On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

Reworked IRS Reform Bill

The Senate approved the Taxpayer First Act by voice vote on June 13. The measure was unanimously approved in the House on June 10.

The reworked IRS reform bill, originally introduced in the last Congress, was revised in early June after the House passed a prior version in April. However, the original House-approved bill (HR 1957) was quickly doomed in the Senate because of controversy surrounding the IRS’s Free File program.

The provision codifying the IRS’s Free File program was removed from the original bill, and the measure was reintroduced as HR 3151. Congress then quickly sent it to the president’s desk.

Taxpayer First Act Provisions

The Taxpayer First Act aims to reform the IRS into a more taxpayer-friendly agency. It requires the IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy, as well as a plan to redesign the IRS’s structure, modernize its technology, and enhance its cyber security.

The measure also:

• codifies and enhances an independent Office of Appeals within the IRS;
• waives the application fee for an offer in compromise (OIC) by a low-income taxpayer;
• sets new electronic filing requirements;
• clarifies information available about low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs);
• codifies the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program;
• requires notice regarding the closure of taxpayer assistance centers (TACs);
• improves the IRS whistleblower program;
• modifies the private debt collection program;
• clarifies procedures for equitable relief from joint liability;
• establishes new safeguards on seizing funds believed to be structured to avoid the $10,000 financial reporting requirement; and
• modifies procedures for the issuance of summons and notice of third-party contacts by the IRS.

Hill Reaction

"This signing is the culmination of a lengthy, bipartisan process undertaken by the [House] Ways and Means Committee to implement pro-taxpayer reforms at the IRS for the first time in more than 20 years," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a July 1 statement. "New protections for low-income taxpayers, practical enforcement reforms, and upgraded assistance for taxpayers and small businesses will all now go into place."

Additionally, the House’s top Republican tax writer issued a statement after Trump signed the IRS reform legislation. "I’m proud that after three years of thoughtful bipartisan work, our bold package of reforms to the Internal Revenue Service are the law of the land," Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said on July 1. "Thank you to President Trump for signing this historic legislation, which is the biggest and boldest step in over 20 years to redesign and restructure the IRS into an agency with a singular mission – quality taxpayer service."

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

ACA Cadillac Tax Repeal

The Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Bill (HR 748) cleared the House on the evening of July 17 by a 419-to-6 vote. The bipartisan bill would repeal the 40 percent excise tax under the ACA known as the "Cadillac tax" on certain high-cost employer-sponsored health care plans.

Congress has repeatedly delayed the ACA’s "Cadillac" tax, which is currently set to go into effect in 2022. However, HR 748 would fully repeal the tax.

Although the measure has bipartisan support in the Senate, as for when it will get its legs in the upper chamber remains to be seen. Lately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., has been viewed on Capitol Hill as focusing more on moving nominations than considering tax bills.

HR 748’s Large Price Tag May Signal Hope for Tax Extenders

Notably, HR 748 dodged House Democrats’ "pay as you go" rules for tax legislation, thus carrying with it a large price tag with no offsets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the bill would cost the federal government more than $196 billion over 10 years.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has signaled that Democrats’ support for repealing the ACA’s "Cadillac"tax without pay-fors may signal a newly opened door for tax extenders. Grassley has consistently expressed that he is focused on addressing the previously and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders but has been waiting for the Democratic controlled House to send such a bill, noting that tax legislation must originate in the House.

However, House Democrats’ tax extenders bill, the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Bill of 2019 (HR 3301) would offset its costs by causing the GOP tax law’s increase in estate tax exemption amounts to sunset early at the beginning of 2023. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the estate tax provisions would expire at the start of 2026.

The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee last month but has not yet reached the House floor. Senate Republicans have called any proposal to repeal provisions under the TCJA a "nonstarter."

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The Treasury Department and the IRS had issued the temporary regulations ( T.D. 9766) to clarify that the rule that a disregarded entity is treated as a corporation for employment tax purposes does not apply to the self-employment tax treatment of any individuals who are partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity. The temporary regulations continued to explicitly provide that the owner of a disregarded entity who is treated as a sole proprietor for income tax purposes is subject to self-employment taxes. A notice of proposed rulemaking ( REG-114307-15) cross-referencing T.D. 9766was published on the same day.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations as amended. The corresponding temporary regulations are removed.

Disregarded Entity

These regulations affect partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity, and contain amendments to 26 CFR part 301. Generally, under Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(i) and except as otherwise provided, a business entity that has a single owner and is not a corporation under Reg. §301.7701-2(b)is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner (a disregarded entity). However, Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) treats a disregarded entity as a corporation for purposes of employment taxes imposed under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. This exception to the treatment of disregarded entities does not apply to taxes imposed under Subtitle A of the Code, including self-employment taxes.

Effective Date

These regulations are effective on July 2, 2019.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Why Truncate?

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-113) amended Code Sec. 6051(a)(2) by replacing the requirement that employers include employees’ SSNs on copies of Forms W-2 furnished to employees with a requirement to use an "identifying number for the employee."Because the SSN was no longer required to appear on Forms W-2 furnished to employees, the IRS published proposed regulations in 2017 to allow employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on those Forms W-2 ( REG-105004-16). The amendments were intended to aid employers’ efforts to protect employees from identity theft.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without substantive changes to the content of the rules.

SSN Truncation on Forms W-2

The final regulations permit employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on copies of:

• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid, employment taxes withheld, etc.;
• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance;
• Forms W-2 furnished to payees to report third-party sick pay; and
• Forms W-2c furnished to correct errors on Forms W-2.

The regulations do not apply to any other forms. Also, truncation is not mandatory; the regulations permit truncation but do not require it.

Under the general truncation rules, a TTIN cannot be used on a statement or document if a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions:

• specifically requires use of an SSN, IRS individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), IRS adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or IRS employer identification number (EIN); and
• does not specifically permit truncation.

For instance, an employer cannot truncate an employee’s SSN on copies of Forms W-2 filed with the Social Security Administration.

The IRS intends to incorporate the revised regulations into forms and instructions.

Effective Date; Applicability Date

The final regulations are effective on July 3, 2019, but when they apply varies. Reg. §31.6051-1, Reg. §31.6051-3, and Reg. §1.6052-2, as amended, apply for statements required to be filed and furnished under Code Sec. 6051 and Code Sec. 6052 after December 31, 2020. Reg. §31.6051-2, as amended, applies on July 3, 2019. Reg. §301.6109-4, as amended, applies to returns, statements, and other documents required to be filed or furnished after December 31, 2020.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

Partners and S shareholders who receive the credit (i.e., are the ultimate credit claimants) must make income inclusions in proportion to their share of the credit.

No Basis Increase for Partners and S Shareholders

The regulations resolve a contentious issue against taxpayers. They provide that a partner’s income inclusions are not treated as an item of partnership income under subchapter K. A similar rule applies to S corporations. Therefore, basis adjustment rules that would increase a partner’s outside basis or S shareholder’stock basis if the income inclusion amounts were treated as items of income do not apply. The IRS says its interpretation is appropriate because the investment credit and limitations on the investment credit are determined at the partner and S shareholder level.

Coordination With Recapture Rules

If a recapture event occurs an adjustment is made to the lessee’s (or ultimate claimant’s) gross income to account for any difference between the amounts that were included in income and the credit that is allowed after recapture. Special rules are provided when the amount of the unrecaptured credit exceeds the income inclusions and when the income inclusions exceed the unrecaptured credit.

Election to Accelerate Income Inclusion Upon Lease Termination

The lessee (or ultimate claimant) may make an irrevocable election to include in gross income any remaining income inclusion amounts in the tax year in which a lease terminates or is otherwise disposed of. If a partner or S shareholder disposes of its partnership or S corporation interest, the partner or S shareholder may also make an irrevocable election to include remaining inclusion amounts in income in the year of disposition. These elections may only be made if the recapture period has expired and a recapture event had not occurred during the recapture period.

Effective Date

The final regulations are effective on July 17, 2019 and apply to investment credit property placed in service on or after September 19, 2016.

Effective July 17, 2019, the list of preventive care benefits that can be provided by a high deductible health plan (HDHP) without a deductible or with a deductible below the applicable minimum deductible is expanded. The list now includes certain cost effective medical care services and prescription drugs for certain chronic conditions.

Effective July 17, 2019, the list of preventive care benefits that can be provided by a high deductible health plan (HDHP) without a deductible or with a deductible below the applicable minimum deductible is expanded. The list now includes certain cost effective medical care services and prescription drugs for certain chronic conditions.

HDHPs and Health Savings Accounts

Individuals covered by an HDHP generally may establish and deduct contributions to a Health Savings Account (HSA). To qualify as an HDHP, a plan may not provide benefits for any year until the minimum deductible for that year is satisfied. However, an HDHP is not required to have a deductible for preventive care.

Current Rule for Chronic Conditions

Under the existing rule, preventive care generally does not include any service or benefit intended to treat an existing illness, injury, or condition. As a result, the cost barriers for care have resulted in some individuals diagnosed with certain chronic conditions failing to get effective and necessary care that would prevent making the chronic condition worse. Failure to address chronic conditions can lead to amputation, blindness, heart attacks, and strokes that require considerably more extensive medical intervention.

Treatments for Chronic Care as Preventive Care

The following medical care services are now classified as preventive care for someone with that chronic condition:

• angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for individuals diagnosed with congestive heart failure, diabetes, or coronary artery disease;
• anti-resorptive therapy for individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia;
• blood pressure monitor for individuals diagnosed with hypertension;
• peak flow meter for individuals diagnosed with asthma;
• inhaled corticosteroids for individuals diagnosed with asthma;
• glucometer for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• hemoglobin A1c testing for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• insulin and other glucose lowering agents for individuals diagnosed with diabetes;
• retinopathy screening for individuals diagnosed with diabetes; and
• statins for individuals diagnosed with heart disease and/or diabetes.

The continuity safe harbor placed-in-service date deadlines for the investment tax energy credit (Code Sec. 48) and the renewable electricity production credit (Code Sec. 45(a)) may be tolled if a construction delay is caused by national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense (DOD).

The continuity safe harbor placed-in-service date deadlines for the investment tax energy credit (Code Sec. 48) and the renewable electricity production credit (Code Sec. 45(a)) may be tolled if a construction delay is caused by national security concerns raised by the Department of Defense (DOD).

Background

In general, the energy credit may only be claimed if construction on a qualified facility begins before January 1, 2022. In the case of the production credit, construction must begin before January 1, 2017 (January 1, 2020 for a wind facility). Once construction begins, taxpayers are required to make continuous progress toward completion under either a continuous construction test or a continuous efforts test. These tests are deemed satisfied under the continuity safe harbor if the facility is placed in service within four calendar years after the calendar year in which construction begins.

Tolling Requirements

A construction deadline in the continuity safe harbor is tolled if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

• one or more necessary government permits or approvals for construction have been issued;
• construction has begun;
• the DOD provides written notice that the construction plan should be modified in the interest of national security;
• the plan is modified in a way that is acceptable to the DOD to mitigate the national security concerns; and
• as a result of the plan modification, new or additional permits or licenses must be obtained which will delay the placed-in-service date of the facility or energy property.

Tolling Period

The tolling period of the continuity safe harbor begins on the day the DOD provides written notice that the plan of construction requires modification to meet national security concerns.

The tolling period ends when one of the following events occurs:

• all new or additional permits or licenses are obtained;
• written confirmation is received that all of the required new or additional permits or licenses will not be issued; or
• the relevant federal or state authorities are notified in writing that the modification to the plan will no longer be pursued.

The maximum length of the tolling period is four years.

No Rulings

The IRS will not issue private letter rulings or determination letters regarding the application of the tolling provision or the beginning of construction requirement.

Modified Rulings

Notice 2013-29, 2013-1 C.B. 1085, Notice 2013-60, 2013-2 C.B. 431, Notice 2014-46, 2014-2 C.B. 520, Notice 2015-25, 2015-13 I.R.B. 814, Notice 2016-31, 2016-23 I.R.B. 1025, Notice 2017-4, 2017-4 I.R.B. 541, and Notice 2018-59, 2018-28 I.R.B. 196, are modified.

The Treasury and IRS have issued proposed regulations on provisions dealing with passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). Proposed regulations published on April 25, 2015, also have been withdrawn ( NPRM REG-108214-15).

The Treasury and IRS have issued proposed regulations on provisions dealing with passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). Proposed regulations published on April 25, 2015, also have been withdrawn ( NPRM REG-108214-15).

U.S. persons who own interests in PFICs are subject to rules that limit deferral on passive income earned by foreign corporations ( Code Sec. 1291– Code Sec. 1298). In general, a PFIC is a foreign corporation that in any given year:

• has income that is 75 percent or more passive income (income test); or
• owns, on average, assets that are 50 percent or more passive-income-producing (asset test).

The proposed regulations provide general guidance regarding PFICs, and guidance on the PFIC insurance exception. Specifically, the proposed regulations cover:

• the determination of ownership in a PFIC, and the treatment of certain income received or accrued by a foreign corporation and assets held by a foreign corporation under Code Sec. 1297;
• rules for determining whether a U.S. person that directly or indirectly holds stock in a PFIC is treated as a PFIC shareholder, and whether a foreign corporation is a PFIC; and
• whether a foreign insurance company is a qualifying insurance company (QIC) under Code Sec. 1297(f), and the amounts of income and assets that a QIC can exclude under the PFIC insurance exception.

General Guidance

The proposed regulations specify that, in applying the asset test, the period over which the average percentage is calculated is at least quarterly. However, taxpayers are allowed to use a shorter period, such as a monthly of daily measurement of asset values.

The proposed regulations address attribution of ownership under the look-through subsidiary rules of Code Sec. 1297(c) for determining PFIC status. These rules treat a foreign corporation (FC1) that owns 25 percent or more of another foreign corporation (FC2) as owning and earning a proportional amount of the other foreign corporation’s income and assets. The proposed regulations allow attribution from FC2 to FC1, if FC1 has a greater than 50 percent ownership interest in FC2.

The proposed regulation also provide a partnership look-through rule for the treatment of a partnership interest owned by a foreign corporation, for purposes of determining whether the foreign corporation is a PFIC. Under the rule, the same 25 percent ownership threshold applies to partnership interests as is applied to interests in corporations.

PFIC Insurance Exception

The income of a QIC derived in the active conduct of a trade or business is not treated as passive income for purposes of determining whether a corporation is a PFIC. The QIC test is based on the ratio of the foreign insurance company’s "applicable insurance liabilities" to total assets. Applicable insurance liabilities are the smallest of:

• insurance liabilities on the company’s most recent applicable financial statement (AFS);
• liabilities required by local law or regulation; or
• as provided under Treasury regulations.

Current law allows a foreign corporation to use a local AFS if it does not do financial reporting based on the rigorous and widely-accepted U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or international financial reporting standards (IFRS).

The proposed regulations provide a special rule for foreign corporations that change their method of preparing their AFS by ceasing to prepare this statement under either U.S. GAAP or IFRS without a non-federal tax business purpose for the change. The foreign corporation must continue to prepare its AFS under either U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Failing to do so will mean the foreign corporation has no applicable insurance liabilities for the QIC test.

Additionally, if an AFS is prepared under local accounting standards that do not require discounting unpaid losses and other loss reserves on an economically reasonable basis, AFS insurance liabilities must be reduced under U.S. GAAP or IFRS discounting principles.

Applicability Date

The proposed regulations are proposed to apply to tax years of U.S. persons that are shareholders in certain foreign corporations beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations in the Federal Register.

Until the regulations are final:

• taxpayers may choose to apply the proposed regulations (other than Proposed Reg. §1.1297-4and Proposed Reg. §1.1297-5) for open tax years;
• U.S persons and shareholders in certain foreign corporations may apply Proposed Reg. §1.1297-4 and Proposed Reg. §1.1297-5, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017; and
• taxpayers may rely on Notice 88-22, 1988-1 CB 489, providing guidance on the income and asset tests.

Comments

Written or electronic comments and requests for public hearing must be received by September 9, 2019. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105474-18), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105474-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-105474-18).

Proposed regulations would provide an exception to the unified plan rule for multiple employer plans (MEPs). The purpose is to reduce the risk of plan disqualification due to noncompliance by other participating employers. The regulations would apply on or after the publication date of final regulations in the Federal Register. They cannot be relied upon until then. Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 1, 2019.

Proposed regulations would provide an exception to the unified plan rule for multiple employer plans (MEPs). The purpose is to reduce the risk of plan disqualification due to noncompliance by other participating employers. The regulations would apply on or after the publication date of final regulations in the Federal Register. They cannot be relied upon until then. Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 1, 2019.

Multiple Employer Plans

A MEP is a single plan with adopted by multiple unrelated employers. Multiple employer plans under Code Sec. 413(c) can be structured either as:

• an open MEP where an organization with employees takes the lead by establishing the plan for its own employees, and has other unrelated employers join the plan as co-sponsors;
• a closed MEP in which a group or association of employers that meets a commonality requirement takes the lead in establishing the plan, and members are free to adopt it.

Open MEPs are often established by organizations that specialize in providing benefits for smaller employers (typically, 401(k) plans). Note that MEPs are distinct from union multiemployer plans governed by Code Sec. 413(b), but share some of the same rules.

Under the unified plan rule in the current regulations for both MEPs and multiemployer plans, a qualification or operational failure by one employer can result in a total plan failure for all participating employers. The administration is trying to change that, to encourage MEP participation.

Proposed Exception

Under the proposed regulations, an eligible defined contribution MEP would qualify for an exception to the unified plan rule. The exception turns on the ability of the MEP plan administrator under the terms of the plan to spin off the assets and account balances attributable to employees of a noncompliant participating employer into a separate plan and then termination of that plan. A spinoff could be either a spinoff initiated by the unresponsive participating employer and implemented by the plan administrator, or a spinoff-termination implemented by the plan administrator.

The exception would be available if the participating employer is responsible for a qualification failure that it is unable or unwilling to correct. It would also be available if the participating employer is nonresponsive to the plan administrator’s reasonable and timely requests for information or for action.

Exception Requirements

Under the proposed exception, a defined contribution MEP would not be disqualified on account of a participating employer failure if the following conditions are satisfied:

• the MEP satisfies certain eligibility requirements, including established practices and procedures to promote compliance and a requirement to adopt relevant plan language;
• the MEP plan administrator provides notice and an opportunity for the unresponsive participating employer to take remedial action;
• the administrator implements a spinoff in the event the unresponsive participating employer fails to take appropriate remedial action; and
• the administrator complies with any information request by the IRS or a representative of the spun-off plan made in connection with an IRS examination of the spun-off plan, including an information request related to the unresponsive participating employer’s participation in the MEP for years prior to the spinoff.

Participating employer failures would include known compliance failures, as well as failure to provide information to the MEP plan administrator so that the administrator can determine whether there is an actual plan or operational failure.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.