The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

Background

Code Sec. 6050W requires payment settlement entities to file Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions, for each calendar year for payments made in settlement of certain reportable payment transactions. Among other information, the return must report the gross amount of the reportable payment transactions regarding a participating payee to whom payments were made in the calendar year. As originally enacted, Code Sec. 6050W(e) provided that TPSOs are not required to report third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the gross amount that would otherwise be reported is more than $20,000 and the number of such transactions with that payee is more than 200.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) amended Code Sec. 6050W(e) so that, for calendar years beginning after 2021, a TPSO must report third party network transaction settlement payments that exceed a minimum threshold of $600 in aggregate payments, regardless of the number of transactions. The IRS has delayed implementing the amended TPSO reporting threshold for calendar years beginning before January 1, 2023, and for calendar year 2023 (Notice 2023-10; Notice 2023-74).

For backup withholding purposes, a reportable payment includes payments made by a TPSO that must be reported on Form 1099-K, without regard to the thresholds in Code Sec. 6050W. The IRS has provided interim guidance on backup withholding for reportable payments made in settlement of third party network transactions (Notice 2011-42).

Reporting Relief

Under the new transition relief, a TPSO will not be required to report payments in settlement of third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than:

• $5,000 for calendar year 2024;
• $2,500 for calendar year 2025.

This relief does not apply to payment card transactions.

For those transition years, the IRS will not assert information reporting penalties under Code Sec. 6721 or Code Sec. 6722 against a TPSO for failing to file or furnish Forms 1099-K unless the gross amount of aggregate payments to be reported exceeds the specific threshold amount for the year, regardless of the number of transactions.

In calendar year 2026 and after, TPSOs will be required to report transactions on Form 1099-K when the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than $600, regardless of the number of transactions.

Backup Withholding Relief

For calendar year 2024 only, the IRS will not assert civil penalties under Code Sec. 6651 or Code Sec. 6656 for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax during the calendar year. However, TPSOs that have performed backup withholding for a payee during 2024 must file Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax, and Form 1099-K with the IRS, and must furnish a copy of Form 1099-K to the payee.

For calendar year 2025 and after, the IRS will assert those penalties for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax.

Effect on Other Documents

Notice 2011-42 is obsoleted.

Notice 2024-85

IR-2024-299

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

Background

Code Sec. 752(a) treats an increase in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, as well as an increase in the partner’s individual liabilities when the partner assumes partnership liabilities, as a contribution of money by the partner to the partnership. Code Sec. 752(b) treats a decrease in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, or a decrease in the partner’s own liabilities on the partnership’s assumption of those liabilities, as a distribution of money by the partnership to the partner.

The regulations under Code Sec. 752(a), i.e., Reg. §§1.752-1 through 1.752-6, treat a partnership liability as recourse to the extent the partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss and nonrecourse to the extent that no partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss.

According to the existing regulations, a partner bears the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability if the partner or a related person has a payment obligation under Reg. §1.752-2(b), is a lender to the partnership under Reg. §1.752-2(c), guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability as provided in Reg. §1.752-2(e), or pledges property as security for a partnership liability as described in Reg. §1.752-2(h).

Proposed regulations were published in December 2013 (REG-136984-12). These final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with modifications.

The Final Regulations

The amendments to the regulations under Reg. §1.752-2(a) provide a proportionality rule for determining how partners share a partnership liability when multiple partners bear the economic risk of loss for the same liability. Specifically, the economic risk of loss that a partner bears is the amount of the partnership liability or portion thereof multiplied by a fraction that is obtained by dividing the economic risk of loss borne by that partner by the sum of the economic risk of loss borne by all the partners with respect to that liability.

The final regulations also provide guidance on how a lower-tier partnership allocates a liability when a partner in an upper-tier partnership is also a partner in the lower-tier partnership and bears the economic risk of loss for the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The lower-tier partnership in this situation must allocate the liability directly to the partner that bears the economic risk of loss with respect to the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The final regulations clarify how this rule applies when there are overlapping economic risks of loss among unrelated partners, and the amendments add an example illustrating application of the proportionality rule to tiered partnerships. They also add a sentence to Reg. §1.704-2(k)(5) clarifying that an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability that is treated as the upper-tier partnership’s liability under Reg. §1.752-4(a), with the result that partner nonrecourse deduction attributable to the lower-tier partnership’s liability are allocated to the upper-tier partnership under Reg. §1.704-2(i).

In addition, the final regulations list in one section all the situations under Reg. §1.752-2 in which a person directly bears the economic risk of loss, including situations in which the de minimis exceptions in Reg. §1.752-2(d) are taken into account. The amendments state that a person directly bears the economic risk of loss if that person—and not a related person—meets all the requirements of the listed situations.

For purposes of rules on related parties under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(1), the final regulations disregard: (1) Code Sec. 267(c)(1) in determining if an upper-tier partnership’s interest in a lower-tier partnership is owned proportionately by or for the upper-tier partnership’s partners when a lower-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the upper-tier partnership; and (2) Code Sec. 1563(e)(2) in determining if a corporate partner in a partnership and a corporation owned by the partnership are members of the same controlled group when the corporation directly bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the owner partnership. The regulations state that in both these situations a partner should not be treated as bearing the economic risk of loss when the partner’s risk is limited to the partner’s equity investment in the partnership.

Under the final regulations, if a person owning an interest in a partnership is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability, then other persons owning interests in that partnership are not treated as related to that person for purposes of determining the economic risk of loss that they bear for the partnership liability.

The final regulations also provide that if a person is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability and is related to more than one partner, then the partners related to that person share the liability equally. The related partners are treated as bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability in proportion to each related partner’s interest in partnership profits.

The final regulations contain an ordering rule in which the first step in Reg. §1.762-4(e) is to determine whether any partner directly bears the economic risk of loss for the partnership liability and apply the related-partner exception in Reg. §1.752-4(b)(2). The next step is to determine the amount of economic risk of loss each partner is considered to bear under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(3) when multiple partners are related to a person directly bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability. The final step is to apply the proportionality rule to determine the economic risk of loss that each partner bears when the amount of the economic risk of loss that multiple partners bear exceeds the amount of partnership liability.

The IRS and Treasury indicate that they are continuing to study whether additional guidance is needed on the situation in which an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability and distributes, in a liquidating distribution, its interest in the lower-tier partnership to one of its partners when the transferee partner does not bear the economic risk of loss.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. 10014 apply to any liability incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after December 2, 2024. Taxpayers may apply the final regulations to all liabilities incurred or assumed by a partnership, including those incurred or assumed before December 2, 2024, with respect to all returns (including amended returns) filed after that date; but in that case a partnership must apply the final regulations consistently to all its partnership liabilities.

T.D. 10014

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

The final regs generally adopt proposed regs issued on November 22, 2023 (NPRM REG-132569-17) with some minor modifications.

Hydrogen Energy Storage P property

he Proposed Regulations required that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes such as for the production of end products like fertilizer. However, the IRS recognize that the statute does not include that requirement. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt the requirement that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen that is solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes.

The final regulations also provide that property that is an integral part of hydrogen energy storage property includes, but is not limited to, hydrogen liquefaction equipment and gathering and distribution lines within a hydrogen energy storage property. However, the IRS declined to adopt comments requesting that the final regulations provide that chemical storage, that is, equipment used to store hydrogen carriers (such as ammonia and methanol), is hydrogen energy storage property.

Thermal Energy Storage Property

To clarify the proposed definition of “thermal energy storage property,” the final regs provide that such property does not include property that transforms other forms of energy into heat in the first instance. The final regulations also clarify the requirements for property that removes heat from, or adds heat to, a storage medium for subsequent use. Under a safe harbor, thermal energy storage property satisfies this requirement if it can store energy that is sufficient to provide heating or cooling of the interior of a residential or commercial building for at least one hour. The final regs also include additional storage methods and clarify rules for property that includes a heat pump system.

Biogas P property

The final regulations modify several elements of the rules governing biogas property. Gas upgrading equipment is included in cleaning and conditioning property. The final regs clarify that property that is an integral part of qualified biogas property includes but is not limited to a waste feedstock collection system, landfill gas collection system, and mixing and pumping equipment. While a qualified biogas property generally may not capture biogas for disposal via combustion, combustion in the form of flaring will not disqualify a biogas property if the primary purpose of the property is sale or productive use of biogas and any flaring complies with all relevant laws and regulations. The methane content requirement is measured at the point at which the biogas exits the qualified biogas property.

Unit of Energy P property

To clarify how the definition of a unit of energy property is applied to solar energy property, the final regs update an example illustrate that the unit of energy property is all the solar panels that are connected to a common inverter, which would be considered an integral part of the energy property, or connected to a common electrical load, if a common inverter does not exist. Accordingly, a large, ground-mounted solar energy property may comprise one or more units of energy property depending upon the number of inverters. For rooftop solar energy property, all components of property that are installed on a single rooftop are considered a single unit of energy property.

Energy Projects

The final regs modify the definition of an energy project to provide more flexibility. However, the IRS declined to adopt a simple facts-and-circumstances analysis so an energy project must still satisfy particular and specific factors.

T.D. 10015

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

Background

A partnership with Section 751 property must provide information to each transferor and transferee that are parties to a sale or exchange of an interest in the partnership in which any money or other property received by a transferor in exchange for all or part of the transferor’s interest in the partnership is attributable to Section 751 property. The partnership must file Form 8308 as an attachment to its Form 1065 for the partnership's tax year that includes the last day of the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange took place. The partnership must also furnish a statement to the transferor and transferee by the later of January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange occurred, or 30 days after the partnership has received notice of the exchange as specified under Code Sec. 6050K and Reg. §1.6050K-1. The partnership must use a copy of the completed Form 8308 as the required statement, or provide or a statement that includes the same information.

In 2020, Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) was amended to require a partnership to furnish to a transferor partner the information necessary for the transferor to make the transferor partner’s required statement in Reg. §1.751-1(a)(3). Among other items, a transferor partner in a Section 751(a) exchange is required to submit with the partner’s income tax return a statement providing the amount of gain or loss attributable to Section 751 property. In October 2023, the IRS added new Part IV to Form 8308, which requires a partnership to report, among other items, the partnership’s and the transferor partner’s share of Section 751 gain and loss, collectibles gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(5), and unrecaptured Section 1250 gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(6).

In January 2024, the IRS provided relief due to concerns that many partnerships would not be able to furnish the information required in Part IV of the 2023 Form 8308 to transferors and transferees by the January 31, 2024 due date, because, in many cases, partnerships would not have all of the required information by that date (Notice 2024-19, I.R.B. 2024-5, 627).

The relief below has been provided due to similar concerns for furnishing information for Section 751(a) exchanges occurring in calendar year 2024.

Penalty Relief

For Section 751(a) exchanges during calendar year 2024, the IRS will not impose the failure to furnish a correct payee statement penalty on a partnership solely for failure to furnish Form 8308 with a completed Part IV by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), only if the partnership:

• timely and correctly furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of Parts I, II, and III of Form 8308, or a statement that includes the same information, by the later of January 31, 2025, or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange, and
• furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of the complete Form 8308, including Part IV, or a statement that includes the same information and any additional information required under Reg. §1.6050K-1(c), by the later of the due date of the partnership’s Form 1065 (including extensions), or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange.

This notice does not provide relief with respect to a transferor partner’s failure to furnish the notification to the partnership required by Reg. §1.6050K-1(d). This notice also does not provide relief with respect to filing Form 8308 as an attachment to a partnership’s Form 1065, and so does not provide relief from failure to file correct information return penalties under Code Sec. 6721.

Notice 2025-2

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

AICPA noted that the while there a preliminary injunction has been put in place nationwide by a U.S. district court, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has already filed its appeal and the rules could be still be reinstated.

"While we do not know how the Fifth Circuit court will respond, the AIPCA continues to advise members that, at a minimum, those assisting clients with BOI report filings continue to gather the required information from their clients and [be] prepared to file the BOI report if the inunction is lifted," AICPA Vice President of Tax Policy & Advocacy Melanie Lauridsen said in a statement.

She continued: "The AICPA realizes that there is a lot of confusion and anxiety that business owners have struggled with regarding BOI reporting requirements and we, together with our partners at the State CPA societies, have continued to advocate for a delay in the implementation of this requirement."

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted on December 3, 2024, a motion for preliminary injunction requested in a lawsuit filed by Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., et al, against the federal government to halt the implementation of BOI regulations.

In his order granting the motion for preliminary injunction, United States District Judge Amos Mazzant wrote that its "most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties."

He noted that this request represents a "drastic" departure from history:

First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law – a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States; and

Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formations as designed by various States – anonymity.

"For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi-Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government," he continued. "As a result, the Plantiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our Constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS highlighted that plaintiff’s attorneys or law firms representing clients in lawsuits on a contingency fee basis may receive as much as 40 percent of the settlement amount that they then defer by entering an arrangement with a third party unrelated to the litigation, who then may distribute to the taxpayer in the future. Generally, this happens 20 years or more from the date of the settlement. Subsequently, the taxpayer fails to report the deferred contingency fees as income at the time the case is settled or when the funds are transferred to the third party. Instead, the taxpayer defers recognition of the income until the third party distributes the fees under the arrangement. The goal of this newly launched campaign is to ensure taxpayer compliance and consistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers which requires the contingency fees be included in taxable income in the year the funds are transferred to the third party.

Additionally, the IRS stated that the Service's efforts continue to uncover unreported financial accounts and structures through data analytics and whistleblower tips. In fiscal year 2024, whistleblowers contributed to the collection of $475 million, with $123 million awarded to informants. The IRS has now recovered $4.7 billion from new initiatives underway. This includes more than $1.3 billion from high-income, high-wealth individuals who have not paid overdue tax debt or filed tax returns, $2.9 billion related to IRS Criminal Investigation work into tax and financial crimes, including drug trafficking, cybercrime and terrorist financing, and $475 million in proceeds from criminal and civil cases attributable to whistleblower information.

Proper Use of Form 8275

The IRS stressed upon the proper use of Form 8275 by taxpayers in order to avoid portions of the accuracy-related penalty due to disregard of rules, or penalty for substantial understatement of income tax for non-tax shelter items. Taxpayers should be aware that Form 8275 disclosures that lack a reasonable basis do not provide penalty protection. Taxpayers in this posture should consult a tax professional or advisor to determine how to come into compliance. In its review of Form 8275 filings, the IRS identified multiple filings that do not qualify as adequate disclosures that would justify avoidance of penalties. Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers that Form 8275 is not intended as a free pass on penalties for positions that are false.

FS-2024-32

IR-2024-310

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.