Newsletters

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The presidential memorandum to defer payroll taxes has "caused confusion and concern among accountants and businesses," according to the AICPA. Thus, in its letter released on August 13, the AICPA asks IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig and Assistant Treasury Secretary David Kautter to issue guidance on a number of related issues, including the following items:

• Guidance stating that the deferral is voluntary and that an "eligible employee" is responsible for making an affirmative election to defer the payroll taxes;
• Guidance stating that an "eligible employee" is an employee whose wages are less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period;
• Guidance stating that the $4,000 limit should apply separately to each employer of an employee; and
• Guidance stating a payment due date(s) for the deferred taxes and a mechanism for employees to pay the deferred taxes.

Payroll Tax Forgiveness

Notably, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated earlier this week that participation in the deferral of payroll taxes is not mandatory. "We cannot force people to participate," Mnuchin said in a televised interview. "But I think many small businesses will do this and pass on the benefits." Additionally, Mnuchin alluded that Trump intends to make the deferral a cut if reelected, essentially forgiving the deferred taxes.

To that end, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow attempted to clarify Trump’s position that the payroll tax deferral should be forgiven rather than delayed. And when Trump talks about "terminating the payroll tax", he is only referring to those taxes specified within the presidential memorandum, not the entire payroll tax as a whole, according to Kudlow.

"I just want to be clear that the president is saying that he will provide forgiveness; he will terminate the deferral on a forgiveness basis," Kudlow told reporters at the White House on August 13. "That is what he is saying just to be clear…there was some confusion about that."

Additionally, Kudlow told reporters that the payroll tax deferral would apply to the self-employed. Although the applicable presidential memorandum is not currently written as such, Kudlow added that the administration "will make a technical change to it."

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The final rules generally adopt the proposed regulations issued in December 2019 ( NPRM REG-107431-19) with minor clarifications.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes.

Under previously issued regulations, the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). Thus, the taxpayer must reduce any contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit received or expected to receive in return. A de minimis exception is available if the SALT credit does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment.

A taxpayer is not required to reduce the charitable contribution deduction because of the receipt of SALT deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce the charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive SALT deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

Payments by Individuals

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor for individuals whose have a portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Any disallowed portion of the charitable contribution deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164. The safe harbor is allowed in the tax year the charitable payment is made, but only to the extent that the SALT credit is applied as provided under state or local law to offset the individual’s SALT liability for the current or preceding tax year. Any unused credit may be carried forward as provided under state and local law.

The final regulations are not intended to permit a taxpayer to avoid the SALT deduction cap. Thus, any payment treated as a state or local tax under Code Sec. 164 is subject to the limit. Also, a taxpayer is not permitted to deduct the same under more than one rule, so a taxpayer who relies on this safe harbor to deduction payments as SALT taxes may also not deduct the same payment under any other Code provision.

Payments by Business Entities

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor that business entities may continue to deduct charitable contributions in exchange a SALT credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose.

If a C corporation or specified passthrough entity makes the charitable payment in exchange for a SALT credit, it may deduct the payment as a business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to be received. In addition, if the charitable payment bears a direct relationship to the taxpayer’s business, then it may be deducted as a business expense rather than a charitable contribution regardless of whether the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a SALT credit.

The safe harbor for C corporations and specified passthrough entities applies only to payments of cash and cash equivalents. The safe harbor for specified passthrough entities does not apply if the credit received or expected to be received reduces a state or local income tax.

Benefits from Third Party

If a taxpayer receives any goods, services, or other benefits from a charitable organization in consideration for a contribution, then the charitable deduction must be reduced by the value of those benefits. If the contribution exceeds the fair market value of the benefits received, then only the excess is a deductible as a charitable contribution.

The final regulations continue to provide that this quid pro quo principal applies regardless of whether the party providing the goods, services, or other benefits is the charitable organization or not. A taxpayer will be treated as receiving goods and services in consideration for the taxpayer’s charitable contribution if, at the time the taxpayer makes the payment or transfer, the taxpayer receives or expects to receive goods or services in return. The final rules clarify that the quid pro quo principle applies regardless of whether the party providing the quid pro quo is the donee or a third party.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

Section 163(j) Limitation

A taxpayer’s deduction of business interest expenses paid or incurred for the tax year is generally limited to the sum of:

• the taxpayer’s business interest income for the tax year for which the taxpayer is claiming the deduction (not including investment income);
• 30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI), but not less than zero; and
• the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The percentage limit is generally increased to 50 percent of ATI for 2019 and 2020. For a partnership, however, the 50 percent limit applies for 2020 only, and a special allocation of excess business interest expense (EBIE) to a partner may apply for the 2019 tax year. A taxpayer may elect not to use the 50 percent ATI limit, and any taxpayer other than a partnership may elect for 2020 to use its ATI from the 2019 tax year to calculate its limitation.

The 163(j) limitation does not apply to certain small businesses whose gross receipts are less than a threshold amount ($26 million for 2020). It also does not apply to electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain regulated public utilities.

Final Regulations

The final regulations generally adopt proposed rules that were issued in December 2018, with some modifications. Taxpayer may continue to rely on some of the rules in the proposed regulations. One significant change is that the final regulations provide any that any depreciation, amortization, or depletion that is capitalized into inventory under Code Sec. 263A before 2022 will be added back to tentative taxable income in calculating ATI.

This is change from the proposed rules which effectively resulted in taxpayers with inventory to effectively use earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) instead of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) before 2022 in calculating ATI. Also, the final rules eliminate the “lesser of” standard with respect to sales and disposition of stock, and require taxpayers to back out depreciation deductions that were allowed or allowable during the EBITDA period.

The IRS had adopted the broad definition of business interest in the proposed rules, including the definition of substitute interest and the embedded loan rule with some modifications. However, the final regs exclude commitment fees, debt issuance costs, guaranteed payments (except used as capital), and hedging rules. The IRS has also modified the anti-avoidance rule for time value of money.

Qualified Residential Living Facilities

The IRS has proposed a safe harbor for a trade or business that manages or operates a qualified residential living facility to be treated as a real property trade or business solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business. A facility is qualified if it:

• consists of multiple rental dwelling units within one or more structures that generally serve as primary residences on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to individual customers or patients;
• provides supplemental assistive, nursing, or other routine medical services; and
• has an average period of customer or patient use of the individual rental dwelling units that is 90 days or more.

The safe harbor is proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Proposed Regulations

In addition to the final regulations, the IRS has issued new proposed regulations that provide rules regarding:

• different computational methods a taxpayer can choose in determining certain adjustments to tentative taxable income;
• the treatment of EBIE allocated to a partner in 2019, and the election to use ATI from 2019 for the 2020 tax year under Code Sec. 163(j)(10);
• interest expense associated with debt proceeds of partnerships and S corporations (passthrough entities);
• application of the limitation for a partnership’s self-charged lending transactions, partnerships engaged in trades or businesses that are not passive activities, publicly traded partnerships, certain section 734(b) adjustments, and tiered partnership structures;
• application to U.S. shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) and to foreign persons with effectively connected income in the United States; and
• application to corporate look-through provisions.

Finally, the IRS has also released FAQs that provide a general overview of the aggregation rules that apply for purposes of the gross receipts test, and that apply to determine whether a taxpayer is a small business that is exempt from the business interest expense deduction limitation.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

In general, a "carried interest" is an interest in a partnership in the investment management business that consists of the right to receive future partnership profits. Carried interests are given to a partner in exchange for performing asset management services for businesses such as private equity funds, venture capital funds, and hedge funds.

Prior to Code Sec. 1061, taxpayers tended to treat carried interests as interests in partnership profits subject to long-term capital gain rates. Code Sec. 1061, however, reflects that a carried interest may in fact be compensation for services and therefore properly subject to ordinary income rates. As a result, Code Sec. 1061 applies a longer, three-year holding period to certain net long-term capital gain with respect to any "applicable partnership interest" (API)—essentially, any carried interest. The effect of this is to recharacterize as short-term capital gain certain net long-term capital gain of a partner who holds one or more APIs.

The proposed regulations define the amount of otherwise long-term capital gain that fails to meet the three-year holding period as the "recharacterization amount," and refers to the person who is subject to income tax on the recharacterization amount as the "owner taxpayer." In addition, the proposed regulations provide a framework for determining the recharacterization amount when an API is held though one or more tiers of passthrough entities.

A partnership interest is an API if it is transferred in connection with the performance of "substantial" services. Under the proposed regulations, services are presumed to be substantial with respect to a partnership interest transferred in connection with those services. Basically, this means that the partnership is presumed to get good value for the partnership interest it transfers in exchange for services.

Generally, an API is any interest in a partnership that is transferred to or held by the taxpayer in connection with the performance of services by the taxpayer in any "applicable trade or business" (ATB). Under Code Sec. 1061(c)(2), to qualify as an ATB, an activity must be "conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis." Under the proposed regulations, an activity is conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis if it meets the "ATB activity test." Under this test, the total level of activity conducted in one or more entities must meet the level of activity to establish a trade or business for purposes of trade or business expenses under Code Sec. 162.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations.

Background

Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework due to specific reasons related to COVID-19. The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for certain reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. The credits are allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a) (the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance tax (social security tax)), first reduced by any credits claimed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f), and Code Sec. 3221(a) (the Railroad Retirement Tax Act Tier 1 tax), on all wages and compensation paid to all employees. The credits are increased by the amount of the employer’s share of Medicare tax on qualified leave wages.

The paid leave credits have per-day and maximum dollar limits for each employee, and apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

The CARES Act provides an employee retention credit for certain employers experiencing economic hardship related to COVID-19 but who pay qualified wages to their employees. Employers eligible for the employee retention credit are those that carry on a trade or business during calendar year 2020 and tax-exempt organizations that either have a full or partial suspension of operations during any calendar quarter in 2020 due to an order from an appropriate governmental authority limiting commerce, travel, or group meetings (for commercial, social, religious, or other purposes) due to COVID-19, or experience a significant decline in gross receipts during the calendar quarter.

Qualified wages are those paid by an employer to some or all employees after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and include the employer’s qualified health plan expenses that are properly allocable to such wages or compensation. Qualified wages differ depending on whether the employer averaged more than 100 full-time employees during 2019, or 100 full-time employees or fewer during 2019.

The employee retention credit is a fully refundable tax credit for employers equal to 50 percent of qualified wages; the maximum for an eligible employer for qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000. The credit is allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a), first reduced by:

• any credits allowed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f),
• the paid leave credits described above, and
• the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3221(a) that are attributable to the Code Sec. 3111(a) rate in effect, first reduced by any paid leave credits allowed, on all wages and compensation paid to all employees.

The same wages or compensation cannot be counted for both the Families First Act leave credits and the CARES Act employee retention credit.

Refundability of Credits

If the amount of the paid sick and family leave credits is more than the taxes imposed by Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a) for any calendar quarter, the excess is treated as an overpayment that must be refunded under Code Sec. 6402(a) and Code Sec. 6413(b). A similar refund is required for the employee retention credit.

The IRS has revised Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and is revising the other employment tax returns, so that employers can use these returns to claim the paid sick and family leave credits and the employee retention credit. The revised returns will provide for any credits in excess of the employment taxes imposed as described above, to be credited against other employment taxes and then for any remaining balance to be refunded to the employer.

Advance Payment of Credits and Erroneous Refunds

In anticipation of the paid sick and family leave credits, including any refundable portions, these credits may be advanced as provided by IRS forms and instructions, up to the total allowable amount and subject to applicable limits for the calendar quarter.

The IRS has created Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due To COVID-19, which employers can use to request an advance of the paid sick or family leave credits, the employee retention credit, or two or more of them. Employers must reconcile any advance payments claimed on Form 7200 with total credits claimed and total taxes due on their employment tax returns. A refund, a credit, or an advance of any portion of these credits to a taxpayer in excess of the amount to which the taxpayer is entitled is an erroneous refund for which the IRS must seek repayment.

Temporary Regulations

The temporary regulations provide that erroneous refunds of the credits are treated as underpayments of the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a), and authorize the IRS to assess any portion of the credits erroneously credited, paid, or refunded in excess of the amount allowed as if those amounts were tax liabilities subject to assessment and administrative collection procedures. This allows the IRS to efficiently recover the amounts, while also preserving administrative protections afforded to taxpayers with respect to contesting their tax liabilities under the Code and avoiding unnecessary costs and burdens associated with litigation. These procedures will apply in the normal course in processing employment tax returns that report advances in excess of claimed credits and in examining returns for excess claimed credits.

The temporary regulations also provide that employers against whom an erroneous refund of credits can be assessed as an underpayment include persons treated as the employer under Code Sec. 3401(d), Code Sec. 3504, and Code Sec. 3511, consistent with their liability for the employment taxes against which the credit applied.

The temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credit refunds advanced or paid on or after April 1, 2020, and all employee retention credit refunds advanced or paid on or after March 13, 2020. Further, the temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credits (including any increases in the credits) refunded on or after April 1, 2020, including advanced refunds, as well as all employee retention credits that are refunded on or after March 13, 2020, including advanced refunds.

Applicability Date

The temporary regulations are effective July 29, 2020, the date they are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register.

Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

The Treasury Department and IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits electronic or written comments. Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by 60 days after the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-111879-20) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The IRS expects to have limited personnel available to process public comments that are submitted on paper through the mail. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered to the extent practicable. The Treasury and IRS will publish for public availability any comment submitted electronically, and to the extent practicable on paper. Send paper submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-111879-20), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

The IRS has provided guidance on the special rules relating to funding of single-employer defined benefit pension plans, and related benefit limitations, under Act Sec. 3608 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116-136). The guidance clarifies application of the extended contribution deadline, and the optional use of the prior year’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP), with examples.

The IRS has provided guidance on the special rules relating to funding of single-employer defined benefit pension plans, and related benefit limitations, under Act Sec. 3608 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116-136). The guidance clarifies application of the extended contribution deadline, and the optional use of the prior year’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP), with examples.

Affected Funding Rules

A single-employer defined benefit plan is subject to minimum required contribution rules under Code Sec. 430. The minimum required contribution for a plan year generally depends on a comparison of the value of plan assets (reduced by any credit balances) with the plan's funding target. If the value of plan assets is less than the funding target of the plan for the year, the minimum required contribution for that plan year is the sum of:

• the target normal cost for the plan year;
• the shortfall amortization installments for the plan year; and
• the waiver amortization installments for the plan year.

The minimum required contribution for a plan year must be paid within 8-1/2 months after the close of the plan year ( Code Sec. 430(j)). Payments made on a date other than the valuation date for the plan year must be adjusted for interest accruing for the period from the valuation date to the payment date, at the effective interest rate for the plan for the year. Employers maintaining plans that had a funding shortfall for the preceding plan year (i.e., the value of plan assets, reduced by credit balances, was less than the funding target for the preceding year) must make quarterly contributions to the plan. If the employer fails to pay the full amount of a required quarterly installment, interest is assessed at the plan's effective interest rate plus five percentage points.

Benefit limits apply to plans that have funded target attainment percentage for the preceding year below designated thresholds are deemed to be in "at-risk" status and are subject to increased target liability. The benefit limits on single-employer defined benefit plans are based on the plan’s AFTAP ( Code Sec. 436(b)). Generally, a plan's funding target attainment percentage is the ratio of the value of plan assets for the plan year (reduced by any funding standard carryover balance and prefunding balance) to the funding target for the plan year (determined without regard to the plan's at-risk status) ( Code Secs. 430(d)(2) and 436(j)(1)).

CARES Act Relief
Minimum required contributions to a single-employer retirement plan otherwise due in calendar year 2020 (including any quarterly contributions) are delayed until January 1, 2021. The amount of each such contribution is increased by any interest accruing for the period between the original due date (without regard to the delay) for the contribution and the payment date. A plan sponsor also may elect to treat the plan’s AFTAP for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, as the AFTAP for plan years that include calendar year 2020 (Act Sec. 3608 of P.L. 116-136.

Extended Deadline and Interest
The extended contribution due date of January 1, 2021, does not apply to a multiemployer plan, a CSEC plan, a fully-insured plan, or a money purchase pension plan. If the contribution deadline for a plan year is during 2020, a contribution in excess of the amount needed to satisfy the minimum required contribution for the plan year that is made by January 1, 2021, may be designated as a contribution for that plan year.

Any payment made after the original due date for the contribution and by the extended due date must be increased for the period between the original due date and the payment date at the effective interest rate for the plan year that includes the payment date. If the contribution is less than the amount that was due on the original due date for the minimum required contribution, as increased with interest pursuant to the CARES Act, then a portion of the minimum required contribution for that plan year would remain unpaid. The unpaid portion of the minimum required contribution, determined as of the valuation date and based on contributions made on or before January 1, 2021, with the contributions discounted for interest to the valuation date, would give rise to an unpaid minimum required contribution that would be subject to an excise tax. Furthermore, a contribution made after January 1, 2021, to satisfy that unpaid minimum required contribution must be adjusted for interest for the period between the date that the contribution is made and the valuation date at the effective interest rate for the plan year for which the contribution is made (with additional interest as required to reflect any late quarterly installments for the plan year).

The CARES Act specifies that to determine the amount of a quarterly installment due by the extended due date, the amount of that installment is increased from the installment’s original due date to the payment date at the effective interest rate for the plan year that includes the date the quarterly installment is paid. If a plan sponsor does not satisfy a quarterly installment originally due during 2020 by the extended due date, then the unpaid portion of that installment is subject to a higher interest rate for the period during which the installment (or a portion thereof) remains unpaid when determining the amount of the minimum required contribution that is satisfied by a contribution.

A contribution made after the original due date for a plan year but on or before the extended due date is taken into account as of a valuation date for a plan year after the plan year for which the contribution was made. For purposes of determining the value of plan assets, if an employer makes a contribution to the plan after the valuation date for the current plan year and the contribution is for an earlier plan year, then the present value of the contribution determined as of that valuation date is taken into account as an asset of the plan as of the valuation date, provided the contribution is made before a specified deadline. The specified deadline is the deadline for contributions for the plan year immediately preceding the current plan year. However, that deadline is extended by the CARES Act. Furthermore, the interest adjustment rules override the discounting rules that apply generally for this purpose. Note, however, that certification of the AFTAP for a plan year must not take into account contributions that are expected to be made after the certification date.

If the plan year is a plan year for which the extended due date for minimum required contributions applies, then the deadline for a plan sponsor’s election to increase a prefunding balance or to use a prefunding balance or a funding standard carryover balance to offset the minimum required contribution for that plan year is extended to January 1, 2021. However, the extended due date does not change the date by which a contribution must be made in order to be deducted for a tax year. A taxpayer is deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding tax year if the payment is on account of that tax year and is made no later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for that tax year (including extensions).

Guidance for AFTAP Election

A plan sponsor may elect to apply the AFTAP for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, for a plan year that includes any portion of calendar year 2020. For example, if a plan sponsor makes an election for a plan year that runs from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020, then the AFTAP that applies is the certified AFTAP from the plan year that ends on June 30, 2019. That plan sponsor may separately elect to use that same AFTAP for the plan year that begins on July 1, 2020.

The AFTAP election must be made using the procedures that apply for elections relating to funding balances. Thus, the plan sponsor must provide written notification of the election to the plan's actuary and the plan administrator. If a plan’s actuary has not certified the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year before the plan sponsor makes the election, then the plan sponsor’s election is treated as a certification of the AFTAP. Thus, beginning with the date of the election, the AFTAP for the last plan year ending on or before December 31, 2019, applies for the plan year for which the election is made, rather than any presumed AFTAP.

A plan’s actuary generally must certify the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year for which the plan sponsor makes the election. However, if the plan sponsor makes the election for a plan year that begins in 2019 and ends in 2020 and also makes an election for the next plan year, then the actuary is not required to certify the plan’s AFTAP for the plan year that begins in 2019. If the plan’s actuary has certified an AFTAP for a plan year, then the Schedule SB of Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, for that plan year should reflect the certified AFTAP.

If a plan’s actuary certified the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year before the plan sponsor makes the election, then the plan sponsor’s election is treated as a subsequent determination of the AFTAP for that plan year. However, the plan sponsor’s election is eligible for deemed immaterial treatment, and the election is treated as the recertification on the part of the actuary that is otherwise required for deemed immaterial treatment. Thus, the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the plan sponsor’s election is applied on a prospective basis beginning with the election date.

If the AFTAP that applies is pursuant to a plan sponsor’s election, then the restriction on plan amendments and unpredictable contingent event benefits is applied, except that the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the election is substituted for the presumed AFTAP. Thus, for example, the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the plan sponsor’s election will be used to calculate a presumed adjusted funding target and an inclusive presumed AFTAP.

The AFTAP that applies pursuant to a plan sponsor’s election for a plan year generally will not apply for purposes of the presumptions used in a subsequent plan year. Instead, the actual AFTAP for the plan year that was certified by the plan’s actuary generally is used for purposes of applying the presumption rules the subsequent plan year.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that implement new Code Sec. 7602(f), which bars non-government persons who are hired by the IRS from questioning a witness under oath whose testimony was obtained pursuant to a summons issued under Code Sec. 7602. The regulations prohibit any IRS contractors from asking a summoned person’s representative to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege. The IRS has also withdrawn a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM REG-132434-17) that contained proposed rules addressing the participation of persons described under Code Sec. 6103(n) in the interview of a summoned witness and excluding certain non-government attorneys from participating in an IRS examination.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that implement new Code Sec. 7602(f), which bars non-government persons who are hired by the IRS from questioning a witness under oath whose testimony was obtained pursuant to a summons issued under Code Sec. 7602. The regulations prohibit any IRS contractors from asking a summoned person’s representative to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege. The IRS has also withdrawn a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM REG-132434-17) that contained proposed rules addressing the participation of persons described under Code Sec. 6103(n) in the interview of a summoned witness and excluding certain non-government attorneys from participating in an IRS examination.

Section 7602(f)

The 2016 Summons Interview Regulations under Reg. §301.7602-1(b)(3) were issued, in part, to clarify that persons described in Code Sec. 6103(n) and Reg. §301.6103(n)-1(a) may receive and review books, papers, records, or other data summoned by the IRS. The regulations were also issued to clarify that, in the presence and under the guidance of an IRS officer or employee, these non-government persons could participate fully in the interview of a person whom the IRS had summoned as a witness to provide testimony under oath, allowing a contractor to ask a summoned witness substantive questions. Code Sec. 7602(f) was enacted by section 1208 of the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 ( P.L. 116-25).

Comment Request

Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 6, 2020. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-132434-17) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted on paper will be considered to the extent practicable. The Treasury Department and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment submitted electronically, and to the extent practicable on paper, to its public docket. Paper submissions can be sent to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132434-17), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

Proposed regulations adopt the post-2017 simplified accounting rules for small businesses.

Proposed regulations adopt the post-2017 simplified accounting rules for small businesses.

Implementation

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) put in place a single $25 million gross receipts test (adjusted annually for inflation after 2018) for determining whether certain taxpayers can use the cash method of accounting, are not required to use inventories, are not required to apply the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules, and are not required to use the percentage of completion method for a small construction contract.

The proposed regulations address a variety of issues. For example, they address application of the gross receipts test to taxpayers that are not corporations or partnerships. The gross receipts test is applied by taking into account the amount of gross receipts derived from all of the taxpayer's trades or businesses. Under the proposed regulations, amounts not related to a taxpayer's trade or business—items such as Social Security benefits, personal injury awards and settlements, disability benefits, and wages received as an employee reported on Form W-2—are generally excluded from gross receipts. Similar rules are provided for each of the exemptions.

Other issues addressed in the proposed regulations include rules:

• implementing the Code Sec. 263A(i) small business taxpayer exemption for purposes of the requirement to capitalize interest;
• permitting farmers who had been using a farming exception to the Code Sec. 263A rules to adopt the small business exception, and vice versa;
• permitting a taxpayer to elect to use the allocated taxable income or loss of the immediately preceding tax year to determine whether the taxpayer is a syndicate for purposes of Code Sec. 448(d)(3) for the current tax year;
• requiring a taxpayer that meets the gross receipts test in the current tax year to obtain IRS written consent before changing to the cash method if the taxpayer had previously changed its overall method from the cash method during any of the five tax years ending with the current tax year;
• applying the look-back method to redetermine the taxpayer’s modified taxable income under Reg. §1.59-3(b) and the taxpayer’s base erosion minimum tax amount (BEMTA) for the tax year; and
• clarifying the treatment under Code Sec. 471(c) for small business taxpayers with and without applicable financial statements.

Applicability Date

The regulations are proposed to apply for tax years beginning on or after the date the Treasury Decision adopting these proposed regulations as final is published in the Federal Register. However, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations, provided that the taxpayer follows all the applicable rules contained in the proposed regulations for each Code provision that the taxpayer chooses to apply.

The IRS has modified two safe harbor explanations in Notice 2018-74, 2018-40 I.R.B. 529, that can be used to satisfy the requirement under Code Sec. 402(f) that certain information be provided to recipients of eligible rollover distributions. The modifications were necessary due to recent changes in law made by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). One safe harbor explanation is for payments not from a designated Roth account, and the other is for payments from a designated Roth account. The Code Sec. 402(f) notice may be provided as many as 180 days before the date on which the distribution is made (or the annuity starting date).

The IRS has modified two safe harbor explanations in Notice 2018-74, 2018-40 I.R.B. 529, that can be used to satisfy the requirement under Code Sec. 402(f) that certain information be provided to recipients of eligible rollover distributions. The modifications were necessary due to recent changes in law made by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). One safe harbor explanation is for payments not from a designated Roth account, and the other is for payments from a designated Roth account. The Code Sec. 402(f) notice may be provided as many as 180 days before the date on which the distribution is made (or the annuity starting date).

Qualified Birth and Adoption Distributions

Code Sec. 72(t)(1) generally provides for a 10-percent additional tax on a distribution from a qualified retirement plan, unless the distribution qualifies for an exception. The SECURE Act permits an individual to receive up to $5,000 for a qualified birth or adoption distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan without being subject to the 10 percent additional tax. A qualified birth or adoption distribution is any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual if made during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the child of the individual is born or on which the legal adoption by the individual of an eligible adoptee is finalized.

Additionally, an individual may recontribute a qualified birth or adoption distribution (not to exceed the amount of the distribution) to an eligible retirement plan in which the taxpayer is a beneficiary and to which a rollover can be made. Although the distributions may be recontributed, a plan administrator is not required to provide a Code Sec. 402(f) notice to a recipient of a qualified birth or adoption distribution.

Required Minimum Distributions

The SECURE Act also amended Code Sec. 401(a)(9) to change the required beginning date for minimum distributions from retirement plans. The new required beginning date for an employee or an IRA owner is April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the individual attains age 72, rather than April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the individual attains age 70-1/2. This is effective for distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019, with respect to individuals who will attain age 70-1/2 after that date. As a result of this change, employees and IRA owners who will attain age 70-1/2 in 2020 will not have a required beginning date of April 1, 2021.

Model Notices

To assist with the implementation of the modified safe harbor explanations, the IRS has released two model safe harbor explanations: one for distributions that are not from a designated Roth account, and the other for distributions from a designated Roth account. Both explanations should be provided to a participant if the participant is eligible to receive eligible rollover distributions from both a designated Roth account and an account other than a designated Roth account. A plan administrator or payor may customize a safe harbor explanation by omitting any information that does not apply to the plan. Alternatively, a plan administrator or payor may provide an explanation that is different from a safe harbor explanation. Any explanation must include the information required by Code Sec. 402(f) and must be written in a manner designed to be easily understood.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) can provide favorable tax treatment for withdrawals from retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Under the CARES Act, individuals eligible for coronavirus-related relief may be able to withdraw up to $100,000 from IRAs or workplace retirement plans before December 31, 2020, if their plans allow. In addition to IRAs, this relief applies to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, profit-sharing plans and others.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) can provide favorable tax treatment for withdrawals from retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Under the CARES Act, individuals eligible for coronavirus-related relief may be able to withdraw up to $100,000 from IRAs or workplace retirement plans before December 31, 2020, if their plans allow. In addition to IRAs, this relief applies to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, profit-sharing plans and others.

Also, until September 22, 2020, individuals eligible to take coronavirus-related withdrawals may be able to borrow as much as $100,000 (up from $50,000) from a workplace retirement plan, if their plan allows. Loans are not available from an IRA. For eligible individuals, plan administrators can suspend, for up to one year, plan loan repayments due on or after March 27, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. A suspended loan is subject to interest during the suspension period, and the term of the loan may be extended to account for the suspension period.

To be eligible for COVID-19 relief, coronavirus-related withdrawals or loans can only be made to an individual if:

• the individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a test approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including a test authorized under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act);
• the individual’s spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19 by such a test; or
• the individual, their spouse, or a member of the individual’s household experiences adverse financial consequences from: (1) being quarantined, furloughed or laid off, having work hours reduced, being unable to work due to lack of childcare, having a reduction in pay (or self-employment income), or having a job offer rescinded or start date for a job delayed, due to COVID-19; or (2) closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual, the individual’s spouse, or a member of the individual’s household, due to COVID-19.

Taxpayers can learn more about these provisions in IRS Notice 2020-50, I.R.B. 2020-28, 35. The IRS has also posted FAQs that provide additional information.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final and proposed regulations under the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and subpart F provisions for the treatment of high-taxed income. The final regulations provide guidance on determining the type of high-taxed income that is eligible for the exclusion (the "GILTI high-tax exclusion" or GILTI HTE).

The Treasury and IRS have issued final and proposed regulations under the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and subpart F provisions for the treatment of high-taxed income. The final regulations provide guidance on determining the type of high-taxed income that is eligible for the exclusion (the "GILTI high-tax exclusion" or GILTI HTE).

Proposed regulations generally conform the rules for the subpart F high-tax exception to the rules for the GILTI high-tax exclusion. A single election is provided under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of subpart F and tested income.

Under the Code Sec. 954(b)(4) high tax exception, income received by a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is excluded under subpart F, if the income is subject to an effective rate of foreign tax that is greater than 90 percent of the maximum U.S. corporate tax rate.

Final Regulations on the GILTI HTE

The final regulations:

• provide that the GILTI HTE applies, on an elective basis, to high-taxed income of a CFC that is excluded from foreign base company (FBCI) ( Code Sec. 954) or insurance income ( Code Sec. 953) under Code Sec. 954(b)(4), regardless if the income would otherwise be FBCI or insurance income;
• provide that the effective foreign tax rate is determined on a tested unit basis;
• provide rules to determine the net amount of income (i.e., tentative tested income) and the foreign taxes paid or accrued with respect to such net amount of income that are used to compute the effective rate of tax;
• indicate how to make a GILTI HTE election; and
• do not provide rules that account for the use of foreign tax NOL carryforwards.

An exception under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of the GILTI HTE applies to any item of income that is subject to an effective rate of tax greater than the maximum U.S. corporate tax rate, which is 18.9 percent based on a 21 percent tax. Controlling domestic shareholders of CFCs can elect to apply the exception to items of income that would not otherwise be FBCI or insurance income. An item of gross income is subject to a high-rate of foreign tax, if after taking into account properly allocable expenses, the net item of income is subject to an effective rate of tax above the statutory threshold.

The high-tax exception is applied on the basis of the items of gross income of a tested unit of a CFC, rather than the CFC as a whole. All tested units of a CFC in the same country are generally grouped together to determine the effective foreign tax rate for the purpose of applying the high-tax exclusion. The approach minimizes the blending of tax rates within a CFC and is thought to provide a more accurate idea of the income subject to a high-rate of foreign tax.

The election to exclude high-taxed income from gross tested income is generally made or revoked for a one-year period.

Proposed Regulations Single Election

The proposed regulations provide for a single election under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of both subpart F and GILTI, based on the final GILTI high-tax exclusion regulations.

Under the proposed regulations:

• the election is made with respect to all members of a CFC group (rather than on a CFC-by-CFC basis);
• the determination of whether income is high taxed is made on a tested unit-by-unit basis;
• the determination of high tax income is simplified by grouping certain income that would otherwise qualify as subpart F income with income that would otherwise qualify as tested income for purposes of determining the effective foreign tax rate, and for purposes of the high-tax exception; and
• the method for allocating and apportioning deductions to items of gross income is modified for purposes of the high-tax exception.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

• Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
• Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

• Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
• Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
• Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
• Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
• Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
• Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
• Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
• Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
• Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
• Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
• Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

• a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
• a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

• intangible property;
• sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
• the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

• a specific document;
• information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
• a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

• evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
• provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
• define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
• provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

• a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
• a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

• a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
• the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
• the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
• elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
• clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
• removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

Proposed reliance regulations clarify the definitions of "real property" that qualifies for a like-kind exchange, including incidental personal property. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), like-kind exchanges occurring after 2017 are limited to real property used in a trade or business or for investment. Comments are requested.

Proposed reliance regulations clarify the definitions of "real property" that qualifies for a like-kind exchange, including incidental personal property. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), like-kind exchanges occurring after 2017 are limited to real property used in a trade or business or for investment. Comments are requested.

Real Property Defined for Like-Kind Exchanges
Under the proposed regulations, real property includes:

• land and improvements to land,
• unsevered crops and other natural products of land, and
• water and air space superjacent to land.

This real property definition language is very similar to the language in many other regulations, but it also includes necessary differences. As under pre-TCJA law, local law definitions are not controlling.

Real Property Includes Improvements and Inherently Permanent Structures
As mentioned above, real property includes improvements to land. Improvements include:

• inherently permanent structures, and
• the structural components of inherently permanent structures.

Each distinct asset must be analyzed separately to determine if it land, an inherently permanent structure, or a structural component of an inherently permanent structure. The regs identify several specific items, assets and systems as distinct assets, and provides factors for identifying other distinct assets.

Inherently Permanent Structures: Buildings and Machinery
Inherently permanent structures include any building or other structure that is permanently affixed to real property and that will ordinarily remain affixed for an indefinite period of time. A building is any structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls, and usually covered by a roof, the purpose of which is, for example, to provide shelter or housing, or to provide working, office, parking, display, or sales space. Buildings also include several distinct assets if permanently affixed, such as houses, hotels, enclosed stadiums shopping malls, factory and office buildings, and warehouse.

The proposed regulations also identify other structures that qualify as inherently permanent structures, and provide factors that must be used to determine if other property is an inherently permanent structure.

Property that is in the nature of machinery or is essentially an item of machinery or equipment is generally not an inherently permanent structure unless it serves the inherently permanent structure and does not produce or contribute to the production of income other than for the use or occupancy of space.

Inherently Permanent Structures: Structural Components
Structural components of inherently permanent structures are improvements to land and, thus, are real property. A structural component is any distinct asset that is a constituent part of, and integrated into, an inherently permanent structure. If interconnected assets work together to serve an inherently permanent structure (for example, systems that provide a building with electricity, heat, or water), the assets are analyzed together as one distinct asset that may qualify as a structural component.

However, a structural component may qualify as real property only if the taxpayer holds its interest in the component together with a real property interest within the physical space of the inherently permanent structure. Customization of a distinct asset in connection with the rental of space does not affect whether the asset is a structural component.

The proposed regulations list properties that are structural components, and provide factors for determining whether other components are structural components. The proposed regs also address tenant improvements to a building, and property produced for sale that is not real property in the hands of the producing taxpayer.

Unsevered Natural Products are Real Property
The proposed regulations provide that unsevered natural products of land are generally real property. These include growing crops, plants, and timber, as well as mines, wells and other natural deposits. Natural products and deposits, such as crops, timber, water, ores, and minerals, cease to be real property when they are severed, extracted, or removed from the land.

Intangible Assets as Real Property
An intangible asset is real property or an interest in real property to the extent that the asset:

• derives its value from real property or an interest in real property,
• is inseparable from that real property or interest in real property, and
• does not produce or contribute to the production of income other than consideration for the use or occupancy of space.

For instance, a license, permit, or other similar right generally is an interest in real property if (1) it is solely for the use, enjoyment, or occupation of land or an inherently permanent structure, and (2) it is in the nature of a leasehold, easement, or fee ownership. In contrast, a license or permit is not an interest in real property if it produces or contributes to the production of income other than consideration for the use and occupancy of space.

Incidental Personal Property and Qualified Intermediaries
The proposed regs provide that personal property that is incidental to replacement real property is disregarded in determining whether a taxpayer's rights to receive, pledge, borrow, or otherwise obtain the benefits of money or other property held by a qualified intermediary are expressly limited as provided in Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(6).

Personal property is incidental to real property acquired in an exchange if:

• in standard commercial transactions, the personal property is typically transferred together with the real property; and
• its aggregate fair market value does not exceed 15 percent of the aggregate fair market value of the replacement real property.

This incidental property rule in the proposed regulations is based on the existing rule in Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(c)(5), which provides that certain incidental property is ignored in determining whether a taxpayer has properly identified replacement property.

Effective Dates
The regulations are proposed to apply to like-kind exchanges that begin on or after the date they are published as final regs. However, taxpayers may rely on them for exchanges of real property beginning after December 31, 2017, if the proposed regs are followed consistently and in their entirety.

The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.

The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.

PPP Loans
The CARES Act expanded the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) existing Section 7(a) loan program to include certain PPP loans. The PPP is made available from the SBA to provide small businesses with loans to help pay payroll costs, mortgages, rent, and utilities during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis. All payments of principal, interest, and fees under the loans are deferred for at least 6 months. The loans are also forgiven for amounts payroll costs, mortgage or rent obligations, and certain utility payments incurred between February 15 and June 30. The loans are 100 percent guaranteed by the SBA.

Deductions Prohibited
If the SBA forgives a taxpayer’s PPP loan pursuant to Act. Sec. 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the amount of the loan is excluded from gross income. Under Reg. §1.265-1 taxpayers cannot deduct expenses that are allocable to income that is either wholly excluded from gross income or wholly exempt from the taxes. This rule exists in order to prevent double tax benefits. Thus, the IRS has determined that taxpayers who have their PPP loans forgiven may not deduct any business or interest expenses related to the income associated with the loan.

Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, SBA is expected to issue regulations and guidance to assist borrowers as they complete their applications, and to provide lenders with guidance on their responsibilities, according to Treasury.

Measures included in the application and instructions intended to reduce compliance burdens and simplify the process for borrowers include:

• options to calculate payroll costs using an "alternative payroll covered period" that aligns with borrowers’ regular payroll cycles;
• flexibility to include eligible payroll and non-payroll expenses paid or incurred during the eight-week period after receiving their PPP loan;
• step-by-step instructions on how to perform the calculations required by the CARES Act to confirm eligibility for loan forgiveness;
• borrower-friendly implementation of statutory exemptions from loan forgiveness reduction based on rehiring by June 30; and
• the addition of a new exemption from the loan forgiveness reduction for borrowers who have made a good-faith, written offer to rehire workers that was declined.

Eligible individuals who are not otherwise required to file federal income tax returns for 2019 may use a new simplified return filing procedure to make sure they receive the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136).

Eligible individuals who are not otherwise required to file federal income tax returns for 2019 may use a new simplified return filing procedure to make sure they receive the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136).

Alternatively, these eligible individuals may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool, available at www.irs.gov/coronavirus to submit the information the IRS needs to issue their payments.

EIPs and Recovery Rebate Credit
The CARES Act provides a fully refundable Recovery Rebate Credit for the 2020 tax year. However, the IRS is making EIPs during 2020 to refund the credit in advance, based on 2019 or 2018 information. Most individuals are eligible for the credit, except for nonresident aliens and individuals who qualify as another taxpayer’s dependent.

The maximum credit is $1,200 for each eligible individual, plus $500 for each qualifying child. There is no minimum income requirement, but the credit is phased out for higher-income individuals. Eligible individuals and qualifying children generally must have valid Social Security numbers.

Taxpayers who filed 2019 or 2018 returns automatically receive their Economic Payments. If the taxpayer identified an account for direct deposit of a refund, the Economic Impact Payment is direct deposited into the same account. Otherwise, the IRS mails a paper check to the taxpayer’s last known address.

Nonfilers who received Social Security and railroad retirement, survivor or disability benefits before 2020 also receive EIPs based on their Forms SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099 via direct deposit or paper checks, in the same way they receive their benefits. Recipients of supplemental security income (SSI) or Veterans Administration Compensation and Pension (C&P) benefits also automatically receive EIPs in the same way they receive their benefits. These nonfilers may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool to provide information about their qualifying children so that they also receive the $500 additional credit.

Other nonfilers who are not required to file returns, such as people with income below the filing threshold, may use the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool to provide basic information that allows the IRS to calculate and issue their EIPs.

Simplified Filing Procedures
Rather than using the "Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info Here" tool, a simplified return filer may use a simplified procedure to file a paper or electronic return for 2019 on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors. A simplified return filer is an eligible individual who:

• has not filed a federal income tax return for 2019;
• is not required to file a return for 2019, and
• has the required identification number.

Simplified returns are due by October 15, 2020. The IRS urges these individuals to file electronically to speed receipt of their payments.

Simplified Return Information
The simplified return should include only the following information:

• "EIP2020" written on the form;
• the individual’s filing status as of the end of tax year 2019;
• required identification information, including name, mailing address, and SSN for the individual (and spouse on a joint return);
• information regarding each dependent who was under the age of 17 at the end of tax year 2019; and
• the filer’s signature, using an IP PIN if applicable.

Generally lines 1 through 24 of the return are left blank, even if the values for these lines are in fact not zero, except as values are required for electronic returns.

The IRS will compute the Economic Impact Payment based on this information. The IRS will not challenge the accuracy of the items of income that are properly reported under these procedures.

To encourage businesses that have experienced an economic hardship due to COVID-19 to keep employees on their payroll, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) has provided several new credits for employers, including a new employee retention credit. The IRS has issued a fact sheet summarizing a few key points about the new credit.

To encourage businesses that have experienced an economic hardship due to COVID-19 to keep employees on their payroll, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) has provided several new credits for employers, including a new employee retention credit. The IRS has issued a fact sheet summarizing a few key points about the new credit.

Certain employers can claim the credit for wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. This includes tax-exempt organizations, employers with suspended operations due to a government order related to COVID-19, and those that have experienced a significant decline in gross receipts. The credit amount is 50 percent of up to $10,000 in qualified wages paid to an employee. This means that an employer’s maximum credit for qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000.

Qualified wages include the cost of employer-provided health care, but not the amount of qualified sick leave wages or family leave wages for which the employer received tax credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) ( P.L. 116-127). Qualified wages vary based on the average number of the employer’s full-time employees in 2019:

• If the employer had 100 or fewer employees on average in 2019, the credit is based on wages paid to all employees, regardless if they worked or not.
• If the employer had more than 100 employees on average in 2019, the credit is allowed only for wages paid to employees for time they did not work.

In each case, the wages that qualify are those paid for a calendar quarter in which the employer experiences an economic hardship.

To claim the credit, employers must report their total qualified wages and the related health insurance costs for each quarter on their quarterly employment tax returns, usually Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, beginning with the second quarter of 2020. If an employer does not have enough federal employment taxes to cover the amount of the credit (after they have deferred deposits of employer Social Security taxes), it may request an advance payment of the credit by submitting Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19, to the IRS.

The IRS has more information on the credit at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/faqs-employee-retention-credit-under-the-cares-act and https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have provided tax relief to certain individuals and businesses affected by travel disruptions arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have provided tax relief to certain individuals and businesses affected by travel disruptions arising from the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency. Under the guidance:

• up to 60 consecutive calendar days of U.S. presence that are presumed to arise from COVID-19 travel disruptions will not be counted for determining U.S. tax residency under Code Sec. 7701(b), or determining whether an individual qualifies for tax treaty benefits for income from personal services performed in the United States;
• for certain U.S. citizens and residents, qualification for gross income exclusion of foreign earned income under Code Sec. 911 will not be impacted by days spent away from a foreign country due to the COVID-19 emergency; and
• certain U.S. business activities by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation will not be counted for determining whether the individual or entity is engaged in a U.S. trade or business or has a U.S. permanent establishment.

COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception
Travel and related disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 emergency may cause foreign individuals who did not anticipate meeting the “substantial presence test” under Code Sec. 7701(b)(3) to become U.S. residents for federal tax purposes during 2020, and may impact an individual’s qualifications for certain treaty benefits. To address this, Rev. Proc. 2020-20 allows certain foreign individuals to claim a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception to becoming U.S. residents, and provides similar relief for determining whether an individual (whether or not an eligible for the medical travel exception) qualifies for U.S. income tax treaty benefits for income from dependent personal services performed in the United States.

An individual can claim a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception if he or she:

• was not a U.S. resident at the close of the 2019 tax year;
• is not a lawful permanent resident at any point in 2020;
• is present in the United States on each day of his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period; and
• does not become a U.S. resident in 2020 due to days of presence in the United States outside of the individual’s COVID-19 Emergency Period.

The COVID-19 Emergency Period is a period of up to 60 consecutive calendar days selected by an individual, starting on or after February 1, 2020, and on or before April 1, 2020, during which he or she is physically present in the United States on each day.

An eligible individual who intended to leave the United States during his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period but could not leave due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions can exclude up to 60 calendar days of presence in the United States for the substantial presence test. The COVID-19 emergency will be considered a medical condition that kept the individual from leaving the United States on each day during his or her COVID-19 Emergency Period, and will not be treated as a pre-existing medical condition.

Further, any days of presence during an individual’s COVID-19 Emergency Period on which he or she was unable to leave the United States due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions will not be counted in determining his or her eligibility for treaty benefits for income from employment or performing other dependent personal services within the United States.

The guidance provides details on claiming a COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception and an exemption from income withholding under a U.S. income tax treaty.

Foreign Earned Income Exclusion Relief
Rev. Proc. 2020-27 provides a waiver for certain individuals who failed to meet the eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) for the foreign earned income exclusion because adverse conditions in a foreign country kept the individual from meeting the requirements during 2019 and 2020. The COVID-19 emergency is an adverse condition that precluded the normal conduct of business in:

• the People’s Republic of China (excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau (China)) as of December 1, 2019; and
• any other foreign country, as of February 1, 2020.

The covered period ends on July 15, 2020, unless the Treasury Department and IRS announce an extension.

Under this relief, an individual who left the particular foreign country on or after the dates stated above, but on or before July 15, 2020, will be treated as a qualified individual under the foreign earned income exclusion rules for the period when he or she was present in, or was a bona fide resident of, that foreign country if the individual establishes a reasonable expectation that he or she would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) but for the COVID-19 Emergency. An individual who was first physically present or established residency in China after December 1, 2020, or another foreign country after February 1, 2020, is not eligible.

Individuals seeking to qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion because they could reasonably have been expected to have been present in a foreign country for 330 days but for the COVID-19 Emergency, and have met the other requirements to qualify, may use any 12-month period to meet the qualified individual requirement.

Previously issued revenue procedures under Code Sec. 911(d)(4) remain in full force and effect. Rev. Proc. 2020-14, 2020-16 I.R.B. 661, is supplemented.

U.S. Business Activities
Nonresident aliens who perform services or other activities in the United States, and foreign corporations that employ individuals to perform services or other activities in the United States, and are engaged in a U.S. trade or business are subject to federal tax on their business income from that trade or business. If the individuals performing those services or activities are temporarily in the United States solely due to COVID-19 emergency travel disruptions, the nonresident alien or foreign corporation might be treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business even though it would not be if the individuals performing the services were not present in the United States.

IRS frequently asked questions (FAQs)—at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/information-for-nonresident-aliens-and-foreign-businesses-impacted-by-covid-19-travel-disruptions—provide that certain U.S. business activities conducted by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation will not be counted for up to 60 consecutive calendar days in determining whether the individual or entity is engaged in a U.S. trade or business or has a U.S. permanent establishment, if those activities would not have been conducted in the United States but for the COVID-19 travel disruptions.

The IRS and the Employee Benefits Security Administration are extending certain timeframes during the Outbreak Period for group health plans, disability and other welfare plans, pension plans, and participants and beneficiaries of these plans during the COVID-19 National Emergency. The beginning of the Outbreak Period is March 1, 2020. The end date is yet to be determined.

The IRS and the Employee Benefits Security Administration are extending certain timeframes during the Outbreak Period for group health plans, disability and other welfare plans, pension plans, and participants and beneficiaries of these plans during the COVID-19 National Emergency. The beginning of the Outbreak Period is March 1, 2020. The end date is yet to be determined.

Outbreak Period
Under the relief, all group health plans, disability and other employee welfare benefit plans, and employee pension benefit plans subject to ERISA or the IRC must disregard the period from March 1, 2020, until sixty days after the announced end of the National Emergency.

Affected Deadlines for Plan Participants
The following periods and dates for all plan participants, beneficiaries, qualified beneficiaries, or claimants:

• The 30-day period (or 60-day period, if applicable) to request special enrollment into any group plan under Code Sec. 9801(f) and ERISA Sec. 701(f);
• The 60-day election period for COBRA continuation coverage under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(5) and ERISA Sec. 605;
• The date for making COBRA premium payments under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) and (C), and ERISA Sec. 602(2)(C) and (3);
• The date for individuals to notify the plan of a qualifying event or determination of disability under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(6)(C) and ERISA Sec. 606(a)(3);
• The date within which claimants may file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination pursuant to 26 Reg. §54.9815–2719(d)(2)(i) and 29 CFR 2590.715–2719(d)(2)(i), and
• The date within which individuals may file a benefit claim under the plan’s claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503–1, and the date within which claimants may file an appeal of an adverse benefit determination under the plan’s claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503–1(h).

Affected Dates for Group Health Plans
With respect to group health plans, and their sponsors and administrators, the Outbreak Period shall be disregarded when determining the date for providing a COBRA election notice under Code Sec. 4980B(f)(6)(D) and ERISA section 606(c).

Due to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19), the IRS has provided increased flexibility with respect to:

• 2020 mid-year elections under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan related to employer-sponsored health coverage, health Flexible Spending Arrangements (health FSAs), and dependent care assistance programs; and
• grace periods to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

Due to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19), the IRS has provided increased flexibility with respect to:

• 2020 mid-year elections under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan related to employer-sponsored health coverage, health Flexible Spending Arrangements (health FSAs), and dependent care assistance programs; and
• grace periods to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

This relief is retroactive to January 1, 2020.

An employer that decides to amend one or more of its Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plans to provide for mid-year election changes for employer-sponsored health coverage, health FSAs, or dependent care assistance programs, or to provide for an extended period to apply unused amounts remaining in a health FSA or a dependent care assistance program to pay or reimburse medical care expenses or dependent care expenses in a manner consistent with this relief, must adopt a plan amendment on or before December 31, 2021, which may be effective retroactively to January 1, 2020.

Cafeteria Plan Elections
Qualified benefits provided under a cafeteria plan include employer-provided accident and health plans excludable under Code Secs. 105(b) and 106, health FSAs excludable under Code Secs. 105(b) and 106, and dependent care assistance programs excludable under Code Sec. 129. Elections regarding these benefits are generally irrevocable, and must be made prior to the first day of the plan year. However, a cafeteria plan may permit an employee to revoke an election during a period of coverage and make a new election under certain circumstances, such as if the employee experiences a change in status or there are significant changes in the cost of coverage.

During 2020, a cafeteria plan may also permit eligible employees to:

• with respect to employer-sponsored health coverage: (a) make a new election on a prospective basis, if the employee initially declined to elect employer-sponsored health coverage; (b) revoke an existing election and make a new election to enroll in different health coverage sponsored by the same employer on a prospective basis; and (c) revoke an existing election on a prospective basis, provided that the employee attests in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other health coverage not sponsored by the employer;
• revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election applicable to a health FSA on a prospective basis; and
• revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election regarding a dependent care assistance program on a prospective basis.

To accept an employee’s revocation of an existing election for employer-sponsored health coverage, the employer must receive from the employee an attestation in writing that the employee is enrolled, or immediately will enroll, in other comprehensive health coverage not sponsored by the employer. The employer may rely on the written attestation provided by the employee, unless the employer has actual knowledge that the employee is not, or will not be, enrolled in other comprehensive health coverage not sponsored by the employer.

This relief may be applied retroactively to periods on or after January 1, 2020.

Health FSAs, Dependent Care Assistance
A cafeteria plan may permit the carryover of unused amounts remaining in a health FSA at the end of a plan year, subject to the carryover limit (currently $550). Additionally, cafeteria plan may permit a grace period to apply unused amounts (including amounts remaining in a health FSA or dependent care assistance program) at the end of a plan year to pay expenses incurred for those same qualified benefits during the period of up to two months and 15 days immediately following the end of the plan year. For a health FSA, a cafeteria plan may adopt a carryover or a grace period (or neither), but may not adopt both.

For unused amounts remaining in a health FSA or a dependent care assistance program at the end of a grace period or plan year ending in 2020, a cafeteria plan may permit employees to apply those unused amounts to pay or reimburse medical care expenses or dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020. For example, if an employer sponsors cafeteria plan with a health FSA that has a calendar year plan year and provides for a grace period ending on March 15 immediately following the end of each plan year, the employer may amend the plan to permit employees to apply unused amounts remaining in an employee’s health FSA as of March 15, 2020, to reimburse the employee for medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020.

This relief may be applied on or after January 1, 2020 and on or before December 31, 2020.

Impact of Health FSA Reimbursements
Code Sec. 223 permits eligible individuals to establish and contribute to health savings accounts (HSAs). With respect to any month, an eligible individual is any individual who:

• is covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) as of the first day of such month; and
• is not, while covered under an HDHP, covered under any health plan (a) which is not an HDHP, and (b) which provides coverage for any benefit which is covered under the HDHP.

An HDHP is a health plan that satisfies the minimum annual deductible requirement and maximum out-of-pocket expenses requirement under Code Sec. 223(c)(2)(A).

Coverage by a general purpose health FSA is coverage by a health plan that disqualifies an otherwise eligible individual from contributing to an HSA. Similarly, a telemedicine arrangement would generally disqualify an otherwise eligible individual from contributing to an HSA.

The government has previously provided relief for these issues. Notice 2020-15, I.R.B. 2020-14, 559, provides that a health plan that otherwise satisfies the requirements to be an HDHP will not fail to be an HDHP merely because the health plan provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19. Likewise, Section 3701 of the CARES Act amends Code Sec. 223(c) to provide a temporary safe harbor for providing coverage for telehealth and other remote care services.

The new relief clarifies that Notice 2020-15 may be applied retroactively to January 1, 2020. For example, an otherwise eligible individual with coverage under an HDHP who also received coverage beginning February 15, 2020, for telehealth and other remote care services under an arrangement that is not an HDHP will not be disqualified from contributing to an HSA during 2020.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that address changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations provide operational and definitional guidance on the deductibility of fines and penalties paid to governmental entities.

The IRS has released proposed regulations that address changes made to Code Sec. 162(f) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations provide operational and definitional guidance on the deductibility of fines and penalties paid to governmental entities.

TCJA Changes
Under amended Code Sec. 162(f), businesses may not deduct fines and penalties that are paid or incurred after December 21, 2017, due to the violation of a law or the investigation of a violation of law, if a government or similar entity is a complainant or investigator. Exceptions are available in certain cases where the payment was made for restitution, remediation, taxes due, or to come into compliance with a law.

In order for the exceptions to apply, the taxpayer must identify the payment as restitution or compliance in a court order or settlement agreement. In addition, Code Sec. 6050X requires that the officer or employee that has control over the suit or agreement, or the individual designated by the government or entity, must file a return with the IRS.

Establishing Restitution or Remediation
Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer can establish that a payment was made for restitution or remediation by providing documentary evidence showing:

• the taxpayer was legally obligated to pay the amount of the order or agreement identified as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law;
• the amount paid or incurred; and
• the date on which the amount was paid or incurred.

The proposed regulations provide a list of documents that taxpayers can use to satisfy the establishment requirement. The regulations also clarify that reporting of the amount by a government or governmental entity under Code Sec. 6050X alone does not satisfy the establishment requirement.

Identification Requirement
According to Code Sec. 162(f)(2)(A), an order or agreement must identify the amount paid or incurred as restitution, remediation, or to come into compliance with a law. The proposed regulations state that an order or agreement should identify a payment by stating both (1) the nature of, or purpose for, each payment, and (2) the amount of each payment identified. Reporting of the amount by a government or governmental entity under Code Sec. 6050X does not satisfy the identification requirement.

Taxes and Interest
Under Code Sec. 162(f)(4), taxpayers may still deduct any taxes due, including any related interest on the taxes. However, the proposed regulations clarify that taxpayers may not deduct interest related to penalties.

Reporting Requirements
The proposed regulations provide appropriate officials with operational, administrative, and definitional rules for complying with statutory information reporting requirements with respect to Code Sec. 162(f). If the aggregate amount a payor is required to pay equals or exceeds the threshold amount under Proposed Reg. §1.6050X-1(g)(5), the appropriate official must file an information return with the IRS with respect to the amounts or incurred paid and any additional information required.

According to the proposed regulations, they must provide this information by filing Form 1098-F, Fines, Penalties, and Other Amounts, with Form 1096, Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns, on or before the annual due date. However, the proposed regulations do not require an appropriate official to file information returns for each tax year in which a payor makes a payment pursuant to a single order or agreement. Instead, the appropriate official must file only one information return for the aggregate amount identified in the order or agreement.

The proposed regulations also require that the appropriate official furnish a written statement to each payor with respect to which it is required to file an information return. The written statement must include the information that was reported on the information return, and a legend that identifies the statement as important tax information that is being furnished to the IRS. They can satisfy this requirement by providing a copy of Form 1098-F to the payor.

Material Change
According to the TCJA, the amendments to Code Sec. 162(f) apply to agreements entered into on or after December 22, 2017. The proposed regulations clarify that if the parties to an agreement that was binding prior to December 22, 2017, make a material change to that agreement on or after the date that the proposed regulations become final, the regulations will apply to the agreement.

If there is a material change to the agreement, the proposed regulations require the appropriate official to update the IRS by filing a corrected Form 1098-F on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year. The proposed rules also require the appropriate official to furnish an amended written statement to the payor.

Definitions
The proposed regulations also define key terms and phrases for purposes of Code Sec. 162(f) and Code Sec. 6050X. These include "government," "governmental entity," "nongovernmental entity treated as a governmental entity," "restitution," "remediation of property," "amounts paid to come into compliance with a law," "appropriate official," "payor," and "threshold amount."

Effective Date
Proposed Reg. §1.162-21 is proposed to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations, but those rules do not apply to amounts paid or incurred under any order or agreement which became binding under applicable law before such date. Prior to the effective date, taxpayers may rely on Proposed Reg. §1.162-21, but only if they apply the rules in their entirety and in a consistent manner.

Proposed Reg. §1.6050X-1 is proposed to apply to orders and agreements that become binding under applicable law on or after January 1, 2022.

Comments
Taxpayers may submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for submitting comments and indicating IRS and REG-104591-18. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. Hard copy submissions must be addressed to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104591-18), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered only to the extent practicable.

A partnership was denied a charitable contribution deduction because it had entered in an conservation easement that violated the perpetuity requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) and its regulations. The Tax Court held that if there is a judicial extinguishment of an easement the donee receives a proportionate value of any proceeds.

A partnership was denied a charitable contribution deduction because it had entered in an conservation easement that violated the perpetuity requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) and its regulations. The Tax Court held that if there is a judicial extinguishment of an easement the donee receives a proportionate value of any proceeds.

Easement Deed
The taxpayer had donated a conservation easement to a land trust and claimed a charitable contribution deduction. The easement deed provided that if the conservation restriction were extinguished at some future date, the donee would receive a share of the proceeds equal to the fair market value (FMV) of the easement on the date the contribution was made. The deed further provided that the donee’s share as thus determined would be reduced by the value of any improvements made by the donor after granting the easement.

The taxpayer argued that Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6) does not say that the donee is entitled to a proportionate "share" of any proceeds upon extinguishment of the easement but proportionate "value." It argued this means fixed value, and because the regulation requires that the value be fixed as of the donation date, the donee was not entitled to any proceeds attributable to the value of post-donation improvements.

Windfall for Donees?
The IRS disallowed the deduction, contending that the extinguishment clause violated the requirements of Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court concurred with the IRS’s reasoning and held that the easement deed violated the "protected in perpetuity" requirement of Code Sec. 170(h)(5), as interpreted in Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6).

The court held that the donee’s share of the "proportionate value" as used in the regulation means a fraction of the proceeds from a judicial extinguishment, and not a fixed value.

The taxpayer argued that it was unfair for a donee to receive extinguishment proceeds attributable to the value of improvements made solely by the donor, because it would amount to an unintended charitable contribution for which it received no deduction. However, the Tax Court found that the purpose of the regulation is to avoid any windfalls to donors, not donees, if an easement was extinguished. The easement deed violated the regulation because the donee must be entitled to any proceeds from extinguishment or condemnation that were at least equal to the total proceeds multiplied by a fraction defined by the ratio of the FMV of the easement to the FMV of the unencumbered property determined as of the date of the easement deed.

The taxpayer was not liable for accuracy-related penalties, because it acted reasonably and in good faith. The partner was unfamiliar with the nuances of setting up a conservation easement and had relied on private letter rulings.

Regulation Valid
The taxpayer challenged the validity of Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6), which the Tax Court addressed in a concurrent opinion. The taxpayer contended the "proportionate value" approach to division of proceeds from a judicial extinguishment of the easement does not take into account the possibility of donor improvements. The Tax Court held that the regulation was properly promulgated, as it substantially revised the text regarding the proportionate value in response to comments and had only received one comment on the possibility of improvements. The court therefore found that the regulation was valid under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 553.

The Tax Court further relied on the two-part test given in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and held that the construction of Code Sec. 170(h)(5) as set forth in Reg. §1.170A-14(g)(6) was valid. The Treasury exercised reasoned judgment by adhering to a simple rule that split sale proceeds in a direct proportional manner on the basis of a fraction determined as of the date the gift was made. Because the regulation as drafted ensures satisfaction of the statutory mandate that the conservation purpose be "protected in perpetuity," the regulation was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the Code.