Garen & Company LLC - Newsletters

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

Close

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

Close

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

Close

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

$511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
$200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

Close

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

Close

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

Close

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

Close

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

intangible property;
sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

a specific document;
information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

Close

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

Close

Tax-Related Portion of the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act, Enrolled, as Signed by the President on October 24, 2018, P.L. 115-271

President Donald Trump has signed bipartisan legislation, which expands a religious exemption for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. The exemption is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Religious Exemption

SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act ( HR 6) amends Code Sec. 5000A(d)(2)(a) to expand the religious conscience exemption for the ACA individual mandate. Individual taxpayers who rely solely on a religious method of healing for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs are exempt from the ACA mandate to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty.

Tax Reform

Additionally, last year’s tax reform legislation essentially repeals the ACA’s individual mandate. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) repeals the ACA’s shared responsibility payment for individuals failing to maintain minimum essential coverage effective January 1, 2019.

Close

Congressional Republicans are looking to move forward with certain legislative tax efforts during Congress’s lame-duck session. The House’s top tax writer, who will hand the reins to Democrats next year, has reportedly outlined several tax measures that will be a priority when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., during the week of November 12. However, President Donald Trump’s recently touted 10-percent middle-income tax cut does not appear to be one of them.

Democrats Take the House

Republicans will lose their one-party rule in Washington, D.C. in the 116th Congress beginning in January 2019. As a result of the November 6 midterm elections, Democrats will control the House during the next Congress, and Republicans will retain control of the Senate.

Currently, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Tex., serves as chairman of the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Republicans’ majority in both chambers of Congress enabled the GOP, in coordination with the Trump administration, to enact tax reform legislation last year. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) reportedly did not turn out to be as popular as they had hoped. The TCJA’s unpopularity is at least in part why Republicans lost vital seats in the House, according to several reports.

Lame-Duck

Before the turnover of power, however, Brady is reportedly gearing up to introduce a tax extenders measure during the lame-duck session, which would extend certain temporary or expired tax breaks. Generally, Democrats have been supportive of year-end tax extender legislation. At this time, the details of the tax-extender proposal remain unclear.

Additionally, Brady reportedly said on November 7 that a TCJA technical corrections bill with "minor changes" will move in the lame-duck session. Further, the Senate is expected to take up a House-approved retirement savings measure that is part of House Republicans’ "Tax Reform 2.0" efforts.

Looking Forward

House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., is expected to chair the committee in the 116th Congress. Neal has a fairly moderate tax-legislative record, and is considered on Capitol Hill to be "business-friendly." To that end, Neal has recently sponsored several retirement savings measures, which would enhance employer workplace savings accounts. Additionally, infrastructure and tax-related health care initiatives are expected to be a priority among House Democrats.

GOP Retains Senate

Republicans will continue to lead the Senate in the 116th Congress. While the GOP Senate majority may not be enough to approve additional GOP tax legislation, it is likely to prevent Democrats from repealing parts of the TCJA. However, it is expected on Capitol Hill that hearings will be held in both chambers’ tax writing committees to examine various provisions of the new tax law. Although a divided Congress can result in fewer tax bills being approved, successful legislation will likely be bipartisan.

Close

Tax season is scheduled to begin shortly and, as in past years, there are some possible glitches to be mindful of. Already, the IRS has alerted taxpayers that the start of filing season will be delayed. Late tax legislation, although unlikely, could result in a further delay. Some new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been waived for 2014, but others have not. The IRS also is facing the prospect of another government shutdown in January.

Filing season

In recent years, the IRS has had to delay the start of the filing season to reprogram its return processing systems for changes in the tax laws. The 2014 filing season will also be delayed but not, as of today, because of new tax laws. The IRS operated with minimal staffing during the 16-day government shutdown in October and fell behind in its scheduled maintenance and programming of its return processing systems because employees were furloughed. At this time, the IRS expects the 2014 filing season to be delayed for possibly two weeks.

Before the shutdown, the IRS had anticipated opening the 2014 filing season on January 21, 2014. With a one- to two-week delay, the IRS would start accepting and processing returns no earlier than January 28, 2014 and no later than February 4, 2014. Individuals who file early in anticipation of receiving a refund will likely see their refunds delayed. The IRS is expected to make a final determination on the start date of the 2014 filing season in mid-December. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Taxpayers are also waiting on some important final forms for the 2014 filing season, including Form 8960, Net Investment Income Tax. The Affordable Care Act created the new 3.8 tax on qualified net investment income, effective January 1, 2013. Additionally, the IRS has indicated that more guidance will be available for married same-sex couples. Since publication of the IRS's initial guidance, questions have surfaced concerning employee benefits, return filing and other issues affecting married same-sex couples and domestic partners (whom the IRS does not treat as married). Late-year guidance on either the 3.8 percent net investment income tax or same-sex tax issues may require last-minute changes in year-end tax strategies.

Another shutdown possible

The IRS is currently operating under a stop-gap funding measure, which ended the government shutdown in October. Funding under the stop-gap measure is scheduled to lapse after January 15, 2014. A House-Senate budget conference committee is attempting to reconcile competing fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget bills. So far, lawmakers appear to have made little progress.

A mid-January shutdown could further delay the start of the filing season. In a November 18 letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) expressed concern that another government shutdown would result in a huge strain on taxpayers and tax professionals trying to timely file and report their income taxes by April 15. "The IRS keeping more essential positions working during January would help make the already delayed filing season operate as smoothly as possible," the AICPA told Werfel. The AICPA also recommended that the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which closed during the October shutdown, remain open in the event of another lapse in appropriations.

Tax legislation

Although many tax bills have been introduced in Congress, 2013 is likely to end without lawmakers tackling comprehensive tax reform. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have both prepared discussion drafts on tax reform, covering a host of tax issues. One possible reason for the lack of movement of tax reform appears to be lukewarm interest, at best, from the House and Senate leaders. This could change in 2014 but it is too early to make any predictions.

One path for tax reform could be the House-Senate budget conference committee. However, as mentioned, the committee has not yet produced any concrete proposals. Several lawmakers have recommended that the committee strike a deal to lower corporate tax rates in exchange for businesses giving up unspecified tax breaks. Many Republicans want to keep scheduled across-the-board spending cuts in place for 2014 and beyond; many Democrats want to replace the spending cuts with new revenue raisers. The conference committee has a mid-December deadline to reach an agreement.

A package of so-called tax extenders-popular but temporary tax incentives-could move before year-end but more likely will be taken up by Congress early next year. Unlike last year, the expiring incentives do not affect 2013 returns filed in 2014. Eligible taxpayers will be able to claim the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction, the teachers' classroom expense deduction, home energy tax breaks, and many others on their 2013 returns. If you have any questions about the expiring incentives, please contact our office.

Affordable Care Act

Starting January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires individuals to carry minimum essential health insurance (unless they are exempt) or make a shared responsibility payment. Tax credits and cost-sharing also kick-in next year. At this time, it appears unlikely that the Obama administration will delay the individual mandate. The employer mandate, however, is delayed. Employer reporting (and reporting by some insurers) will not apply until 2015, but is optional for 2014. Generally, employer reporting applies to employers with at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

November was dominated by news of technical troubles for the online Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and the cancellation of some individual insurance policies that did not meet new standards. The White House has made getting the online Marketplaces running at 100 percent a priority and also gave states the option of allowing individuals to re-enroll in coverage that would otherwise be terminated. The fix is temporary and individuals will need to find alternative coverage for 2015 and beyond. Small businesses also may have received cancellation notices and should be exploring alternative coverage.

If you have any questions about year-end tax developments, please contact our office.

Close

The IRS has made several changes to its examination (aka, "audit") functions that are designed to expedite the process and relieve some burden on business taxpayers. These include the expansion of the Fast Track Settlement (FTS) program for small business, self-employed (SB/SE) taxpayers and a new process for issuing information document requests (IDRs) in large case audits.

Fast Track Settlement

The IRS launched the FTS program in 2005 to help small business taxpayers expedite case resolution. Small business FTS is modeled on a similar program for taxpayers in the IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) Division.

The goal of small business FTS is to complete cases within 60 days of their acceptance into the program. Under FTS, taxpayers under examination with issues in dispute work directly with IRS representatives from SB/SE's Examination Division and Appeals to resolve those issues. An Appeals Officer, trained in mediation, serves as a neutral party and employs dispute resolution techniques to facilitate settlement between the parties.

Application. To request to participate in small business FTS, the taxpayer and the SB/SE Group Manager submit Form 14017, Application for Fast Track Settlement. The taxpayer or the IRS examination representative may initiate Fast Track for eligible cases, usually before a 30-day letter is issued.

If the case is accepted and an agreement is reached, the IRS will use established issue or case closing procedures and applicable agreement forms, including preparation of a Form 906 specific matters closing agreement, if appropriate. If the case is not accepted the IRS explained that SB/SE or Appeals will inform the taxpayer of the basis for this decision and discuss other dispute resolution opportunities.

Qualifying issues. Small business FTS is generally available if:

Issues are fully developed;
The taxpayer has stated a position in writing or filed a small case request for cases in which the total amount for any tax period is less than $25,000; and
There are a limited number of unagreed issues.

Small business FTS is unavailable for Collection Appeals Program, Collection Due Process, Offer-In-Compromise and Trust Fund Recovery cases, except as provided in any guidance issued by the IRS; correspondence examination cases worked solely in a Campus/Service Center site; and cases in which the taxpayer has failed to respond to IRS communications.

Information Document Requests

The IRS Large Business & International (LB&I) Division has issued a new directive (LB&I-04-1113-009) that expands on an earlier directive from in June (LB&I-04-0613-004) by itemizing the requirements for IRS agents preparing information document requests (IDRs). The new directive also outlines the mandatory three-part enforcement process for taxpayers that do not timely respond to an IDR. While IDRs are common for large business taxpayers, the IRS also uses them in auditing certain small business issues.

June directive. The original June 2013 directive set forth general principles and several mandatory actions that examiners must take while issuing IDRs. These principles are reiterated in the November directive.

The June directive also provided that IDRs issued after June 30, 2013 must comply with these principles. In particular, the IRS reported that the mandatory training emphasized that employees must focus their IDRs on specific issues relevant to the exam. IRS employees are required to discuss the IDRs and issues with the taxpayer, as well as what would be an appropriate deadline for the response to the request. The deadline must fall within a "reasonable timeframe" and be "mutually agreed upon." If the examiner does not receive a response by this date, and the IDR otherwise met the requirements listed under the directive, the case will proceed into the enforcement process outlined in the new directive from November 2013.

November directive. If a taxpayer does not respond to the IRS by the date indicated in the IDR, the case must proceed to the graduated, three-step enforcement process outlined in Attachment 2 of the November directive. This process, assuming the taxpayer could not respond to the IDRs by the dates specified at each step, would involve first a delinquency notice, then a pre-summons letter, and finally a summons.

The IRS has recently promoted the revised IDR enforcement process as a "win-win" for both the IRS and taxpayers. However, some practitioners have expressed concerns that the rigid deadlines in the new enforcement process will have the opposite effect and result in more summonses being issued. Practitioners recommend that taxpayers proactively involve themselves in the initial IDR process to ensure that the IDR, once issued, provides them with enough time to supply the requested information.

If you have questions relating to the IRS's new FTS or IDR programs, please contact our offices.

Close

As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of December 2013.

December 2
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll date November 23-26.

December 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll date November 27-29.

December 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates November 30-December 3.

December 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during November must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

December 11
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 4-6.

December 13
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 7-10.

December 16
Corporations. Deposit the fourth installment of estimated income tax for 2013, using Form 1120W.

December 18
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 11-13.

December 20
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 14-17.

December 26
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 18-20.

December 30
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 21-24.

January 2
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 25-27.

January 3
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 28-31.

Close

Despite the 16-day government shutdown in October, a number of important developments took place impacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, especially for individuals and businesses. The Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) was temporarily delayed, Congress took a closer look at income verification for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit, and held a hearing on the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate. Individuals trying to enroll in coverage through HealthCare.gov also experienced some technical problems in October.

SHOP

The Affordable Care Act created two vehicles to deliver health insurance: Marketplaces for individuals and the SHOP for small businesses. Marketplaces launched as scheduled on October 1 in every state and the District of Columbia. Qualified individuals can enroll in a Marketplace to obtain health insurance. Coverage through a Marketplace will begin January 1, 2014.

The October 1 start of SHOP, however, was delayed. Small employers may start the application process on October 1, 2013 but all functions of SHOP will not be available until November, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported. If employers and employees enroll by December 15, 2013, coverage will begin January 1, 2014, HHS explained.

SHOP is closely related to the Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance tax credit. This tax credit is designed to help small employers offset the cost of providing health insurance to their employees. After 2013, small employers must participate in SHOP to take advantage of the Code Sec. 45R tax credit. For tax years beginning during or after 2014, the maximum Code Sec. 45R credit for an eligible small employer (other than a tax-exempt employer) is 50 percent of the employer's premium payments made on behalf of its employees under a qualifying arrangement for QHPs offered through a SHOP Marketplace. The maximum credit for tax-exempt employers for those years is 35 percent. Maximum and minimum credits are based upon the level of employee wages. If you have any questions about SHOP and the Code Sec. 45R credit, please contact our office.

Code Sec. 36B tax credit

Effective January 1, 2014, qualified individuals may be eligible for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit to help pay for health coverage through a Marketplace. The credit is linked to household income in relation to the federal poverty line (FPL). Generally, taxpayers whose household income for the year is between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line for their family size may be eligible for the credit.

When taxpayers apply for coverage in a Marketplace, the Marketplace will estimate the amount of the Code Sec. 36B credit that the taxpayer may be able to claim for the tax year. Based upon the estimate made by the Marketplace, the individual can decide if he or she wants to have all, some, or none of the estimated credit paid in advance directly to the insurance company to be applied to monthly premiums. Taxpayers who do not opt for advance payment may claim the credit when they file their federal income tax return for the year.

The October 16 agreement to reopen the federal government directed HHS to certify to Congress that Marketplaces verify eligibility for the Code Sec. 36B credit. HHS must submit a report to Congress by January 1, 2014 on the procedures for verifying eligibility for the credit and follow-up with a report by July 1, 2014 on the effectiveness of its income verification procedures.

Employer mandate

The Affordable Care Act generally requires an applicable large employer to make an assessable payment (a penalty) if the employer fails to offer minimum essential health coverage and a number of other requirements are not met. The employer mandate was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2014. However, the Obama administration delayed it for an additional year, to 2015.

In October, the House Small Business Committee heard testimony on the definition of full-time employee status for purposes of the employer mandate. An applicable large employer for purposes of the employer mandate is an employer that employs at least 50 full-time employees or a combination of full-time and part-time employees that equals at least 50. A full-time employee with respect to any month is an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week.

Employers testifying before the GOP-chaired committee urged an increase in the 30-hour threshold. "Many small businesses simply cannot afford to provide coverage to employees who average 30 hours per week," the owner of a supermarket told the committee. "Business owners will have to make tough choices and many part-time employees will face reduced hours," he added. "Many franchise businesses are being turned upside down by the new costs, complexities and requirements of the law," another business owner told the committee.

Legislation (HR 2575) has been introduced in the House to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time equivalent employee for purposes of the employer mandate and to replace it with 40 hours. The bill has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

HealthCare.gov

As has been widely reported, the individuals seeking to enroll in Marketplace coverage through HealthCare.gov experienced some online problems in October. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken a comprehensive review of HealthCare.gov. In the meantime, HHS reminded individuals that in-person assistance centers are open as are customer call centers.

Enrollment

The Affordable Care Act generally requires individuals to carry health insurance after 2013 or make a shared responsibility payment (also known as a penalty). For 2014, the penalty is $95 or the flat fee of one percent of taxable income, $325 in 2015 or the flat fee of two percent of taxable income, $695 in 2016 or 2.5 percent of taxable income (the $695 amount is indexed for inflation after 2016).

Open enrollment in the Affordable Care Act's Marketplaces began October 1, 2013 and runs through March 31, 2014. The enrollment period overlaps with the January 1, 2014 requirement to carry health insurance or make a shared responsibility payment. On social media, the Obama administration clarified that individuals who enroll in coverage through a Marketplace at anytime during the enrollment period will not be responsible for a penalty.

If you have any questions about these developments or the Affordable Care Act in general, please contact our office.

Close

A child with earned income above a certain level is generally required to file a separate tax return as a single taxpayer. However, a child with a certain amount of unearned income (from investments, including dividends, interest, and capital gains) may find that this income becomes subject to tax at his or her parent's highest marginal tax rate. This is referred to as the "kiddie tax," and it is designed to prevent parents from transferring income-producing investments to their children, who would generally be taxed at a lower rate.

Does the kiddie tax apply to my situation?

The kiddie tax applies if:

The child has investment income greater than the annual inflation-adjusted amount ($1,900 for 2013; $2,000 for 2014);
At least one of the child's parents was alive at the end of the tax year;
The child is required to file a tax return for the tax year;
The child does not file a joint return for the tax year; and
The child meets one of the following requirements relating to age and income:

The child was under age 18 at the end of the tax year; or
The child was age 18 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one-half of the child's own support for the year; or
The child was a full-time student who was under age 24 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one half of the child's own support for the year (This does not include scholarships.)

Computing the kiddie tax

If the kiddie tax applies to a child, the child's tax is calculated as the greater of one of two items:

The tax on all of the child's income, calculated at the rates applicable to single individuals; or
The sum of two things:

The tax that would be imposed on a single individual if the child's taxable income were reduced by net unearned income, plus
The child's share of the allocable parental tax.

The allocable parent tax is the amount of the increase in the parent's tax liability that results from adding to the parent's taxable income the net unearned income of the parent's children who are subject to the kiddie tax. If a parent has more than one child with unearned income subject to the kiddie tax, then each child's share of the allocable parental tax would be assigned pro rata according to the ratio that its net unearned income bears to the aggregate net unearned income subject to the kiddie tax.

Which tax form should I use?

A parent with a child or children whose unearned income is subject to the kiddie tax must generally complete and file Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Investment Income of More Than $1,900, along with his or her tax return. However, if the child's interest and dividend income (including capital gain distributions) total less than $9,500 for 2013 ($10,000 for 2014), the parent may be able to elect to include that income on the parent's return rather than file a separate return for the child. In this case, the parents should complete Form 8814, Parents Election To Report Child's Interest and Dividends. However, the IRS cautions that the federal income tax owed on a child's income may be lower if the parent files a separate tax return for the child, which would enable him or her to take certain tax benefits that cannot be taken on the parents' return.

Divorced, separated, or unmarried parents

The kiddie tax is based on a parent's tax return, but what happens when parents do not file joint returns? Several special rules determine what should happen. If the parents are married, but file separate returns, then the child should use the return of the parent with the largest taxable income to figure the kiddie tax.

If the parents are married, but do not live together, and the custodial parent is considered unmarried then generally the custodial parent's return would be used. However, if the custodial parent is not considered unmarried, the child should use the return of the parent with the largest amount of taxable income.

If the child's parents are divorced or legally separated, and the custodial parent has not remarried, the child should use the custodial parent's return. If the custodial parent has remarried, the child's stepparent, rather than the noncustodial parent, is treated as the child's other parent. Similarly, if the child's parent is a widow or widower who has remarried, the new spouse is treated as the child's other parent.

If the child's parents never married each other, but lived together all year, the child should use the return of the parent with the greater taxable income. If the parents were never married and did not live together all year, the rules are the same as the rules for parents who are divorced.

Calculating the kiddie tax can become confusing as a taxpayer attempts to sort through the numerous rules governing who is subject to the tax, which income is subject to the tax, and how to report it properly. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices with any questions.

Close

The IRS has issued much-anticipated final "repair" regulations that provide guidance on the treatment of costs to acquire, produce or improve tangible property. These regulations take effect January 1, 2014. They affect virtually any business with tangible assets. The IRS has estimated that about 4 million businesses must comply.

At a length of over 200 pages, the regulations remain complex. Taxpayers will need to devote significant time and effort to study these regulations and to address their impact on their tax accounting. Taxpayers must decide whether they can deduct costs as repairs and maintenance or must capitalize the costs and recover their costs over a period of years. Every business, especially those with significant fixed assets, must develop an understanding of the regulations and their requirements.

Effective dates, decisions and opportunities

The final regulations retain the basic structure of the temporary and proposed regulations issued in December 2011 (the 2011 regulations). The IRS is not expected to delay these effective dates, since taxpayers were informed of the impending changes in many of the rules almost two years ago. Moreover, taxpayers will have the decision of whether to apply the regulations (either the temporary or the final) to the 2012 or 2013 tax years.

The IRS must provide additional guidance for taxpayers to change their methods of accounting to elect to apply either set of regulations retroactively and to comply with the 2014 effective date. Some accounting method changes will require taxpayers to make adjustments under Code Sec. 481(a), in effect, applying the regulations to past years and calculating the impact on income.

The final regulations make significant changes that can benefit most taxpayers if applied correctly. The changes include new and revised safe harbors, as well as new relief provisions for small business. The regulations will provide simplification and reduce controversy by allowing taxpayers to follow their financial accounting ("book") policies in some areas.

The IRS did not finalize every portion of the 2011 regulations. To address some problems with the temporary regulations on the disposition of depreciable property, the IRS issued new proposed regulations that ease the requirements for taxpayers to deduct the cost of building components that they replace.

Significant provisions in the final regulations include the following:

Materials and supplies - The threshold for deducting materials and supplies was increased from $100 to $200 and generally applies to items expected to be consumed in 12 months or less, or that have an economically useful life of 12 months or less.

De minimis safe harbor - The final regulations eliminate a controversial ceiling on the use of this safe harbor. Taxpayers with applicable financial statements can apply the safe harbor to an item that is $5,000 or less. The regulations extend the safe harbor to taxpayers without a financial statement, but only for property that costs $500 or less. Taxpayers must have written book policies in place at the beginning of the year to apply the safe harbor.

Routine maintenance and improvements - The final regulations retain controversial unit of property rules that apply the rules for real property to eight separate building systems. However, the rules do extend the routine maintenance safe harbor to real property and provide a new safe harbor for small taxpayers. The safe harbor for real property limits the period for recurring maintenance to 10 years, which many practitioners believe is too short.

Capitalization election - The final regulations allow taxpayers to capitalize repair and maintenance costs if these costs are capitalized for financial accounting purposes. This provides significant simplification over the temporary regulations, although the tax impact is contrary to what taxpayers normally want.

If you have any questions regarding the compliance obligations that your business now must face, and the opportunities that many of these new rules present, please do not hesitate to call this office.

Close

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (E.S. Windsor, 2013-2 ustc ¶50,400) generated many questions about federal taxes and same-sex couples. The IRS has responded with a general rule recognizing same-sex marriages nationwide. The agency also promised that more guidance will be released before the start of the 2014 filing season.

Place of celebration approach

Section 3 of DOMA prevented the IRS (and all federal agencies) from recognizing same-sex married couples as married. After the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, the IRS had an important decision to make. The IRS could recognize all same-sex marriages regardless of where the couple resided. Alternatively, the IRS could only recognize the marriages of couples who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriage.

The IRS chose the first approach, which is known as "place of celebration" approach. All legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes, regardless of whether a couple resides in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or in a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage. This means that a couple who marry in a state (or other jurisdiction) that recognizes same-sex marriage and subsequently move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage will continue to be treated as married for all federal tax purposes.

The IRS had an important historical precedent that lead to its choosing place of celebration over place of residence. The IRS has taken a place of celebration approach to common law marriages for over 50 years.

Tax returns

For 2013 returns filed in 2014, legally married same-sex couples must file as married filing jointly or married filing separately. The rules for 2012 and prior years are not as simple.

The IRS imposed a deadline of September 16, 2013 for married same-sex couples, who had yet to file an original return for 2012, to file as single or as married. For 2011 and earlier, same-sex spouses who filed their tax returns timely may choose (but are not required) to amend their federal tax return filing status. They may amend their prior-year returns using either married filing separately or jointly filing status, provided the period of limitations for amending the return has not expired. If you have any questions about filing an amended return, please contact our office.

Employee benefits

Because of DOMA, taxpayers may have paid taxes on the fair market value of employer-provided health care coverage for their same-sex spouse. The IRS will allow the employee to file an amended return for open tax years reflecting his or her status as a married individual to recover federal income tax paid on the value of health coverage of the employee's spouse. The IRS also instructed certain sponsors of some employee benefit plans to treat same-sex spouses as spouses.

Employment taxes

The IRS has provided two optional alternative special administrative procedures for employers to use to correct overpayments of employment taxes. Under the first alternative, employers may use the fourth quarter 2013 Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, to correct these overpayments of employment taxes for the first three quarters of 2013. Under the second alternative, employers may file one Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund, for the fourth quarter of 2013 to correct these overpayments of FICA taxes for all quarters of 2013. Please contact our office for more details about these optional procedures.

Domestic partners

There is one very important distinction that the IRS has made in its guidance for same-sex couples. The IRS is not recognizing registered domestic partners, individuals in a civil union, or similar relationships as married. Registered domestic partners may not file as married filing jointly or married filing separately because the individuals are not married or spouses for federal tax purposes

Looking ahead

The IRS will likely begin accepting 2013 returns for processing in mid- to late January 2014. Some same-sex couples may find their filing more complicated despite the demise of DOMA. States that do not recognize same-sex marriage will presumably not allow these couples to file their state returns (if required) as married. The IRS is also expected to issue more guidance on particular areas of the tax law, such as estate and gift taxes, retirement plans and more. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the IRS's guidance for same-sex couples.

Close

The end of the 2009 year will also spell the end of many tax breaks for both individuals and businesses. Some of these tax breaks are "temporary" credits and deductions that Congress typically extends for another year or two at the last moment. Other sunsetting provisions are relatively new, with no previous track record on their being extended. In either case, however, the unfamiliar economic climate in which our nation finds itself makes predicting whether Congress will find the funding necessary to extend any particular tax break this time around, beyond 2009, a matter of guesswork. The following is a list of important tax breaks expiring at the end of 2009.

A word to the wise: if you can take advantage of any tax break on this list before 2009 closes, do so. At this point, you cannot -and should not-- count on having any of them available in 2010.

Homebuyer tax credit. The first-time homebuyer tax credit expires sooner rather than later in 2009. That is, the credit expires November 30 - the credit provision requires that the residence be "purchased" by November 30, with "purchase" defined as taking place when title passes and the full purchase price is paid (that is, at the "closing") and not earlier when the contract of sale is executed and a down payment is escrowed. The credit is equal to 10 percent of the purchase price of a principal residence, up to $8,000. It applies to homes purchased after December 31, 2008, and before December 1, 2009.

Itemized state and local sales tax deduction. The ability to deduct state and local sales taxes in lieu of state and local income taxes is available until December 31, 2009, when the itemized state and local sales tax deduction expires.

Higher education tuition deduction. The higher education tuition deduction, permitting taxpayers to take an above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses, will expire this year. The maximum deductible amount is $4,000 for taxpayers with adjusted gross income not exceeding $65,000 ($130,000 for joint filers). Taxpayers whose income exceeds that limit but does not exceed $80,000 ($160,000 for joint filers) may deduct up to $2,000 in qualified expenses.

Additional standard deduction for real property taxes. If you claim the standard deduction and also have real estate taxes, you can take an increased deduction ($500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples filing jointly) for your real estate taxes. This tax break is scheduled to expire at the end of 2009.

Teachers' classroom expense deduction. The $250 above-the-line deduction for qualified classroom expenses will expire at the end of 2009. The deduction benefits teachers and other educators, from teachers' aides to school principals, who used their own out-of-pocket money to purchase qualified classroom supplies, such as notebooks, scissors, paper, pens, markers and books. As an above-the-line deduction, the $250 tax break is available to non-itemizers as well.

Bonus depreciation. For businesses, bonus depreciation and enhanced "section 179 expensing," both designed to - temporarily - encourage business to make capital investments, are set to expire at the end of 2009. Bonus depreciation can be claimed for both regular tax and alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability unless the taxpayer makes an election out.

Enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing. Enhanced "section 179 expensing," is set to expire at the end of 2009 in addition to bonus depreciation, as mentioned above. Qualified taxpayers may deduct up to $250,000 of the cost of machinery, equipment, vehicles, furniture, and other qualifying property placed in service during 2009. The $250,000 amount is reduced if the cost of all Code Sec. 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer during the tax year exceeds $800,000.

Research and development credit. The research and development, or R&D credit, is set to expire at the end of 2009. The credit is available for businesses that increase their research expenses. The credit is 14 percent of qualified research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average qualified research expenses for the three preceding tax years.

COBRA subsidy. The COBRA premium assistance provided as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act) will not benefit individual involuntarily terminated from employment after December 31, 2009. The COBRA subsidy is only available to individuals involuntarily terminated from work between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 The COBRA subsidy under the 2009 Recovery Act provides for individuals to pay only 35 percent of their COBRA premiums with employers paying the remaining 65 percent, for nine months.

Unemployment compensation. Although unemployment compensation is typically taxable income, the 2009 tax year provides a respite from taxability for up to $2,400 of unemployment income. However, the exclusion from taxable income for unemployment compensation is only available for 2009, and will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to extend this benefit.

Motor vehicle sales tax deduction. The deduction for sales tax paid on the purchase a new motor vehicle is available for vehicles purchased between February 17, 2009 and December 31, 2009. Taxpayers can deduct state and local sales and use taxes paid on the first $49,500 of the purchase price of the vehicle. The deduction can be taken whether or not the taxpayer itemizes deductions. However, if you deduct state and local general sales taxes as an itemized deduction, you cannot "double dip" and take the deduction for new car sales taxes.

AMT exemption amounts. For 2009, the AMT exemption amounts increased to $46,700 for individuals and $70,950 for married taxpayers filing jointly. However, these exemption amounts will decrease in 2010 to $33,750 for single taxpayers and $45,000 married taxpayers filing jointly.

Our office will continue to monitor the situation in Washington to be ready to advise you if any of the provisions set to expire at the end of 2009 are extended. With Congress busy with health care reform, the likelihood is that the fate of most if not all of the expiring provisions will remain uncertain for some time. In fact, some in Congress have been quietly discussing the possibility of not passing any extension until next year, and then making it retroactive to January 1. Stay tuned.

Close