Archived – 首頁

The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

During a May 6, 2025, oversight hearing of the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, Bessent framed the current employment level at the IRS as “bloated” and is using the workforce reduction as a means to partially justify the smaller budget the agency is looking for.

“We are just taking the IRS back to where it was before the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] bill substantially bloated the personnel and the infrastructure,” he testified before the committee, adding that “a large number of employees” took the option for early retirement.

When pressed about how this could impact revenue collection activities, Bessent noted that the agency will be looking to use AI to help automate the process and maintain collection activities.

“I believe, through smarter IT, through this AI boom, that we can use that to enhance collections,” he said. “And I would expect that collections would continue to be very robust as they were this year.”

He also suggested that those hired from the supplemental funding from the IRA to enhance enforcement has not been effective as he pushed for more reliance on AI and other information technology resources.

There “is nothing that shows historically that by bringing in unseasoned collections agents … results in more collections or high-end collections,” Bessent said. “It would be like sending in a junior high school student to try to a college-level class.”

Another area he highlighted where automation will cover workforce reductions is in the processing of paper returns and other correspondence.

“Last year, the IRS spent approximately $450 million on paper processing, with nearly 6,500 full-time staff dedicated to the task,” he said. “Through policy changes and automation, Treasury aims to reduce this expense to under $20 million by the end of President Trump’s second term.”

Bessent’s testimony before the committee comes in the wake of a May 2, 2025, report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that highlighted an 11-percent reduction in the IRS workforce as of February 2025. Of those who were separated from federal employment, 31 percent of revenue agents were separated, while 5 percent of information technology management are no longer with the agency.

When questioned about what the IRS will do to ensure an equitable distribution of enforcement action, Bessent stated that the agency is “reviewing the process of who is audited at the IRS. There’s a great deal of politicization of that, so we are trying to stop that, and we are also going to look at distribution of who is audited and why they are audited.”

Bessent also reiterated during the hearing his support of making the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.

The IRS certified the taxpayer's tax liabilities as "seriously delinquent" in 2022. For a tax liability to be considered seriously delinquent, it must be legally enforceable under Code Sec. 7345(b).

The taxpayer's tax liabilities related to tax years 2005 through 2008 and were assessed between 2007 and 2010. The standard collection period for tax liabilities is ten years after assessment, meaning that the taxpayer's liabilities were uncollectible before 2022, unless an exception to the statute of limitations applied. The IRS asserted that the taxpayer's tax liabilities were reduced to judgment in a district court case in 2014, extending the collections period for 20 years from the date of the district court default judgment. The taxpayer maintained that he was never served in the district court case and the judgment in that suit was void.

The Tax Court held that its review of the IRS's certification of the taxpayer's tax debt is de novo, allowing for new evidence beyond the administrative record. A genuine issue of material fact existed whether the taxpayer was served in the district court suit. If not, his tax debts were not legally enforceable as of the 2022 certification, and the Tax Court would find the IRS's certification erroneous. The Tax Court therefore denied the IRS's motion for summary judgment and ordered a trial.

A. Garcia Jr., 164 TC No. 8, Dec. 62,658

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. In 2025, FEMA declared 12 major disasters across nine states due to storms, floods, and wildfires. Following are tips from the IRS to taxpayers to help ensure record protection:

• Store original documents like tax returns and birth certificates in a waterproof container;
• keep copies in a separate location or with someone trustworthy. Use flash drives for portable digital backups; and
• use a phone or other devices to record valuable items through photos or videos. This aids insurance or tax claims. IRS Publications 584 and 584-B help list personal or business property.

Further, reconstructing records after a disaster may be necessary for tax purposes, insurance or federal aid. Employers should ensure payroll providers have fiduciary bonds to protect against defaults, as disasters can affect timely federal tax deposits.

IR-2025-55

A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.

A prenuptial agreement between the decedent and his surviving spouse provided for, among other things, $3 million paid to the spouse's adult children in exchange for the spouse relinquishing other rights. Because the decedent did not amend his will to include the terms provided for in the agreement, the stepchildren sued the estate for payment. The tax court concluded that the payments to the stepchildren were not deductible claims against the estate because they were not "contracted bona fide" or "for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" (R. Spizzirri Est., Dec. 62,171(M), TC Memo 2023-25).

The bona fide requirement prohibits the deduction of transfers that are testamentary in nature. The stepchildren were lineal descendants of the decedent's spouse and were considered family members. The payments were not contracted bona fide because the agreement did not occur in the ordinary course of business and was not free from donative intent. The decedent agreed to the payments to reduce the risk of a costly divorce. In addition, the decedent regularly gave money to at least one of his stepchildren during his life, which indicated his donative intent. The payments were related to the spouse's expectation of inheritance because they were contracted in exchange for her giving up her rights as a surviving spouse. As a results, the payments were not contracted bona fide under Reg. §20.2053-1(b)(2)(ii) and were not deductible as claims against the estate.

R.D. Spizzirri Est., CA-11

The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.

Background

In 2021, the Treasury and Service established a $67 user fee for issuing said estate tax closing letter. This figure was based on a 2019 cost model.

In 2023, the IRS conducted a biennial review on the same issue and determined the cost to be $56. The IRS calculates the overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the statement of net cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office.

Current Rate

For this fee review, the fiscal year (FY) 2023 overhead rate, based on FY 2022 costs, 62.50 percent was used. The IRS determined that processing requests for estate tax closing letters required 9,250 staff hours annually. The average salary and benefits for both IR paybands conducting quality assurance reviews was multiplied by that IR payband’s percentage of processing time to arrive at the $95,460 total cost per FTE.

The Service stated that the $56 fee was not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entities. This guidance does not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

T.D. 10031

NPRM REG-107459-24

The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.

Additionally, the Tax Court correctly dismissed the taxpayer’s challenge to the notices of deficiency as untimely. The taxpayer filed his petition after the 90-day limitation under Code Sec. 6213(a) had passed. Finally, the taxpayer was liable for penalty under Code Sec. 6673(a)(1). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the taxpayer presented classic tax protester rhetoric and submitted frivolous filings primarily for purposes of delay.

Affirming, per curiam, an unreported Tax Court opinion.

Z.H. Shaikh, CA-3

House Republican tax writers have advanced a "Tax Reform 2.0" legislative package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.

The House Ways and Means Committee debated the GOP Tax Reform 2.0 three-bill package in a September 13 markup that ran almost seven hours. The package focuses on making permanent individual and small business tax cuts, and creating incentives for retirement savings and business innovation. The following three bills were approved along party lines:

• Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 ( HR 6760);
• Family Savings Act of 2018 ( HR 6757); and
• American Innovation Act of 2018 ( HR 6756).

Individual, Small Business Tax Cuts

HR 6757 would make permanent the individual and small business tax cuts that were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). These provisions were made temporary to comply with certain Senate budget rules applicable to the reconciliation process Republicans used to pass tax reform with only a simple GOP majority. Notable TCJA provisions that would be made permanent under HR 6750 include, among others:

• lowered individual income tax rates;
• 20-percent deduction of income for qualifying passthrough entities;
• $12,000 (individual) and $24,000 (married filing jointly) standard deduction; and
• $10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.

Family Savings and Business Innovation

HR 6757 aims to simplify certain rules for employer retirement plans, and eliminates the age limit on IRA contributions, among other things. Additionally, it would create a Universal Savings Account (USA), while also allowing tax-advantaged 529 Plans to be used for expenses related to trade schools, home schooling, and up to $10,000 in total distributions for repayment of student loans.

HR 6756 would improve the tax treatment of certain start-up businesses. The bill would allow new businesses to write off up to $20,000 of start-up and organization expenditures. Additionally, HR 6756 would allow for a change in start-up ownership without triggering limits on certain tax benefits.

JCT

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has estimated that all three bills will cost the federal government revenue. As noted in JCX-71-18, the JCT estimates that making permanent the individual and small business tax cuts under the TCJA, as proposed by HR 6750, would cost the federal government $631 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. Additionally, the JCT has estimated that HR 6756 and HR 6757, collectively, would cost approximately $26 billion in lost federal revenue over the next 10 years ( JCX-75-18, JCX-78-18).

Tax Reform 2.0’s Fate Uncertain

Tax Reform 2.0’s fate remains largely uncertain as it makes its way through the legislative process. While the measure is expected to garner enough Republican support in the House, despite certain GOP criticisms of the SALT deduction cap, it is not expected as a whole to fare well in the Senate. There is talk on Capitol Hill that Democrats could potentially support the retirement savings and business innovation bills in some form. However, it is considered unlikely that Democrats will support making permanent certain provisions of a law (the TCJA) for which not a single Democrat voted.

Charles P. "Chuck" Rettig was confirmed as the new IRS Commissioner on September 12. The Senate confirmed the nomination by a 64-to-33 vote. Rettig received both Democratic and Republican support.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, praised Rettig, saying that he is both "qualified and ready" to lead the IRS. Although SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., previously said that Rettig is a "qualified nominee," he urged colleagues to oppose Rettig’s nomination. Wyden previously said he would only support Rettig’s nomination if he promised to reverse recent IRS guidance which limits Schedule B donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38).

Rettig will oversee implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). His term as IRS Commissioner will expire on November 12, 2022.

New IRS guidance aiming to curb certain state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap "workarounds" is the latest "hot topic" tax debate on Capitol Hill. The IRS released proposed amendments to regulations, REG-112176-18, on August 23. The proposed rules would prevent taxpayers, effective August 27, 2018, from using certain charitable contributions to work around the new cap on SALT deductions.

SALT Deduction

The SALT deduction limit is one of the most controversial temporarily enacted provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) signed into law last December. Under the TCJA, beginning in 2018 and running through 2025, taxpayers may not claim more than $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for all state and local sales, income and property taxes.

After the tax code overhaul, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (considered high-tax states) passed legislation that essentially allows taxpayers to circumvent the SALT deduction cap by making charitable contributions to state-run charitable organizations. Indeed, similar workarounds for private-school tuition already exists in other states.

"Congress limited the deduction for state and local taxes that predominantly benefited high-income earners to help pay for major tax cuts for American families,"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. "The proposed rule will uphold that limitation by preventing attempts to convert tax payments into charitable contributions."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats, as with the TCJA, are mostly divided on the topic. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., praised the IRS proposal for aiming to prevent tax evasion. "These Treasury regulations rightly close the door on improper tax evasion schemes conjured up by state and local politicians who insist on brutally taxing local families and businesses," Brady said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers are criticizing the regulations. "The Trump administration doubled down on its attack on the middle class," Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a statement. "The administration’s new regulations block affected states’ attempts to cope with this significant change and protect residents."

Tax Policy Experts Weigh-In

Several tax policy experts have criticized states’ efforts to circumvent the SALT deduction cap. Carl Davis, research director at the Democratic-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, has called the workarounds an "abuse" of the charitable giving deduction. "Anyone who wants a fair and transparent tax system should be cautiously optimistic that these rules will put an end…to the workaround provisions enacted by states more recently," Davis wrote in a recent op-ed about the proposed IRS guidance.

Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, has said that states’ strategies to re-characterize SALT payments were pursued to primarily help high-income taxpayers. Additionally, the top one percent of the wealthiest households would reap more than half of the benefit if the SALT cap were eliminated, according to an estimate from the Democratic-leaning Tax Policy Center.

The IRS has proposed to remove the Code Sec. 385 documentation regulations provided in Reg. §1.385-2. Although the proposed removal of the documentation rules will apply as of the date the proposed regulations are published as final in the Federal Register, taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations until the final regulations are published.

The documentation regulations provide minimum documentation requirements that must be satisfied in order for certain related-party instruments to be treated as debt for federal tax purposes. They are part of final and temporary Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790, I.R.B. 2016-45, 540. In addition to the documentation requirements, the Section 385 regulations also include rules that recharacterize as equity certain debt issued in connection with distributions and acquisitions that do not result in new investment in the operations of the issuer. The Section 385 regulations apply generally to debt instruments issued by a domestic corporations (or its disregarded entity) and held by members of the domestic corporation’s expanded group.

Documentation Regulations

The documentation rules generally require large corporations to document related-party loans just as all businesses do when they borrow from unrelated lenders. Reg. §1.385-2 prescribes the nature of the documentation necessary to substantiate the tax treatment of related-party instruments as debt. Taxpayers must be able to provide written evidence of four indebtedness factors analogous to those found in third-party loans.

Compliance with the documentation rules does not establish that an interest is debt. Instead, it serves only to satisfy the minimum documentation for making the determination under general federal tax principles. If a debt instrument is reclassified as stock due to a failure to meet the documentation requirements, it is treated as stock for all federal tax purposes.

Corporations must document relevant transactions under these rules if they are part of expanded affiliated groups and:

• stock of any member of the group is publicly traded;
• one or more members have total assets that exceed $100 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements; or
• one or more members have annual total revenue that exceeds $50 million on any applicable financial statement or combination of statements.

The documentation regulations apply to relevant intercompany debt issued beginning in 2019, and require that the taxpayer’s documentation for a given tax year be prepared by the time the borrower’s return is filed.

Executive Order 13789

Executive Order 13789, issued on April 21, 2017 (E.O. 13789), instructs the Treasury Secretary to identify significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers, add undue complexity to the federal tax laws, or exceed the statutory authority of the IRS. The Treasury Secretary is instructed to take concrete actions to alleviate these burdens.

Based on E.O. 13789, the Treasury Department identified, among others, the Section 385 regulations adopted with T.D. 9790 as significant tax regulations that impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers and/or add undue complexity to the federal tax laws ( Notice 2017-38, I.R.B. 2017-30, 147).

In light of further actions in connection with the required review of the Section 385 regulations, and in response to continued taxpayer concern, the IRS has delayed the applicability date of the documentation regulations for 12 months. As a result, the documentation requirements apply to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2019. As originally adopted, the final regulations applied to interests issued or deemed issued on or after January 1, 2018 ( Notice 2017-36, I.R.B. 2017-33, 208).

In a later report, the Treasury has proposed to revoke the current documentation rules and replace them with substantially simplified and streamlined documentation rules ( TDNR SM-0172, October 4, 2017; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Second Report to the President on Executive Order 13789, October 2, 2017).

Proposed Removal of Documentation Rules

The IRS has proposed to remove the documentation regulations after considering the comments received in connection with E.O. 13789, including with respect to Notice 2017-36 and Notice 2017-38. However, the IRS will continue to study the issues addressed by the documentation regulations, When the study is complete, the IRS may propose a modified version of the documentation regulations. The revised documentation rules:

• would be substantially simplified and streamlined to reduce the burden on U.S. corporations;
• would still require sufficient documentation and other information for tax administration purposes; and
• would be proposed with a prospective effective date to allow sufficient lead time for taxpayers to design and implement systems to comply with the revised requirements.

Comments

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 23, 2018. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-130244-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-130244-17).

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction and its recently-released proposed regulations, REG-107892-18. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

II. Aggregation, Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: How do the proposed regulations provide both limitations and flexibility regarding the available election to aggregate trades or businesses?

Joshua Wu: Treasury agreed with various comments that some level of aggregation should be permitted to account for the legal, economic and other non-tax reasons that taxpayers operate a single business across multiple entities. Permissive aggregation allows taxpayers the benefit of combining trades or businesses for applying the W-2 wage limitation, potentially resulting in a higher limit. Under Proposed Reg. §1.199A-4, aggregation is allowed but not required. To use this method, the business must (1) qualify as a trade or business, (2) have common ownership, (3) not be a SSTB, and (4) demonstrate that the businesses are part of a larger, integrated trade or business (for individuals and trusts). The proposed regulations give businesses the benefits of electing aggregation without having to restructure the businesses from a legal standpoint. Businesses failing to qualify under the above test will have to consider whether a legal restructuring would be possible.

Wolters Kluwer: How does Notice 2018-64 Methods for Calculating W-2 Wages for Purposes of Section 199A, which accompanied the release of the proposed regulations, coordinate with aggregation?

Joshua Wu: Notice 2018-64 contains a proposed revenue procedure with guidance on three methods for calculating W-2 wages for purposes of section 199A. The Unmodified Box method uses the lesser of totals in Box 1 of Forms W-2 or Box 5 (Medicare wages). The Modified Box 1 method takes the total amounts in Box 1 of Forms W-2 minus amounts not wages for income withholding purposes, and adding total amounts in Box 12 (deferrals). The Tracking wages method is the most complex and tracks total wages subject to income tax withholding. The calculation method is dependent on the group of Forms W-2 included in the computation and, thus, will vary depending upon whether businesses are aggregated under §1.199A-4 or not. Taxpayers with businesses generating little or no Medicare wages may consider aggregating with businesses that report significant wages in Box 1 that are still subject to income tax withholding. Under the Modified Box 1 method, that may result in a higher wage limitation.

Crack & Pack

Wolters Kluwer: What noteworthy anti-abuse safeguards did the proposed regulations seek to establish? How do the rules address "cracking" or "crack and pack" strategies?

Joshua Wu: Treasury included some anti-abuse provisions in the proposed regulations. One area that Treasury noted was the use of multiple non-grantor trusts to avoid the income threshold limitations on the 199A deduction. Taxpayers could theoretically use multiple non-grantor trusts to increase the 199A deduction by taking advantage of each trust’s separate threshold amount. The proposed regulations, under the authority of 643(f), provide that two or more trusts will be aggregated and treated as a single trust if such trusts have substantially the same grantor(s) and substantially the same primary beneficiary or beneficiaries, and if a principal purpose is to avoid tax. The proposed regulations have a presumption of a principal purpose of avoiding tax if the structure results in a significant tax benefit, unless there is a significant non-tax purpose that could not have been achieved without the creation of the trusts.

Another anti-abuse issue relates to the "crack and pack" strategies. These strategies involve a business that is limited in its 199A deduction because it is an SSTB spinning off some of its business or assets to an entity that is not an SSTB and could claim the 199A deduction. For example, a law firm that owns its building could transfer the building to a separate entity and lease it back. The law firm is an SSTB and, thus, is subject to the 199A limitations. However, the real estate entity is not an SSTB and can generate a 199A deduction (based on the rental income) for the law partners. The proposed regulations provide that a SSTB includes any business with 50 percent common ownership (direct or indirect) that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to an excluded trade or business. Also, if a trade or business shares 50 percent or more common ownership with an SSTB, to the extent that trade or business provides property or services to the commonly-owned SSTB, the portion of the property or services provided to the SSTB will be treated as an SSTB. The proposed regulations provide an example of a dentist who owns a dental practice and also owns an office building. The dentist rents half the building to the dental practice and half to unrelated persons. Under [Proposed Reg.] §1.199A-5(c)(2), the renting of half of the building to the dental practice will be treated as an SSTB.

Winners & Losers

Wolters Kluwer: Generally, what industries can be seen as "winners" and "losers" in light of the proposed regulations?

Joshua Wu: The most obvious "losers" in the proposed regulations are the specified services businesses (e.g., lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc.) who are further limited by the anti-abuse provisions in arranging their affairs to try and benefit from 199A. On the other hand, certain specific service providers benefit from the proposed regulations. For example, health clubs or spas are exempt from the SSTB limitation. Additionally, broadcasters of performing arts, real estate agents, real estate brokers, loan officers, ticket brokers, and art brokers are all exempt from the SSTB limitation.

Wolters Kluwer: What areas of the Code Sec. 199A provision stand out as most complex when calculating the deduction, and how does this complexity vary among taxpayers?

Joshua Wu: With respect to calculating the deduction, one complex area is planning to maximize the W-2 wages limitation. Because compensation as W-2 wages can reduce QBI, and potentially the 199A deduction, determining the efficient equilibrium point between having enough W-2 wages to limit the impact of the wage limitation, while preserving QBI, will be a fact-driven complex planning issue that must be determined by each taxpayer. Another area of complexity will be how taxpayers track losses which may reduce future QBI and, thus, the 199A deduction. The proposed regulations provide that losses disallowed for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, are not taken into account for purposes of computing QBI in a later taxable year. Taxpayers will be left to track pre-2018 and post-2018 losses and determine if a loss in a particular tax year reduces QBI or not.

III. Looking Ahead

Questions Remain

Wolters Kluwer: An IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer that the IRS did not expect the proposed regulations to answer all questions surrounding the deduction. Indeed, Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter has said that stakeholder feedback would help finalize the regulations. What significant questions remain unanswered for taxpayers and tax practitioners, and has additional uncertainty been created with the release of the IRS guidance?

Joshua Wu: On the whole, the proposed regulations did a good job addressing the most important areas of Section 199A. However, there are many areas where additional guidance would be helpful. Such guidance may be in the form of additional regulations or other administrative pathways. For example, the proposed regulations did not address the differing treatment between a taxpayer operating as a sole proprietor versus an S corporation. Wages paid to an S corporation shareholder boosts the W-2 limitation but are not considered QBI. Thus, with the same underlying facts, the 199Adeduction may vary between taxpayers operating as a sole proprietor versus those operating as an S corporation.

Possible Changes to Proposed Regulations

Wolters Kluwer: In what ways do you see the passthrough deduction rules changing when the final regulations are released?

Joshua Wu: I suspect that the core components of the proposed regulations will not change significantly. However, I would not be surprised if Treasury were to include more specific examples with respect to real estate and whether certain types of activity constitute a trade or business. Additionally, the proposed regulations will likely generate comments and questions from various industry groups related to the SSTB definitions and specific types of services (e.g., do trustees and executors fall under the legal services definition). Treasury may change the definitions of SSTBs in response to comments and clarify definitions for industry groups.

Tax Reform 2.0

Wolters Kluwer: The White House and congressional Republicans are currently moving forward on legislative efforts known as "Tax Reform 2.0." The legislative package proposes making permanent the passthrough deduction. How does the impermanence of this deduction currently impact taxpayers? (Note: On September 13, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up a three-bill Tax Reform 2.0 package. The measure is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote by the end of September.)

Joshua Wu: The 199A deduction has a significant impact on the choice of entity question for businesses. With the 21 percent corporate rate, we have seen many taxpayers considering restructuring away from passthrough entities to a C corporation structure. The 199A deduction is a large consideration in whether to restructure or not, but its limited effective time does raise questions about the cost effectiveness of planning to obtain the 199A deduction where the benefit will sunset in eight years.

Key Takeways

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Wolters Kluwer: Aside from advice on specific taxpayer situations, what key takeaways should tax practitioners generally alert clients to ahead of the 2019 tax filing season?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners should remind clients who may benefit from the 199A deduction to keep detailed records of any losses for each line of business, as this may impact the calculation of QBI in the future. Practitioners should also help clients examine the whole of their activity to define their "trades or businesses." This will be essential to calculating the 199A deduction and planning to maximize any such deduction. Finally, practitioners should remember that some of the information that may be necessary to determine a 199A deduction may not be in their client’s possession. Practitioners need to plan in advance with their clients regarding how information about each trade or business will be obtained (e.g., how will a limited partner in a partnership obtain information regarding the partnership’s W-2 wages and/or UBIA of qualified property).

Wolters Kluwer: Any closing thoughts or comments?

Joshua Wu: Practitioners and taxpayers should remember that the regulations are only proposed and may change before they become final. Any planning undertaken this year should carefully weigh the economic costs and be rooted in the statutory language of 199A. It will be some time before case law helps clarify the nuances of Section 199A, and claiming the deduction allows the IRS to more easily impose the substantial understatement penalty if a taxpayer gets it wrong.

Wolters Kluwer has projected annual inflation-adjusted amounts for tax year 2019. The projected amounts include 2019 tax brackets, the standard deduction, and alternative minimum tax amounts, among others. The projected amounts are based on Consumer Price Index figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor on September 12, 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) mandated a change from the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U). Official amounts for 2019 should be released by the IRS later in 2018.

Individual Tax Brackets

The projected bracket ranges for individuals in 2019 are as follows.

For married taxpayers filing jointly:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $19,400
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $19,400 and up to $78,900
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $78,900 and up to $168,400
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $168,400 and up to $321,450
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $321,450 and up to $408,200
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $408,200 and up to $612,350
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $612,350

For heads of households:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $13,850
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $13,850 and up to $52,850
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $52,850 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For unmarried taxpayers:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,700
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,700 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $510,300
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $510,300

For married taxpayers filing separately:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $9,700
The 12 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,700 and up to $39,450
The 22 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $39,450 and up to $84,200
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $84,200 and up to $160,725
The 32 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $160,725 and up to $204,100
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $204,100 and up to $306,175
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $306,175

For estates and trusts:

The 10 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes up to $2,600
The 24 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $2,600 and up to $9,300
The 35 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $9,300 and up to $12,750
The 37 percent bracket applies to taxable incomes over $12,750

Standard Deduction

TCJA also roughly doubled the amount of the standard deduction. For 2019, the following standard deduction amounts are projected:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $24,400
For heads of households, $18,350
For unmarried taxpayers and well as married taxpayers filing separately, $12,200

AMT Exemptions

TCJA eliminated the AMT for corporations, and increased the exemption amounts, and the exemption phaseouts, for individuals. For 2019, the AMT exemption amounts are projected to be:

For married taxpayers filing jointly, $111,700
For unmarried individuals and heads of households, $71,700
For married taxpayers filing separately, $55,850

Estate and Gift Tax

The following amounts related to transfer taxes (estate, generation-skipping, and gift taxes) are projected for 2019:

The gift tax annual exemption is projected to be $15,000 in 2019

The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion (increased under TCJA) is projected to be $11,400,000 for decedents dying in 2019

The exclusion for gifts made in 2019 to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen is projected to be $155,000 for 2019

Other Amounts

The following other amounts are also projected for 2019:

The adoption credit for 2019 is projected to be $14,080 for 2019.

For 2019, the allowed Roth IRA contribution amount is projected to phase out for married taxpayers filing jointly with income between $193,000 and $203,000 For heads of household and unmarried filers, the projected phaseout range is between $122,000 to $137,000.

The maximum amount of deductible contributions that can be made to an IRA is projected to be $6,000 for 2019. The increased contribution amount for taxpayers age 50 and over will, therefore, be $7,000.

The deduction for traditional IRA contributions is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers whose income is greater than $103,000 if both spouses are covered by a retirement plan at work. If only one spouse is covered by a retirement plan at work, the phaseout is projected to begin when modified adjusted gross income reaches $193,000. For heads of household and unmarried filers who are covered by a retirement plan at work, the 2019 income phaseout range for deductible IRA contributions is projected to begin at $64,000.

For 2019, the $2,500 student loan interest deduction is projected to begin to phase out for married joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $140,000. For single taxpayers, the 2019 deduction is projected to begin to phase out at a MAGI level of over $70,000.

The amount of the 2019 foreign earned income exclusion under Code Sec. 911 is projected to be $105,900.

The IRS has released long-awaited guidance on new Code Sec. 199A, commonly known as the "pass-through deduction" or the "qualified business income deduction." Taxpayers can rely on the proposed regulations and a proposed revenue procedure until they are issued as final.

Code Sec. 199A allows business owners to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income (QBI) from sole proprietorships, partnerships, trusts, and S corporations. The deduction is one of the most high-profile pieces of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

In addition to providing general definitions and computational rules, the new guidance helps clarify several concepts that were of special interest to many taxpayers.

Trade or Business

The proposed regulations incorporate the Code Sec. 162 rules for determining what constitutes a trade or business. A taxpayer may have more than one trade or business, but a single trade or business generally cannot be conducted through more than one entity.

Taxpayers cannot use the grouping rules of the passive activity provisions of Code Sec. 469 to group multiple activities into a single business. However, a taxpayer may aggregate trades or businesses if:

• each trade or business is itself a trade or business;
• the same person or group owns a majority interest in each business to be aggregated;
• none of the aggregated trades or businesses can be a specified service trade or business; and
• the trades or businesses meet at least two of three factors which demonstrate that they are in fact part of a larger, integrated trade or business.

Specified Service Business

Income from a specified service business generally cannot be qualified business income, although this exclusion is phased in for lower-income taxpayers.

A new de minimis exception allows some business to escape being designated as a specified service trade or business (SSTB). A business qualifies for this de minimis exception if:

• gross receipts do not exceed $25 million, and less than 10 percent is attributable to services; or
• gross receipts exceed $25 million, and less than five percent is attributable to services.

The regulations largely adopt existing rules for what activities constitute a service. However, a business receives income because of an employee/owner’s reputation or skill only when the business is engaged in:

• endorsing products or services;
• licensing the use of an individual’s image, name, trademark, etc.; or
• receiving appearance fees.

In addition, the regulations try to limit attempts to spin-off parts of a service business into independent qualified businesses. Thus, a business that provides 80 percent or more of its property or services to a related service business is part of that service business. Similarly, the portion of property or services that a business provides to a related service business is treated as a service business. Businesses are related if they have at least 50-percent common ownership.

Wages/Capital Limit

A higher-income taxpayer’s qualified business income may be reduced by the wages/capital limit. This limit is based on the taxpayer’s share of the business’s:

• W-2 wages that are allocable to QBI; and
• unadjusted basis in qualified property immediately after acquisition.

The proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-34, provide detailed rules for determining the business’s W-2 wages. These rules generally follow the rules that applied to the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction.

The proposed regulations also address unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA). The regulations largely adopt the existing capitalization rules for determining unadjusted basis. However, "immediately after acquisition" is the date the business places the property in service. Thus, UBIA is generally the cost of the property as of the date the business places it in service.

Other Rules

The proposed regulations also address several other issues, including:

• definitions;
• basic computations;
• loss carryovers;
• Puerto Rico businesses;
• coordination with other Code Sections;
• penalties;
• special basis rules;
• previously suspended losses and net operating losses;
• other exclusions from qualified business income;
• allocations of items that are not attributable to a single trade or business;
• anti-abuse rules;
• application to trusts and estates; and
• special rules for the related deduction for agricultural cooperatives.

Effective Dates

Taxpayers may generally rely on the proposed regulations and Notice 2018-64 until they are issued as final. The regulations and proposed revenue procedure will be effective for tax years ending after they are published as final. However:

• several proposed anti-abuse rules are proposed to apply to tax years ending after December 22, 2017;
• anti-abuse rules that apply specifically to the use of trusts are proposed to apply to tax years ending after August 9, 2018; and
• if a qualified business’s tax year begins before January 1, 2018, and ends after December 31, 2017, the taxpayer’s items are treated as having been incurred in the taxpayer’s tax year during which business’s tax year ends.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-107892-18). Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS also requests comments on the proposed revenue procedure for calculating W-2 wages, especially with respect to amounts paid for services in Puerto Rico. Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov, with “ Notice 2018-64” in the subject line. These comments must also be received by September 24, 2018.

The IRS’s proposed pass-through deduction regulations are generating mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. The 184-page proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, aim to clarify certain complexities of the new, yet temporary, Code Sec. 199A deduction of up to 20 percent of income for pass-through entities. The new deduction was enacted through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), ( P.L. 115-97). The pass-through deduction has remained one of the most controversial provisions of last year’s tax reform.

A legislative package that would make permanent the pass-through deduction, as well as other individual tax cuts, is expected to move though the House this fall. However, the House’s legislative efforts are not expected, at this time, to pass muster in the more narrowly GOP-controlled Senate.

Criticism

Several Democratic lawmakers and tax policy experts have already started to weigh in on the proposed regulations, which were released on August 8 while Congress remained in its annual August recess. Democrats have criticized the new deduction for primarily benefiting the wealthy. Meanwhile, several tax policy experts have taken to Twitter to note that the deduction is overly complex and administratively burdensome.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has reportedly said that the proposed regulations "confirm that the fortunate few win," under the new tax law. "Tax planners are already scouring through the nearly 200 pages of regulations in search of new ways to keep wealthy clients from paying their fair share."

Compliance Burdens

The pass-through deduction could add 25 million hours to taxpayers’ annual reporting burden, according to the proposed regulations. Additionally, the IRS has estimated that gross reporting annualized costs to taxpayers will total approximately $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Furthermore, the IRS has estimated that the compliance burden will vary between taxpayers, averaging between 30 minutes and 20 hours. The administrative burden on smaller pass-through entities is anticipated to be on the lower end of the estimate, according to the IRS.

Comment. Ryan Kelly, partner at Alston & Bird LLP, told Wolters Kluwer on August 13 that the IRS’s 25 million-hour estimate, whether accurate or not, suggests that there will be a significant increase in administrative compliance costs. "There is a real cost to tax compliance in lost time and productivity for taxpayers," Kelly said. However, Kelly predicted that taxpayers’ Code Sec. 199A compliance burden will eventually decrease. "Time will reveal the extent of taxpayers’ administrative burden to comply; however, it is likely that as time goes on the taxpayers’ compliance burden will fall as taxpayers, tax practitioners, and the Service all become more familiar with section 199A and how it is intended to operate."
Meanwhile, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees have both praised Treasury and the IRS for quickly releasing the much anticipated regulations. Additionally, several tax policy experts have also praised the proposed regulations for alleviating confusion, as well as taxpayer anxiety, about ambiguous provisions of the law.

"This first-ever 20 percent deduction for small businesses allows our local job creators to keep more of their money so they can hire, invest, and grow in their communities," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a statement. "These proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty and flexibility for Main Street businesses in this historic new small business deduction."

Improvements to the proposed regulations are expected in the coming months as stakeholders submit comments. A public hearing at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been scheduled for October 16. "Evolution of tax regulations is generally never a pretty process, but it is a necessary process that in this case will hopefully happen sooner rather than later," Kelly told Wolters Kluwer.

The House’s top tax writer has unveiled Republicans’ "Tax Reform 2.0" framework. The framework outlines three key focus areas:

• making permanent the individual and small business tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97);
• promoting family savings by streamlining retirement savings accounts and creating a new Universal Savings Account; and
• spurring business innovation by allowing new businesses to write off more initial start-up costs.

Tax Reform 2.0

The GOP’s tax reform "phase two" framework—otherwise known as "Tax Cuts 2.0"—was released by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex. on July 24. The outline is expected to be used for GOP "listening sessions" to be held among lawmakers.

Brady has said that making permanent the TCJA’s individual and small business tax cuts, enacted last December temporarily through 2025, will be the "centerpiece" of the next tax reform package. Further, Brady told reporters on July 24 that he anticipates Tax Reform 2.0 to move forward as three separate tax bills. A House vote on the package is expected sometime in September.

Preliminary Analysis

Republicans’ Tax Reform 2.0 framework is a "good start," according to a July 24 report released by the independent, yet widely-considered conservative-leaning, think tank Tax Foundation. The report praised the framework’s proposal to streamline retirement savings accounts and make permanent the TCJA’s individual tax cuts. Additionally, the Tax Foundation estimates that making permanent the individual tax cuts set to expire in 2026 would grow the U.S. economy by 2.2 percent while reducing federal revenue by $165 billion annually on a static basis.

Democrats Disagree

However, several Democratic lawmakers began issuing statements criticizing the Tax Reform 2.0 framework shortly after its release. Democrats have remained united in their disapproval of the TCJA, criticizing last year’s tax code overhaul for primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations.

"Republicans’ first tax bill exposed the party’s real priorities: big corporations and people at the top," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., said in a July 24 statement. "This new framework is more of the same – it rewards the well-off and well-connected, fails to reinstate the state and local tax deduction, and leaves the middle class behind."

Corporate Tax Cuts

The Tax Reform 2.0 framework did not include a proposal to further reduce the corporate tax rate. President Trump has called for lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. The corporate tax rate was lowered from 35 to 21 percent last December under the TCJA. Brady previously told reporters that House Republicans and the White House are continuing discussions on the idea.

Tax Reform 3.0, 4.0

"Tax Reform 2.0 is a new commitment to improve the tax code each and every year for American families and local businesses," the framework says. Congress will examine the tax code each year to identify areas of needed improvement, according to the outline. Additionally, Brady has said he hopes to see a Tax Reform 3.0, 4.0, and so on.

Senate

At this time, the Tax Reform 2.0 package is not expected to clear the Senate in its entirety. It is thought on Capitol Hill that Democrats may support measures that focus on retirement and education savings and business innovation. However, several lawmakers view it as unlikely that Democrats would support a bill that makes permanent the individual tax cuts under the TCJA.

Brady has reportedly said that extending TCJA’s individual provisions would increase the deficit by $600 billion over 10 years but would be offset, at least in part, by beneficial economic factors. Several Senate Democrats and Republicans have said they would not vote for extending or creating tax cuts that increase the federal deficit.

The IRS faces numerous challenges, most of which are attributable to funding cuts, the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson told a Senate panel on July 26. "The IRS needs adequate funding to do its job effectively," Olson told lawmakers.

IRS Funding

Olson, while testifying at a Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Taxation and IRS Oversight Subcommittee hearing, placed blame on both congressional appropriations and IRS management for the Service’s challenges. "While some of the IRS’s struggles can be addressed by better management, much of the IRS’s challenges are attributable to funding cuts," Olson said.

The IRS has simultaneously seen an increased workload and budget reduction of 20 percent when accounting for inflation between fiscal years 2010 and 2018, according to Olson. "Because of these reductions, the IRS does not have enough employees to answer the phones, to conduct outreach and education, or to provide basic taxpayer service," she added.

Further, Olson noted that the IRS answered only 29 percent of telephone calls received on the Accounts Management lines during this year’s filing season. Additionally, IRS compliance and enforcement efforts have also struggled, Olson said, adding that the audit rate is at its lowest level in "memory."

Likewise, Phyllis Jo Kubey, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Enrolled Agents, IRS Advisory Council, remarked on decreased IRS funding. "The agency is handicapped by budgeting that is not only insufficient to meet its large and growing portfolio, but also inefficiently structured," Kubey told lawmakers.

IRS Reform

The SFC subcommittee hearing came just days after the 20-year anniversary of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The House and Senate are currently working toward approving bipartisan legislation that would significantly reform the IRS for the first time in 20 years.

SFC Taxation and IRS Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., unveiled on July 26 the bipartisan Protecting Taxpayers Bill. The measure aims to reform a number of IRS functions and administrative practices, according to a joint press release issued the same day.

"It has been 20 years since the last significant IRS reform, and it is time to update the agency once again," Portman said in the press release. Similarly, Cardin praised the bill for including needed updates to modernize the IRS. "Americans of all income levels deserve a responsive, effective IRS, and the updates contained in this bipartisan bill will help keep the IRS on that path," Cardin said.

Additionally, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., recently introduced the bipartisan Taxpayer First Bill ( Sen. 3246). The measure would also reform certain administrative practices at the IRS.

To that end, the House approved its bipartisan IRS reform package, the Taxpayer First Bill ( HR 5444) last April. The House package contains several proposals, which would, among other things:

• establish a single point of contact for tax-related identity theft victims;
• expand the use of Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs); and
• require electronic filing for certain tax-exempt organizations

Path Forward

Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer that the House’s IRS reform proposals are a "welcomed step forward." Additionally, Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he will work with his "colleagues in Congress to find a path forward that reflects both the House and Senate views."

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Republicans are clarifying congressional intent of certain tax reform provisions. In an August 16 letter, GOP Senate tax writers called on Treasury and the IRS to issue tax reform guidance consistent with the clarifications.

The letter, addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter, identifies three sections of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) needing clarification:

• Section 13204 – qualified improvement property expensing;
• Section 13302 – net operating losses (NOLs) deduction; and
• Section 13307 – sexual misconduct settlement deduction.

Real Property Depreciation

Congressional intent for Section 13204 under the TCJA was to provide a 15-year modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) recovery period for qualified improvement property, the lawmakers wrote. Additionally, the letter states that the new law should also provide a 20-year alternative deprecation system (ADS) recovery period for qualified improvement property.

NOLs

The TCJA contains a typographical error in Section 13302. The law should state that the NOL carryforward and carryback modifications are effective for NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the lawmakers noted. Currently, the legislative text states the effective date is for tax years ending after December 31, 2017.

Attorney’s Fees

Generally, section 13307 of the TCJA denies a deduction for attorney’s fees related to a settlement or payment stemming from a sexual harassment/abuse nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Congressional intent was that attorney’s fees would not be subject to the rule prohibiting the deduction, the letter states.

Technical Corrections

SFC Republicans intend to introduce a technical corrections bill addressing other needed clarifications of the TCJA, the letter notes. The intended technical corrections bill is not expected to be a part of Republican "Tax Reform 2.0" efforts.

"While this letter focuses on these three important provisions, we are continuing a thorough review…to identify other instances in which the language as enacted may require regulatory guidance or technical corrections to reflect the intent of the Congress. After this review, we intend to introduce technical corrections legislation to address any items identified in the on-going review."

Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity on certain S corporation issues by next tax filing season, the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has said. In an August 13 letter sent to Treasury and the IRS, the AICPA requested immediate guidance on certain S corporation provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) (P.L. 115-97).

S Corporations

S corporations elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through to shareholders for federal tax purposes. Thus, S corporations are considered a pass-through entity. This election allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income, according to the IRS.

"Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity on S corporation issues in order to comply with their 2018 tax obligations and to make informed decisions regarding cash-flow, entity structure, and tax planning issues," Annette Nellen wrote in the letter on behalf of the AICPA. Generally, the letter noted the following three areas for which guidance is needed:

• application of the new laws on loss carryforwards;
• clarification of certain provisions relating to the post-termination transition period (PTTP) and the eligible terminated S corporation period (ETSC Period); and
• treatment of deferred foreign income upon transition to participation exemption system of taxation for S corporation trust shareholders.

Earlier this year, the AICPA also called for guidance on the Code Sec. 199A new pass-through deduction.