NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

Speaking during a plenary session August 18, 2026, at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum, Zeigler said it is his “hope that the IRS is going to a better job of telling this story” about how the agency is using technology to help improve its operations and make lives easier for taxpayers and the tax professionals who assist them.

As an example, Zeigler specifically highlighted some of the work the agency is doing with AI.

“When we talk about AI, AI is not meant to replace bodies or people and computers doing the work and there is no human input,” he said. Rather it is about how the IRS “can give our employees tools and resources [and] technology to make them better, more efficient” and improve the quality of their work. “All of those things is what I believe that AI and technology were meant for.”

He continued: “It’s taking our world-class employees and putting them on steroids, giving them the ability to come to the right answer sooner.”

And at the end is the ultimate goal of making the taxpayer experience that much better and more in line with what they expect from their customer interactions with the private sector.

“If we can come to an answer that right the first time, and we can come to it quick, and we can report it to the taxpayer [and say] here’s what’s going on,” he said. “All those things are at our fingertips.”

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS indicates that these sample forms are not inftended to be used for rollovers and transfers between IRAs. According to reports made by the Government Accountability Office and the IRS's conversations with IRA stakeholders, IRA-to-IRA transfers are already completed through an electronic transfer system that is considered uniform and efficient.

The guidance includes:

• (1) a proposed rollover procedure;
• (2) the participant's rollover request form;
• (3) the receiving plan's request to the distributing plan;
• (4) the distributing plan's rollover certification; and
• (5) the receiving plan's rollover acceptance.

The IRS is considering additional guidance to facilitate rollovers. Guidance under consideration includes: (1) eliminating the safe harbor that allows plans to send paper checks to participants to complete a direct rollover; (2) requiring administrators and trustees to complete rollovers via electronic transfers or paper checks sent directly to the receiving plan; and (3) providing for new safe harbors based on the use of sample forms.

Notice 2026-49

IR 2026-91

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

Background

On April 30, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to (1) increase public awareness of saver’s match contributions; (2) facilitate participation in eligible retirement savings vehicles; and (3) establish a website that informs about high-quality, low-cost IRAs and taxpayers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These taxpayers include independent contractors.

Saver’s Match Contributions vs Saver’s Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Saver’s Match contributions would replace the Saver’s Credit under Code Sec. 25B. This would apply to elective contributions, qualifying retirement plans and IRAs.

However, the Saver’s Credit would continue to be available after December 31, 2026, with respect to contributions made to ABLE accounts under Code Sec. 529A. Saver’s match contributions would be claimed on a new (unpublished) Form 8880-A, Saver’s Match for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions.

Eligibility

Individual taxpayers who make qualified retirement savings contributions could be eligible for a Saver's Match contribution based on those contributions. The contributions to a new or already-existing IRA after the end of a tax year could be made until the tax filing deadline. The contributions should be designated as being made for the prior tax year.

Tax Status

An eligible individual taxpayer’s saver’s match contribution directly paid by the Treasury to a retirement plan is generally treated as an elective deferral made by the individual taxpayer. The contribution is not taken into account for any elective deferral and catch-up limitations that apply to Code Secs. 401(k), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans.

Comments Requested

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the issues addressed on or before October 5, 2026. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Notice 2026-48

IR 2026-89

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

Premium Method for Credit

The credit may be claimed under the premium method beginning in 2026 only to the extent the insurance premium funds a benefit that would be creditable under the wage method. Thus, the premium must be for insurance coverage with respect to leave that is:

• paid family and medical leave as defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or required by state local law or paid for by a state or local government,
• payable to an individual who is a qualifying employee of the employer at the time the premium is paid or incurred, and
• provides a benefit that would constitute wages to the employee.

In the case of a premium paid or incurred for an insurance policy that provides both creditable coverage and noncreditable coverage, the employer must allocate the premium between the creditable coverage and the noncreditable coverage using any reasonable method. For example, a blended premium would be a premium for coverage that provides both qualifying paid family and medical leave and other types of leave, or coverage for qualifying employees and nonqualifying employees.

An employer may calculate the tax credit using both the wage method with respect to certain leave and the premium method with respect to other leave. However, an employer may not use the wage method to claim a credit for wages paid to the extent that the employer claims a credit using the premium method for creditable coverage that funds such benefits (or vice versa).

Notice 2026-28

IR 2026-86

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

Qualified Overtime Compensation Deduction

The deduction is up to $12,500 of qualified overtime compensation earned for the year per individual tax return. It is $25,000 for joint return. The deduction is reduced if a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year exceeds $150,000, and $300,000 for joint filers.

Coverage and Exemptions Under FLSA

The IRS noted that overtime under the FLSA must be paid to individual taxpayers who are (1) covered by the FLSA; and (2) not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. Ineligible taxpayers would not receive qualified overtime compensation regardless of other laws or circumstances. Employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement include teachers, academic administration personnel, employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments and more.

Employee-owners of businesses are not FLSA overtime-eligible employees. An employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they are employed is ineligible.

Reporting Requirements

Starting in tax year 2026, payors and employers are required to separately report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099-MISC, Form 1099-NEC or Form W-2. Independent contractors would only report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099- MISC or Form 1099-NEC.

FS-2026-13

IR 2026-88

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

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.

No Significant Role in Management

The Fifth Circuit stated that the backdrop against which Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) in 1977 suggested that some participation is allowed, so long as the partners do not exercise control over the business, and that the plain text of the statute points towards this conclusion. The court observed that all relevant sources suggested that when the statute was enacted, the ordinary public meaning of"limited partner" included a partner who did not play a significant role in managing or running the business.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s Soroban decision, which held that that the term "limited partner" could refer only to passive investors. The court stated that the Tax Court had selected a rule that was divorced from statutory text and that appeared to prohibit even the most minor involvement in corporate affairs. In the Fifth Circuit's view, it would have been understood at the time Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) that a limited partner could not manage the partnership, but perhaps could participate in certain nonmanagerial aspects of the business.

The court also stated that the Soroban decision could not be squared with decades of IRS-approved guidance insisting that what mattered was limited liability alone. The court characterized the IRS's position to be that it could change the meaning of "limited partner" from "limited liability alone" to the "passive investor" standard with no action from Congress to amend the text of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Even assuming that the IRS could unilaterally effectuate such changes through tax instructions, the court stated that the IRS's instructions must comport with the original public meaning of the text enacted by Congress.

Withdrawing Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5, 2026-1 ustc ¶50,109, and vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

K Alain, L.L.L.P., CA-5

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Under the de minimis payment rule of Code Sec. 6050W(e) for information reporting purposes, a third party settlement organization (TPSO) must report payments made in settlement of third party network transactions to a payee only if the payments exceed $20,000 and 200 transactions in a calendar year. The final regulations align the backup withholding obligations under Code Sec. 3406 with this reporting threshold.

A payment will be considered a reportable payment subject to backup withholding only if both the $20,000 and 200 transaction thresholds are exceeded during the calendar year. The amount subject to backup withholding includes the entire amount of the transaction that causes either threshold to be breached, whichever occurs later, and the amount of any subsequent transactions made to the payee during the same calendar year. Further, if the TPSO made payments in settlement of third party network transactions to the payee in the previous calendar year that were reportable payments under the backup withholding rules, the de minimis exception to backup withholding would not to payments made to that payee in the current calendar year.

Participating Payees

In the preamble to the Treasury Decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS used the opportunity to clarify that de minimis TPSO reporting and the backup withholding thresholds apply with respect to each participating payee, as defined by Code Sec. 6050W(d)(1).

T.D. 10053

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted in 2021 as part of the broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. Its reporting requirement had been characterized as an important step in the fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, piracy, securities fraud, financial fraud, and acts of foreign corruption.

In late 2024 and early 2025, however, several federal district courts preliminarily enjoined FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the reporting rule. The Treasury Department announced in March 2025 that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA and its reporting requirements against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and issued the interim final rule.

BOI Reporting Exemptions

The final rule:

• adopts exemptions that make the rollback of beneficial ownership reporting by U.S. companies permanent,
• exempts foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States from reporting the BOI of a U.S person in control of the investment vehicle, and
• confirms that FinCEN will delete information about any individual that it reasonably believes is a U.S. person (for example, information that is linked to a U.S. passport or U.S. driver's license).

The final rule also makes substantive changes that expand on the relief in the interim final rule, by:

• exempting foreign companies from the requirement to report U.S. person “company applicants” (i.e., the individuals who helped those foreign companies register to do business in the United States), and
• exempting U.S. persons who have applied for FinCEN Identifiers (FinCEN IDs) from having to update or correct the information they provided to FinCEN when they applied.

Foreign entities that are reporting companies are still required under the final rule to report BOI for foreign individuals.

FinCEN has also issued answers to frequently asked questions on the final rule.

FinCEN Final Rule RIN-1506-AB67

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.