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 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.

WASHINGTON–With Congress in its lame duck session to close out the remainder of 2024 and with Republicans taking control over both chambers of Congress in the just completed election cycle, no major tax legislation is expected, although there is potential for minor legislation before the year ends.

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. 

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. For those aged 73 or older, QCDs also count toward the year's required minimum distribution (RMD). Following are the steps for reporting and documenting QCDs for 2024:

• IRA trustees issue Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., in early 2025 documenting IRA distributions.
• Record the full amount of any IRA distribution on Line 4a of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors.
• Enter "0" on Line 4b if the entire amount qualifies as a QCD, marking it accordingly.
• Obtain a written acknowledgment from the charity, confirming the contribution date, amount, and that no goods or services were received.

Additionally, to ensure QCDs for 2024 are processed by year-end, IRA owners should contact their trustee soon. Each eligible IRA owner can exclude up to $105,000 in QCDs from taxable income. Married couples, if both meet qualifications and have separate IRAs, can donate up to $210,000 combined. QCDs did not require itemizing deductions. New this year, the QCD limit was subject to annual adjustments based on inflation. For 2025, the limit rises to $108,000.

Further, for more details, see Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, and Publication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).

IR-2024-289

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

Background

Code Sec. 6417, applicable to tax years beginning after 2022, was added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), P.L. 117-169, to allow “applicable entities” to elect to treat certain tax credits as payments against income tax. “Applicable entities” include tax-exempt organizations, the District of Columbia, state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and rural electric cooperatives. Code Sec. 6417 also contains rules specific to partnerships and directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations on making the election (“elective payment election”).

Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1), issued under T.D. 9988 in March 2024, provides that partnerships are not applicable entities for Code Sec. 6417 purposes. The 2024 regulations permit a taxpayer that is not an applicable entity to make an election to be treated as an applicable entity, but only with respect to certain credits. The only credits for which a partnership could make an elective payment election were those under Code Secs. 45Q, 45V, and 45X.

However, Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1) of the March 2024 final regulations also provides that if an applicable entity co-owns Reg. §1.6417-1(e) “applicable credit property” through an organization that has made Code Sec. 761(a) election to be excluded from application of the rules of subchapter K, then the applicable entity’s undivided ownership share of the applicable credit property is treated as (i) separate applicable credit property that is (ii) owned by the applicable entity. The applicable entity in that case may make an elective payment election for the applicable credit related to that property.

At the same time as they issued final regulations under T.D. 9988, the Treasury and IRS published proposed regulations (REG-101552-24, the “March 2024 proposed regulations”) under Code Sec. 761(a) permitting unincorporated organizations that meet certain requirements to make modifications (called “exceptions”) to the then-existing requirements for a Code Sec. 761(a) election in light of Code Sec. 6417.

Code Sec. 761(a) authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations permitting an unincorporated organization to exclude itself from application of subchapter K if all the organization’s members so elect. The organization must be “availed of”: (1) for investment purposes rather than for the active conduct of a business; (2) for the joint production, extraction, or use of property but not for the sale of services or property; or (3) by dealers in securities, for a short period, to underwrite, sell, or distribute a particular issue of securities. In any of these three cases, the members’ income must be adequately determinable without computation of partnership taxable income. The IRS believes that most unincorporated organizations seeking exclusion from subchapter K so that their members can make Code Sec. 6417 elections are likely to be availed of for one of the three purposes listed in Code Sec. 761(a).

Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) before amendment by T.D. 10012 required that participants in the joint production, extraction, or use of property (i) own that property as co-owners in a form granting exclusive ownership rights, (ii) reserve the right separately to take in kind or dispose of their shares of any such property, and (iii) not jointly sell services or the property (subject to exceptions). The March 2024 proposed regulations would have modified some of these Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) requirements.

The regulations under T.D. 10012 finalize some of the March 2024 proposed regulations. Concurrently with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury and IRS are issuing proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) that would make additional amendments to Reg. §1.761-2.

The Final Regulations

The final regulations issued under T.D. 10012 revise the definition in the March 2024 proposed regulations of “applicable unincorporated organization” to include organizations existing exclusively to own and operate “applicable credit property” as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(e). The IRS cautions, however, that this definition should not be read to imply that any particular arrangement permits a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The final regulations also add examples to Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5), not found in the March 2024 proposed regulations, to illustrate (1) a rule that the determination of the members’ shares of property produced, extracted, or used be based on their ownership interests as if they co-owned the underlying properties, and (2) details of a rule regarding “agent delegation agreements.”

In addition, the final regulations clarify that renewable energy certificates (RECs) produced through the generation of clean energy are included in “renewable energy credits or similar credits,” with the result that each member of an unincorporated organization must reserve the right separately to take in or dispose of that member’s proportionate share of any RECs generated.

The Treasury and IRS also clarify in T.D. 10012 that “partnership flip structures,” in which allocations of income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits change at some after the partnership is formed, violate existing statutory requirements for electing out of subchapter K and, thus, are by existing definition not eligible to make a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The Proposed Regulations

The preamble to the March 2024 proposed regulations noted that the Treasury and IRS were considering rules to prevent abuse of the Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) modifications. For instance, a rule mentioned in the preamble would have prevented the deemed-election rule in prior Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) from applying to any unincorporated organization that relies on a modification in then-proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii). The final regulations under T.D. 10012 do not contain any rules on deemed elections, but the Treasury and the IRS believe that more guidance is needed under Code Sec. 761(a) to implement Code Sec. 6417. Therefore, proposed rules (REG-116017-24, the “November 2024 proposed regulations”) are published concurrently with the final regulations to address the validity of Code Sec. 761(a) elections by applicable unincorporated organizations with elections that would not be valid without application of revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii).

Specifically, Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iv)(A) would provide that a specified applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election terminates as a result of the acquisition or disposition of an interest in a specified applicable unincorporated organization, other than as the result of a transfer between a disregarded entity (as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(f)) and its owner.

Such an acquisition or disposition would not, however, terminate an applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election if the organization (a) met the requirements for making a new Code Sec. 761(a) election and (b) in fact made such an election no later than the time in Reg. §1.6031(a)-1(e) (including extensions) for filing a partnership return with respect to the period of time that would have been the organization’s tax year if, after the tax year for which the organization first made the election, the organization continued to have tax years and those tax years were determined by reference to the tax year in which the organization made the election (“hypothetical partnership tax year”).

Such an election would protect the organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election against all terminating acquisitions and dispositions in a hypothetical year only if it contained, in addition to the information required by Reg. §1.761-2(b), information about every terminating transaction that occurred in the hypothetical partnership tax year. If a new election was not timely made, the Code Sec. 761(a) election would terminate on the first day of the tax year beginning after the hypothetical partnership taxable year in which one or more terminating transactions occurred. Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5)(iv) would add an example to illustrate this new rule.

These provisions would not apply to an organization that is no longer eligible to elect to be excluded from subchapter K. Such an organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election automatically terminates, and the organization must begin complying with the requirements of subchapter K.

The proposed regulations would also clarify that the deemed election rule in Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) does not apply to specified applicable unincorporated organizations. The purpose of this rule, according to the IRS, is to prevent an unincorporated organization from benefiting from the modifications in revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) without providing written information to the IRS about its members, and to prevent a specified applicable unincorporated organization terminating as the result of a terminating transaction from having its election restored without making a new election in writing.

In addition, the proposed regulations would require an applicable unincorporated organization making a Code Sec. 761(a) election to submit all information listed in the instructions to Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for making a Code Sec. 761(a) election. The IRS explains that this requirement is intended to ensure that the organization provides all the information necessary for the IRS to properly administer Code Sec. 6417 with respect to applicable unincorporated organizations making Code Sec. 761(a) elections.

The proposed regulations would also clarify the procedure for obtaining permission to revoke a Code Sec. 761(a) election. An application for permission to revoke would need to be made in a letter ruling request meeting the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance. The IRS indicates that taxpayers may continue to submit applications for permission to revoke an election by requesting a private letter ruling and can rely on Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance before the proposed regulations are finalized.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. apply to tax years ending on or after March 11, 2024 (i.e., the date on which the March 2024 proposed regulations were published). The IRS states that an applicable unincorporated organization that made a Code Sec. 761(a) election meeting the requirements of the final regulations for an earlier tax year will be treated as if it had made a valid Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) would apply to tax years ending on or after the date on which they are published as final.

T.D. 10012

NPRM REG-116017-24

IR-2024-292

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is criticizing the Internal Revenue Service for proposing changed to how it contacts third parties in an effort to assess or collect a tax on a taxpayer.

Current rules call for the IRS to provide a 45-day notice when it intends to contact a third party with three exceptions, including when the taxpayer authorizes the contact; the IRS determines that notice would jeopardize tax collection or involve reprisal; or if the contact involves criminal investigations.

The agency is proposing to shorten the length of proposing to shorten the statutory 45-day notice to 10 days when the when there is a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations for collection or certain other circumstances exist.

"The IRS’s proposed regulations … erode an important taxpayer protection and could punish taxpayers for IRS delays," Collins wrote in a November 7, 2024, blog post. The agency generally has three years to assess additional tax and ten years to collect unpaid tax. By shortening the timeframe, it could cause personal embarrassment, damage a business’s reputation, or otherwise put unreasonable pressure on a taxpayer to extend the statute of limitations to avoid embarrassment.

"Furthermore, the ten-day timeframe is so short, it is possible that some taxpayers may not receive the notice with enough time to reply," Collins wrote. "As a result, those taxpayers may incur the embarrassment and reputational damage caused by having their sensitive tax information shared with a third party on an expedited basis without adequate time to respond."

"The statute of limitations is an important component of the right to finality because it sets forth clear and certain boundaries for the IRS to act to assess or collect taxes," she wrote, adding that the agency "should reconsider these proposed regulations and Congress should consider enacting additional taxpayer protections for third-party contacts."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

Code Sec. 6335 governs how the IRS sells seized property and requires the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate, as soon as practicable after a seizure, to give written notice of the seizure to the owner of the property that was seized. The amended regulation updates the prescribed manner and conditions of sales of seized property to match modern practices. Further, the regulation as updated will benefit taxpayers by making the sales process both more efficient and more likely to produce higher sales prices.

The final regulation provides that the sale will be held at the time and place stated in the notice of sale. Further, the place of an in-person sale must be within the county in which the property is seized. For online sales, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(1) provides that the place of sale will generally be within the county in which the property is seized. so that a special order is not needed. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(5) provides that the IRS will choose the method of grouping property selling that will likely produce that highest overall sale amount and is most feasible.

The final regulation, as amended, removes the previous requirement that (on a sale of more than $200) the bidder make an initial payment of $200 or 20 percent of the purchase price, whichever is greater. Instead, it provides that the public notice of sale, or the instructions referenced in the notice, will specify the amount of the initial payment that must be made when full payment is not required upon acceptance of the bid. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1 updates details regarding permissible methods of sale and personnel involved in sale.

T.D. 10011

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The relief extends the BOI filing deadlines for reporting companies that (1) have an original reporting deadline beginning one day before the date the specified disaster began and ending 90 days after that date, and (2) are located in an area that is designated both by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as qualifying for individual or public assistance and by the IRS as eligible for tax filing relief.

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Beryl; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC7)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Debby; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC8)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Francine; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC9)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Helene; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC10)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Milton; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC11)

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

In an October 24, 2024, blog post, Collins noted that the IRS has "ended its practice of automatically assessing penalties at the time of filing for late-filed Forms 3250, Part IV, which deal with reporting foreign gifts and bequests."

She continued: "By the end of the year the IRS will begin reviewing any reasonable cause statements taxpayers attach to late-filed Forms 3520 and 3520-A for the trust portion of the form before assessing any Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6677 penalty."

Collins said this change will "reduce unwarranted assessments and relieve burden on taxpayers" by giving them an opportunity to explain the circumstances for a late file to be considered before the agency takes any punitive action.

She noted this has been a change the Taxpayer Advocate Service has recommended for years and the agency finally made the change. The change is an important one as Collins suggests it will encourage more taxpayers to file corrected returns voluntarily if they can fix a discovered error or mistake voluntarily without being penalized.

"Our tax system should reward taxpayers’ efforts to do the right thing," she wrote. "We all benefit when taxpayers willingly come into the system by filing or correcting their returns."

Collins also noted that there are "numerous examples of taxpayers who received a once-in-a-lifetime tax-free gift or inheritance and were unaware of their reporting requirement. Upon learning of the filing requirement, these taxpayers did the right thing and filed a late information return only to be greeted with substantial penalties, which were automatically assessed by the IRS upon the late filing of the form 3520," which could have penalized taxpayers up to 25 percent of their gift or inheritance despite having no tax obligation related to the gift or inheritance.

She wrote that the abatement rate of these penalties was 67 percent between 2018 and 2021, with an abatement rate of 78 percent of the $179 million in penalties assessed.

"The significant abetment rate illustrates how often these penalties were erroneously assessed," she wrote. "The automatic assessment of the penalties causes undue hardship, burdens taxpayers, and creates unnecessary work for the IRS. Stopping this practice will benefit everyone."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor