- Newsletters

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation added by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals on eligibility for the deduction and how the deduction is determined.

General Information

The FAQs explain what constitutes qualified overtime compensation for purposes of the deduction, including overtime compensation required under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that exceeds an employee’s regular rate of pay. The FAQs also describe which individuals are covered by and not exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSA Overtime Eligibility

The FAQs address how individuals, including federal employees, can determine whether they are FLSA overtime-eligible. For federal employees, eligibility is generally reflected on Standard Form 50 and administered by the Office of Personnel Management, subject to certain exceptions.

Deduction Amount and Limits

The FAQs explain that the deduction is limited to a maximum amount of qualified overtime compensation per return and is subject to phase-out based on modified adjusted gross income. Special filing and identification requirements also apply to claim the deduction.

Reporting and Calculation Rules

The FAQs describe how qualified overtime compensation is reported for tax purposes, including special reporting rules for tax year 2025 and required separate reporting by employers for tax years 2026 and later. The FAQs also outline methods taxpayers may use to calculate the deduction if separate reporting is not provided.

FS-2026-1

IR 2026-10

Close

Proposed regulations regarding the deduction for qualified passenger vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) and the information reporting requirements for the receipt of interest on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL), Code Sec. 163(h)(4), as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), provides that for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, personal interest does not include QPVLI. Code Sec. 6050AA provides that any person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives interest from an individual aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL must file an information return reporting the receipt of the interest.

Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest

QPVLI is deductible by an individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust, including a with respect to a grantor trust or disregarded entity deemed owned by the individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust. The deduction for QPVLI may be taken by taxpayers who itemize deductions and those who take the standard deduction. Lease financing would not be considered a purchase of an applicable passenger vehicle (APV) and, thus, would not be considered a SPVL. QPVLI would not include any amounts paid or accrued with respect to lease financing.

Indebtedness will qualify as an SPVL only to the extent it is incurred for the purchase of an APV and for any other items or amounts customarily financed in an APV purchase transaction and that directly relate to the purchased APV, such as vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales, and vehicle-related fees. Indebtedness is an SPVL only if it was originally incurred by the taxpayer, with an exception provided for a change in obligor due to the obligor's death. Original use begins with the first person that takes delivery of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold, registered, or titled and does not begin with the dealer unless the dealer registers or titles the vehicle to itself.

Personal use is defined to mean use by an individual other than in any trade or business, except for use in the trade or business of performing services as an employee, or for the production of income. An APV is considered purchased for personal use if, at the time of the indebtedness is incurred, the taxpayer expects the APV will be used for personal use by the taxpayer that incurred the indebtedness, or by certain members of that taxpayer's family and household, for more than 50 percent of the time. Rules with respect to interest that is both QPVLI and interest otherwise deductible under Code Sec. 163(a) or other Code section are provided and intended to provide clarity and to prevent taxpayers from claiming duplicative interest deductions. The $10,000 limitation of Code Sec. 163(h)(4)(C)(i) applies per federal tax return. Therefore, the maximum deduction on a joint return is $10,000. If two taxpayers have a status of married filing separately, the $10,000 limitation would apply separately to each return.

Information Reporting Requirements

If the interest recipient receives from any individual at least $600 of interest on an SPVL for a calendar year, the interest recipient would need to file an information return with the IRS and furnish a statement to the payor or record on the SPVL. Definitions of terms used in the proposed rules are provided in Prop. Reg. §1.6050AA-1(b).

Assignees of the right to receive interest payments from the lender of record are permitted to rely on the information in the contract if it is sufficient to satisfy its information reporting obligations. The assignee may choose to make arrangements to obtain information regarding personal use from the obligor, lender of record, or by other means. The written statement provided to the payor of record must include the information that was reported to the IRS and identify the statement as important tax information that is being furnished to the IRS and state that penalties may apply for overstated interest deductions.

Effective Dates and Requests for Comments

The regulations are proposed to apply to tax years in which taxpayers may deduct QPVLI pursuant to Code Sec. 163(h)(4). Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 163 with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner. Likewise, interest recipients may rely on the proposed regulations with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the date the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner.

Written or electronic comments must be received by February 2, 2026. A public hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2026.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-113515-25

IR 2025-129

Close

The IRS has released interim guidance to apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68, with some modifications, to the the acquisition date requirement for property qualifying for 100 percent bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k)(1), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). In addition, taxpayers may apply modified rules under to the elections to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, the transitional election to apply the bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA, and the addition of qualified sound recording productions to qualified property under Code Sec, 168(k)(2). Proposed regulations for Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 are forthcoming.

Under OBBBA qualified property acquired and specified plants planted or grafted after January 19, 2025, qualify for 100 percent bonus depreciation. When determining whether such property meets the acquisition date requirements, taxpayers may generally apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68 by substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017” and “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017” each place it appears. In addition taxpayers should substitute “100 percent” for “the applicable percentage” each place it appears, except for the examples provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(g)(2)(iv). Specifically, these rules apply to the acquisition date (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5) and Reg. §1.1502-68(a) through (d)) and the component election for components of larger self-constructed property (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(c)).

With regards to the Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, taxpayer may follow the rules set forth in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(2). Taxpayers making the transitional election to apply the lower bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA may follow Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(3) after substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017”, “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017”, and “40 percent” (“60 percent” in the case of Longer production period property or certain noncommercial aircrafts) for “50 percent”, and applicable Form 4562, Depreciation and Amortization,” for “2017 Form 4562, “Depreciation and Amortization,” each place it appears .

For qualified sound recording productions acquired before January 20, 2025, in a tax year ending after July 4, 2025, taxpayers should apply the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2 as though a qualified sound recording production (as defined in Code Sec. 181(f)) is included in the list of qualified property provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(2)(i). If electing out of bonus depreciation for a qualified sound recording production under Code Sec. 168(k)(7) a taxpayer should follow the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(1) as if the definition of class of property is expanded to each separate production of a qualified sound recording production.

Taxpayers may rely on this guidance for property placed in service in tax years beginning before the date the forthcoming proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Notice 2026-11

IR 2026-6

Close

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2026 Standard Mileage Rates

The standard mileage rates for 2026 are:

72.5 cents per mile for business uses;
20.5 cents per mile for medical uses; and
14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2026

For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2026 is:

$61,700 for passenger automobiles, and
$61,700 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2026 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses

The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20.5 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
on active military duty, and
moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses

For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2025-5, is superseded.

Notice 2026-10

IR 2025-128

Close

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the limitation on the deduction for business interest expense under Code Sec. 163(j). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and reflect statutory changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, and the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.

General Information

The FAQs explain the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, identify taxpayers subject to the limitation, and describe the gross receipts test used to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies as an exempt small business.

Excepted Trades or Businesses

The FAQs address trades or businesses that are excepted from the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, regulated utility trades or businesses, and services performed as an employee.

Determining the Section 163(j) Limitation Amount

The FAQs explain how to calculate the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including the definitions of business interest expense and business interest income, the computation of adjusted taxable income, and the treatment of disallowed business interest expense carryforwards.

CARES Act Changes

The FAQs describe temporary modifications to Code Sec. 163(j) made by the CARES Act, including increased adjusted taxable income percentages and special rules and elections applicable to partnerships and partners for taxable years beginning in 2019 and 2020.

One, Big, Beautiful Bill Changes

The FAQs outline amendments made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, including changes affecting the calculation of adjusted taxable income for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, and the application of Code Sec. 163(j) before interest capitalization provisions for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.

FS-2025-9

IR 2025-126

Close

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing updates to the Premium Tax Credit. The FAQs clarified changes to repayment rules, the removal of outdated provisions and how the IRS will treat updated guidance.

Removal of Repayment Limitations

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, limitations on the repayment of excess advance payments of the Premium Tax Credit no longer applied.

Previously Applicable Provisions

Premium Tax Credit rules that applied only to tax years 2020 and 2021 were no longer applicable and were removed from the FAQs.

Updated FAQs

The FAQs were updated throughout for minor style clarifications, topic updates and question renumbering.

Reliance on FAQs

The FAQs were issued to provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and were not published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Legal Authority

If an FAQ was inconsistent with the law as applied to a taxpayer’s specific circumstances, the law controlled the taxpayer’s tax liability.

Penalty Relief

Taxpayers who reasonably and in good faith relied on the FAQs were not subject to penalties that included a reasonable cause standard for relief, to the extent reliance resulted in an underpayment of tax.

FS-2025-10

IR 2025-127

Close

The IRS issued guidance providing penalty relief to individuals and corporations that make a valid Code Sec. 1062 election to defer taxes on gains from the sale of qualified farmland. Taxpayers who opt to pay their applicable net tax liability in four annual installments will not be penalized under sections 6654 or 6655 for underpaying estimated taxes in the year of the sale.

The relief permits these taxpayers to exclude 75 percent of the deferred tax from their estimated tax calculations for that year. However, 25 percent of the tax liability must still be paid by the return due date for the year of the sale. The IRS emphasized that this waiver applies automatically if the taxpayer qualifies and does not self-report the penalty.

Taxpayers who have already reported a penalty or receive an IRS notice can request abatement by filing Form 843, noting the relief under Notice 2026-3. This measure aligns with the policy objectives of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which introduced section 1062 to support farmland continuity by facilitating sales to qualified farmers. The IRS also plans to update relevant forms and instructions to reflect the changes, ensuring clarity for those seeking relief.

Notice 2026-3

Close

The IRS has extended the transition period provided in Rev. Rul. 2025-4, I.R.B. 2025-6, for states administering paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs and employers participating in such programs with respect to the portion of medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual that is attributable to employer contributions, for an additional year.

The IRS found that states with PMFL statuses have requested that the transition period be extended for an additional year or that the effective date be amended because the required changes cannot occur within the current timeline. For this reason, calendar year 2026 will be regarded as an additional transition period for purposes of IRS enforcement and administration with respect to the following components:

For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026,with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to follow the income tax withholding and reporting requirements applicable to third-party sick pay, and (b)consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties under Code Sec. 6721 for failure to file a correct information return or under Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish a correct payee statement to the payee; and
For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026, with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to comply with § 32.1 and related Code sections (as well as similar requirements under § 3306) during thecalendar year; (b) a state or an employer is not required to withhold and pay associatedtaxes; and (c) consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties.

This notice is effective for medical leave benefits paid from states to individuals during calendar year 2026.

Notice 2026-6

Close

Addressing health care will be the key legislative priority a 2026 starts, leaving little chance that Congress will take up any significant tax-related legislation in the coming election year, at least until health care is taken care of.

Top legislative staff from the tax writing committees in Congress (House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee) were all in basic agreement during a January 7, 2026, panel discussion at the 2026 D.C. Bar Tax Conference that health care would be tackled first.

“I will say that my judgement, and this is not the official party line, by that my judgement is that a deal on health care is going to have to unlock before there’s a meaningful tax vehicle,” Andrew Grossman, chief tax counsel for the House Ways And Means Committee Democratic staff, said, adding that it is difficult to see Democratic members working on tax extenders and other provisions when 15 million are about to lose their health insurance.

Sean Clerget, chief tax counsel for the Ways and Means GOP staff, added that “our view’s consistent with what Andrew [Grossman] said, adding that committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) “would be very open to having a tax vehicle whether or not there’s a health care deal, but obviously we need bipartisan cooperation to move something like that. And so, Andrew’s comments are sort of very important to the outlook on this.”

Even some of the smaller items that may have bipartisan support could be held up as the parties work to find common ground on health care legislation.

“It’s hard to see some of the smaller tax items that are hanging out there getting over the finish line without a deal on health, Sarah Schaefer, chief tax advisor to the Democratic staff of the Senate Finance Committee, said. “And I think our caucus will certainly hold out for that.”

Randy Herndon, deputy chief tax counsel for the Finance Committee Republican staff, added that he agreed with Clerget and said that Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) would be “open to a tax vehicle absent any health care deal, but understand, again, the bipartisan cooperation that would be required.”

No Planned OBBBA Part 2

Clerget said that currently there no major reconciliation bill on the horizon to follow up on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but “I’ve always thought that if there were to be a second reconciliation bill, it would need to be very narrow for a very specific purpose, rather than a large kind of open, multicommittee, big bill.”

Herndon added that Chairman Crapo’s “current focus is on pursuing potential bipartisan priorities in the Finance Committee jurisdiction,” noting that a lot of the GOP priorities were addressed in the OBBBA “and our members are very invested in seeing that through the implementation process.”

Of the things we can expect the committees to work on, Herndon identified areas ripe for legislative activity in the coming year, including crypto and tax administration bills and other focused issues surrounding affordability, but GOP members will more be paying attention to the implementation of OBBBA.

Schaefer said that Finance Committee Democrats will maintain a focus on the child tax credit as well as working to get reinstated clean energy credits that were allowed to expire.

Clerget said that of the things that could happen on this legislative calendar is on the taxation of digital assets, stating that “I think there’s a lot of interest in establishing clear tax rules in the digital asset space.… I think we have a good prospect of getting bipartisan cooperation on the tax side of digital assets.”

He also said there has been a lot of bipartisan cooperation on tax administration in 2025, suggesting that the parties could keep working on improving the taxpayer experience in 2026.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a limited partner in a state-law limited partnership that has limited liability. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310).

Background

A limited liability limited partnership operated a business consulting firm, and was owned by several limited partners and one general partner. For the tax years at issue, the limited partnership allocated all of its ordinary business income to its limited partners. Based on the limited partnership tax exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), the limited partnership excluded the limited partners’ distributive shares of partnership income or loss from its calculation of net earnings from self-employment during those years, and reported zero net earnings from self-employment.

The IRS adjusted the limited partnership's net earnings from self-employment, and determined that the distributive share exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply because none of the limited partnership’s limited partners counted as "limited partners" for purposes of the statutory exception. The Tax Court upheld the adjustments, stating it was bound by Soroban.

Limited Partners and Self Employment Tax

Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) excludes from a partnership's calculation of net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments in Code Sec. 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services.

In Soroban, the Tax Court determined that Congress had enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) to exclude earnings from a mere investment, and intended for the phrase “limited partners, as such” to refer to passive investors. Thus, the Tax Court there held that the limited partner exception of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply to a partner who is limited in name only, and that determining whether a partner is a limited partner in name only required an inquiry into the limited partner's functions and roles.

Passive Investor Treatment

Here, the Fifth Circuit rejected the interpretation that "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) refers only to passive investors in a limited partnership. Reviewing the text of the statute, the court determined that dictionaries at the time of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13)’s enactment defined "limited partner" as a partner in a limited partnership that has limited liability and is not bound by the obligations of the partnership. Also, longstanding interpretation by the Social Security Administration and the IRS had confirmed that a "limited partner" is a partner with limited liability in a limited partnership. IRS partnership tax return instructions had for decades defined "limited partner" as one whose potential personal liability for partnership debts was limited to the amount of money or other property that the partner contributed or was required to contribute to the partnership.

The Fifth Circuit determined that the interpretation of "limited partner" as a mere "passive investor" in a limited partnership is wrong. The court stated that the passive-investor interpretation makes little sense of the "guaranteed payments" clause in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), and that the text of the statute contemplates that "limited partners" would provide actual services to the partnership and thus participate in partnership affairs. A strict passive-investor interpretation that defined "limited partner" in a way that prohibited him from providing any services to the partnership would make the "guaranteed payments" clause superfluous.

Further, the court stated that had Congress wished to only exclude passive investors from the tax, it could have easily written the exception to do so, but it did not do so in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Additionally, the passive investor interpretation would require the IRS to balance an infinite number of factors in performing its "functional analysis test," and would make it more complicated for limited partners to determine their tax liability.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court's conclusion in Soroban that by adding the words "as such" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), Congress had made clear that the limited partner exception applies only to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner. Adding "as such" did not restrict or narrow the class of limited partners, and does not upset the ordinary meaning of "limited partner."

Vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5

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