Newsletters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IR-2024-289

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Final Regulations

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

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

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

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

The Proposed Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applicability Dates

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

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

T.D. 10012

NPRM REG-116017-24

IR-2024-292

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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

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

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

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

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

T.D. 10011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.