Newsletters

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump's signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.

Year-End Tax Package
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, (HR 1865), logs just over 700 pages and serves as only half of the government spending package for fiscal year 2020, which runs through September 30. Most notably, HR 1865 serves as the legislative vehicle for a year-end tax package, which carries a costly $426 billion price tag over a 10-year budget window, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), JCX-54R-19.

Some of the tax-related provisions in the year-end package include, among other items:

• Retroactive and current renewal of over two dozen temporary tax breaks known as tax extenders, which have expired or would soon be expired, spanning from 2017 to 2019. Generally, the renewed tax breaks are extended through 2020, and the biodiesel and short-line railroad maintenance tax credits are extended until 2022;
• The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) (HR 1994), which makes sweeping changes to retirement savings and employer retirement contributions provisions;
• Certain fixes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• Full repeal of three tax-related provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148), two of which include the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the 40 percent excise "Cadillac" tax on high-dollar employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

The House approved HR 1865 on December 17 by a 297-to-120 vote. The Senate cleared the measure on December 19 by a 71-to-23 vote.

"So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

"There were numerous fits and starts, but this result is a reminder that Congressional muscle memory on extenders is very strong, so ultimately the members did what they always do – extend them," John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of the federal legislative and regulatory services group in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP told Wolters Kluwer. "Some might be surprised to see the ACA taxes rolled back, but it has always felt like those items were on borrowed time; it was really just a question of when and how they were repealed, not whether. So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget."

SECURE ACT
The bipartisan SECURE Act, which cleared the House in May but remained stalled in the Senate most of the year, makes a number of major as well as administrative changes for retirement savings affecting both individuals and employers.

Some of those changes are noted as follows:

IRA Changes

• Moving the start date for requirement required minimum distributions (RMDs) to the year the owner turns 72;
• Ending the 70 1/2 age limit for contribute contributions to an IRA; and
• Shortening the distribution period for nonspouse inherited IRAs to a 10-year maximum.
  The 10-year window for distributions to a nonspouse beneficiary applies regardless of when the IRA owner dies. Thus, the change will severely limit the use of "stretch IRAs" as an effective planning tool. Limited exceptions are available.

401(k) Changes

• Requiring plans to offer participation to long-term, part-time employees;
• Encouraging auto-enrollment by increasing the cap; and
• Streamlining the safe harbor for non-elective contributions.

Employers with 401(k) plans must offer employees who work between 500 and 1000 hours year an additional means to participate in the plan. The rule change would only affect 401(k) cash or deferral arrangements, and no other qualified plans.

Retirement Plans for Small Employers

Several changes are made to encourage more small employers to offer retirement benefits to their employees, such as:

• Adding a new tax credit for small employers using auto-enrollment plans;
• Increasing the credit for small employer pension plan start-up costs; and
• Allow small employers of two or more to band together to participate in a new class of pooled multiple employer plans (MEPs).

Congress Adjourns Until 2020
After an eventful two-week sprint to the finish line, Congress adjourned for the year on December 20. Lawmakers are expected to return to Washington, D.C. during the week of January 6, 2020.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. However, the central question of whether the rest of the ACA remains valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance remained unanswered. Instead, the case was sent back to the district court to reconsider how much of the ACA could survive without the individual mandate penalty.

District Court
According to the opinion, "the rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today." Therefore, the opinion directs the district court to carefully consider whether the mandate can be legally distinct from the rest of the law. The opinion instructs the district court to answer two questions: Which parts of the ACA "are indeed inseverable" now that the mandate is no longer enforced and whether a ruling in the case should apply only to the Republican-led states that sued to overturn the law, an issue raised by Trump administration lawyers.

Dissenting Opinion
A dissenting opinion discussed that Congress made it clear that it wanted the rest of the ACA to stand and sending the case back to the lower court was criticized. The opinion also highlighted that sending the case back to the lower court merely identifies serious flaws in the district court’s analysis and remands for a do-over, which will unnecessarily prolong this litigation and the concomitant uncertainty over the future of the health care sector.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

Proposed qualified opportunity zone regulations issued on October 29, 2018 ( REG-115420-18) and May 1, 2019 ( REG-120186-18) under Code Sec. 1400Z-2 have been finalized with modifications. The regulations. which were issued in a 550 page document, are comprehensive.

The regulations address issued related to all aspects of the gain deferral rules and also various requirements that must be met for an entity to qualify as a qualified opportunity fund (QOF) or as a qualified opportunity zone business. Duplicative rules regarding QOFs and qualified opportunity zone businesses have been combined and definitions of key terms added. The regulations detail which taxpayers are eligible to make the election, the types of capital gains eligible for deferral, and the method of making deferral elections. Revisions are made to the rules applying the statutory 180-period and other requirements with regard to the making of a qualifying investment in a QOF.

The IRS will reflect these regulations in updated forms, instructions, and other guidance in January 2020.

Benefits of QOF Investments
Taxpayers may elect to temporarily defer capital gain in income if the gain is invested within 180 days in a QOF. The gain is recognized on Dec. 31, 2026, or if earlier, upon the occurrence of an inclusion event such as the sale of the QOF investment. However, 10 percent of the deferred gain is not recognized if the investment is held five years and 15 percent is not recognized after seven years. In addition, taxpayers may exclude recognition of gain on appreciation in the investment if the investment in the qualified opportunity fund is held for at least 10 years.

Section 1231 gains
The final regulations provide that eligible gains include the gross amount of eligible section 1231 gains unreduced by section 1231 losses regardless of character. The proposed regulations took a "netting" approach. The 180-day period for an eligible taxpayer to invest an amount with respect to an eligible section 1231 gain begins on the date of the sale of the section 1231 asset rather than at the end of the tax year.

RICS and REITS
The 180-day period for RIC or REIT capital gain dividends generally begins at the close of the shareholder’s tax year in which the capital gain dividend would otherwise be recognized by the shareholder. To ensure that RIC and REIT shareholders do not have to wait until the close of their tax year to invest capital gain dividends received during the tax year, the final regulations also provide that shareholders may elect to begin the 180-day period on the day each capital gain dividend is paid. The 180-day period for undistributed capital gain dividends, however, begins on either the last day of the shareholder’s tax year in which the dividend would otherwise be recognized or the last day of the RIC or REIT’s tax year, at the shareholder’s election.

The aggregate amount of a shareholder’s eligible gain with respect to capital gain dividends received from a RIC or a REIT cannot exceed the aggregate amount of capital gain dividends that the shareholder receives as reported or designated by that RIC or that REIT for the shareholder’s tax year.

Installment Sales
The final regulations allow an eligible taxpayer to elect to choose the 180- day period to begin on either (i) the date a payment under an installment sale is received for that tax year, or (ii) the last day of the tax year the eligible gain under the installment method would be recognized. Therefore, if the taxpayer defers gain from multiple payments under an installment sale, there might be multiple 180-day periods, or a single 180-day period at the end of the taxpayer’s tax year, depending upon taxpayer’s election.

Partners, S Corporation Shareholders, and Trust Beneficiaries
The final regulations provide partners, S shareholders, and beneficiaries of decedents’ estates and non-grantor trusts with the option to treat the 180-day period as commencing upon the due date of the related entity’s tax return, not including any extensions. This rule does not apply to grantor trusts.

Gain from Disposal of Partial Interest in QOF Investment
Gain arising from an inclusion event is eligible for deferral even though the taxpayer retains a portion of its qualifying investment after the inclusion event. If an inclusion event relates only to a portion of a taxpayer’s qualifying investment in the QOF, (i) the deferred gain that otherwise would be required to be included in income (inclusion gain amount) may be invested in a different QOF, and (ii) the taxpayer may make a deferral election with respect to the inclusion gain amount, so long as the taxpayer satisfies all requirements for a deferral election on the inclusion gain amount.

Post-December 31, 2026 Gain Ineligible
Gain arising after December 31, 2026 (including gain mandatorily recognized on that date) is not eligible for deferral.

Death Related Transfers of QOF Investments
A qualifying investment received by a beneficiary in a transfer by reason of death remains a qualifying investment in the hands of the beneficiary.

Acquisition of Eligible Interest from Person Other than a QOF
A taxpayer may make a deferral election for an eligible interest acquired from a person other than a QOF. The final regulations do not require the transferor to have made a prior deferral election for the acquirer of an eligible interest to make the election.

Further, for interests in entities that existed before the enactment of the deferral provision, if such entities become QOFs, then the interests in those entities, even though not qualifying investments in the hands of a transferor, are eligible interests that may (i) be acquired by an investor and (ii) result in a qualifying investment of the acquirer if the acquirer has eligible gain and the acquisition was during the 180-day period with respect to that gain.

Built in Gains
Built-in gain of a REIT, a RIC, or an S corporation potentially subject to corporate-level tax is eligible for deferral. If the deferral election is made, the amount of gain is not included in the calculation of the entity’s net recognized built-in gain.

Identification of Disposed Interests in a QOF
The final regulations permit taxpayers to specifically identify QOF stock that is sold or otherwise disposed. If a taxpayer fails to adequately identify which QOF shares are disposed of, then the FIFO identification method applies. If, after application of the FIFO method, a taxpayer is treated as having disposed of less than all of its investment interests that the taxpayer acquired on one day and the investments vary in its characteristics, then a pro-rata method applies to the remainder.

The specific identification method does not apply to the disposition of interests in a QOF partnership.

Deferred Gain Retains Tax Attributes
The final regulations make it clear that if a taxpayer is required to include in income some or all of a previously deferred gain, the gain so included has the same attributes that the gain would have had if the recognition of gain had not been deferred. If a deferred gain cannot be clearly associated with an investment in a particular QOF, an ordering rule applies to make this determination.

Effective Date
The final regulations are generally applicable to tax years beginning after 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

With respect to the portion of a taxpayer’s first tax year ending after December 21, 2017, that began on December 22, 2017, and for tax years beginning after December 21, 2017, and on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register taxpayers may rely on either the proposed regulations or the final regulations but not both.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance on transfers of appreciated property by U.S. persons to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. Specifically, the regulations override the general nonrecognition rule under Code Sec. 721(a) unless the partnership adopts the remedial allocation method and certain other requirements are satisfied. The regulations affect U.S. partners in domestic or foreign partnerships.

Background
Code Sec. 721(a) generally provides that no gain or loss is recognized by either a partnership or any of its partners upon a contribution of property to the partnership in exchange for a partnership interest. In Code Sec. 721(c), the Treasury Secretary has regulatory authority to override this nonrecognition provision for gain realized on the transfer of property to a domestic or foreign partnership if the gain, when recognized, would be includible in the gross income of a person other than a U.S. person.

Under temporary regulations issued in 2017, if a U.S. person contributes certain property with built-in gain to a partnership that has foreign partners related to the transferor, then gain will be recognized unless the gain deferral method is applied with respect to the property ( Temporary Reg. §§1.721(c)-2T; 1.721(c)-3T). Under a de minimis exception, nonrecognition continues to apply if the sum of all built-in gain property contributed to the partnership during the tax year does not exceed $1 million.

The final regulations adopt the temporary regulations with certain modifications.

Related Person Definition
The final regulations modify the definition of related person in certain situations. This modification provides relief when certain foreign individual partners of a partnership would be treated as a related person with respect to a domestic corporation by reason of Code Sec. 267(c)(3).

Consistent Allocation Method
The final regulations add a new sentence in Reg. §1.721(c)-3(c)(1). Upon a variation (as described in Reg. §1.706-4(a)(1)) of a U.S. transferor’s interest in a Code Sec. 721(c) partnership, book items with respect to section 721(c) property that are allocated under the interim closing method (as described in Reg. §1.706-4) will be treated as allocated in the same percentage for applying the consistent allocation method in a single tax year, unless the variation results from a transaction undertaken with a principal purpose of avoiding the tax consequences of the gain deferral method.

Reporting Requirements
The 2017 regulations required much of the reporting to be on statements attached to returns. Since the 2017 regulations were issued, however, the IRS has updated and added new schedules to Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, to facilitate compliance with these reporting requirements. The IRS has also issued new Form 8838-P, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Pursuant to the Gain Deferral Method (Section 721(c)). The final regulations generally require taxpayers to use these forms and schedules.

The final regulations also clarify the duration for which the U.S. transferor must extend the period of limitations on the assessment of tax under Reg. §1.721(c)-6(b).

Technical Termination Rules
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, ( P.L. 115-97) (the "TCJA") eliminated technical terminations. However, the applicability date for these final regulations relates back to the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations, which is before the effective date provided in the TCJA. Accordingly, the final regulations retain technical termination rules, but their application will be limited. The rules will only apply to technical terminations occurring on or after the applicability date provided in the 2017 regulations but before the effective date for the repeal of Code Sec. 708(b)(1)(B) provided in the TCJA.

Effective Date
The regulations are effective on the date of filing with the Federal Register. For dates of applicability, see Reg. §§1.197-2(l)(5)(i), 1.704-1(f), 1.704-3(g)(1), 1.721(c)-1(e), 1.721(c)-2(e), 1.721(c)-3(e), 1.721(c)-4(d), 1.721(c)-5(g), 1.721(c)-6(g), and 1.6038B-2(j)(4).

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

The IRS has released Publication 5382, "Internal Revenue Service Progress Update / Fiscal Year 2019—Putting Taxpayers First." This new annual report describes accomplishments across the agency, and highlights the work of IRS employees during the past year. It covers a variety of taxpayer service efforts, including development of the new Taxpayer Withholding Estimator, as well as operations support efforts on areas involving information technology modernization, human capital office initiatives, and others.

"This report is about more than what happened during the past year," IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig wrote in the report’s opening message to taxpayers. "It’s also designed to provide insight into the people serving this country on behalf of the IRS, and provide a glimpse into the future," he added.

IRS Pub. 5382 also focuses criminal investigation results and efforts involving civil enforcement. Also discussed are ongoing compliance areas, including micro-captives, syndicated conservation easements, and virtual currency. The report further covers the IRS’s implementation of new tax laws, and the IRS’s ongoing work on the new Taxpayer First Act of 2019.

Individual Audits Down
Taxpayers are now half as likely to be audited by the IRS for their individual income tax returns as they were a decade ago. As described in IRS Pub. 5382, the IRS audited 0.45 percent of individual (1040) income tax returns during fiscal year (FY) 2019. This number is down from 1.1 percent of tax returns audited in 2010. The IRS’s ongoing loss to its total workforce is largely to blame for the consistent decline in IRS audits, according to the report.

"The IRS lost more than 29,618 full time positions between FY 2010 and FY 2019, which includes Information Technology, Operations Support, Taxpayer Service and Enforcement personnel. These losses directly correlate with a steady decline in the number of individual audits during the past nine years," the report notes.

Hill Reaction
Although individual audits have significantly decreased, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are criticizing the fact that the IRS continues to conduct more examinations on lower-income individual taxpayers than it does on higher-income taxpayers or corporations. However, the IRS has said previously that audits on higher-income individuals and businesses are significantly more complex and require more resources.

"IRS audit rates are at their lowest levels in 40 years, allowing the wealthy and well-connected to steal from taxpayers with no consequences," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a January 7 statement. "The bulk of tax avoidance and fraud comes from corporations, pass-through business and those at the top. Ensuring the wealthy and corporations pay what they owe takes the most resources and manpower, and I’m working with the IRS to get a clear picture on funding and staffing levels needed to audit top earners at 2010 levels," Wyden added.

Currently, the IRS anticipates that up to 31 percent of its workforce (nearly 19,719 full-time employees) will retire within the next five years. The IRS’s workforce decline is expected to create a "significant risk of a large knowledge and experience gap for the nation’s tax agency," according to the IRS report.

Bridget Roberts, the Acting National Taxpayer Advocate, released her 2019 Annual Report to Congress. The report discusses the key challenges facing the IRS regarding the implementation of the Taxpayer First Act, inadequate taxpayer service and limited funding of the agency. Further, Roberts released the third edition of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s "Purple Book," which presents 58 legislative recommendations designed to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration.

Bridget Roberts, the Acting National Taxpayer Advocate, released her 2019 Annual Report to Congress. The report discusses the key challenges facing the IRS regarding the implementation of the Taxpayer First Act, inadequate taxpayer service and limited funding of the agency. Further, Roberts released the third edition of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s "Purple Book," which presents 58 legislative recommendations designed to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration.

Taxpayer First Act
The report highlighted that the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25) had made the most comprehensive revisions to IRS procedures since the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, including some 23 provisions previously recommended by the National Taxpayer Advocate. Further, the Taxpayer First Act also required the IRS to develop four strategic plans:

• a comprehensive taxpayer service strategy (due to Congress by July 1, 2020);
• a comprehensive plan to redesign the IRS’s organizational structure (due to Congress by Sept. 30, 2020);
• a comprehensive employee training strategy that includes taxpayer rights training (due to Congress by July 1, 2020); and
• a multi-year plan to meet IRS information technology (IT) needs.

Key IRS Challenges
The biggest challenge facing the IRS is its struggle to complete its mission. The IRS aims to "provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all." The report emphasizes that the IRS is struggling to meet both of those goals, and attributes the IRS’s shortcomings mostly to budget constraints but also to a culture in which the agency focuses on its own priorities without adequately factoring in the needs of taxpayers.

The report states that the IRS is among the lowest-performing federal agencies in providing a positive customer experience. During fiscal year (FY) 2019, the report said that the IRS received approximately 100 million telephone calls, and customer service representatives answered only 29 percent. The report further states that the IRS has also struggled to enforce the law with "fairness to all". The report urges the IRS to prioritize phone service for taxpayers against whom it takes collection action.

Low Budget
Since 2010, the IRS budget has been reduced by about 20 percent after adjusting for inflation, and the number of full-time equivalent employees has declined by about 22 percent. The report points out that answering 100 million telephone calls, conducting audits, and taking enforcement actions require adequate staffing, and the IRS cannot substantially improve its performance without additional resources. The report urges Congress to increase IRS funding and particularly for taxpayer service and IT modernization, and to change the budget rules to account for the revenue additional IRS appropriations are likely to generate.

Identifying Taxpayer Needs and Preferences
Despite the IRS’s significant funding limitations, the report urges the IRS to utilize the Taxpayer First Act requirements – to develop plans to revamp its taxpayer service strategy, organizational structure, employee training strategy, and technology priorities – as a roadmap for a once-in-a-generation reassessment of its objectives and operations.

While noting that the IRS has developed strategies in a vacuum without soliciting taxpayer feedback and taking into account taxpayer needs and preferences, the report suggests a full-scale cultural shift. The report also expressed concern that the IRS has declined to include the National Taxpayer Advocate or a Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) representative as part of a core team created to coordinate its Taxpayer First Act implementation activities.

The report also makes numerous recommendations to improve the customer experience, including that the IRS take the following actions:

• Conduct multi-disciplined, comprehensive research into taxpayer needs and preferences.
• Require that all IRS business units, including those charged primarily with enforcement, develop a detailed customer service strategy.
• Appoint a Chief Customer Experience Officer to coordinate service initiatives across IRS business units.
• Ensure that taxpayers who cannot work with the IRS digitally, or whose issues are not resolved online, can reach and work with an IRS employee.
• Address the needs of practitioners who interact with the IRS on behalf of large numbers of taxpayers.
• For each proposal included in its customer service strategy, include cost estimates, milestones, and taxpayer-focused performance measures so the effectiveness of the strategy in improving customer service can be measured over time.

Other Matters
The report also:

• identified 10 "most serious problems";
• provided status updates on two problems identified in previous reports;
• made dozens of recommendations for administrative change;
• made 58 recommendations for legislative change;
• analyzed the 10 tax issues most frequently litigated in the federal courts; and
• presented four research studies.

The IRS has modified the applicability dates for proposed regulations under Code Sec. 382 that were issued with NPRM REG-125710-18, September 10, 2019 (2019 proposed regulations). The IRS is withdrawing the text of the proposed applicability dates, and proposing revised applicability dates. The newly issued proposed rules would also provide transition relief.

The IRS has modified the applicability dates for proposed regulations under Code Sec. 382 that were issued with NPRM REG-125710-18, September 10, 2019 (2019 proposed regulations). The IRS is withdrawing the text of the proposed applicability dates, and proposing revised applicability dates. The newly issued proposed rules would also provide transition relief.

Proposed Regulations and Notice 2003-65
The 2019 proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of items of income and deductions in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would apply to ownership changes that occur after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, provides interim guidance for identifying built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). This notice permits taxpayers to rely on safe harbor approaches for applying Code Sec. 382(h) to an ownership change prior to the effective date of temporary or final regulations issued under that provision.

Delay of Applicability Date
To address concerns raised by taxpayers and practitioners, the IRS has withdrawn the text of Proposed Reg. §1.382-2(b)(4) and Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(g) contained in the 2019 proposed regulations, and replaced it with a revised proposed applicability date text. To avoid any gap between the date on which taxpayers can no longer rely on Notice 2003-65 and the date on which the final regulations are applicable, the applicability date of the final regulations would be 30 days after the date such regulations are published in the Federal Register (delayed applicability date). Exceptions exist for two situations discussed below.

Notice 2003-65 will remain applicable to ownership changes to which the final regulations do not apply.

Limiting Duplicative Application
The first exception to the delayed applicability date relates to the rule in Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5), which provides that certain carryforwards of business interest expense disallowed under Code Sec. 163(j) would not be treated as recognized built-in losses under Code Sec. 382(h)(6)(B), if such amounts were allowable as deductions during the five-year recognition period set forth in Code Sec. 382(h)(7)(A). This rule eliminates the possible duplicative application of Code Sec. 382 to certain disallowed business interest expense carryforwards.

The IRS has determined that Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5) should be finalized before the remainder of the rules in the 2019 proposed regulations, and that taxpayers should be allowed to retroactively apply this rule. To that end, the IRS expects that Proposed Reg. §1.382-7(d)(5) will be finalized as part of the Treasury decision that finalizes the proposed Code Sec. 163(j) regulations (see 83 FR 67490), and that taxpayers will be permitted to apply the rule to prior periods. The IRS continues to study the remainder of the rules in the 2019 proposed regulations.

Transition Relief
Under the proposed transition relief provisions, the final regulations would not apply to certain ownership changes that occur after the delayed applicability date. To qualify for the transition relief, the ownership change must occur immediately after an owner shift or equity structure shift that occurs pursuant to:

• a binding agreement in effect on or before the delayed applicability date and at all times thereafter;
• a specific transaction described in a public announcement made on or before the delayed applicability date;
• a specific transaction described in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission submitted on or before the delayed applicability date;
• a transaction described in a private letter ruling request submitted to the IRS on or before the delayed applicability date; or
• a court order (or a plan confirmed, or a sale approved, by court order) in a title 11 or similar case, provided that the taxpayer was a debtor in a case before such court on or before the delayed applicability date.

The relevant owner shift or equity structure shift must be a specific, identifiable transaction.

Taxpayers may continue to rely on Notice 2003-65 for to any ownership change qualifying for transition relief, even though the notice will be obsoleted on the delayed applicability date. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations to such an ownership change.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations on the due diligence and reporting rules for persons making certain U.S. source payments to foreign persons. Guidance is also provided on reporting by foreign financial institutions on U.S. accounts. The regulations are effective on the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations on the due diligence and reporting rules for persons making certain U.S. source payments to foreign persons. Guidance is also provided on reporting by foreign financial institutions on U.S. accounts. The regulations are effective on the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Obtaining a Foreign TIN and Date of Birth
Temporary regulations provided that beginning January 1, 2017, a beneficial withholding certificate provided to document an account maintained at a U.S. branch or office of a financial institution was required to include a foreign taxpayer identification number (TIN) and the date of birth for an individual, in order to treat the certificate as valid. In response to comments regarding the difficulty of the requirements, the Treasury and IRS issued Notice 2017-46.

The notice provided a one-year delay in the implementation of the requirements for payments made on or after January 1, 2018, and a transitional rules to phase in the foreign TIN requirement for certificates provided before January 1, 2018. The transitional rules allow an otherwise valid certificate to remain valid until January 1, 2020. For payments made after January 1, 2020, a withholding agent may treat a pre-2018 as valid if the foreign TIN is obtained on a written statement or is in the withholding agent’s files. In Notice 2018-20, the IRS stated that it intended to expand its list of jurisdictions that do not issue foreign TINs to their residents to include jurisdictions that requested to be on the list, even if they issue foreign TINs.

The final regulations incorporate the temporary regulations and Notices with minor changes, by:

• providing, with respect to withholding certificates signed on or after January 1, 2018, that a separate written statement is an acceptable way to collect a foreign TIN, if the written statement contains an acknowledgment that the statement is part of the withholding certificate;
• clarifying the exception to the foreign TIN requirement for an account holder that is a government, international organization, foreign central bank or resident of a U.S. territory; and
• clarifying that a withholding agent may rely on the date of birth on a withholding certificate, unless it knows or has reason to know that the date of birth is incorrect.

Nonqualified Intermediaries
A nonqualified intermediary is generally required to provide a withholding agent a Form W-8IMY, a withholding statement, and documentation for each payee for which the intermediary receives a payment. The final regulations clarify that the general standards of knowledge that apply to withholding agents apply to a nonqualified intermediary for reliance on payee documentation, for making the representation that the information on the certificate is not inconsistent with other account information that the nonqualified intermediary has.

A nonqualified intermediary may provide a withholding statement that does not include a chapter 4 recipient code for one or more payees if the withholding agent can determine the appropriate code based on other information included on or associated with the withholding statement, or contained in the withholding agent’s records.

Electronic Signatures
A withholding agent can accept an electronically signed withholding certificate if the certificate reasonably demonstrates to the withholding agent that it has been electronically signed by the recipient identified on the form or authorized by the recipient to sign the form.

The final regulations allow the withholding agent to also consider documentation or other information that the withholding agent has that supports that the withholding certificate was electronically signed, absent actual knowledge that the information or documentation is incorrect.

Additional Changes
The final regulations also make clarifications with respect to withholding certificates and statements furnished through a third party repository.

Regarding the claim of a reduced rate of withholding under a treaty, the final regulations modify the general standard of knowledge by providing that:

• the withholding agent has reason to know that a claim of reduced rate under a treaty is unreliable or incorrect when it can check a list on the IRS website regarding the existence of the treaty, and
• a withholding agent can rely on a beneficial owner’s claim regarding a limitation of benefits (LOB) provision, absent actual knowledge that the claim is unreliable or incorrect.

The final regulation also extend the time for withholding agents to obtain treaty statements, with respect to specific LOB provisions for preexisting accounts, to January 1, 2020.

Taxpayers have been provided with additional guidance for complying with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations on dividend equivalent payments for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to amend the regulations to delay the effective/applicability date of certain rules. Further, the phase-in period provided in Notice 2018-762, I.R.B. 2018-40, 522, has been extended.

Taxpayers have been provided with additional guidance for complying with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations on dividend equivalent payments for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to amend the regulations to delay the effective/applicability date of certain rules. Further, the phase-in period provided in Notice 2018-762, I.R.B. 2018-40, 522, has been extended.

Dividend Equivalent Payments
A dividend equivalent amount is essentially an amount directly or indirectly determined by reference to a U.S. dividend. Code Sec. 871(m) treats dividend equivalent payments as U.S. source dividends. These payments are subject to 30-percent withholding (or a lower treaty rate) if received by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.

The Code Sec. 871(m) regulations include final and temporary regulations under Code Secs. 871(m), 1441, 1461, and 1473.

Phase-in Year Extended
The effective/applicability date for the specified notional principal contract (NPC) rules under Reg. §1.871-15(d)(2) and the specified equity-linked instrument (ELI) rules under Reg. §1.871-15(e) will be revised. These rules will not apply to any payment made with respect to any non-delta-one transaction issued before January 1, 2023.

The IRS will take into account the extent to which the taxpayer or withholding agent made a good faith effort to comply with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations in enforcing those regulations—

• for any delta-one transaction in 2017 through 2022; and
• for any non-delta-one transaction that is a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction under Reg. §1.871-15(d)(2) or Reg. §1.871-15(e) in 2023.

Further, the period when the IRS will take into account the extent to which a qualified derivatives dealer made a good faith effort to comply with the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2017 Qualified Intermediary (QI) Agreement is extended through 2022.

The 2017 QI Agreement will be revised so that a QDD will be treated as satisfying the obligations that specifically apply to a QDD under that agreement for 2017 through 2022.

Simplified Standard Extended
The period when the simplified standard applies for withholding agents to determine whether transactions entered into were combined transactions is extended to include 2021 and 2022. Transactions entered into in 2017 through 2022 that are combined under the simplified standard will continue to be treated as combined for future years. They will not stop being combined transactions by applying Reg. §1.871-15(n) (the combined transactions rule in the regulations), or by disposing of less than all of the potential Code Sec. 871(m) transactions that are combined under this rule.

Transactions entered into in 2017 through 2022 that are not combined under the simplified standard will not become combined transactions by applying Reg. §1.871-15(n) to them in future years, unless a reissuance or other event causes the transactions to be retested to determine whether they are Code Sec. 871(m) transactions.

Phase-In Relief for Qualified Derivatives Dealers Extended
Regarding qualified derivatives dealers (QDDs), Reg. §1.871-15(q)(1), Reg. §1.871-15(r)(3), and Reg. §1.1441-1(b)(4)(xxii)(C) will be amended so that a QDD will not be subject to tax on dividends and dividend equivalents received in 2021 and 2022 in its equity derivatives dealer capacity or withholding on those dividends (including deemed dividends). A QDD will have to compute its Code Sec. 871(m) amount using the net delta approach beginning in 2023.

A QDD will remain liable under Code Sec. 881(a)(1) for tax on dividends and dividend equivalents that it receives in any other capacity, and on any other U.S. source FDAP payments that it receives (whether or not in its equity derivatives dealer capacity). A QDD is also responsible for withholding on dividend equivalents it pays to a foreign person on a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction.

Transition Rules Extended
Withholding agents may apply the qualified securities lender (QSL) transition rules described in Notice 2010-46, I.R.B. 2010-24, 757, for payments made in calendar years 2021 and 2022.

Anti-Abuse Rule
The anti-abuse rule in Reg. §1.871-15(o) will continue to apply during the phase-in years. This means that a transaction that would not otherwise be treated as a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction (including as a result of the new guidance) might still be a Code Sec. 871(m) transaction under the anti-abuse rule.

Taxpayer Reliance
Taxpayers and withholding agents can rely on the new guidance before the Treasury and IRS amend the Code Sec. 871(m) regulations and the 2017 QI Agreement.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

Wolters Kluwer recently sat down with Jennifer Acuña, Principal, Federal Legislative and Regulatory Services, KPMG LLP, in Washington, D.C. to discuss over 30 temporary tax provisions known as "tax extenders," which have expired or will soon expire spanning from 2017 to 2019. Before joining KPMG, Acuña served as chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), and was previously tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee.

New Tax Extenders Climate on Capitol Hill
"There is an interesting dynamic going on with tax extenders on Capitol Hill. In the past, extenders were viewed as a priority item, and that has changed," Acuña said.

Generally, tax extenders have been viewed on Capitol Hill as a consistently bipartisan annual or biannual year-end legislative initiative. However, the fate of tax extenders is more uncertain than it has been in the past – in part because it is not clear yet whether there will be an opportunity for any further tax legislation to become law this year, Acuña observed.

Funding Bill Likely Driver for Tax Package
Lawmakers are revving up negotiations as Congress races against this year’s dwindling legislative calendar to reach an agreement on fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations. Government funding is scheduled to expire on November 21.

Given the political climate on Capitol Hill and Congress’s limited time left on the legislative calendar, a stand-alone tax package is considered unlikely to make its way through both chambers successfully. That said, November’s "must-pass" government funding bill could be the legislative vehicle for dozens of expired or soon-to-be expired tax extenders, as well as for any other tax provisions that may crop up during lawmakers’ negotiations.

SFC Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced their bipartisan Tax Extenders and Disaster Relief bill (Sen. 617) earlier this year. Subsequently, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., introduced his version of a similarly named tax extenders bill (HR 3301). However, Neal’s bill—which proposes undoing certain provisions related to estate taxes under 2017 tax reform as a "pay for"—was immediately deemed a nonstarter by Senate Republicans.

Notably, Acuña observed that House Democrats may be viewing their tax extenders bill as an opening offer, providing leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation. "In today’s climate it seems that some of the signaling that’s taking place is that House Democrats are trying to position tax extenders as a Republican priority to build up leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation," Acuña said. "Once you have a tax title on a big bill, there is no limit as to which tax provisions could actually be included in the bill," she added.

Larger Tax Package Could Emerge
In that vein, there has been talk among lawmakers that a larger, catch-all tax package could emerge from these negotiations. Any tax package that is unveiled in the coming weeks must have significant bipartisan support to make it to the president’s desk. That said, amidst the new climate surrounding tax extenders on Capitol Hill. several lawmakers have alluded that bipartisan negotiations could result in any number of tax provisions being added to the anticipated tax package, including technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Staking Ground on Extenders
"Right now, what is happening is that parties are staking their ground," Acuña said. While Neal’s bill was largely seen on Capitol Hill as an opening bid to these negotiations, "no one opens with their best offer," Acuña said. However, "there is common ground with respect to tax extenders," she added.

Additionally, Acuña noted that these temporary tax provisions benefit a broad range of constituents. "They have been extended historically without fail for a reason. And it is because there has typically been general bipartisan support for extenders; there is a little bit of something for everyone" she said.

However, as for which tax extenders will be renewed this year, as well as retroactively or all together forgotten, Grassley recently indicated that all eligible provisions will likely make the cut. "I would expect that as of right now, if there is an extenders package there won’t be anything left out," Grassley told reporters.

When asked if Grassley was likely referring to all expired or soon-to-be expired tax incentives spanning from 2017 to 2019, Acuña told Wolters Kluwer "that would seem to be the case." While discussing the possibility of yet another temporary extension, Acuña noted that it is hard to make policy calls on a temporary tax extenders package.

"If you want a drama free negotiation on temporary extensions, it’s a clean date change. It is easier – you do not have a policy debate," she said. "If there is an opportunity for a tax title to be attached to a larger bill this year, it is infinitely harder to include changes that some Members of Congress will not like than it is to just do what has been done in the past and kick the can down the road by temporarily extending everything."

In looking ahead, deciding which temporary tax provisions get the axe is a policy call that is unlikely to be made this year and will not easily be done on a bipartisan basis, according to Acuña.

To Pay For or Not to Pay For
As for tax extenders’ cost, the issue of pay-fors has not generally been a longwinded discussion among lawmakers. "In the past, there have been very short-lived debates on whether to pay for them," Acuña said, adding that extenders generally have not been paid for. "It is hard to find a way to raise the kind of money needed to pay for a tax extenders bill that would be politically palatable for both sides of the aisle."

However, cost can be a leading issue when Congress creates these tax breaks on a temporary rather than permanent basis, Acuña explained. "In theory, everyone might agree that a tax incentive is excellent tax policy, but because of revenue constraints, Congress will not or cannot pay for it on a permanent basis—and that is usually where Congress lands in this temporary tax policy pickle."

Additionally, Acuna highlighted that many of the individual tax cuts under the TCJA were enacted temporarily through 2025 due to budgetary reasons. "A lot of the TCJA provisions gave life to new expiring provisions," Acuña noted. Likening the TCJA’s individual provisions to the long list of tax extenders currently awaiting possible renewal, Acuña noted that tax policy is not usually made temporary "because the members viewed the underlying tax policy as unsound but because of other constraints."

The End for Tax Extenders?
Many Republican and Democratic lawmakers’ have called for an end to tax extenders, citing to the annual year-end dash to renew temporary tax provisions as bad tax policy overall. Indeed, five taskforces comprised of bipartisan SFC members recently reviewed these tax extenders and largely agreed that temporary tax policy in general is less than ideal. While many House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress and those before it, have agreed that enacting permanent tax invectives is better policy than doing so temporarily, actually getting there remains a challenge, even if just procedurally.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

QBI Deduction and Rental Real Estate
Under Code Sec. 199A, certain noncorporate taxpayers can deduct up to 20 percent of the taxpayer’s QBI from each of the taxpayer's qualified trades or businesses, including those operated through a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. Certain relevant passthrough entities (RPEs) (partnerships, S corporations, trust funds) calculate the deduction and pass it along to their owners or beneficiaries. A qualified trade or business is generally any trade or business under Code Sec. 162, but not a specified service trade or business (SSTB) or a trade or business of performing services as an employee.

Rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property (i.e., rental activity) that is not a Code Sec. 162 trade or business is still treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if the property is rented or licensed to a trade or business conducted by the individual or a RPE which is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4 ( Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14)).

Earlier this year, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure with a safe harbor for treating a rental real estate enterprise as a trade or business under Code Sec. 199A ( Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740). The IRS has issued the new revenue procedure after considering public comments on Notice 2019-7.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise
The new safe harbor applies to a "rental real estate enterprise." This is an interest in real property held for the production of rents, and may consist of an interest in a single property or interests in multiple properties. The taxpayer or RPE must hold each interest directly or through a disregarded entity, and may either:

• treat each interest in similar property held for the production of rents as a separate rental real estate enterprise; or
• treat interests in all similar properties held for the production of rents as a single rental real estate enterprise.

Properties are similar if they are part of the same rental real estate category: either residential or commercial. Commercial real estate held for the production of rents can only be part of the same enterprise with other commercial real estate. Residential properties can only be part of the same enterprise with other residential properties.

A taxpayer or RPE that treats interests in similar properties as a single rental real estate enterprise must continue to treat interests in all similar properties, including newly acquired properties, as a single rental real estate enterprise if it continues to rely on the safe harbor. However, a taxpayer or RPE that chooses to treat its interest in each residential or commercial property as a separate rental real estate enterprise can choose to treat its interests in all similar commercial or all similar residential properties as a single rental real estate enterprise in a future year.

An interest in mixed-use property—a single building that combines residential and commercial units—can be treated as a single rental real estate enterprise, or bifurcated into separate residential and commercial interests. A mixed-use property interest that is treated as a single rental real estate enterprise cannot be treated as part of the same enterprise as other residential, commercial, or mixed-use property.

Safe Harbor Requirements
The safe harbor determination must be made annually. For a rental real estate enterprise to qualify for the safe harbor, all of the following requirements must be met during the tax year:

• Separate books and records are maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise. If an enterprise has more than one property, the requirement can be met if income and expense information statements for each property are maintained and then consolidated.
• For rental real estate enterprises in existence for less than four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year. For rental real estate enterprises in existence for at least four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
• The taxpayer maintains contemporaneous records (including time reports, logs, or similar documents) on the hours of all services performed, a description of all services performed, the dates when the services were performed, and who performed the services. For services performed by employees or independent contractors, the taxpayer may provide a description of the rental services, the amount of time generally spent performing the services, and the time, wage, or payment records for the employee or independent contractor. Records must be made available for inspection at the IRS's request. (The contemporaneous records requirement does not apply to tax years that begin before January 1, 2020.)
• For each tax year for which it relies on the safe harbor, the taxpayer or RPE must attach a statement to a timely filed original return (or an amended return for the 2018 tax year only) that includes: (i) a description (including the address and rental category) of all rental real estate properties in each rental real estate enterprise; (ii) a description (including the address and rental category) of rental real estate properties acquired and disposed of during the tax year; and (iii) a representation that the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2019-38 have been satisfied.

"Rental services" include, but are not limited to:

• advertising to rent or lease the real estate;
• negotiating and executing leases;
• verifying information contained in prospective tenant applications;
• collecting rent;
• daily operation, maintenance, and repair of the property, including purchasing materials and
• supplies;
• managing the real estate; and
• supervising employees and independent contractors.

Rental services does not include:

• financial or investment management activities, such as arranging financing;
• procuring property;
• studying and reviewing financial statements or reports on operations;
• improving property under Reg. §1.263(a)-3(d); or
• time spent traveling to and from the real estate.

If an enterprise fails to satisfy the safe harbor requirements, it can still be treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if it otherwise meets the trade or business definition in Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14).

Property Excluded From Safe Harbor
The safe harbor does not apply to:

• real estate used by the taxpayer (including an owner or beneficiary of an RPE) as a residence under Code Sec. 280A(d);
• real estate rented or leased under a triple net lease, which includes a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to pay for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities;
• real estate rented to a trade or business conducted by a taxpayer or an RPE that is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4(b)(1)(i); or
• the entire rental real estate interest, if any portion of it is treated as an SSTB under Reg. §1.199A-5(c)(2).

Effective Date
The safe harbor applies to tax years ending after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers and RPEs can rely on the prior safe harbor in Notice 2019-7 for the 2018 tax year.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency. Under the cryptocurrency guidance:

• a taxpayer does not have gross income from a "hard fork" of the taxpayer's cryptocurrency if the taxpayer does not receive units of a new cryptocurrency; and
• a taxpayer has ordinary income as a result of an "airdrop" of a new cryptocurrency following a hard fork if the taxpayer receives units of the new cryptocurrency.

The IRS has posted the FAQs on its website ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions).

Virtual Currency and Cryptocurrency
Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency.

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality.

Hard Forks and Air Drops
A hard fork occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger.

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. A hard fork followed by an airdrop results in the distribution of units of the new cryptocurrency to addresses containing the legacy cryptocurrency. Note, however, that a hard fork is not always followed by an airdrop.

Cryptocurrency from an airdrop generally is received on the date and at the time it is recorded on the distributed ledger. However, a taxpayer may constructively receive cryptocurrency prior to the airdrop being recorded on the distributed ledger. A taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency.

Gross Income
If the taxpayer did not receive units of new cryptocurrency from a hard fork, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth and does not have gross income as a result of the hard fork.

If the taxpayer receives units of new cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, the taxpayer received a new asset. Therefore, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth and has ordinary income in the year in which the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency. The taxpayer includes in gross income the fair market value of the cryptocurrency received. The taxpayer’s basis in the new cryptocurrency is the amount of income recognized.

Schedule 1, Form 1040 for 2019
A draft of the 2019 Form 1040, Schedule 1, "Additional Income and Adjustments to Income," includes a question which asks: "At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?" If an individual has engaged in any virtual currency transaction in 2019, he or she must check the “Yes” box next to the question.

If the taxpayer has disposed of any virtual currency that was held as a capital asset, he or she must use Form 8949 to figure the capital gain or loss and report it on Schedule D (Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR). If the taxpayer has received any virtual currency as compensation for services, or disposed of any virtual currency that he or she held for sale to customers in a trade or business, the taxpayer must report the income as he or she would report other income of the same type.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

In 2018, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit against the IRS and Treasury alleging that the SALT cap violates the federalism principles that undergird the U.S. Constitution. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on September 30 that the SALT cap is not an unconstitutional infringement of state power.

The states’ primary concern stemmed from the claim that the introduction of the SALT cap could impair each of the states’ ability to pursue its own preferred tax policies. However, the court noted that Congress lawfully enacted the SALT cap pursuant to its broad tax powers under Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that the cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others. However, the cap, like every other feature of the federal tax code, is a part of the landscape of federal law with which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers, according to Oetken. Because the states failed to plausibly allege that the cap, more so than any other major federal initiative, meaningfully constrains this decision-making process, the district court had no basis for concluding that the SALT cap is unconstitutionally coercive.

Background
In 2017, President Trump signed into law sweeping tax reform legislation informally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which made several substantial amendments to the federal tax code. Among other things, the TCJA placed an upper limit of $10,000 on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from their federal tax income to offset those sums they have paid toward certain state and local taxes (the "SALT cap"). As enacted, the SALT cap is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.

Democrats on Capitol Hill Prepare to Move SALT Cap Repeal Bill
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to move a SALT cap repeal bill when Congress returns from its two-week recess. Specifically, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. has proposed repealing the SALT cap and raising the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, where it previously sat. Additionally, Pascrell recently told reporters that House Democrats will likely propose a temporary repeal of the SALT cap as a "compromise."

At this time, however, any Democratic-backed measure to repeal or scale back the SALT cap is expected to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

• a partner’s share of a recourse liability of the partnership equals the partner’s share of the liability under the rules of Code Sec. 752 and the related regulations; and
• a partner’s share of a nonrecourse liability of the partnership is determined by applying the same percentage used to determine the partner’s share of the excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2)).

Executive Order Triggers Reversion Back to Prior Disguised Sale Rules
In October 2016, the IRS issued final and temporary regulations (707 Temporary Regulations) under which a partnership would determine all partnership liabilities for disguised sales purposes—both recourse and nonrecourse—by applying the same percentage used to determine a partner’s share of excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( T.D. 9788).

In April 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789) on reducing tax regulatory burdens. In response, the IRS identified the final and temporary regulations in T.D. 9788 as implicating some of those regulatory burdens. In turn, in 2018 Proposed Regulations, the IRS proposed to withdraw the 707 Temporary Regulations and reinstate the regulations under Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2) described above. Now, the IRS has adopted the 2018 Proposed Regulations, thereby reinstating the Prior 707 rules.

Treasury and the IRS will continue to study the merits of the approach in the 707 Temporary Regulations and other approaches, including the final regulations, to determine which results in the most appropriate treatment of liabilities in the context of disguised sales.

Effective Dates
The final regulations apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 4, 2019, the date that the 707 Temporary Regulations expire. However, partnerships and their partners may apply the final regulations to any transaction where all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, the applicable date of the 707 Temporary Regulations.

The IRS has released final regulation on the election to take a loss resulting from a federally declared disaster in the year preceding the disaster. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations substantially without change.

The IRS has released final regulation on the election to take a loss resulting from a federally declared disaster in the year preceding the disaster. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations substantially without change.

Disaster Defined
The regulations provide definitions of:

• federally declared disaster;
• federally declared disaster area;
• disaster loss;
• disaster year; and
• preceding year.

Scope and Effect of Election
The election for a disaster loss attributable to a particular disaster applies to the entire loss sustained by the taxpayer from that disaster during the disaster year.

Making or Revoking Election
A taxpayer elects to deduct a disaster loss for the preceding year on:

• an original federal income tax return for the preceding year; or
• an amended federal income tax return for the preceding year.

The election is made in the manner specified by guidance issued pursuant to the regulations.

A taxpayer may not to take a disaster loss in the preceding year if the taxpayer claims a deduction (as a loss, as cost of goods sold, or otherwise) for the same loss for the disaster year.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the disaster year and wants to elect the loss for the preceding year, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the previously deducted loss on or before the date that the taxpayer makes the election for the preceding year loss.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the preceding year and wants to revoke that election, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the loss for the preceding year on or before the date the taxpayer files the federal income tax return or the amended federal income tax return for the disaster year that includes the loss.

Due Dates
The due date for making the election to deduct a disaster loss in the preceding year is six months after the due date for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the disaster year (determined without regard to any extension of time to file).

Subject to the final regulation requirements, a taxpayer may revoke the election on or before the date that is 90 days after the due date for making the election.

Applicability Date
The final regulations apply to elections and revocations that are made on or after the date they are published in the Federal Register.

Proposed regulations provide guidance on the potential tax consequences of replacing the London interbank offered rates (LIBORs) with a new reference rate in contracts and agreements.

Proposed regulations provide guidance on the potential tax consequences of replacing the London interbank offered rates (LIBORs) with a new reference rate in contracts and agreements.

On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that all currency and term variants of the LIBORs may be phased out after 2021. On March 5, 2018, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) established that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) would replace the LIBOR within the United States.

Tax Implications
Because the LIBORs are being phased out, existing debt instruments and derivatives must be amended. Parties will either amend debt instruments or contracts to replace references to the LIBOR with the SOFR (if in the United States). Alternatively, parties may alter debt instruments or contracts to replace the LIBOR-referencing fallback rate with another fallback rate upon the cessation of the LIBOR.

The ARRC has expressed several concerns to the IRS about the potential tax consequences associated with these contract amendments:

• Modification of Terms of Debt and Non-Debt Instruments. Currently, there are no regulations under Code Sec. 1001 that address when a modification of a debt instrument, derivative, or other non-debt contract creates a realization event.
• Transactions and Hedges. Amending the LIBOR-referencing debt instrument or hedge may cause a deemed termination of the hedge, which could lead to undesirable tax consequences.
  
• Character of a One-Time Payment. Parties may need to agree to a one-time payment to address any differences between the LIBOR and the new rate, and it is unclear what the character of this payment would be.
• Grandfathered Agreements. Certain debt and non-debt instruments that are exempt from specific laws due to their grandfathered status may lose that status if they are modified to reflect the elimination of the LIBOR.
  
• OID and Qualified Floating Rates. The transition from the LIBOR to the SOFR (or other alternative rates) raises potential issues under the original issue discount (OID) rules.
• REMICs. The modification of the terms of the regular interest rate in a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) to deal with the elimination of the LIBOR could preclude the interest from being a regular interest.
• Interest in Foreign Corporations. The elimination of the LIBOR could prevent a foreign bank from taking advantage of the election under Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B).

Modification of Debt Instruments, Non-Debt Contracts
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a), if the terms of a debt instrument or non-debt contract are modified to replace, or to provide a fallback to, an LIBOR-referencing rate and the modification does not change the fair market value, there is no gain or loss under Code Sec. 1001. These rules apply regardless of whether the modification occurs by an amendment to the terms of the instrument or agreement or by replacing the existing debt instrument or contract with a new one.

Furthermore, altering the debt instrument’s terms to replace the LIBOR with a qualified rate is not treated as a modification and does not result in a deemed exchange of the debt instrument under Reg. §1001-3. Likewise, an alteration to a debt instrument’s terms to include a qualified rate (see below) as a fallback to an LIBOR referencing rate is not treated as a modification and therefore does not result in an exchange of the debt instrument for purposes of Reg. §1.1001-3.

Qualified Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b) provides the rules for determining whether a rate is a qualified rate. To be a qualified rate, Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b)(2)(i) requires that the fair market value of the debt instrument or non-debt contract after the modifications must be substantially equivalent to the fair market value before that alteration or modification. The proposed regulations provide that the fair market value of a debt instrument or derivative may be determined by any reasonable valuation method, as long as that method is applied consistently and takes into account any one-time payment made in lieu of a spread adjustment.

The proposed regulations provide two safe harbors to address the fair market value requirements. The debt instrument or non-debt contract are considered equivalent in value after the modification if:

• at the time of the modification, the historic average of the LIBOR-referencing rate is within 25 basis points of the historic average of the rate that replaces it; or
• the parties to the debt instrument or non-debt contract are not related and, through bona fide, arm’s length negotiations, determine that the fair market value of modified instrument or contract is substantially equivalent to the fair market value prior to the modification.

Transactions and Hedges
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(c) clarifies that a taxpayer can alter the terms of a debt instrument or modify one or more of the other components of an integrated or hedged transaction to replace a rate referencing an IBOR with a qualified rate without affecting the tax treatment of either the underlying transaction or the hedge. However, the integrated or hedged transaction as modified must continue to qualify for integration.

One-Time Payment
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(d), the source and character of a one-time payment that is made in connection with a modification described above will be the same as the source and character that would otherwise apply to a payment made by a payor with respect to the debt instrument or non-debt contract that is altered or modified.

Grandfathered Agreements
Because Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a) prevents debt instruments and non-debt contracts from being treated as reissued following a deemed exchange under Code Sec. 1001, the debt instrument or contract would not lose its grandfathered status as a result of any modifications made in connection with the elimination of an LIBOR.

OID and Qualified Floating Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1275-2(m) stipulates three special rules for determining the amount and accrual of OID in the case of a variable rate debt instrument that provides both for interest at an LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and for a fallback rate that is triggered when the LIBOR becomes unavailable or unreliable.

• The LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and the fallback rate are treated as a single qualified floating rate for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-5.
• The possibility that the relevant LIBOR will become unavailable or unreliable is treated as a remote contingency for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-2(h).
• Occurrence of the event that triggers activation of the fallback rate is not treated as a change in circumstances.

REMIC Interests
Proposed Reg. §1.860G-1(e) permits an interest in a REMIC to retain its status as a regular interest despite certain alterations and contingencies.

Foreign Corporation Interests
The proposed regulations amend the election in Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B) to allow a foreign corporation that is a bank to compute interest expense attributable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities using a yearly average SOFR in addition to the 30-day LIBOR. This amendment would allow the foreign corporation bank to make the election even after the LIBOR is phased out.

Applicability Date
The proposed regulations will apply to an alteration of the terms of a debt instrument or a modification to the terms of a non-debt contract that occurs on or after the date of publication of a Treasury Decision adopting those rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. A taxpayer may choose to apply the proposed regulations to alterations and modifications that occur before the regulations are finalized.