On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.
On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.
Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.
Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.
"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.
Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.
As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."
Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.
IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.
To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.
"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."
Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:
- Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
- Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
- Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
- Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
- Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
- Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.
"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare
"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.
Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.
Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.
To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."
Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.
From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.
My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.
Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?
Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.
That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.
"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?
Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:
If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.
Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?
In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.
Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?
Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:
If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.
I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.
But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:
LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.
That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.
"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.
However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.
Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?
Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.
"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?
Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.
The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.
Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?
Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.
These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.
Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?
Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:
Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]
Footnote 1 provides:
This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.
Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.
Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.
Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.
Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.
"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?
Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.
The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.
Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.
The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.
The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.
These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.
The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.
The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.
No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.
The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.
Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.
Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.
The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.
The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.
Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:
- is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
- has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
- is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
- is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
- is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
- is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.
The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:
- $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
- $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.
The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.
Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.
Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:
- the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
- the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
- the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.
If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.
Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.
The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.
The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.
SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.
Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.
60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.
For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.
SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.
2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.
For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.
Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.
The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.
Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.
The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.
The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.
Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.
The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.
Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.
Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.
There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).
HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.
The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)
The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)
Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.
461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive
Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.
Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.
Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.
Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.
The draft forms are:
- Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
- Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.
These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.
Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.
To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.
Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.
The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.
The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:
- Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
- Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
- Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
- Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
- Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
- Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
- Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
- Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
- Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
- Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
- Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).
The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.
Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.
Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."
For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.
Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.
The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.
The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.
Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:
- a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
- a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).
The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.
Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.
For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.
More specific substantiation requirements are required for:
- intangible property;
- sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
- the provision of general services to recipients.
The requirements include either:
- a specific document;
- information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
- a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.
Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.
The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:
- evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
- provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
- define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
- provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.
The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:
- a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
- a subcategory for advertising services.
In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.
Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.
The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.
Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).
The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.
Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.
Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:
- a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
- the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
- the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
- elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
- clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
- removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.
Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.
The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.
Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.
The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).
Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.
In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.
The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.
As the 2013 filing season gets underway, some taxpayers may experience delays in filing returns and others need to revisit their returns because of the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) on January 1, 2013. Late tax legislation always complicates tax planning and filing and 2013 is no exception. ATRA extended many popular tax incentives for individuals and businesses retroactively to January 1, 2012. This means that qualified taxpayers may claim them on their 2012 returns filed in 2013. ATRA also made many changes that take effect in 2013, which will require careful planning as this year unfolds.
As the 2013 filing season gets underway, some taxpayers may experience delays in filing returns and others need to revisit their returns because of the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) on January 1, 2013. Late tax legislation always complicates tax planning and filing and 2013 is no exception. ATRA extended many popular tax incentives for individuals and businesses retroactively to January 1, 2012. This means that qualified taxpayers may claim them on their 2012 returns filed in 2013. ATRA also made many changes that take effect in 2013, which will require careful planning as this year unfolds.
Delayed start to filing season
The most immediate effect of ATRA is a delayed start to the 2013 filing season. Shortly after passage of ATRA, the IRS announced that the 2013 filing season would begin on January 30, 2013. That reflected a delay of eight days from the previously anticipated start date of January 22, 2013. The IRS explained that it needed time to program its processing systems for ATRA. As of January 30, the IRS was able to accept returns affected by the AMT patch as well as three very popular "tax extenders:" the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition deduction and teachers' classroom expense deduction.
However, some taxpayers will experience a further delay. A number of tax forms affected by late legislation require more extensive programming and testing of IRS systems. The IRS reported that it aims to begin accepting returns including these forms between late February and into March. The IRS predicted that a specific date will be announced in the near future. Among the forms that require more extensive programming changes are some commonly used forms, most notably Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization). Other forms affected by the delay include Form 5695 (Residential Energy Credits) and Form 3800 (General Business Credit).
The IRS also announced special relief for farmers and fishermen who are affected by the delay. Normally, farmers and fishermen who choose not to make quarterly estimated tax payments are not subject to a penalty if they file their returns and pay the full amount of tax due by March 1. Under the guidance to be issued, farmers or fishermen who miss the March 1 deadline will not be subject to the penalty if they file and pay by April 15, 2013.
Retroactive and prospective extensions
For individuals, some of the most popular incentives are the three mentioned above (the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction and the teachers' classroom expense deduction). Other incentives that were retroactively extended to January 1, 2012 by ATRA, and therefore are available for 2012 returns filed in 2013, include special rules treating mortgage insurance premiums as deductible interest that is qualified residence interest, and special rules for contributions of capital gains real property for conservation purposes.
Another valuable incentive extended by ATRA is a tax break for energy efficient improvements. ATRA extended retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013 the Code Sec. 25C energy credit. Energy efficiency improvements include adding insulation, energy-efficient exterior windows and doors and certain roofs. The credit has a lifetime limit; qualifying improvements must be placed into service to the taxpayer's principal residence before January 1, 2014, and there are other restrictions.
ATRA also provided transition relief for individuals wishing to make tax-free transfers of IRA funds to charitable organizations. For tax year 2012 only, IRA owners could choose to report qualified charitable distributions made in January 2013 as if they occurred in 2012. Additionally, IRA owners who received IRA distributions during December 2012 could contribute, in cash, part or all of the amounts distributed to eligible charities during January 2013 and have them count as 2012 qualified charitable distributions.
For businesses, ATRA extended many temporary incentives. Among the most commonly claimed are enhanced small business expensing, bonus depreciation, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). Under ATRA, the Code Sec. 179 small business expensing dollar limit for tax years 2012 and 2013 is $500,000 with a $2 million investment limit (both amounts indexed for inflation). Bonus depreciation is available at 50 percent through 2013 and the WOTC is also available through 2013. Many other business-related incentives that had expired at the end of 2011 are available for 2012 and 2013.
Another extended incentive is transit benefits parity. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include transit passes, van pooling, and qualified parking. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for parity for the exclusion limitation on transit passes, van pool benefits and qualified parking through 2011. ATRA extended transit benefits parity retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013. In Rev. Proc. 2013-15, the IRS reported that the inflation-adjusted maximum monthly excludable amount for 2013 is $245 for transit passes and van pool benefits and also $245 for qualified parking. The IRS has issued administrative relief for employers that provided transit benefits in 2012 at their pre-ATRA rates.
Changes for 2013 and beyond
ATRA's most far-reaching changes – allowing the Bush-era tax rates to expire after 2012 for individuals with incomes over $400,000 and families with incomes over $450,000 along with increased capital gains and dividend taxes for higher income taxpayers – will be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014. Other important provisions, such as the revived limitation on itemized deductions and the personal exemption phaseout, also will kick-in in 2013 and be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014. Also taking effect in 2013 are an Additional Medicare Tax and a Net Investment Income surtax. All these changes should be taken into account in planning your 2013 tax strategy.
Please contact our office for more information about the affect of ATRA on the 2013 filing season and tax planning for future years.
The IRS has announced a new optional safe harbor method, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals to determine the amount of their deductible home office expenses (IR-2013-5, Rev. Proc. 2013-13). Being hailed by many as a long-overdue simplification option, taxpayers may now elect to determine their home office deduction by simply multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer's residence used for business purposes.
The IRS has announced a new optional safe harbor method, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals to determine the amount of their deductible home office expenses (IR-2013-5, Rev. Proc. 2013-13). Being hailed by many as a long-overdue simplification option, taxpayers may now elect to determine their home office deduction by simply multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer's residence used for business purposes.
The IRS cites that over three million taxpayers in recent tax years have claimed deductions for business use of a home, which normally requires the taxpayer to fill out the 43-line Form 8829. Under the new procedure, a significantly simplified form is used. The new method is expected to reduce paperwork and recordkeeping for small businesses by an estimated 1.6 million hours annually, according to the IRS. The new optional deduction is limited to $1,500 per year, based on $5 per square foot for up to 300 square feet.
The simplified method is not effective for 2012 tax year returns being filed during the current 2013 filing season, but it will become effective for 2013 tax year returns filed in 2014. Taxpayers may want to investigate now whether they could benefit from the election for the 2013 tax year. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller advised upon announcement of the safe harbor that "The IRS … encourages people to look at this option as they consider tax planning in 2013." A final decision on the election need not be made until 2014, when 2013 returns are filed.
Basic home office deduction rule
Under Code 280A, which governs the home office deduction rules on the simplified method election, a taxpayer may deduct expenses that are allocable to a portion of the dwelling unit that is exclusively used on a regular basis. This generally means usage as:
- The taxpayer's principal place of business for any trade or business
- A place to meet with the taxpayer's patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business, or
- In the case of a separate structure that is not attached to the dwelling unit, in connection with the taxpayer's trade or business.
The new simplified method does not remove the requirement to keep records that prove exclusive use, on a regular basis, for one of the three designated uses listed above. It does help, however, in other ways.
Simplified safe harbor
Using the new simplified safe harbor method, a taxpayer determines the amount of deductible expenses for qualified business use of the home for the tax year by multiplying the allowable square footage by the prescribed rate. The allowable square footage is the portion of a home used in a qualified business use of the home, but not to exceed 300 square feet. The prescribed rate is $5.00 per square foot.
Taxpayers who itemize their returns and use the safe harbor method may also deduct, to the extent allowed by the Tax Code and regs, any expense related to the home that is deductible without regard to whether there is a qualified business use of the home for that tax year, the IRS explained. As a result, they will be able to claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions on Schedule A of Form 1040. These deductions do not need to be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.
Depreciation
Taxpayers using the safe harbor cannot deduct any depreciation for the portion of the home that is used in a qualified business use of the home for that tax year. For many taxpayers, depreciation is the largest component of the home office deduction under the regular method that must be sacrificed if the new safe harbor method is used. Depending upon the value of your home and the space devoted to an office at home, using the regular method may prove to be the far better choice than electing the simplified method.
Election
Taxpayers may elect from tax year to tax year whether to use the safe harbor method or actual expense method. Once made, an election for the tax year is irrevocable. The IRS has provided rules for calculating the depreciation deduction if a taxpayer uses the safe harbor for one year and actual expenses for a subsequent year. The deduction of expenses that are not related to the home, such as wages and supplies, is unaffected and those deductions are still available to those using the new method.
Limitations
The IRS set various limits on the safe harbor, including:
- Taxpayers with more than one qualified business use of the same home for a tax year and who elect the safe harbor must use the safe harbor for each qualified business use of the home.
- Taxpayers with qualified business uses of more than one home for a tax year may use the safe harbor for only one home for that tax year.
- A taxpayer who has a qualified business use of a home and a rental use of the same home cannot use the safe harbor for the rental use.
If you are currently claiming a home office deduction, or if you have considered taking the deduction in the past but were discouraged by all of the paperwork and calculations required, you should consider whether the new, simplified safe harbor method is right for you. Please feel free to contact this office for further details.
Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, "large" employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be subject to stiff monetary penalties if they do not provide affordable and minimum essential health coverage. With less than eleven months before this "play or pay" provision is fully effective, the IRS continues to release critical details on what constitutes an "applicable large employer," "full-time employee," "affordable coverage," and "minimum health coverage." Most recently, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations that provide employers with the most comprehensive explanation of their obligations and options to date.
Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, "large" employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be subject to stiff monetary penalties if they do not provide affordable and minimum essential health coverage. With less than eleven months before this "play or pay" provision is fully effective, the IRS continues to release critical details on what constitutes an "applicable large employer," "full-time employee," "affordable coverage," and "minimum health coverage." Most recently, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations that provide employers with the most comprehensive explanation of their obligations and options to date.
Background
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) the federal government has made it possible for certain workers who do not otherwise have access to affordable health insurance coverage to obtain a tax credit that would help them pay the costs of their health care premiums. This credit applies to low-income workers whether employed by a small, mid-size or large employer or self-employed. Under Code Sec. 4980H as added by the PPACA, however, an "applicable large employer" is subject to a shared responsibility payment (an assessable payment) after December 31, 2013 if any of its full-time employees are certified to receive an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and either:
- The employer does not offer to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (Code Sec. 4980H(a)); or
- The employer offers its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan that with respect to a full-time employee who has been certified for the advance payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction either is unaffordable relative to an employee's household income or does not provide minimum value (Code Sec. 4980H(b)).
The Code Sec. 4980H(b) penalty applies to coverage that is "unaffordable," meaning that the coverage costs more than 9.5 percent of the employee's household income. Since employers may not be able to determine household income, the proposed regs provide three affordability safe harbors: the Form W-2 safe harbor (based on employee wages); the rate of pay safe harbor (based on hourly or monthly pay rates); and the federal poverty line safe harbor, the IRS explained.
The employer cannot be liable under both Code Secs. 4980H(a) and 4980H(b). Furthermore, the penalty cannot exceed the payment amount that would have been imposed under Code Sec. 4980H(a) if the employee had failed to offer coverage to its full-time employees.
Proposed reliance regs
The proposed reliance regs further clarify what employees are considered "full-time employees" for the purpose of the statute. This distinction is important because the number of full-time employees determines who is an applicable large employer, subject to the affordable coverage requirements and, potentially, the per-employee shared responsibility payment. The proposed reliance regs provide additional guidance on who is a full-time employee, and covers gray areas such as the treatment of seasonal employees.
Other guidance under the regs covers whether employers who have only become applicable large employers in the current year are exempt from the shared responsibility payment. (Generally, they are not.) The proposed reliance regulations also provide certain relief to employers who inadvertently miss some employees.
Finally, the proposed reliance regs provide several transition rules. A major rule allows employers with plans on a fiscal year to wait to apply the standards until the first day of the first plan year that begins in 2014. Another rule exempts employers from penalties in 2014 if they must add dependent coverage to their health plans. Other transition rules apply to health plans offered through cafeteria plans and multiemployer plans. In addition, there are many notification responsibilities that will be placed upon the shoulders of all employers regarding access by their employees to health insurance.
If you have questions about the health care requirements for employers, the shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 4980H, or anything related to the tax provisions of the new health care law, please contact our offices.
Beginning in 2013, the capital gains rates, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, are as follows for individuals:
Beginning in 2013, the capital gains rates, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, are as follows for individuals:
- A capital gains rate of 0 percent applies to the adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 10 or 15 percent ordinary income tax rate.
- A capital gains rate of 15 percent applies to adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 25, 28, 33, or 35 percent ordinary income tax rate.
- A capital gains rate of 20 percent applies to adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 39.6 percent ordinary income tax rate beginning after December 31, 2012.
Individuals are subject to the 39.6 percent ordinary income tax rate beginning in 2013 to the extent their taxable income exceeds the applicable threshold amount of $450,000 for married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses, $425,000 for heads of households, $400,000 for single individuals, and $225,000 for married individuals filing separate returns.
Comment: The only change from 2012 rates is the 20 percent rate, applied as described, above. Prior to 2013, the highest tax rate on net capital gain was 15 percent.
Comment: Adjusted net capital gain is net capital gain from capital assets held for more than one year other than unrecaptured Code Sec. 1250 gain (25 percent); collectibles gain (28 percent) or gain from qualified small business stock (varying rates).
Examples
Following the rules outlined above, computations for higher-income taxpayers (those whose taxable income together with net capital gains exceed the 39.6 percent tax bracket threshold amounts, which are also the threshold amounts for the 20 percent capital gain rate) are illustrated under three scenarios:
Example 1: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $475K in net capital gain and $200K in ordinary income:
- $200K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $43,465.50 tax.
- $475K capital gain is taxed:
- $250K of $475 net capital gain at 15 percent ($450K threshold less $200K ordinary income) = $37,500
- The remainder of the net capital gain $225K ($475K less $250K that was taxed at 15 percent) is taxed at 20 percent = $45,000
Total tax liability: $43,465.50 on $200K ordinary income and $82,500 on $475K net capital gain.
Example 2: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $200K in net capital gain and $475K in ordinary income:
- $475K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $135,746 tax.
- $200K capital gain is taxed:
- All of $200K net capital gain at 20 percent ($450K threshold already exceeded by $475K in ordinary income) = $40,000.
Total tax liability: $135,746 on $475K ordinary income and $40,000 on $200K net capital gain.
Example 3: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $50K ordinary income and $425K in net capital gain:
- $50K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $4,845
- $425K net capital gain is taxed:
- $20,700 at zero percent ($70,700, which is the top of the 15 percent bracket less $50K ordinary income) = $0
- $379,300 at 15 percent ($450,000 less $70,700) = $56,895
- $25,000 at 20 percent (balance of ordinary income plus capital gain over $450K threshold) = $5,000.
Total tax liability: $4,845 on $50K ordinary income and $40,000 on $200K net capital gain.
An above-the-line deduction is an adjustment to income (deduction) that can be taken regardless of whether the individual taxpayer itemizes deductions. The adjustment reduces the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). These adjustments are also sometimes called deductions from gross income, as opposed to itemized deductions that are deducted from AGI. An above-the-line deduction is taken out of income "above" the line on the tax form on which adjusted gross income is reported.
An above-the-line deduction is an adjustment to income (deduction) that can be taken regardless of whether the individual taxpayer itemizes deductions. The adjustment reduces the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). These adjustments are also sometimes called deductions from gross income, as opposed to itemized deductions that are deducted from AGI. An above-the-line deduction is taken out of income "above" the line on the tax form on which adjusted gross income is reported.
Above-the-line deductions are more desirable than itemized deductions because:
- they are more available (for example, they are not phased out or subject to a floor like many itemized deductions);
- they can be claimed even if the taxpayer does not itemize deductions; and
- they lower the taxpayer's AGI, which can allow the taxpayer to qualify for more and/or larger deductions.
The above-the-line deductions include:
- Trade or business expenses
- Net operating loss deduction
- Loss from sales and exchanges
- Depreciation and depletion
- Deductions tied to rents and royalties
- Teacher's classroom expenses
- Jury pay turned over to employer
- Overnight travel expenses of Reserve or National Guard
- Supplemental unemployment compensation repayments
- Business expenses of qualifying performing artists
- Contributions to individual retirement accounts
- Student loan interest deduction
- Tuition and fees deduction
- Health savings account deduction
- Moving expenses
- ½ of self-employment tax
- Health insurance costs of the self-employed
- Contributions to SIMPLE or SEP plans
- Penalty for early withdrawal of funds from a savings account
- Alimony payments
- Legal fees and costs paid in certain actions involving civil rights violations or whistleblower awards
- Domestic production activities deduction
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of February 2013.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of February 2013.
February 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 26–29.
February 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 30–February 1.
February 8
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 2–5.
February 11
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during January must report them to their employer using Form 4070.
February 13
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 6–8.
February 15
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 9–12.
February 21
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 13–15.
February 22
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 16–19.
February 27
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 20–22.
March 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 23–26.
March 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 27–March 1.
In what undeniably came down to the wire in the early hours of January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, along with many other provisions, permanently extends the so-called Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making under $400,000 and families making under $450,000 (those above those thresholds now pay at a 39.6 percent rate). The House followed with passage late in the day on January 1; and President Obama signed the bill into law on January 2. Thus, the more than decade-long fight over the fate of the tax cuts, originally enacted under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), accelerated under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and extended by Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) comes to an end.
In what undeniably came down to the wire in the early hours of January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, along with many other provisions, permanently extends the so-called Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making under $400,000 and families making under $450,000 (those above those thresholds now pay at a 39.6 percent rate). The House followed with passage late in the day on January 1; and President Obama signed the bill into law on January 2. Thus, the more than decade-long fight over the fate of the tax cuts, originally enacted under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), accelerated under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and extended by Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) comes to an end.
Prelude to the Fiscal Cliff
On May 26, 2001, Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). The legislation was hailed as the largest tax cut in 20 years and dramatically changed the landscape of the federal tax code. Two years later, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was signed into law and accelerated many of the tax cuts set in motion under EGTRRA. Originally scheduled to sunset, or expire, after December 31, 2010, Congress extended these popular provisions for another two years in late 2010 with the passage of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. In 2010, Congress acted before the end of the year to extend the cuts. At the end of 2012, Congress and President Obama engaged in intense negotiations over the “fiscal cliff,” a term that came to combine many federal laws that had a deadline of December 31, 2012, including the Bush-era tax cuts. Congress then passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 on New Year’s Day, 2013, effectively averting the fiscal cliff.
What Does This Mean for You?
The new law extends a majority of the Bush-era tax cuts in the same form as they have existed since 2001 or 2003 when initially enacted. However, major exceptions include a rise in rates, including a maximum 20 percent on capital gains and dividends, on higher-income individuals, as described above, and an increase in the estate tax rate from 35 to 40 percent. In addition to a general extension of the tax rates, many other provisions, including some not affected by the sunset of the Bush-era tax cuts, are significantly or permanently extended, including:
- Marriage penalty relief;
- Inflation protection against the alternative minimum tax (AMT);
- Deductions for student loan interest and tuition and fees;
- Enhanced child tax and child and dependent care credits;
- Simplified earned income credit;
- Deductions for primary and secondary school teacher expenses;
- Deductions for state and local sales taxes;
- Research credits;
- Energy-efficiency credits for homes and vehicles; and
- Many more provisions.
Unfortunately, the new law is also significant in what it does not do in one important respect. It does not renew the so-called payroll tax holiday that had been in effect during 2011 and 2012. As a result, employees and self-employed individuals will be paying 2 percent more employment tax on their earnings up to the Social Security wage base (which is up to $113,700 for 2013).
Finally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act also includes extensions of provisions that expired at the end of 2011, but now apply to the 2012 tax year. That means it has immediate effect on the 2013 filing season.
The landscape of federal tax law has changed once again, and with it the need to reassess present tax strategies. Please call this office if you have any questions about the new law or how it impacts you directly.
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are popular retirement savings vehicles that enable taxpayers to build their nest egg slowly over the years and enjoy tax benefits as well. But what happens to that nest egg when the IRA owner passes away?
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are popular retirement savings vehicles that enable taxpayers to build their nest egg slowly over the years and enjoy tax benefits as well. But what happens to that nest egg when the IRA owner passes away?
The answer to that question depends on who inherits the IRA. Surviving spouses are subject to different rules than other beneficiaries. And if there are multiple beneficiaries (for example if the owner left the IRA assets to several children), the rules can be complicated. But here are the basics:
Spouses
Upon the IRA owner's death, his (or her) surviving spouse may elect to treat the IRA account as his or her own. That means that the surviving spouse could name a beneficiary for the assets, continue to contribute to the IRA, and would also avoid having to take distributions. This might be a good option for surviving spouses who are not yet near retirement age and who wish to avoid the extra 10-percent tax on early distributions from an IRA.
A surviving spouse may also rollover the IRA funds into another plan, such as a qualified employer plan, qualified employee annuity plan (section 403(a) plan), or other deferred compensation plan and take distributions as a beneficiary. Distributions would be determined by the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules based on the surviving spouse's life expectancy.
In the alternative, a spouse could disclaim up to 100 percent of the IRA assets. Some surviving spouses might choose this latter option so that their children could inherit the IRA assets and/or to avoid extra taxable income.
Finally, the surviving spouse could take all of the IRA assets out in one lump-sum. However, lump-sum withdrawals (even from a Roth IRA) can subject a spouse to federal taxes if he or she does not carefully check and meet the requirements.
Non-spousal inherited IRAs
Different rules apply to an individual beneficiary, who is not a surviving spouse. First of all, the beneficiary may not elect to treat the IRA has his or her own. That means the beneficiary cannot continue to make contributions.
The beneficiary may, however, elect to take out the assets in a lump-sum cash distribution. However, this may subject the beneficiary to federal taxes that could take away a significant portion of the assets. Conversely, beneficiaries may also disclaim all or part of the assets in the IRA for up to nine months after the IRA owner's death.
The beneficiary may also take distributions from the account based on the beneficiary's age. If the beneficiary is older than the IRA owner, then the beneficiary may take distributions based on the IRA owner's age.
If there are multiple beneficiaries, the distribution amounts are based on the oldest beneficiary's age. Or, in the alternative, multiple beneficiaries can split the inherited IRA into separate accounts, and the RMD rules will apply separately to each separate account.
The rules applying to inherited IRAs can be straightforward or can get complicated quickly, as you can see. If you have just inherited an IRA and need guidance on what to do next, let us know. Likewise, if you are an IRA owner looking to secure your savings for your loved ones in the future, you can save them time and trouble by designating your beneficiary or beneficiaries now. Please contact our office with any questions.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of January 2013.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of January 2013.
January 3
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 26-28.
January 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 29-January 1.
January 9
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 2-4.
January 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during December must report them to their employer using Form 4070.
January 11
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 5-8.
January 16
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 9-11.
January 18
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 12-15.
January 24
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 16-18.
January 25
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 19-22.
January 30
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 23-25.
February 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 26-29.
February 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 30-February 1.
All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year. President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year. At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.
All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year. President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year. At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.
Taxes and spending
Almost immediately after President Obama won re-election, Democrats and Republicans scrambled to stake out their positions over the fiscal cliff. Unless the White House and the GOP reach an agreement, the Bush-era tax cuts will expire for all taxpayers after 2012 and across-the-board spending cuts will take effect. Many popular but temporary tax incentives, known as tax extenders, expired after 2011, with many more scheduled to expire after 2012. The alternative minimum tax (AMT), intended many years ago to apply to wealthy taxpayers, is on track to encroach on more middle income taxpayers because it is not indexed for inflation. Also, the employee-side payroll tax cut is scheduled to expire after 2012.
Since winning a second term, President Obama has repeated that the Bush-era tax cuts should expire for higher income individuals after 2012. The top two tax rates would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent after 2012. All of the remaining rates would be extended. Tax rates on capital gains and dividends would also increase for higher income individuals. On the campaign trail, President Obama described higher income taxpayers as individuals with incomes above $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000.
President Obama has talked about trimming $4 trillion from the federal budget deficit. Approximately $1.6 trillion would come from increased taxes on higher income individuals. To achieve a target of $1.6 trillion in tax revenue, the Bush-era tax cuts could not be extended for higher income individuals. Other incentives for higher income individuals would likely be curtailed or possibly eliminated under the President’s plan. These include the personal exemption phaseout (PEP) and the Pease limitation on itemized deductions. President Obama may also re-propose his “Buffett Rule,” which, the President has explained, would ensure that individuals making over $1 million a year pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent.
The GOP, its majority reduced in the House after the November elections, has offered few details about its plans to avoid the fiscal cliff. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has indicated that the GOP may be open to raising revenue by closing tax loopholes and capping certain unspecified deductions for higher income individuals. Revenue could also be raised by limiting or abolishing business tax deductions and credits. Among the business tax incentives most often hinted at for elimination are ones for oil and gas producers. President Obama, however, has said that he will not support a deficit reduction plan that relies on closing undefined tax loopholes.
Possible scenarios
Looking ahead, several scenarios may play out before year-end. President Obama and the GOP could agree on a tax and deficit reduction package that meets or comes close to the President’s targets. President Obama and the GOP may agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and delay the spending cuts for three or six months to give everyone more time to negotiate a long-term deal. On the other hand, both sides could fail to reach any agreement before year-end and the Bush-era tax cuts would expire as scheduled. The spending cuts also would kick-in as scheduled.
Filing season
Whenever Congress changes the tax laws, the IRS has to reprogram its return processing systems. Tax laws passed late in 2012 have the potential to delay the start of the 2013 filing season depending on how long it takes the IRS to reprogram its systems.
IRS officials have told Congress that they are preparing for late tax legislation, especially legislation on the AMT. In past years, Congress has routinely “patched” the AMT to shield middle income taxpayers from its reach. The IRS appears to be anticipating that Congress will patch the AMT for 2012. If Congress does not, the IRS has warned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for as many as 60 million taxpayers.
The IRS also must reprogram its processing systems for the tax extenders. These tax law changes generally do not require the level of reprogramming the AMT patch requires. The IRS has predicted that any year-end extension of the extenders will be manageable.
Please contact our office if you have any questions about the tax and spending negotiations underway in Washington.
As the end of the calendar year approaches, taxpayers ordinarily prefer to minimize current-year income by deferring the inclusion of taxable income to the following year, while accelerating deductions to the current year. However, as many taxpayers are aware, individual income tax rates may increase in 2013, with the potential for dramatic increases for higher-income individuals (if not all individuals).
As the end of the calendar year approaches, taxpayers ordinarily prefer to minimize current-year income by deferring the inclusion of taxable income to the following year, while accelerating deductions to the current year. However, as many taxpayers are aware, individual income tax rates may increase in 2013, with the potential for dramatic increases for higher-income individuals (if not all individuals).
While it is unclear how many taxpayers will see tax increases in 2013, it is certain that rates will not be any lower than they are in 2012. Thus, some, if not all, individuals will have an incentive to accelerate income into 2012.
Annual bonuses for 2012
Employees earning annual bonuses for services performed in 2012 ordinarily would receive the bonus in 2013. And generally the employer would take the deduction in 2013. However, some employees may prefer to receive the bonus in 2012, to take advantage of the lower current tax rates. An employer may want to deduct the bonus in the earlier year, to reduce taxable income. The IRS recently issued Chief Counsel Advice (CCA 201246029) on the treatment of a bonus that illustrates some of the practical obstacles to accelerating bonus income.
A lesson learned
In the CCA, the employer awarded bonuses for the calendar year (the year of service) based on company performance. The total bonus amount accrued for financial accounting purposes at the end of the year. The bonuses were paid early in the following year, after the employer finalized the amounts, provided that the employee still worked for the company.
In Rev. Rul. 2011-29, the IRS determined that the employer can accrue liability, and take a deduction, for bonuses in the earlier year, where the employer can establish the fact of the liability for bonuses paid to a group of employees, even though the recipients’ identities and amounts payable were determined in the following year. In contrast, in the CCA, the IRS concluded that the taxpayer’s liability to pay bonuses was not fixed until the contingency was satisfied – the employee had to be still employed on the date of payment. Therefore, the bonuses were not deductible until the following year, when they were paid.
While the CCA does not discuss it, presumably if the employer paid the bonuses in the year of service (2012), they would be deductible in that same year. The employees would take the bonuses into income in 2012, when tax rates were lower. Furthermore, the income would avoid the new 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on earned income, which takes effect in 2013.
Important timing exception
In the CCA, the timing was identical for the employer and the employee. Under Code Sec. 404, concerning deferred compensation, the employer may not deduct the bonus until the same time that the employee takes it into income. Under an exception, however, if the employer pays the bonus in 2013 but within 2 ½ months after the end of 2012, an accrual basis taxpayer can deduct the payment in the current year, even though the employee would not include it in income until it is paid in 2013. This presumes that the bonuses are fixed at the end of 2012 and that the employer does not use a plan like the one described in the CCA.
With 2013 bearing down on us, we hope you have a moment to spare from holiday preparation for some good old-fashioned year-end tax planning. By now you must be familiar with the term “fiscal cliff” and how the expiring provisions, tax rates, and budget appropriations may affect small business, big business, and politics in Washington, DC. However, the looming expiration dates for the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax provisions set to become effective in 2013 may also have consequences for how you save for retirement. This year we have advice for IRA account holders in particular.
With 2013 bearing down on us, we hope you have a moment to spare from holiday preparation for some good old-fashioned year-end tax planning. By now you must be familiar with the term “fiscal cliff” and how the expiring provisions, tax rates, and budget appropriations may affect small business, big business, and politics in Washington, DC. However, the looming expiration dates for the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax provisions set to become effective in 2013 may also have consequences for how you save for retirement. This year we have advice for IRA account holders in particular:
Avoiding increased tax. If you have a traditional individual retirement account (IRA) and you are thinking about converting to a Roth so you can accumulate tax-free earnings, you might want to do it before the year ends. First, if you are in a high-income tax bracket, your taxes are likely to increase if the Bush-tax cuts expire. Converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA creates a taxable event, and you may lose more money to the government by converting in 2013 than you would if you convert before 2012 ends.
Secondly, taxpayers whose projected 2013 adjusted gross income (AGI) will approach $250,000 (or $200,000 for single filers) may want to avoid converting their traditional IRA in 2013. The addition of their IRA assets to their AGI may push them within the income range limits for taxpayers subject to the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income that goes into effect in 2013.
Please note that the converted IRA assets would not themselves be subject to the 3.8 percent surtax. However the surtax would apply to any investment income the taxpayer has. Such investment income would include items such as (but not limited to) dividends, rents, royalties, interest, except municipal-bond interest, capital gains, and income from the sale of a principal residence worth more than the $250,000/$500,000 exclusions.
Undoing a conversion. You might be asking what would happen if you convert to a Roth IRA in 2012 and then Congress extends the current tax rates. In such cases, you would have until October 15, 2013 to undo the transaction. You could put the money back into your traditional IRA as if you had never converted in the first place. In other words, there would be no taxable event.
2010 conversion and deferral. Taxpayers who already converted their traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010 were given a one-time privilege of deferring half of the income from the conversion to 2011 and the other half until 2012. If taxpayers elected to defer their IRA conversion income in this way, the 2012 tax year has arrived. They must report that second half of their conversion income on their 2012 tax returns. If you are a taxpayer who must report income from a previous Roth IRA conversion in 2012, it might not be in your best interest to generate additional income by converting yet another IRA before the year ends.
Contributions. The 2012 year-end will also bring several changes to the rules on IRA contributions, which may affect your planning. In 2013, the limits on maximum annual contributions to an IRA will go up from $5,000 to $5,500 ($6,500 for contributors age of 50 and over, up from $6,000 in 2012). This increase in contribution limits is the first time the IRS has adjusted the limit since 2008.
The adjusted gross income level at which taxpayers must begin to phase-out their contributions will also go up in 2013:
Income levels for a traditional IRA contribution |
| 2013 | 2012 |
Singles | $59,000 to $69,000 | $58,000 to $68,000 |
Married (filing jointly)* | $95,000 to $115,000 | $92,000 to $112,000 |
Married (filing jointly)** | $178,000 to $188,000 | $173,000 to $183,000 |
*If the spouse who makes the IRA contribution is covered by a workplace retirement plan.
**If the contributing spouse is not covered by a workplace retirement plan, but is married to a spouse who is covered. |
Income levels for a Roth IRA contribution |
| 2013 | 2012 |
Singles | $112,000 to $127,000 | $110,000 to $125,000 |
Married (filing jointly) | $178,000 to $188,000 | $173,000 to $183,000 |
However, tax planners should note that the deadline for making IRA contributions for the 2012 tax year remains unchanged. You still have until your filing date, which is April 15, 2013, to make contributions for 2012.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of December 2012.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of December 2012.
December 5
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates November 28–30.
December 7
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 1–4.
December 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during November must report them to their employer using Form 4070.
December 12
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 5–7.
December 14
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 8–11.
December 19
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 12–14.
December 21
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 15–18.
December 27
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 19–21.
December 28
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 22–25.
January 3
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 26–28.
January 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 29–31.
The fate of many of the tax incentives taxpayers have grown accustomed to over recent years will likely remain up in the air until Congress and the Administration finally face off weeks before year-end 2012. While the results of Election Day will have bearing on the outcome, no crystal ball can predict how the ultimate short-term compromise will unfold. As a result, some year-end tax planning must be deferred and executed ”at the eleventh hour” only after Congress passes and the President signs what will likely result in a stopgap, temporary compromise for 2013. Tax rates for higher-bracket individuals and a long list of “extenders” provisions such as the child tax credit, the enhanced education credits and the optional deduction for state and local sales tax, hang in the balance. Real tax reform for 2014 and beyond, in any event, won’t be hammered out until 2013 is well underway.
The fate of many of the tax incentives taxpayers have grown accustomed to over recent years will likely remain up in the air until Congress and the Administration finally face off weeks before year-end 2012. While the results of Election Day will have bearing on the outcome, no crystal ball can predict how the ultimate short-term compromise will unfold. As a result, some year-end tax planning must be deferred and executed ”at the eleventh hour” only after Congress passes and the President signs what will likely result in a stopgap, temporary compromise for 2013. Tax rates for higher-bracket individuals and a long list of “extenders” provisions such as the child tax credit, the enhanced education credits and the optional deduction for state and local sales tax, hang in the balance. Real tax reform for 2014 and beyond, in any event, won’t be hammered out until 2013 is well underway.
Traditional Planning for Individuals
2012 year-end legislation clearly plays a major role in 2012 year-end tax planning for many taxpayer. Nevertheless, traditional year-end tax planning should not be overlooked in the meantime. In many cases, attention to traditional considerations, now, will prove more important to a majority of taxpayers’ bottom line. Here is a checklist of some traditional year-end planning considerations not to be overlooked:
- Changes in filing status: marriage, divorce, death of a spouse, or a change in head-of-household status during 2012 (or anticipated for 2013) will impact on your tax bracket and bottom line tax liability. Anticipate the additional expense or lower tax bill that a change in filing status may bring.
- Birth of a child, adoption, combined families through re-marriage, and even the ages of children in 2012 and 2013 can matter to year-end tax planning. Dependency exemptions in some instances depend upon the amount of support provided within the tax year. The ability to take advantage of the child tax credit, the child-care credit, the earned income credit, application of the kiddie tax, and the ability to be covered under a parent’s health insurance under the new health care law in part hinges upon how a “child” is defined within certain age limits (varying from under age 13, to under age 17, 19, 24 or 26, depending upon the provision).
- Retirement and semi-retirement is also a major event for tax purposes for which first-year “required minimum distributions” from retirement savings must be calculated and made. Also an important year-end consideration for the newly retired is facing what is typically an entirely new matrix of investment income considerations focused on “smoothing” the amount of income and deductions among several years to achieve maximum tax results.
- Timing the recognition of capital gains and losses is important, in particular to maximize offsetting short-term gains (that are tax at ordinary income rates) with short-term losses. Also especially relevant to 2012 year-end timing of capital gains and losses is the introduction of a 3.8 percent Medicare contributions tax that will be assessed on excess net investment income starting in 2013.
- Projecting available itemized deductions for 2012, then controlling whether a better tax result might take place by deferring or accelerating some of those deductions, is frequently important. Some taxpayers who are close to the amount of their standard deduction amount may want to load deductions into a single year, say 2013, so they have enough to itemize deductions for that year, while still be entitled to the maximum amount of their standard deduction into an adjacent year (2012 in our example). Other taxpayers need to be aware of alternative minimum tax (AMT) exposure in which many deductions become cut back or eliminated.
- Unusual expenses that may generate an atypical deduction or credit, such as emergency medical expenses, moving expenses, or unemployment and job-search expenses, may need special attention. In connection with medical expenses, and particularly relevant to 2012 year-end planning, is the increase in the floor on deductible medical expenses from 7.5 percent adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2012 to 10 percent AGI in 2013 (7.5 percent for those who reach 65 years of age by the close of the tax year).
- Gift giving, both charitable and for estate planning purposes, usually reaches a high point at year end and for good reason. In addition to better knowing what assets remain available for gifting (or what income needs offsetting with a charitable deduction), certain tax benefits cannot be accumulated but must be used or lost each year. For example, the $13,000 annual gift tax exclusion per recipient cannot be carried over and used in addition to the $14,000 gift tax exclusion that will be available in 2013. A gift of $13,000 on December 31, 2012 and a $14,000 gift on January 1, 2013, for example, amount to a $27,000 tax-free gift; while a $27,000 gift all on January 1, 2013 will subject $13,000 of that gift to potential gift tax. A charitable gift can frequently require the same timing finesse, for example, if donors find themselves in a higher tax bracket in a particular year or not being able to otherwise itemize deductions.
Traditional Planning for Businesses
Businesses also face some traditional strategic decisions that often can only be made at year-end:
- Capital purchases that qualify for accelerated depreciation, bonus depreciation or so-called Section 179 expensing should be timed to fall into the current or the upcoming year, as the overall profit and loss of a business dictates. “Placed in service” requirements in addition to timing the purchase of equipment also apply to maximizing tax benefits.
- Determination of whether a business is on the cash or accrual method of accounting for tax purposes is also critical to year-end business strategies. Businesses using the cash basis method of accounting recognize and report income when the business actually or constructively receives cash or its equivalent; for accrual-basis taxpayers, generally the right to receive income, rather than actual receipt, determines the year of inclusion of income.
- Compensation and shareholder or partner distributions from a business, and drawing the often fine line between the two, can make a considerable difference to a business owner’s overall tax liability for the year. Differences often hinge upon whether self-employment tax is paid, or whether a distribution is taxed as ordinary income or at the capital gains rate.
- Determining the difference between ordinary business activities and passive activities before implementing a year-end strategy also just makes good sense. Rental income or losses, and other passive activity gains and losses, must be netted separately from business gains and losses. Year-end timing for one does not necessarily help control your bottom-line tax cost on the other.
Please contact us if you have any questions about how traditional year-end planning might benefit your bottom line. Once Congress acts on year-end tax legislation this year, we also suggest that most taxpayers consider what steps may then be taken before the 2012 tax year closes to mitigate against any unfavorable new tax provisions.
