- Newsletters

President Trump signed into law the first two phases of the House’s coronavirus economic response package. Meanwhile, the Senate has been developing and negotiating "much bolder" phase three legislation.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act
The House had sent its Families First Coronavirus Response bill (HR 6201) and accompanying technical corrections resolution to the Senate on the evening of March 16. "I have decided we are going to vote…on the bill that came over from the House, and send it to the president for his signature," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters during a March 17 press briefing. "A number of my members think there are a number of shortcomings in the bill, and I counsel them to gag and vote for it anyway… and address those shortcomings in the next measure."

Senate Democrats were largely pleased with leadership’s decision to pass the House bill without amending it, while moving forward on additional legislation. "We will have other opportunities to legislate," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, R-N.Y., said from the Senate floor on the morning of March 17.

President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127) into law on the evening of March 18.

Paid Leave Credits
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act increases funding for COVID-19 testing, and extends paid sick leave to employees all over the country affected by the pandemic. Under the new law, employers with fewer than 500 employees and government employers must provide paid sick leave to employees who are forced to stay home due to illness, quarantining, or caring for a family member because of COVID-19, or to care for a son or daughter if the school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.

The new law compensates non-governmental employers for the required paid leave with refundable credits against the employer’s portion of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) payroll tax or the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) Tier 1 payroll tax, as appropriate. It also provides similar credits for paid leave "equivalent amounts" to self-employed individuals affected by COVID-19.

Paid sick leave credit. For an employee who is unable to work because of a COVID-19 quarantine or self-quarantine, or who has COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical diagnosis, eligible employers may receive a refundable sick leave credit for sick leave at the employee's regular rate of pay, up to $511 per day and $5,110 in total, for a total of 10 days. For an employee who is caring for someone with COVID-19, or is caring for a child because the child's school or child care facility is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to the COVID-19, eligible employers may claim a credit for two-thirds of the employee's regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day and $2,000 in total, for up to 10 days.

Paid family care (child care) leave credit. For an employee who is unable to work because of a need to care for a child whose school or child care facility is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, due to the COVID-19, eligible employers may receive a refundable family care (child care) leave credit. This credit is equal to two-thirds of the employee's regular pay, up to $200 per day and $10,000 in total. Up to 10 weeks of qualifying leave can be counted towards the child care leave credit.

Phase Three
"That legislation [the Families First Coronavirus Response Act] was hardly perfect. It imposes new costs and uncertainty on small businesses at precisely the most challenging moment for small businesses in living memory," Senate Majority Leader McConnell said from the Senate floor on March 19. "So the Senate is even more determined that our legislation cannot leave small business behind."

The phase three measure under consideration includes several key components, such as:

new federally-guaranteed loans for small businesses;
direct financial help/emergency tax relief;
targeted lending to industries of national importance; and
health resources for those working on the front lines of combating COVID-19.

"The small business relief will help. And so will a number of additional tax relief measures, which will be designed to help employers maintain cash flow and keep making payroll," McConnell said. He also highlighted Republicans’ focus of putting "cash in the hands of the American people…from the middle class on down."

To that end, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reportedly said on March 19 that the forthcoming economic stimulus package would deliver $1,000 to every U.S. adult and $500 for every child. Further a second round of checks in the same amount would go out to individuals six weeks later, Mnuchin added.

"Americans need cash now and the president wants to get cash now. And I mean now, in the next two weeks," Mnuchin said at the White House.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Schumer has continued discussions with Senate Republicans and the Trump administration. As this Issue went to press, it still remained unclear how quickly Democrats and Republicans will reach consensus on the phase three measure.

"We don’t want bailouts unless they are used for workers, unless the industries keep all their employees, unless they don’t cut salaries of their employees, and unless they are not allowed to buy back their own stocks or raise corporate salaries," Schumer said in a March 19 tweet.

Close

"At President Trump’s direction, we are moving Tax Day from April 15 to July 15," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a March 20 tweet. "All taxpayers and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties."

The Treasury and IRS officially announced the extension on March 21 (IR-2020-58; more details can be found in Notice 2020-18).

The move to extend this year’s tax filing deadline to July 15 follows the IRS’s formal announcement that certain 2019 tax year payments could be deferred without interest or penalties (see "Due Date for Federal Income Tax Payments Extended to July 15" in this Issue).

File as Usual if a Refund is Expected
"Working with our members, state societies, and tax professionals everywhere, AICPA scored a victory in the extension of the tax filing deadline to July 15, 2020," the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) said in a March 20 tweet. However, the AICPA noted that it still encourages taxpayers to file their returns as soon as possible so that refunds can stimulate the economy.

"The AICPA understands the need for economic stimulus and, if possible, those who can file and get refunds should do so now," AICPA president and CEO Barry Melancon said in a statement.

Similarly, Mnuchin also encouraged taxpayers to file their returns, if possible. "While I still encourage taxpayers who expect to get a refund to file their taxes, this deadline extension will give everyone maximum flexibility to do what is best for them."

See Tax Filing and Tax Payment Relief for Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic for a summary of filing and payment delays allowed by the federal and state governments.

Close

The Treasury Department and IRS have extended the due date for the payment of federal income taxes otherwise due on April 15, 2020, until July 15, 2020, as a result of the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency. The extension is available to all taxpayers, and is automatic. Taxpayers do not need to file any additional forms or contact the IRS to qualify for the extension. The relief only applies to the payment of federal income taxes. Penalties and interest on any remaining unpaid balance will begin to accrue on July 16, 2020.

Dollar Limits
The due date for making federal income tax payments otherwise due on April 15, 2020, for any taxpayer is automatically extended until July 15, 2020. The extension is limited to a maximum amount:

up to $1 million for individuals, regardless of filing status, and other unincorporated entities such as trust and estates; and
up to $10 million for each C corporation that does not join in filing a consolidated return or for each consolidated group.

Federal Income Tax Payments Only
The relief is available for federal income tax payments, including payments of tax on self-employment income, otherwise due on April 15, 2020. Thus, it applies to the payment of federal income taxes for the 2019 tax year, as well estimated income tax payments for the 2020 tax year that are due on April 15, 2020. The extension is not available for the payment or deposit of any other type of federal tax.

Taxpayers are urged to check with their state tax agencies for details on any delays in filing and payment state taxes.

Penalties and Interest
Any interest, penalty, or addition to tax for failure to pay federal income taxes postponed will not begin to accrue until July 16, 2020. The period from April 15, 2020, to July 15, 2020, will be disregarded but only for interest, penalties, or additions to tax up to maximum dollar amounts ($1 million or $10 million as applicable).

Interest, penalties, and additions to tax will continue to accrue from April 15, 2020, on the amount of any federal income tax in excess of the maximum dollar amounts. Taxpayers subject to penalties or additions to tax that are not suspended may seek reasonable cause under Code Sec. 6651 for failure to pay tax.

Individuals and certain trusts and estates may also seek a waiver to a penalty under Code Sec. 6654 for failure to pay estimated income taxes. Similar relief is not available for estimated tax payments by corporations or tax-exempt organizations for the penalty under Code Sec. 6655.

Close

The IRS has provided emergency relief for health savings accounts (HSAs) and COVID-19 health plans costs. Under this relief, health plans that otherwise qualify as high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) will not lose that status merely because they cover the cost of testing for or treatment of COVID-19 before plan deductibles have been met. In addition, any vaccination costs will count as preventive care and can be paid for by an HDHP.

HSAs and HDHPs
Eligible individuals can deduct contributions to HSAs. One requirement to qualify as an individual is to be covered under an HDHP and have no disqualifying health coverage. An HDHP is a health plan that satisfies certain requirements, including requirements with respect to minimum deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket expenses.

COVID-19 Relief
A health plan that otherwise satisfies the HDHP requirements will not fail to be an HDHP merely because it provides medical care services and items purchased related to testing for and treatment of COVID-19 prior to satisfaction of the applicable minimum deductible. As a result, the individuals covered by such a plan will not fail to be eligible individuals merely because of the provision of health benefits for testing and treatment of COVID-19.

This relief provides flexibility to HDHPs to provide health benefits for COVID-19 testing and treatment without application of a deductible or cost sharing. Individuals participating in HDHPs or any other type of health plan should consult their particular health plan regarding health benefits for COVID-19 testing and treatment provided by the plan, including the potential application of any deductible or cost sharing.

Caution. The IRS states that this relief applies only to HSA-eligible HDHPs. Employees and other taxpayers in any other type of health plan should contact their plan with specific questions about what their plan covers.

Close

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has requested additional guidance on tax reform’s Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction.

199A Deduction Guidance
The IRS issued final and proposed regulations in February 2019 on the Code Sec. 199A QBI deduction enacted in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Additionally, the IRS later issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the computation of QBI and instructions to Form 8995, Qualified Business Income Deduction Simplified Computation, and Form 8995-A, Qualified Business Income Deduction.

However, taxpayers and practitioners need additional related guidance, according to the AICPA. "We urge that you provide additional certainty regarding which deductions are not reductions for QBI," the AICPA wrote in a March 4 letter addressed to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy, and Michael J. Desmond, IRS chief counsel. The letter was released by AICPA on March 6.

In brief, the AICPA recommends that Treasury and the IRS confirm that the deductible portion of self-employment tax under Code Sec. 164(f), the deduction for self-employed health insurance under Code Sec. 162(l), and the deduction for contributions to qualified retirement plans under Code Sec. 404 are not automatically reductions of QBI. Additionally, it recommends that the IRS update form instructions to reflect the same treatment for a charitable deduction under Code Sec. 170.

199A Rules Under Review
Meanwhile, the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is currently reviewing Code Sec. 199A rules as related to guidance on computations for shareholders of real estate investment trusts (REIT). OIRA received the rules from Treasury on March 5, according to its website.

Close

The IRS has issued guidance that:

exempts certain U.S. citizens and residents from Code Sec. 6048 information reporting requirements for their transactions with, and ownership of, certain tax-favored foreign retirement trusts and foreign nonretirement savings trusts; and
establishes procedures for these individuals to request abatement or refund of penalties assessed or paid under Code Sec. 6677 for failing to comply with the information reporting requirements.

The IRS has issued guidance that:

exempts certain U.S. citizens and residents from Code Sec. 6048 information reporting requirements for their transactions with, and ownership of, certain tax-favored foreign retirement trusts and foreign nonretirement savings trusts; and
establishes procedures for these individuals to request abatement or refund of penalties assessed or paid under Code Sec. 6677 for failing to comply with the information reporting requirements.

The guidance is effective as of the date the revenue procedure is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, and applies to all prior open tax years, subject to the limitations under Code Sec. 6511.

Reporting on Foreign Trusts
Code Sec. 6048 generally requires annual information reporting of a U.S. person’s transfers of money or other property to, ownership of, and distributions from, foreign trusts. Reporting is not required, however, for transactions with foreign compensatory trusts described in Code Secs. 402(b), 404(a)(4), or 404A. Further, the IRS is authorized to suspend or modify any Code Sec. 6048 reporting requirement if the United States has no significant tax interest in obtaining the required information.

Reporting Relief
The Treasury and IRS have determined that U.S. individuals should be exempt from the Code Sec. 6048 reporting requirement for certain tax-favored foreign trusts because:

the trusts are generally subject to written restrictions (e.g., contribution limitations, conditions for withdrawal, and information reporting) by the laws of the country where the trust is established; and
U.S. individuals with an interest in these trusts may be required by Code Sec. 6038D to separately report information about their interests in accounts held by or through the trusts.

A foreign trust covered by this guidance is a trust established under a foreign jurisdiction’s law to operate exclusively or almost exclusively to provide, or earn income for the provision of, either pension or retirement benefits and ancillary or incidental benefits, or medical, disability, or educational benefits. To be eligible for coverage, the foreign trust must meet other requirements listed in the guidance that have been established by the laws of the trust’s jurisdiction.

An eligible individual:

must be compliant with all requirements for filing a U.S. federal income tax return for the period he or she was a U.S. citizen or resident; and
to the extent required by U.S. tax law, must have reported as income any contributions to, earnings of, or distributions from, an applicable tax-favored foreign trust on the return or an amended return.

Penalty Relief
Eligible individuals who have been assessed a penalty for failing to comply with Code Sec. 6048 for an applicable tax-favored foreign trust and want relief must complete Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement. The individual must write "Relief pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2020-17" on Line 7 of the form, and explain how the individual and the foreign trust meet the requirements in the guidance. The form should be mailed to Internal Revenue Service, Ogden, UT 84201-0027.

Scope
This guidance does not affect:

any reporting obligations under Code Sec. 6038D or any other provision of U.S. law, including the requirement to file FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR);
the exception from reporting for distributions from certain foreign compensatory trusts (Section V of Notice 97-34, 1997-1 C.B. 422); or
the exception from information reporting requirements for certain Canadian retirement plans ( Rev. Proc. 2014-55, I.R.B. 2014-44, 753).

Proposed Regs
The Treasury and IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that would modify the information reporting requirements to exclude eligible individuals’ transactions with, or ownership of, applicable tax-favored foreign trusts. The Treasury and IRS request comments about these and other similar types of foreign trusts that should be considered for an exemption from Code Sec. 6048 reporting.

Close

The Treasury and IRS have adopted as final the 2016 proposed regulations on covered assets acquisitions (CAAs) under Code Sec. 901(m) and Code Sec. 704. Proposed regulations issued under Code Sec. 901(m) are adopted with revisions, and the Code Sec. 704 proposed regulations are adopted without revisions. The Code Sec. 901(m) rules were also issued as temporary regulations. The CAA rules impact taxpayers claiming either direct or deemed-paid foreign tax credits.

Covered Asset Acquisitions
The CAA rules are designed to address transactions that result in a basis difference for U.S. and foreign income tax purposes. In a CAA, the disqualified portion of any foreign income tax determined with respect to income or gain attributable to relevant foreign assets (RFAs) is not taken into account in determining direct or indirect foreign tax credits. Foreign taxes that are disqualified for foreign tax credit purposes remain eligible to be deducted.

Under Code Sec. 901(m), a CAA includes the following categories of transactions:

a qualified stock purchase (defined in Code Sec. 338(d)(3) to which Code Sec. 338(a) applies (Code Sec. 338 CAA);
a transaction treated as the acquisition of assets for U.S. income tax purposes and as an acquisition of stock for foreign income tax purposes;
any acquisition of an interest in a partnership that has an election in effect under Code Sec. 754 ( Code Sec. 743(b) CAA); and
any similar transaction determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.

An RFA is any asset, if income, deduction, gain or loss, attributable to the asset is taken into account in determining the foreign income tax.

The disqualified portion of the foreign income tax for the tax year is the ratio of:

the aggregate base differences (i.e., excess of U.S. basis of RFA after CAA over U.S. basis before CAA) allocable to the tax year with respect to all RFAS, and
the income on which the foreign income tax is determined.

Exemptions, Other Changes
The proposed regulations added the following three CAA transaction categories which are retained in the final regulations:

transactions treated as an acquisition of assets for U.S. tax purposes, and as an interest in a fiscally transparent entity for purposes of foreign income tax purposes;
transactions treated as a partnership distribution of one or more assets, the U.S. basis of which is determined under Code Sec. 732(b), Code Sec. 732(d), or which causes the U.S. basis of the partnership’s remaining assets to be adjusted under Code Sec. 734(b), provided the transaction results in an increase in the U.S. basis of one or more of the assets distributed by the partnership or retained by the partnership without a corresponding increase in the foreign basis of such assets; and
transactions treated as an acquisition of assets for purposes of both U.S. income tax and a foreign income tax, provided the transaction results in an increase in the U.S. basis without a corresponding increase in the foreign basis of one or more assets.

The final regulations provide an exemption for CAAs if a domestic Code Sec. 901 payor or members of its consolidated group recognized the gains or losses or took into account its distributive share of the gains and losses recognized by a partnership for U.S. tax purposes as part of the original CAA. The term "aggregate base difference" is modified to take into account adjustments based on gain or loss recognized with respect to an RFA as a result of a CAA.

Under the foreign basis election in the proposed regulations, a taxpayer can elect to determine base difference as the U.S. basis in the RFA immediately after the CAA less the foreign basis in the RFA immediately after the CAA. Taxpayers may apply the election retroactively to CAAs that occurred on or after January 1, 2011, provided the remaining rules in the proposed regulations were applied retroactively. The final regulations modify the consistency requirement so that it applies only for tax years that remain open. Under a new requirement, deficiencies must be taken into account that would have resulted from the consistent application of the final regulations for a closed tax year.

The final regulations also extend the scope of the de minimis rule, under which a basis difference is not taken into account if:

the sum of the basis differences for all RFAs is less than the greater of $10 million or 10 percent of the total U.S. basis or all RFAs after the CAA; or
the RFA is part of a class of RFAs for which the sum of the basis differences of all RFAs in the class is less than the greater of $2 million or 10 percent of the total U.S. basis of all RFAs in the class immediately after the CAA.

An additional exclusion is added for an individual RFA with a base difference of less than $20,000.

The final regulations add a priority rule to address transactions to which both Code Sec. 901(m) and Code Sec. 909 apply. Under the rule, Code Sec. 901(m) calculations are taken into account before applying Code Sec. 909.

Tax Cut and Jobs Act changes, including the repeal of Code Sec. 902, are also reflected.

Applicability Date
The final regulations apply to CAAs occurring on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. A taxpayer may choose to apply the regulations before they would otherwise apply, provided consistency requirements are met, for tax years open for assessment. Returns for tax years ending before the date the final regulations are published must be filed no later than one year after the publication date. For tax years not open for assessment, appropriate adjustments must be made to account for deficiencies that would have resulted from a consistent application of the rules.

Close

"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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close