Newsletters

The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

During an April 21, 2022, hearing of the subcommittee, Rettig noted updated tax gap figures for the three-year period of 2012-2014, along with projections through 2019, will be released this summer. However, those projections do not account for the growth in cryptocurrency, which could be widening the tax gap beyond the current calculations and projections.

"What is not in those estimates is virtual currencies, and there is over a $2 trillion market cap for virtual currencies," Rettig testified before the committee. "Last year, there was over $14 trillion in transactions in virtual currencies and the United States, if you view relative GDP, is somewhere between 35 and 43 percent of that $14 trillion."

He said that knowledge generated from John Doe summons activity in these space reveals "that the compliance issues in the virtual currency space are significantly low."

"The tax gap estimates that the IRS prepares are based on information that the IRS is able to determine, not information that we know is out there but we are not able to determine," Rettig said, adding that the agency is trying to get more information about virtual currencies through adding questions on the Form 1040, first on Schedule L and then moving it to page one of the Form 1040 last year "to try to enhance compliance."

He added that the agency is looking to get more into that area.

The comments on the tax gap and the need to be able to tackle compliance in the cryptocurrency space underscores the agency’s need for more funding as requested in the White House budget request for fiscal year 2023.

In his written testimony submitted to the committee, Rettig noted that the agency "can no longer audit a respectable percentage of large corporations, and we are often limited in the issues reviewed among those we do audit. These corporations can afford to spend large amounts on legal counsel, drag out proceedings and bury the government in paper. We are, quite simply, ‘outgunned’ in our efforts to assure a high degree of compliance for these taxpayers."

He wrote that it is "unacceptable" that corporations and the wealthiest individuals have such an advantage to push back on the nation’s tax administrator.

"We must receive the resources to hire and train more specialists across a wide range of complex areas to assist with audits of entities (taxable, pass-through and tax-exempt) and individuals (financial products; engineering; digital assets; cross-border activities; estate and gift planning; family offices; foundations; and many others)," his written testimony states.

Rettig wrote that the agency current has fewer than 2,000 revenue officers, "the lowest number of field collection personnel since the 1970s," to handle more than 100,000 collection cases in active inventory.

He continued: "In addition to our active inventory, we have over 1.5 million cases (more than 500,000 of which are considered high priority) awaiting assignment to these same 2,000 revenue officers. We have classified roughly 85 percent of those cases as high priority, many of which involve delinquent business employment taxes."

The lack of funding is also hampering criminal investigations.

"Much like other operating divisions in the IRS, CI is close to its lowest staffing level in the past 30 years. With fewer agents, we have fewer cases and fewer successful convictions," he stated in the written testimony.

Much of this also is compounded by the ancient IT infrastructure at the agency, another reason Rettig advocated during the hearing for more funding.

"Limited IT resources preclude us from building adequate solutions for efficiently matching or reconciling data from multiple sources," he wrote. "As a result, we are often left with manual processes to analyze reporting information we receive."

Retting specifically highlighted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which Congress enacted in 2010 but, according to Retting, has yet to appropriate the funding necessary for its implementation.

"This situation is compounded by the fact that when we do detect potential non-compliance or fraudulent behavior through manually generated FATCA reports, we seldom have sufficient funding to pursue the information and ensure proper compliance," he wrote. "We have an acute need for additional personnel with specialized training to follow cross-border money flows. They will help ensure tax compliance by improving our capacity to detect unreported accounts and income generated by those accounts, as well as the sources of assets in offshore accounts."

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

"With respect to our current 2022 filing season, we are off to a healthy start in terms of tax processing and the operation of our IT systems," Rettig told members of the Senate Finance Committee during an April 7 hearing to discuss the White House budget request and update the panel on the current tax filing season. "Through April 1, we have processed more than 89 million returns and issued more than 63 million refunds totaling more than $204 billion."

Getting that backlog cleared has been bolstered in part by a direct hiring authority given to the agency in the recent passage of the fiscal year 2022 omnibus budget, Rettig told the committee.

The effectiveness of that hiring authority was highlighted in his written testimony submitted prior to the hearing, where Rettig stated that in-person and virtual job fairs near processing facilities in Austin, Kansas City, and Ogden, Utah, attracted eligible applicants for more than 5,000 vacancies and "we have been able to make more than 2,500 conditional offers at the conclusion of the interviews."

Rettig said the direct hiring authority is only related to those lower paygrade processing/customer service positions and the agency is going to ask Congress to expand that authority, although he did not specify what types of positions would be hired as part of that expansion.

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

• Myth 1: Calling the IRS or visiting an IRS office speeds up a refund. The best way to check the status of a refund is online through the “Where’s My Refund?” tool. Taxpayers can also call the automated refund hotline at 800-829-1954.

• Myth 2: Taxpayers need to wait for their 2020 return to be processed before filing their 2021 return. Taxpayers generally will not need to wait for their 2020 return to be fully processed to file their 2021 tax returns. They should file when they are ready. Individuals with unprocessed 2020 tax returns, should enter zero dollars for last year's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on their 2021 tax return when filing electronically.

• Myth 3: Taxpayers can get a refund date by ordering a tax transcript. Ordering a tax transcript will not inform taxpayers of the timing of their tax refund, nor will it speed up a refund being processed. Taxpayers can use a transcript to validate past income and tax filing status for mortgage, student and small business loan applications and to help with tax preparation.

• Myth 4: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because there is no deposit date yet. While the IRS issues most refunds in less than 21 days, it is possible a refund may take longer for a variety of reasons. Delays can be caused by simple errors including an incomplete return, transposed numbers, or when a tax return is affected by identity theft or fraud.

• Myth 5: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because a refund amount is less than expected. Different factors can cause a tax refund to be larger or smaller than expected. The IRS will mail the taxpayer a letter of explanation if these adjustments are made.

• Myth 6: Calling a tax professional will provide a better refund date. Contacting a tax professional will not speed up a refund. Tax professionals cannot move up a refund date nor do they have access to any special information that will provide a more accurate refund date.

• Myth 7: Getting a refund this year means there is no need to adjust tax withholding for 2022. Taxpayers should continually check their withholding and adjust accordingly. Adjusting tax withholding with an employer is easy and using the Tax Withholding Estimator tool can help taxpayers determine if they are withholding the right amount from their paycheck.

As of the week ending April 1, the IRS has sent out more than 63 million refunds worth over $204 billion. The IRS reminded taxpayers the easiest way to check on a refund is the "Where’s My Refund?" tool. This tool can be used to check the status of a tax return within 24 hours after a taxpayer receives their e-file acceptance notification. Taxpayers should only call the IRS tax help hotline to talk to a representative if it has been more than 21 days since their tax return was e-filed, or more than six weeks since mailing their return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return. A manual review may be necessary when a return has errors, is incomplete or is affected by identity theft or fraud. Other returns can also take longer to process, including when a return needs a correction to the Child Tax Credit amount or includes a Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, which could take up to 14 weeks to process. The fastest way to get a tax refund is by filing electronically and choosing direct deposit. Taxpayers who don’t have a bank account can find out more on how to open an account at an FDIC-Insured bank or the National Credit Union Locator Tool.

Further, the IRS cautioned taxpayers not to rely on receiving a refund by a certain date, especially when making major purchases or paying bills. Taxpayers should also take into consideration the time it takes for a financial institution to post the refund to an account or to receive it by mail. Before filing, taxpayers should make IRS.gov their first stop to find online tools to help get the information they need to file. To check the status of a refund, taxpayers should use the Where’s My Refund? tool on IRS.gov. The IRS will contact taxpayers by mail when more information is needed to process a return. IRS representatives can only research the status of a refund if it has been: 21 days or more since it was filed electronically; six weeks or more since a return was mailed; or when the Where's My Refund? tool tells the taxpayer to contact the IRS.

Additionally, taxpayers whose tax returns from 2020 have not yet been processed should still file their 2021 tax returns by the April due date or request an extension to file. Those filing electronically in this group need their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from their most recent tax return. Those waiting on their 2020 tax return to be processed should enter zero dollars for last year's AGI on the 2021 tax return. When self-preparing a tax return and filing electronically, taxpayers must sign and validate the electronic tax return by entering their prior-year AGI or prior-year Self-Select PIN (SSP). Those who electronically filed last year may have created a five-digit SSP. Generally, tax software automatically enters the information for returning customers. Taxpayers who are using a software product for the first time may have to enter this information.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002. For tax years 2002 through 2021, the limit was $250 per year. The limit will rise in $50 increments in future years based on inflation adjustments. For 2022, if an eligible educator is married and files a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $600 but not more than $300 for each spouse.

Educators can claim this deduction even if they take the standard deduction. Eligible educators include anyone who is a kindergarten through grade 12 teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide in a school for at least 900 hours during the school year. Both public- and private-school educators qualify. Educators can deduct the unreimbursed cost of:

• books, supplies, and other materials used in the classroom;
• equipment, including computer equipment, software, and services;
• COVID-19 protective items to stop the spread of the disease in the classroom; and
• professional development courses related to the curriculum they teach or the students they teach.

Qualified expenses do not include expenses for homeschooling or nonathletic supplies for courses in health or physical education. The IRS also reminded educators that for tax year 2021, the deduction limit is $250. If they are married and file a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $500 but not more than $250 for each spouse.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

To correct the annual maintenance certification of the investment standard, taxpayers should file an amended return or an administrative adjustment request (AAR). If an entity that receives the letter fails to act, the IRS may refer its tax account for examination. Additionally, taxpayers may receive Letter 6502, Reporting Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments, or Letter 6503, Annual Reporting Of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. These letters notify them that they may not have properly followed the instructions for Form 8997, Initial and Annual Statement of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. This may happen if it appears that they may not have properly followed the requirements to maintain their qualifying investment in a QOF with the filing of the form.

Finally, if these taxpayers intend to maintain a qualifying investment in a QOF, they can file an amended return or an AAR with a properly completed Form 8997 attached. Failure to act will mean those who received the letter may not have a qualifying investment in a QOF and the IRS may refer their tax accounts for examination.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022. These information returns include:

• Form 1099-B, Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions
• Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distributions
• Form 1099-G, Certain Government Payments
• Form 1099-INT, Interest Income
• Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions
• Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income
• Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation
• Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount
• Form 1099-PATR, Taxable Distributions Received from Cooperatives
• Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings

These notices inform payers that the information return is missing a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), has an incorrect name or a combination of both. Each notice has a list of payees or the persons receiving certain types of income payments with identified TIN issues. Taxpayers need to compare the accounts listed on the notice with their account records and correct or update their records, if necessary. This can also include correcting backup withholding on payments made to payees. The notices also inform payers that they are responsible for backup withholding. Payments reported on these information returns are subject to backup withholding if:

• The payer does not have the payee’s TIN when making the reportable payments.
• The payee does not certify their TIN as required for reportable interest, dividend, broker and barter exchange accounts.
• The IRS notifies the payer that the payee furnished an incorrect TIN and the payee does not certify its TIN as required.
• The IRS notifies the payer to begin backup withholding because the payee did not report all of its interest and dividends on its tax return.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

Background

Section 2202 of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA), P.L. 116-25, amended Code Sec. 6103(a)(3) and (c) to limit redisclosures and uses of return information received pursuant to the staxpayer consent exception. Code Sec. 6103(c), as amended by the TFA, explicitly prohibits designees from using return information for any reason other than the express purpose for which the taxpayer grants consent and from redisclosing return information without the taxpayer’s express permission or request. Further, Code Sec. 6103(a)(3), as amended by the TFA, imposes disclosure restrictions on all recipients of return information under Code Sec. 6103(c). The TFA did not amend Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6), or Code Sec. 6103(a) with respect to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6).

Disclosure Restrictions

The IRS cited seven situations where disclosure restrictions of Code Sec. 6103(a) would or would not be applicable with regard to returns or return information received as a result of disclosure under:

• Code Sec. 6103(c) with the consent of the taxpayer (taxpayer consent exception),
• Code Sec. 6103(e) as a person having a material interest, but not under Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) relating to disclosures to certain shareholders (material interest exception), or
• Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) for investigative purposes (investigative disclosure exception).

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Rul. 2004-53, I.R.B. 2004-23, has been modified and superseded.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

Relief Provided

The countries for which the eligibility requirements have been waived for 2021 are Iraq, Burma, Chad, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Accordingly, an individual who left the following countries beginning on the specified date will be treated as a qualified individual with respect to the period during which that individual was present in, or was a bona fide resident of the country: (1) Iraq on or after January 19, 2021; (2) Burma on or after March 30, 2021; Chad on or after April 17, 2021; (4) Afghanistan on or after April 27, 2021, and; (5) Ethiopia on or after November 5, 2021. Individuals who left the above mentioned countries must establish a reasonable expectation that he or she would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) but for those adverse conditions. Further, individuals who established residency, or were first physically present in Iraq, after January 19, 2021, are not eligible for the waiver. Taxpayers who need assistance on how to claim the exclusion, or how to file an amended return, should consult the section under the heading "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion" at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad; consult the section under the heading How to Get Tax Help at the same web address; or contact a local IRS office.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

Nonjurisdictional Nature of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court analyzed the text of Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) and stated that the only contention is whether the provision limits the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to petitions filed within the 30-day timeframe. The taxpayer contended that it referred only to the immediately preceding phrase of the provision: a "petition [to] the Tax Court for review of such determination." and so the filing deadline was independent of the jurisdictional grant. The IRS, on the contrary, argued that "such matter" referred to the entire first clause of the sentence, which includes the deadline and granting jurisdiction only over petitions filed within that time. However, the Supreme Court held the nature of the filing deadline to be nonjurisdictional because the IRS failed to satisfy the clear-statement rule of the jurisdictional condition. It also stated that where multiple plausible interpretations exist, it is difficult to make the case that the jurisdictional reading is clear. Moreover, Code Sec. 6330(e)(1)’s clear statement—that "[t]he Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction . . . to enjoin any action or proceeding unless a timely appeal has been filed"—highlighted the lack of such jurisdictional clarity in Code Sec. 6330(d)(1).

Equitable Tolling of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to decide whether the taxpayer was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline. However, the Supreme Court did emphasize that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) did not expressly prohibit equitable tolling, and its 30-day time limit was directed at the taxpayer, not the court. Further, the deadline mentioned in the provision was not written in an emphatic form or with detailed and technical language, nor was it reiterated multiple times. The IRS’ argument that tolling the Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) deadline would create much more uncertainty, was rejected. The Supreme Court concluded that the possibility of equitable tolling for relatively small number of petitions would not appreciably add to the uncertainty already present in the process.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

Report Findings

GAO found that the IRS faced multiple challenges and struggled to respond to an unprecedented workload that included delivering COVID-19 relief. The IRS began the 2021 filing season with a backlog of 8 million individual and business returns from the prior year. The IRS reduced the backlog of prior year returns, but in December 2021, had about 10.5 million returns to process from 2021. The IRS suspended and reviewed 35 million returns with errors primarily due to new or modified tax credits. GAO found that some categories of errors occur each year, however, the IRS does not assess the underlying causes of taxpayer errors on returns. Additionally, the IRS paid nearly $14 billion in refund interest in the last 7 fiscal years, with $3.3 billion paid in fiscal year 2021. However, the IRS does not identify, monitor, and mitigate issues contributing to refund interest payments.

Recommendations

GAO made six recommendations, including that the IRS should assess reasons for tax return errors and refund interest payments and take action to reduce them; modernize its “Where's My Refund” application; address its backlog of correspondence; and assess its in-person service model. The IRS agreed with four recommendations and disagreed with two. The IRS said its process for analyzing errors is robust and that the amount of interest paid is not a meaningful business measure.

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.