- Newsletters

The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.

Under Code Sec. 6050K, partnerships must file Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, for transfers involving Code Sec. 751(a) property. The IRS and Treasury Department received comments that many partnerships could not determine the information required for Part IV of Form 8308 by the January 31 furnishing deadline. As a result, the final regulations remove Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) and revise Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1) to permit partnerships to furnish Form 8308 completed in accordance with the form instructions.

Although partnerships are no longer required to furnish Part IV information to transferors and transferees by January 31, they must still file a completed Form 8308, including Part IV, with Form 1065. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2025.

T.D. 10048

Close

The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.

Background

The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0 Act), permitted defined contribution plans to make qualified long-term care distributions, effective for distributions made after December 29, 2025. The 10 percent additional tax on early distributions would not apply to distributions under Code Sec. 401(a)(39). However, a qualified long-term care distribution would be included in the taxpayer’s gross income.

Disclosure Requirements

The guidance addresses content requirements and procedures for submitting an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS. There is no general deadline for submitting an Issuer Disclosure. However, an issuer must submit an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS before the issuer can file a long-term care premium statement with a defined contribution plan.

Distribution Requirements

Under the guidance, the plan administrator is permitted to rely on the issuer’s statement and the information provided on the long-term care premium statement in making a qualified long-term care distribution. It is optional for a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions, but the exception to the 10% additional tax only applies if the plan permits qualified long-term care distributions, even if the employee uses a distribution to pay for long-term care insurance. Unlike other permitted distributions, a qualified long-term care distribution would not be eligible for an extended 3-year repayment to a retirement plan.

Reporting Requirements

The payment of a qualified long-term care distribution to an employee must be reported by the payor on Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.

Further, issuers must make a return to the IRS using Form 1099-LPS, Long-Term Care Premiums Paid Statement. The issuer will report the long-term care premiums paid for the calendar year. The Form 1099-LPS must be filed with the IRS no later than February 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year the long-term care premium statement was filed with the plan.

Deadline Extension

The guidance extends the deadline for a plan sponsor of a defined contribution plan that is not a governmental plan, a section 403(b) plan maintained by a public school, or an applicable collectively bargained plan, to amend its plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions from December 31, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The deadlines to amend defined contribution plans that are applicable collectively bargained plans or governmental plans remain as provided in Notice 2024-02. Thus, Notice 2024-2, I.R.B. 2024-2, 316, is modified in part.

Notice 2026-33

Close

The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.

Fishing rights-related income is exempt from federal income tax and employment tax under Code Sec. 7873. However, proposed reliance regulations would allow contributions to be made to qualified retirement plans based on fishing rights-related income. Also, plans that accept contributions of fishing rights-related income may still use safe harbor definitions of compensation. The IRS finalized this rule as proposed without material modification.

Although the final rule is somewhat limited in scope, the IRS addressed additional issues in the preamble. The IRS clarified that plan contributions attributable to a Tribal employee's fishing rights-related activiity is treated as investment in the contract under Code Sec. 72 . Thus, distributions of the amount contributed would generally be tax-free (subject to basis recovery rules) and distributions attributable to earnings would be taxable. The IRS also indicated that plans that permit designated Roth contributions may allow contributions attributable to fishing rights-related activity to be made on a Roth basis.

T.D. 10046

Close

The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.

Taxpayers generally have two years from the disallowance notice to resolve the claim or file a refund suit, but an administrative appeal does not suspend this deadline. Once the period expires, the IRS cannot issue a refund even if the taxpayer later prevails. To address this, eligible taxpayers may execute Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit, provided it is signed by both parties before the limitation period ends.

The IRS now permits submission of Form 907 through its Document Upload Tool, with qualifying requests reviewed and confirmed in writing. While the IRS is issuing notices to eligible taxpayers, others meeting the criteria may also apply. The agency indicated that the initiative is intended to preserve taxpayer rights and facilitate administrative resolution of ERC disputes.

Close

The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.

The significant issue ruling program allows taxpayers to request rulings on one or more issues that:

are solely under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate);
are significant issues, as defined in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21; and
involve the tax consequences or characterization of a transaction (or part of a transaction) that is described in Code Sec. 332, 351, 355, 368, or 1036.

Significant Issue Ruling Program

Taxpayers may request, and the IRS may issue, a ruling on part of an integrated transaction described in the above provisions, or a ruling on a particular legal issue under a section of the Code or regulations with respect to a transaction (or part thereof) rather than a ruling that addresses all aspects of that section (or any other section) with respect to the transaction (or part thereof).

In addition, the IRS may rule on the tax consequences resulting from integrated transactions described in the above provisions to the extent that a significant issue is presented under related Code sections that address such tax consequences.

A significant issue generally is a germane and specific issue of law, provided that a ruling on the issue would not be a comfort ruling or the conclusion in such a ruling otherwise would not be essentially free from doubt.

The requests for ruling must contain (1) narrative description of the transaction that puts the significant issue in context; (2) statement identifying the issue; (3) analysis of the solvability of issue; and more.

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Proc. 2026-1 and Rev. Proc. 2026-3 are modified and amplified.

Effective Date

The significant issue ruling program applies to all letter ruling requests described in section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21 postmarked or, if not mailed, received by the IRS after May 5, 2026.

Rev. Proc. 2026-21

Other References:

Code Sec. 332
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,052.188

Other References:

Code Sec. 351
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,405.48

Other References:

Code Sec. 355
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,466.923

Other References:

Code Sec. 368
CCH Reference - FED ¶16,753.53

Other References:

Code Sec. 1036
CCH Reference - FED ¶29,702.11

Close

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions.

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions. Since 2020, the IRS has settled 405 cases through earlier initiatives, although taxpayers still had to pay penalties and were allowed only limited deductions for certain out-of-pocket costs. More than 1,100 conservation easement cases currently remain pending before the IRS and the Tax Court. Under the new initiative, many eligible partnerships will not have to make an upfront payment to participate. In addition, taxpayers whose earlier settlement offers expired or were rejected may now have another chance to resolve their cases, while some partnerships that were not previously eligible may also qualify. IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said Congress created the conservation easement deduction to encourage legitimate preservation efforts rather than tax shelters based on inflated property values.

The IRS said partnerships that accept the offer during the initial 90-day period generally will not be allowed a charitable contribution deduction, but they may qualify for a limited deduction tied to certain out-of-pocket expenses. Those partnerships generally would face a 10 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty, while partnerships settling during an additional 45-day period generally would face a 20 percent penalty. Interest also will continue to accrue as required by law. At the same time, the IRS noted that courts have repeatedly reduced claimed deductions and upheld significant penalties in conservation easement disputes. Certain cases, such as those already tried or currently under appeal, will not qualify for the initiative. The IRS added that eligibility will depend on the status and specific facts of each case.

Close

Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.

“Based on limited and anecdotal information, many practitioners noted that the IRS appeared to operating consistently compared with the prior year’s service,” AICPA said in a recent letter to the Senate Finance Committee’s top leadership following a hearing on the 2026 tax filing season, adding that data currently available shows “tax return processing remained relatively consistent, though the quality of telephone services appeared to vary depending on the hotline.”

AICPA did observe that while Internal Revenue Service modernization efforts have allowed for consistent customer service levels compared to recent prior years, “IRS customer service has not returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels according to IRS data and the AICPA’s most recent annual membership survey.”

With that, the industry organization offered recommendations in the areas of governance and oversight, taxpayer services, and dedicated practitioner services.

In the area of IRS governance and oversight, AICPA recommended the following:

Requiring a Government Accountability Office review to determine whether a private sector board with sufficient authority to hold the IRS accountable and oversee implementation of key recommendations from advisory groups;
Re-establish the annual joint hearing review to focus on strategic and business plans, taxpayer service and compliance, technology and modernization, and the filing season; and
The Joint Committee on Taxation should provide a bi-annual report on the overall state of the Federal tax system.

In the area of taxpayer service, the following recommendations were offered:

Hire more qualified and experienced professionals from the private sector, adequately train all agency employees, skillfully manage IRS resources, and ensure organizational alignment between Congress, the executive branch, and the IRS;
Congress should determine what the appropriate level of service is and then ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated to achieve that level;
Continue to improve the technology infrastructure modernization; and
Effectively utilize customer satisfaction surveys to assess IRS performance, improve the taxpayer experience, and effectuate modernization efforts or process improvement.

AICPA pushed for the passage of the Taxpayer Assistance and Services Act, which it states “would significantly improve IRS services, reinforce fairness and transparency in our tax system, and reduce tax administrative burdens on taxpayers and practitioners, including many critical tax provisions for which AICPA has previously advocated.”

In the area of dedicated practitioner services, AICPA recommended:

Create consolidated dedicated “executive-level” practitioner services comparable to private sector services that are implemented and adapted based on practitioner feedback solicited periodically; and
Continue to expand the functionality of a robust and enhanced tax professional account as part of the IRS’s online portal with account access to all of a practitioner’s client information, allowing for IRS to communicate directly with authorized practitioners, enable a centralized login system, and prioritize the protection and privacy of user identities and data;
Provide practitioners with a robust practitioner priority hotline with high-skilled employees capable of resolving complex technical and procedural issues; and
Assign customer service representatives to each geographic area to address unusual or complex issues that practitioners were unable to resolve through the priority hotlines.

The letter to the Senate Finance Committee leadership and other AICPA 2026 tax policy and advocacy comment letter can be found here.

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