepted trade or business election.

CFC Group Election

A taxpayer that is a designated U.S. person may revoke or make a CFC group election without regard to the 60-month limitation of § 1.163(j)-7(e)(5)(ii) for the first specified period of a specified group beginning after December 31, 2024. A taxpayer that chooses to revoke the election or make a new election must follow all procedures specified in the regulation other than the 60-month limit. In addition, the 60-month limitation applies to subsequent specified periods.

Rev. Proc. 2026-17

Close

Internal Revenue Service CEO Frank Bisignano highlighted the early successes of the tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act before the House Ways and Means Committee while defending or deflecting critical commentary from the panel’s Democratic representatives.

In his opening statement during the March 4, 2026, hearing, Bisignano noted that the tax benefit to individuals under these provisions is “estimated to be $220 billion,” noting key aspects like the no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and the Trump accounts helping to pave the way to the benefits.

He also highlighted the growth of 43 percent in usage of online tools, which he said is coinciding with a decrease in demand for phone service.

“Our goal is for taxpayers is our transformational efforts to create a seamless customer experience where taxpayers can interact with the IRS with the same ease they expect from the private sector,” Bisignano told the committee.

Bisignano during the hearing framed AI simply as a tool in the technology toolbox and stated that he didn’t simply want to “modernize” IRS systems because all that does is lead to future obsolescence, but framed information technology upgrades as “transforming” the systems to be able to evolve with technology, which “will increase compliance and increase simplification.”

He was put on the defensive on the subject of audit rates, with questions suggesting that the agency is not doing its job in terms of auditing high income and other wealthy taxpayers, which will lead to a greater tax gap.

Bisignano tried to interject that there was a $2 billion settlement reached but was not given an opportunity to expand upon the circumstances around the recovery, as Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Ca.) noted that “fewer audits of wealthy tax cheats and more scrutiny of working families” doesn’t build “trust among the American taxpayers.”

In answering a separate question regarding audit rates, he pushed back on the increase or decrease in audit rates, testifying that there has never been a standard audit rate that has been proven to be the right number and it could be more or less than where things are at now.

Bisignano defended the cutting of the National Treasury Employees Union contract, stating that by statute, federal employees already have “greater benefits that any union in the world can provide for their people,” including pay, health, and other benefits that are guaranteed by law. “So they are losing nothing,” he said.

He also defended the elimination of the Direct File program, citing its lack of utilization and its costs to operate the program, while promoting Free File as “well-received” and a well-used and trusted program.

Bisignano avoided any discussion regarding the IRS turning over taxpayer information to the Department of Homeland Security without proper authorization, noting that litigation on this issue was still ongoing. He confirmed that so far, no one has been fired or disciplined for this unauthorized information transmission.

He also would not commit to opening any of the closed Taxpayer Assistance Centers, noting that the current centers were experiencing increased activity, although he did add that there were no plans to close any of the existing centers.

Adoption Credit Update

Bisignano told the committee that the IRS will be implementing a provision that for tax year 2025, carry forward amounts of the adoption credit for prior years are refundable up to $5,000 per qualifying child, “and the IRS is implementing this policy as expeditiously as possible without disrupting the current filing season.”

He said there is will be information on this published “very soon” and that taxpayers “should continue to claim the credit as directed by the current tax forms and instructions during the tax season, since the IRS is pursuing post-filing remedies to solve this issue.”

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The IRS has finalized regulations to include unmarked vehicles used by firefighters, members of rescue squads, or ambulance crews in the list of “qualified nonpersonal use vehicles” exempt from the IRC §274(d) substantiation requirements. The final rule adopts, with only minor, non-substantive changes, the text of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-106595- 22) issued on December 3, 2024. The amendments ensure that specially equipped unmarked vehicles are subject to the same tax treatment as other emergency vehicles used by first responders.

Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicles

IRC §274(d) requires that taxpayers satisfy additional substantiation requirements when claiming certain business deductions including the business use of an automobile or other means of transportation. A qualified nonpersonal use vehicle is any vehicle that, by reason of its nature, is not likely to be used more than a de minimis amount for personal purposes. Reg. §1.274-5(k)(2)(ii) provides a list of such vehicles, which includes, in part: ambulances; clearly marked police, fire, public safety officer vehicles; and unmarked police vehicles.

Unmarked Emergency Vehicles

Recently, some municipalities have been providing unmarked vehicles to these first responders as a response to an increase in incidents of vandalism and harassment. These unmarked vehicles are typically equipped with special equipment such as lights and sirens, medical emergency equipment, communication radios, and personal protective equipment. Most fire and emergency response departments retain the title to these unmarked vehicles and have policies that limit the use of the vehicles for personal purposes.

The intent and use of these unmarked vehicles meet the definition of qualified nonpersonal vehicles provided in IRC §274(i). However, prior to the amendments, fire and emergency response departments had to substantiate the time the first responders spent using these unmarked vehicles for work related purposes. Personal use of these vehicles, no matter how minute, was required to be included in that employee’s income.

In addition to adding unmarked rescue to the list of qualified nonpersonal use vehicles provided in Reg. §1.274-5(k)(2)(ii), the amendments add Reg. §1.274-5(k)(7) which provides the definitions for “unmarked firefighter, rescue squad or ambulance crew vehicles”, “firefighter,” and “member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.”

The amendments apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may rely on the guidance provided in the proposed regulations until that date.

T.D. 10043

Close

Proposed regulations under Code Sec. 530A, providing guidance on making an election to open a Trump account, and under Code Sec. 6434, relating to the Trump account contribution pilot program, have been issued. Comments are requested and should be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (indicate IRS and REG-117270-25 for comments related to Code Sec. 530A or IRS and REG-117002-25 for comments related to Code Sec. 6434). The proposed regulations are proposed to apply on or after January 1, 2026.

Background

Code Sec. 530A, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) provides for the creation of a Trump account for an eligible individual. A Trump account is subject to certain special rules that do not apply to other types of individual retirement accounts during the growth period, which is the period that begins when an initial Trump account is established and ends on December 31st of the year in which the account beneficiary of the initial Trump account reaches the age of 17. Proposed regulations on the special rules that apply during and after the growth period are reserved and will be proposed at a later date.

In addition, Code Sec. 6434 was added, which provides for a one-time $1,000 pilot program contribution to the Trump account of an eligible child with respect to whom an election is made. The qualifications to be an eligible child are less restrictive than those to be an eligible individual. Finally, Code Sec. 128 allows for employer contributions to a Trump account of an employee or a dependent of an employee. These contributions must be made in accordance with the rules of a Code Sec. 128(c) Trump account contribution program. Guidance on this section is expected to be released in the future.

General Requirements and Election to Open an Account

A Trump account is either (1) an initial Trump account, created or organized by the Treasury Secretary for an eligible individual or (2) a rollover Trump account, which is an account created during the growth period and funded by a qualified rollover contribution from the account beneficiary's existing Trump account. An individual can only have one Trump account containing funds in existence at a time. The written governing instrument of a Trump account must generally meet the rules of Code Sec. 408(a)(1) through (6) and Code Sec. 530A (b)(1)(C)(i) through (iii). Any person approved by the IRS as of December 31, 2025, to be a nonbank trustee of an IRA would have automatic approval to act as a trustee of a Trump account. The written instrument must clearly identify the account as a Trump account at the time of creation.

An election to open an account can be made by either an authorized individual or by the Secretary. If a pilot program contribution election is made at the same as the election to open the initial account, the authorized individual would be the individual authorized to make (and making) the pilot program contribution election. If a pilot contribution program election is not being made, Prop. Reg. §1.530A-1(c)(1)(i)(B) provides an ordering rule to determine who the authorized individual is. In order of priority, the authorized individual would be a legal guardian, parent, adult sibling, or grandparent of the eligible individual. The election to open an initial Trump account is made on or before December 31st of the calendar year in which the eligible individual attains age 18. The election is made on Form 4547 or through an electronic application or webpage made available by the Secretary.

Contribution Pilot Program

A pilot program election with respect to an eligible child must be made by a pilot program-electing individual so that the Secretary can make the $1,000 pilot program contribution into the Trump account of en eligible child. An eligible child is a pilot program-electing individual's anticipated qualifying child, as defined in Code Sec. 152(c), for the tax year of the pilot program-electing individual in which the pilot program election is made; is born in 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028; is a U.S. citizen; has been issued a social security number; and with respect to which no prior pilot program election has been made by any individual and processed by the Secretary.

A pilot program election is made with respect to the eligible child's "special taxable year" (defined in Prop. Reg. §301.6434-1(c)(1)), instead of with respect to any calendar based tax year for the eligible child's federal income tax liability. Once an election is processed, the eligible child is treated as making a $1,000 payment against a federal income tax liability for the eligible child's special taxable year, resulting in a $1,000 overpayment. The overpayment is then refunded by the Secretary as a pilot program contribution to the eligible child's Trump account. The overpayment is not refunded unless the eligible child has an established Trump account.

An election may be made on the day that a child becomes eligible, and the last day to make the election is December 31st of the calendar year in which the eligible child attains age 17. In addition, only the first pilot program contribution election processed by the IRS will result in a $1,000 contribution to the eligible child's Trump account. The pilot program contribution election is made on Form 4547.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117270-25

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-117002-25

IR 2026-31

IR 2026-33

Close

The IRS expects to delay the applicability date of proposed regulations on required minimum distributions (RMDs) until the distribution calendar year that would begin 6 months after the date the regulations are finalized. Specifically, the announcement relates to proposed amendments of Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-4, 1.401(a)(9)-5, and 1.401(a)(9)-6, issued pursuant to NPRM REG–103529–23 .

Background

Prior to this announcement, provisions under NPRM REG–103529–23 (2024) were proposed to apply for determining RMDs for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. This ensured the provisions would begin to apply at the same time as final regulations under T.D. 10001 (2024).

Following a request for comments, concerns included difficulty to implement many provisions of future final regulations in a timely manner if the January 1, 2025, applicability date were to be retained in future final regulations.

Future Final Regulations

The IRS expects future final regulations that would amend Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-4, 1.401(a)(9)-5, and 1.401(a)(9)-6, issued pursuant to NPRM REG–103529–23, to apply to determine RMDs for the distribution calendar year that would begin no earlier than six months after the date that any future final regulations would be issued in the Federal Register. For periods before the applicability date of such future final regulations, taxpayers must continue to apply a reasonable, good-faith interpretation.

Announcement 2026-7

Close

The IRS has issued a waiver for individuals who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in certain foreign countries prevented them from fulfilling the requirements for the 2025 tax year. Qualified individuals may elect to exclude from gross income their foreign earned income and to exclude or deduct the housing cost amount.

Relief Provided

The IRS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has determined that war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions precluded the normal conduct of business in the following countries, effective from the dates specified: (1) Haiti – January 1, 2025; (2) Ukraine – January 1, 2025; (3) Democratic Republic of the Congo – January 28, 2025; (4) South Sudan – March 7, 2025; (5) Iraq – June 11, 2025; (6) Lebanon – June 22, 2025; and (7) Mali – October 30, 2025. An individual who left any of these countries on or after the respective dates will be treated as a qualified individual for the period during which the individual was a bona fide resident of, or was present in, the country. To qualify for relief, an individual must establish that, but for these adverse conditions, they would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1). Additionally, the waiver does not apply to individuals who first established residency or were physically present in any of these countries after the respective dates listed above. Taxpayers seeking guidance on how to claim this exclusion or file an amended return should refer to the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion section at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion or contact a local IRS office.

Rev. Proc. 2026-16

Close

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

Middle-Income Tax Cut

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

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

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

New Congress, New Tax Cut

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

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

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

Net Neutral

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

Close

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

Transition Tax

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

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

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

AICPA Recommendations

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

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

ABA Recommendations

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

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

Close

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

Close