Newsletters

Last year's sweeping tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), introduced a new tax break for owners of many businesses called the deduction for qualified business income. It’s also known as code Section 199A deduction. If you qualify for it, you will receive a 20% deduction on your qualified business income.

Last year's sweeping tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), introduced a new tax break for owners of many businesses called the deduction for qualified business income. It’s also known as code Section 199A deduction. If you qualify for it, you will receive a 20% deduction on your qualified business income.

Qualified Business Income - Qualified business income means the net income from a qualified trade or business. However, qualified business income does not include certain investment-related income, including:

1. Short and long-term capital gain and losses;
2. Dividend income, income equivalent to a dividend, or payment in lieu of a dividend;
3. Any interest income other than interest income properly allocable to a trade or business;
4. Net gain from foreign currency transactions and commodities transactions;
5. Income from notional principal contracts, other than items attributable to notional principal contracts entered into as hedging transactions;
6. Any amount received from an annuity that is not received in connection with the trade or business; and
7. Any deduction or loss properly allocable to any of these bulleted items described above.

Qualified Trade or Business – Qualified trade or business means any trade or business other than:

1. Employee
2. A Specified Service Trade or Business

Employee - As an employee you can never qualify for this deduction no matter what.

Specified Service Trade or Business – A specified service trade or business is defined as any trade or business involving the performance of services in the following fields:

1. Health.
2. Law.
3. Accounting.
4. Actuarial science.
5. Performing arts.
6. Consulting.
7. Athletics.
8. Financial services.
9. Brokerage services, including investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities,
10. Any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees. Catch all rule.

Engineering & Architecture Services - Are specifically excluded from the definition of a specified service trade or business. Therefore, they qualify.

Some of the categories and fields listed above are fairly clear in their meaning. Others - such as "consulting" and "any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees" - are vague, and will be difficult to apply until the IRS provides guidance.

While doctors, accountants, and attorneys will clearly fall victim to the specified fields found in this definition, many businesses will not fit so neatly into one of the disqualified categories. For example, while an actor is in the field of performing arts, is a director? A makeup artist? A producer?

The catch all definition is a bit concerning that a disqualified business includes any trade or business of which the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners. The most obvious problem posed by the catch-all is that it threatens any taxpayer who is not engaged in one of the businesses specifically listed as a disqualified field. Consider the case of a "personal trainer to the stars": Using the definition of "a specified service business" in the law the argument can be made that the trainer is not in the fields of health or athletics. Application of the catch-all, however, would likely yield a different result. What is the principal asset of a celebrity? personal trainer if not the reputation and expertise of that trainer?

To further illustrate the complications caused by the catch-all, compare two restaurants - the first a prominent chain, the second a stand-alone bistro with a world-renowned, five-star chef. Neither restaurant is in a listed disqualified service nor so the initial presumption is that both eateries generate qualified business income eligible for the deduction. Now, consider the application of the catch-all. The principal asset of the chain restaurant is clearly not the skill of its employees or owners; after all, if the chef at one of the locations leaves the restaurant, he or she will be replaced and life will go on. As a result, the chain restaurant should not fall victim to the catch-all. The bistro, however, may not be so fortunate. In this scenario, it is much more likely that the business's principal asset is the skill and reputation of the five-star chef who prepares its food. Put in simple terms, if that chef leaves the bistro, the business probably shutters its doors, adding further evidence that it is the expertise of the chef that drives the business. Thus, based on the current structure of the law it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the second restaurant is a specified service business. But why should the owners of the two restaurants be treated differently when they both provide the same mix of food and services to customers?

As one can see, until further guidance is issued that narrows the scope of the catch-all, it threatens to ensnare far more taxpayers than the specifically delineated disqualified fields.

Real Estate Activities – An emerging consensus among practitioners and expert commentators is that most rental real estate activities other than those involving triple net (NNN) rentals will qualify as trades or businesses, because such rental activities typically involve the regular provision of substantial services to tenants. Also, the fact that last-minute changes were made to the bill to make the deduction more readily available to rental property owners is seen an indication that Congress intended that rental income would be eligible for the deduction.

Limitations – There are three limitations that come into play at different income levels. They are:

1. Specified Service Trade or Business Limitation – if you are a specific service trade or business, married and your taxable income is $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500, your deduction will be limited. Above these thresholds it will be completely denied and you will not qualify for the deduction. The limitation is based on the amount that you are over the $100,000 allowed for married and $50,000 for single.
2. Wage Limitation – The W-2 wage limitation on the deduction for qualified business income is based on either W-2 wages paid by the trade or business, or W-2 wages paid plus tangible assets owned by the trade or business. It is the greater of:
3.  

1. 50% of the W-2 wages paid with respect to the qualified trade or business, or
2.  
3. The sum of 25% of the W-2 wages paid with respect to the qualified trade or business plus 2.5% of the unadjusted tax basis, immediately after acquisition, of all qualified property.

1. Taxable Income Limitation – The qualified business income deduction can never be more than 20% of your taxable income.
2.  

Wages – Only W-2 wages paid and reported to the Social Security Administrator qualify. Thus wages paid by an S Corporation to its sole shareholder/employee qualify. However, guaranteed payments paid by a partnership (LLC, GP, LP or LLP) to its member(s) do not. Therefore, in some cases an S Corporation will qualify for the deduction while partnerships that have no employees will not.

Furthermore, IRS is very specific that a partnership cannot pay/issue a W-2 to its members. Only to its non-member employees.

Who Can Claim the Deduction – Shareholders of S Corporations, members/partners of Limited Liability Company (LLC), partners of a general partnership (GP), partners of a limited partnership (LP), members/partners of a limited liability partnership (LLP), independent contractors and sole proprietorships. Going forward the Code refers to these businesses as a “Pass-Through Business”. Trusts and estates qualify for the tax break as well.

Different Rules Apply at Different Levels of Taxable Income – Therefore, we have created three categories of income to address each rule that is applicable to that category. They are:

Category 1 – Married with taxable income of less than $315,000 or single less than $157,500.

Category 2 - Married with taxable income of $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500.

Category 3 - Married with taxable income over $415,001 or single over $207,501.

Category 1 – Married with taxable income of less than $315,000 or single less than $157,500

If you fall under this category, everyone who is a Pass-Through Business, regardless of what trade or business you are in, will qualify for the deduction. However, the taxable income limitation applies.

For simplicity in all examples below, we will assume either the taxpayer is married or single, has no dependents, mortgage interest or property taxes to deduct.

Example 1A:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse receives $50,000 of W-2 income and the other $250,000 from any trade or business. Their qualified business income deduction is $50,000 ($250,000 x 20%). Therefore, they will pay federal income tax on $250,000 ($300,000 - $50,000) not $300,000. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $42,900.

Example 1B:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse receives $50,000 of W-2 income and the other $250,000. They do not qualify for the qualified business income deduction because both are employees. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $55,300.

As employees the taxpayers will pay approximately $12,400 more in federal tax.

Example 1C:    Assume that the taxpayers are married. One spouse does not work. The other spouse has $300,000 of income from any trade or business. Their qualified business income deduction should be $60,000 ($300,000 x 20%). However, their taxable income is $276,000 ($300,000 minus the standard deduction of $24,000). Based on the taxable income limitation their qualified business income deduction is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $60,000 ($300,000 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid – Not applicable since they are below the threshold of $315,000 or
3. 20% of their taxable income, $55,200 ($276,000 x 20%).
4.  

Their qualified business income deduction is $55,200. Their federal income tax liability is approximately $41,600.

Example 1D:    Taxpayer is single and an employee, but not an owner, of a qualified business. Taxpayer receives a salary of $100,000 in 2018. Taxpayer does not qualify for the deduction because he or she is only the employee of the qualified business and not an owner.

If you are an employee, it may be tax advantageous for you to consider becoming a Pass-Through Business such as an S Corporation.

Category 2 - Married with taxable income of $315,001 to $415,000 or single $157,501 to $207,500

If you fall under this category you can still claim the qualified business income deduction but you are subject to the specified service trade or business, wage and taxable income limitations. Therefore, your deduction can either be limited or denied.

Example 2A:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Assume that the specified service trade or business has paid sufficient W-2 wages to its employees. He or she is over the threshold allowed by $30,000 ($187,500 - $157,500). The maximum amount allowed that a single taxpayer can be over is $50,000. Therefore, he or she is 60% ($30,000 / $50,000) over the maximum amount allowed. Thus, he or she is only allowed 40% (100% - 60%) of the maximum amount of the qualified business income. The qualified business income is $150,000 x 20% = $30,000. However, he or she only claim 40% of it. Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $12,000 ($30,000 x 40%).

Example 2B:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Assume that the specified service trade or business has paid $40,000 in W-2 wages to its employees. He or she is over the threshold allowed by $30,000 ($187,500 - $157,500). The maximum amount allowed that a single taxpayer can be over is $50,000. Therefore, he or she is 60% ($30,000 / $50,000) over the maximum amount allowed. Thus, he or she is only allowed 40% (100% - 60%) of the maximum amount of the qualified business income. But, he or she has only paid $40,000 in wages. Thus, the maximum qualified business income that the taxpayer qualifies for is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $30,000 ($150,000 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid, $20,000 ($40,000 x 50%).
3.  

However, the taxpayer can only claim 40% of the lesser amount since he or she was over the threshold. Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $8,000 ($20,000 x 40%).

Example 2C:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $217,500, of which $150,000 is from a specified service trade or business. Since its taxable income is more than the maximum threshold allowed, $207,500, the taxpayer does not qualify for the qualified business deduction.

Example 2D:    Single taxpayer has taxable income of $187,500, of which all of it is from a qualified trade or business and it paid $60,000 in W-2 wages to its employees. The qualified business income deduction is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $37,500 ($187,500 x 20%) or
2. 50% of wages paid, $30,000 ($60,000 x 50%).

Therefore, the deduction for the qualified business income is $30,000, the lesser of the two figures above.

Category 3 - Married with taxable income over $415,001 or single over $207,501

If you fall under this category the only way that you will qualify for the deduction is if you have a qualified trade or business. You will not qualify for the deduction if your only source of income is from a specified service trade or business. The wage and taxable income limitations apply.

Example 3A:    Robert is single and the sole shareholder/employee of ABC, Inc., an S corporation that is a qualified trade or business. ABC has net income in 2018 of $250,000 after deducting Robert's salary of $150,000. Assume that the $150,000 salary paid to Robert is the only W-2 wages paid. Robert’s tentative qualified business income deduction is $50,000 ($250,000 x 20%). However, he has to calculate the wage limitation to determine if its less. The wage limitation is $75,000 ($150,000 x 50%). Therefore, Robert can deduct the $50,000 because the wage limitation is bigger.

Example 3B:    Taxpayers owns residential or commercial rental properties through an LLC. His or her share of the rental income earned by the LLC is $800,000. The LLC pays no W-2 wages, but taxpayer’s share of the unadjusted basis of the building is $5 million. Taxpayer’s tentative qualified business income deduction is $160,000 ($800,000 x 20%). However, taxpayer has to calculate the wage limitation to see if its less. Taxpayer has the option of choosing the greater of the following for the wage limitation calculation:

1. 50% of W-2 wages= $0; or
2. 25% of W-2 wages, $0, plus 2.5% of qualified property = $125,000 ($5M x 2.5%).

Therefore the taxpayer’s qualified business income deduction is $125,000.

Example 3C:    Taxpayer is a sole proprietor. During 2018, the business generates $400,000 of qualified business income, pays $120,000 of W-2 wages, and has $1.5M of qualified property. Taxpayer flies jointly with his or her spouse and their combined taxable income for the year, including the qualified business income, is $600,000. Taxpayers’ tentative deduction is $80,000 ($400,000 x 20%). However, taxpayers’ have to calculate the wage limitation to determine if its less. Taxpayers have the option of choosing the greater of the following for the wage limitation calculation:

1. 50% of W-2 wages = $60,000 ($120,000 x 50%)
2. 25% of W-2 wages, $30,000 ($120,000 x 25%) plus 2.5% of unadjusted basis of qualified property $37,500 ($1.5M x 2.5%) = $67,500 ($30,000 + $37,500).

Therefore, taxpayers’ qualified business income deduction is $67,500.

Reasonable Compensation - S corporations have long had an incentive to classify payments made to shareholder-employees as dividends rather than wages, because wages are subject to employment taxes such as social security and Medicare dividends are not. The IRS, however, can re-characterize "dividends" that are paid lieu of reasonable compensation for services performed for the S corporation to wages. So, "reasonable compensation" of an S corporation shareholder refers to any amounts paid by the S corporation to the shareholder, up to the amount that would constitute reasonable compensation.

Example 4A:    Assume taxpayers A & B own identical businesses. Neither business has any employees or quailed property. Each business generates $500,000 of qualified business income before any wages are paid. A operates his business as a sole proprietor; B an S corporation.

Because A's business has no employees and because, as a sole proprietor, A cannot pay himself a wage, A has a W-2 wage limitation and its zero. Thus, A does not get a deduction.

B as the shareholder of his S Corporation, must comply with the reasonable-compensation requirement. As a result, assume B pays himself $80,000 in 2018.

B's is the lesser of:

1. 20% of the qualified business income, $84,000 (20% x $420,000) or
2. 50% of wages $40,000 ($80,000 x 50%).

B’s qualified business income deduction is $40,000 because B paid him or herself $80,000 of W-2 wages and was able to qualify for the deduction. If B was a member/partner of a LLC and received an $80,000 in guaranteed payments, he or she would not have qualified for the deduction because guaranteed payments do not count as wages.

Example 4B:    Assume the same facts as in the previous example, except the income earned in each business is $150,000, not $500,000. Assume further that both A and B have taxable income below the $315,000/$157,500 thresholds. A, the sole proprietor, is entitled to a deduction of $30,000 (20% of

$150,000). B, the sole shareholder of the S corporation, remains required to pay himself reasonable compensation. Assume he is paid W-2 wages of $70,000.

This reduces the qualified business income B receives from the S corporation to $80,000 ($150,000 - $70,000) and in turn reduces B's deduction to $16,000 ($80,000 x 20%). Thus, when income is below the threshold, the reasonable-compensation requirement works against the shareholder in the S corporation, reducing both his qualified business income and deduction. A, the sole proprietor, has no such requirement and thus preserves the full amount of his qualified business income, giving him a deduction of $30,000, when his S corporation shareholder counterpart receives a deduction of only $16,000.

Netting of Qualified Business Income and Loss – The deduction must be determined separately for each qualified trade or business. After calculating the qualified business income deduction for each trade or business, the taxpayer totals the amounts. If there is an overall loss, no deduction is allowed for that year and the loss is carried over to next year.

Example 5A:    In 2018 taxpayer is allocated qualified business income of $20,000 from qualified business 1 and a qualified business loss of $50,000 from qualified business 2. Taxpayer is not permitted a deduction in 2018 and has a carryover qualified business loss of $30,000 to 2019.

Unadjusted Tax Basis - Only the unadjusted basis of qualified property is counted toward the limitation. Qualified property is tangible property subject to depreciation. As a result, the basis of raw land and inventory, for example, would not be taken into account.

The basis of property used to determine the limitation is unadjusted basis determined before the close of the tax year. The depreciable period begins on the date the property is placed in service and ends on the later of:

• 10 years after the date placed in service; or
• The last day of the last full year in the applicable recovery period that would apply to the property under Sec. 168

Example 6A:    On April12, 2010, Partnership AB, a calendar-year partnership, places in service a

piece of machinery purchased for $50,000 that has a five-year life. The partners may take into account their allocable share of the $50,000 unadjusted basis of the property in 2018, despite the fact that the asset was fully depreciated before the year began. This is because the depreciable period runs for the longer of:

• 10 full years from April12, 2010 (to April12, 2020); or
• The last day of the last full year in the recovery period, which for a five-year asset placed in service during 2010 would have been 2014.

The partners will also take into account the $50,000 unadjusted basis of the property in 2019. The basis will not be taken into account in 2020, however, because the depreciable period ends on April12, 2020, before the end of the 2020 tax year. Alternatively, assume the machinery

was placed in service on June 1, 2008. The partners of Partnership AB would not take the $50,000 unadjusted basis into account in 2018 because the depreciable period ended on June 1, 2018, before the close of the 2018 tax year.

How to Avoid Specified Service Trade or Business Status – We are constantly being asked by clients that are a specified service trade or business, what they can do to qualify for the deduction?

Option 1 - One strategy that has been discussed is to infuse a qualified business into a disqualified business - for example, a law firm might acquire commercial real estate that it rents to tenants, or a famous actor might launch a clothing line – in the hopes that it "muddies the waters" enough to convert the entire enterprise into a qualified business. This strategy faces two significant hurdles. First, because the law requires that the deduction be determined on a business-by-business basis, the IRS may force a taxpayer to distinguish among multiple lines of business within the same entity, denying a deduction attributable to any disqualified business line. But even if the businesses could be commingled, the law treats as a disqualified specified service business any business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, etc. Thus, the language suggests that even a small amount of services provided in a disqualified field could taint an entire business. Thus, in the examples above involving the law firm/real estate company or actor/clothing line scenarios, because each business would continue to provide some element of personal services in a disqualified field, those services could taint the entire business, potentially preventing the rental income or the income from the clothing line from being treated as qualified business income.

Option 2 - Perhaps a more prudent alternative to maximizing the deduction involves the opposite approach: Having a disqualified business "spin off" the activities of a potentially qualifying business into a separate entity.

Example 7A:    Assume Doctor A currently owns a medical/dental S Corporation, S Corporation 1. He or she is the sole shareholder/owner. It has a net income of $500,000 after it pays Doctor A wages of $200,000 and $300,000 to other employees. Doctor A is married. If Doctor A does nothing, he/she will not qualify for the deduction because being a doctor or dentist a specified service trade or business and his or her taxable income is over $415,000.

                            Doctor A’s federal tax liability will be approximately $189,500.

Example 7B:    Same facts as Example 7A. Doctor A creates two new S Corporations. S Corporation 2 which will do the billing for S Corporation 1. S Corporation 2 which will provide professional services such as administration, purchasing, billing paying and hiring non-licensed professionals for S Corporation 1. These types of organizations are know by many names such as Professional Service Organizations (PSO), Professional Employer Organizations (PEO), Management or Medical Service Organizations (MSO), Dental Service Organization (DSO) and etc.

To make the math simple, assume the only expenses S Corporations 2 and 3 have are the employees that used work for S Corporation 1 to the billing, $50,000, and the non-licensed employees, $100,000. Thus, S Corporation’s 1 salaries and wages expense will decrease by $150,000 ($50,000 + $100,000) because going forward they will be paid by S Corporations 2 and 3.

S Corporation 1 pays fair market fees to S Corporation 2 of $100,000 and $200,000 to S Corporation 3 for the services that they provide it. S Corporation 1 now has a net income of $350,000 ($500,000 - $100,000 - $200,000 + $150,000). Assume S Corporation 2 pays $50,000 in wages so its net income is $50,000 ($100,000 - $50,000) and S Corporation 3 pays $100,000 in wages so its net income is $100,000 ($200,000 - $100,000).

Doctor A’s federal tax liability will be approximately $178,400.

By “spinning-off” the activities of his or her medical/dental practice into three separate entities that two qualify as a qualified trade or business, Doctor A was able to reduce his or her federal tax liability by approximately $11,100.

The above structure is not limited to medical or health professionals. Law firms can do the same. Real estate management companies can “spin off” the janitorial and repair divisions into separate entities. Financial planners can hire their spouses to provide them with administrative services and etc.

The “spin off” division would take the position that because its new business not in the field of health, it is not a specified service trade or business. The IRS could craft regulations which provide that administrative and support services provided to a specified service trade or business are treated as the provision of services in that same specified service trade or business. If this were the case, rendering administrative and support services to a doctor group would be treated as services provided in the field of health, converting that business from a qualified to a disqualified or specified service trade or business.

Furthermore, you need to take into account the cost, management & etc. associated with opening new entities.

Option 3 - Perhaps a safer alternative is for a specified service trade or business - for example, a doctor - forms a new LLC that purchases the building it currently leasing, which then rents the building to the medical practice at the highest justifiable rate. It is unlikely future regulations would deny such a structure, provided the rent were fairly valued, because, in this example, it is property, rather than services, that is being provided to a specified service trade or business.

Example 7C:    Same facts as Example 7B. However, Doctor A purchases the building he or she practices out of for $5M. Assume the rent that was paid to the old landlord, $60,000 per year, is now paid to Doctor A’s LLC. Assume the LLC has no other income, expenses or employees.

                            The LLC qualifies for the deduction it even though it has no employees. The tentative deduction is 20% of the qualified business income, $12,000 ($60,000 x 20%). Or the lesser of:

1. 50% of the W-2 wages paid, which is zero or,
2. The sum of 25% of the W-2 wages, zero, plus 2.5% of the unadjusted tax basis which is $125,000 ($5M x 2.5%).

Thus the deduction is $12,000.

Advantages & Disadvantages S Corporation versus Sole Proprietorships – The following are the advantages of conducting your business through an S Corporation versus a sole proprietorship:

1. Payroll Tax Savings – S Corporations pay payroll taxes on the wages paid to its shareholder/employee(s). Sole proprietorships pay payroll taxes on the net income of the business. Payroll tax is made up of:

1. Social Security or FICA – 12.4% on the first $128,400 of wages and
2. Medicare – 2.9% and there is no limit.
3. Hospital Insurance (HI) - 0.9% of wages over $250,000 for married and $200,000 for single.

Example 8A:    Taxpayer is single and the sole shareholder/employee of his or her S Corporation. Its net income is $330,000 before wages. The S Corporation pays the taxpayer wages of $80,000. Taxpayer will pay the following payroll taxes:

                            $9,920 in Social Security or FICA – 12.4% x 80,000

                            $2,320 in Medicare – 2.9% x $80,000

                            $0 in Hospital Insurance

                            Total payroll tax paid by the taxpayer is $12,240.

Example 8B:    Same facts as above except that the taxpayer is a sole proprietorship. Thus, its net income is $330,000. Taxpayer will pay the following payroll taxes:

                            $15,923 in Social Security or FICA – 12.4% x $128,400

                            $9,571 in Medicare – 2.9% x $330,000

                            $943 in Hospital Insurance - .9% x ($330,000 – $200,000 - $15,922 - $9,570)

Total payroll tax paid by the taxpayer is $26,437. By being an S Corporation and receiving a reasonable compensation the taxpayer saved $14,197 ($26,437 - $12,240) in payroll taxes.

In Example 4B, A the sole proprietorship received a bigger deduction than B the sole shareholder/employee of the S Corporation. However, you have to take into account the additional payroll tax cost to accurately calculate if there is a tax savings as a sole proprietorship.

1. Liability Protection – Generally S Corporations provide liability protection to their shareholders. A sole proprietor is liable for his or her business. This is a legal issue and it should be discussed with an attorney.
2.  
3. Audit Protection – S Corporations have the least chance of being audited by IRS. Sole proprietors have a higher chance.
4.  

The following are the disadvantages of conducting your business through an S Corporation versus a sole proprietorship:

1. Incorporation Fee – There is a one-time fee to incorporate with the Secretary of State.
2.  
3. Annual Minimum Franchise Tax – State a California charges the greater of $800 or 1.5% of the S Corporation’s net income as a franchise tax. Thus, at minimum you will pay $800 a year in franchise tax.
4.  
5. Quarterly & Annual Federal and State Payroll Tax Returns – You have to file quarterly and annual federal and state payroll tax returns.
6.  
7. Annual S Corporation Income Tax Returns – You have to file annual federal and California S Corporation income tax returns. Furthermore, you need to keep separate books and records for the corporation. Therefore, you should have some kind of a bookkeeping system implemented.

We are able to provide you with any and all of the services listed above. We can incorporate your business, provide bookkeeping services, prepare the required quarterly and annual payroll tax returns and prepare your annual S Corporation income tax returns.

Gain on the Sale of Depreciable Asset Used in a Trade or Business, Section 1231 Gain – The law is silent on the treatment of the gain when you sell an asset that you have used in your trade or business for more than one year. This is called a Section 1231 gain.

Is the gain qualified business income? Since Section 1231 asset is specifically excluded from the definition of a capital asset it seems like until guidance from the IRS provides otherwise, it is reasonable to include the gains and losses in qualified business income.

Like-Kind Exchanges - Regulations will provide rules for determining the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition of qualified property acquired in like-kind exchanges or involuntary conversions.

Tiered Entities - Future regulations will provide guidance on how to determine the deduction in the case of tiered entities.

Commonly Controlled Entities - At present, the law does not allow for an allocation of the W-2 wages paid by the management company to each of the operating companies. As a result,

assuming the shareholders of the operating companies have taxable income exceeding the threshold amounts, they would be precluded from claiming a deduction, courtesy of the W-2 limitations. Similar problems arise in the case of employees leased through a professional

employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing firm.

Increased Exposure to Underpayment Penalty - Generally, for taxpayers other than C corporations, the understatement is substantial if its amount for the tax year exceeds the greater of:

• 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return for the tax year; or
• $5,000

Under the new law, substantial understatement penalty is applied when:

• 5% of the tax required to be shown on the return for the tax year; or
• $5,000

This lower threshold is particularly harsh, given the lack of guidance surrounding key aspects of this new law and the resulting challenges taxpayers and their advisers face in implementing the

provision. Importantly, the changes do not require the substantial understatement to be attributable to the qualified business income deduction. Thus, any taxpayer who claims the deduction will be subject to the lower threshold, even if the understatement on the return is unrelated to the qualified business income deduction.

Conclusion - While the purpose of the deduction is clear, its statutory construction and legislative text is anything but clear. The provision is rife with limitations, exceptions to limitations, phase-ins and phase-out’s, and critical but poorly defined terms of art. As a result, the new law has created ample controversy since its enactment, with many tax advisers anticipating that until further guidance is issued, the uncertainty surrounding the provision will lead to countless disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. Adding concern is that, despite the ambiguity inherent in the law, Congress saw fit to lower the threshold at which any taxpayer claiming the deduction can be subject to a substantial understatement penalty.

Right now is a great time for tax planning and creating an analysis specific to your business to determine if you qualify for the deduction. If you do not qualify for the deduction we can advise you on other options that may be available to you. Please do not hesitate to call us.

The information within this email is an accumulation from many sources; especially, Parker Tax Pro Library and The Tax Adviser April 2018 issue.

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Reporting Relief

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

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

This relief does not apply to payment card transactions.

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

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

Backup Withholding Relief

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

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

Effect on Other Documents

Notice 2011-42 is obsoleted.

Notice 2024-85

IR-2024-299

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

The Final Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applicability Dates

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

T.D. 10014

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

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

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

Hydrogen Energy Storage P property

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

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

Thermal Energy Storage Property

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

Biogas P property

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

Unit of Energy P property

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

Energy Projects

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

T.D. 10015

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Penalty Relief

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

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

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

Notice 2025-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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

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

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

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

Proper Use of Form 8275

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

FS-2024-32

IR-2024-310