- Newsletters

"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

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

FINAL REGULATIONS: Written Binding Contract Rules
Constructed property. The proposed regulations provided that property manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract entered into prior to the manufacture, etc., of the property is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Thus, if the contract was entered into before September 28, 2017, the 100 bonus rate did not apply.

That rule was scrapped in response to negative feedback. Instead the final regulations provide that such property is treated as self-constructed property, and the contract is ignored for purposes of determining when the property is deemed acquired. The acquisition date is now the date that the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property as determined under rules similar to those that apply to 50 percent bonus property.

Acquisition date. The final regulations provide that the acquisition date of property acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the later of:

the date on which the contract is entered into;
the date on which the contract is enforceable under state law;
if the contract has one or more cancellation periods, the date on which all cancellation periods end; or
if the contract has one or more contingency clauses, the date on which all conditions subject to such clauses are satisfied.

Liquidated damage clause. When a contract has multiple damage provisions, the final regulations clarify that only the provision with the highest damages is taken into account in determining whether the contract limits damages.

Qualified Improvement Property
The IRS once again declined to make qualified improvement property placed in service after 2017 eligible for bonus depreciation. A legislative change is required to give this property its intended 15-year recovery period. With a 15-year recovery period, qualified improvement property will qualify for bonus depreciation under the general rule that allows bonus depreciation on property with an MACRS recovery period of 20 years or less.

Used Property
Predecessor defined. Property previously used by the taxpayer or a predecessor of a taxpayer does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the taxpayer or predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property. The final regulations define "predecessor" as:

a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies;
a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction in which the transferee’s basis in the asset is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the asset in the transferor’s hands;
a partnership that is considered as continuing under Code Sec. 708(b)(2);
the decedent in the case of an asset acquired by an estate; or
a transferor of an asset to a trust.

Depreciable interest look back rule. The final regulations do not define a "depreciable interest" because this is a facts and circumstances issue. However, a five-year look back period is provided for determining whether a taxpayer or predecessor held a depreciable interest in property.

Substantially renovated property. If a taxpayer places substantially renovated property in service and the taxpayer or a predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property before it was substantially renovated, the taxpayer’s or predecessor’s prior depreciable interest does not prevent the taxpayer from claiming bonus depreciation. Property is substantially renovated if the cost of the used parts is not more than 20 percent of the total cost of the substantially renovated property, whether acquired or self-constructed.

Syndication transactions. A lessor who reacquires property in a syndication transaction is not treated as having a prior depreciable interest in the property.

Partnerships
The final regulations permit a partnership to claim bonus depreciation on the portion of a Code Sec. 743(b) basis increase that is attributable to built-in gain under Code Sec. 704(c), even if the partnership is using the remedial allocation method. An exception is provided for publicly traded partnerships that need to maintain fungibility for publicly traded partnership units.

If a partnership interest is acquired and disposed of during the same tax year, the bonus deduction is not allowed for any Code Sec. 743(b) adjustment arising from the initial acquisition. However, if a partnership interest is purchased and disposed of in a "step-in-the shoes" Code Sec. 168(i)(7) transaction in the same tax year, bonus on the section 743(b) adjustment is allowed. The section 743(b) adjustment is apportioned between the purchaser/transferor and the transferee.

The final regulations also clarify the treatment of qualified property transferred in a Code Sec. 721(a) transaction to a partnership in the same tax year that the qualified property is acquired by the transferor if the partnership has another partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the qualified property. In this situation, the qualified property is deemed placed in service by the transferor during that tax year, and the bonus deduction is allocated entirely to the transferor and not to the partnership. Thus, the contributing partner has contributed property with a zero basis to the partnership, and the contributed property is Code Sec. 704(c) property in the hands of the partnership.

Film, Television, and Theatrical Productions
The final regulations clarify that a used qualified film, television, or live theatrical production does not qualify for bonus depreciation. Also, the basis of a qualified film, television, or live theatrical production is reduced by the deduction claimed under Code Sec. 181 before computing the bonus deduction.

Using ADS
Using the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to determine the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s qualified business investment (under Code Sec. 250(b)(2)(B) or Code Sec. 951A(d)(3)) or the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s tangible assets for allocating business interests expense between excepted and non-excepted trades or businesses (under Code Sec. 163(j)) does not cause a taxpayer’s tangible property to be ineligible for bonus depreciation.

Public Utility Property
An example is added to clarify that the 100 percent bonus rate does not apply to self-constructed property of a regulated public utility if construction begins after September 27, 2017, and the property is placed in service in a tax year beginning after 2017.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, provided the taxpayer consistently applies all rules in the final regulations. Additionally, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations issued on August 8, 2018, to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, in tax years ending before the date of publication of the final regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Acquired and Self-Constructed Components
A taxpayer may elect to treat components of a larger self-constructed property that are acquired or self constructed after September 27, 2017, as eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate, even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger self-constructed began before September 28, 2017. The larger property must be eligible for bonus depreciation at the 50 percent rate.

Businesses With Floor Plan Financing
Property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the floor plan financing interest related to the indebtedness is taken into account under Code Sec. 163(j)(1)(C) in determining the allowable business interest deduction.

The proposals provide rules for determining whether interest in floor plan financing indebtedness has been taken into account during a tax year. In general, floor plan interest is not considered taken into account for a tax year if the sum of interest business income for the tax year and 30 percent of the adjusted taxable income for the tax year equals or exceeds business interest as defined in Code Sec. 163(j)(5). The proposals clarify that the determination of whether a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness has taken floor plan financing interest into account is made annually.

Leased Property
The proposals clarify that taxpayers leasing property to a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness or a rate-regulated utility may claim bonus depreciation. The taxpayer, however, may not be a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that prevents it from claiming bonus depreciation or a rate-regulated utility.

Used Property
Five-year lookback. A safe harbor provides that a taxpayer who disposes of property within 90 days after placing it in service did not hold a prior depreciable interest in the property. Consequently, the property is eligible for bonus depreciation if subsequently reacquired.

Partnerships. A taxpayer has a prior depreciable interest in a portion of property if the taxpayer was a partner in a partnership at any time the partnership owned the property. The amount of the prior depreciable interest is based on the partner’s total share of depreciation deductions with respect to the property.

Series of related transactions. Special rules in the original proposed regulations governing the treatment of a series of related transactions for purposes of the used property acquisition requirements are modified and expanded.

Consolidated groups. Significant clarifications to the rules governing the used property acquisition requirements for consolidated groups are also made.

Written Binding Contract Rules
Property not acquired pursuant to a contract. The acquisition date of property that is not acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the date on which the taxpayer paid or incurred more than 10 percent of the total cost of the property. The cost of land and preliminary activities are excluded from cost for this purpose.

Purchase of entities. Binding contract rules that apply to the purchase of an entity are proposed. The current binding contract rules only deal with purchases of assets.

A contract to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a trade or business, or to acquire an entity such as a corporation, a partnership, or a limited liability company, is binding if it is enforceable under state law against the parties to the contract. The presence of a condition outside the parties’ control (including, for example, regulatory agency approval) will not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. Further, the fact that insubstantial terms remain to be negotiated by the parties to the contract, or that customary conditions remain to be satisfied, does not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. This proposed rule also applies to a contract for the sale of the stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as a result of a deemed asset acquisition election under Code Sec. 338.

Long Production Property
The proposals provide rules for determining qualifying basis attributable to the manufacture, construction, or production of long production property and certain aircraft eligible for an extended placed in service deadline.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The mid-quarter convention applies to property placed in service during the tax year if 40 percent or more of the basis of the property was placed in service in the last three months of the tax year. The proposals clarify that the basis of property is not reduced by the 100 percent bonus allowance. This rule has always applied to 50 percent bonus property.

Effective Date of Proposals
In general, the proposed regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date the proposals are finalized. A taxpayer may rely on the proposals in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017.

Close

Proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of income and deduction items in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would:

simplify the application of Code Sec. 382;
provide more certainty to taxpayers in determining built-in gains and losses for Code Sec. 382(h) purposes; and
ensure that the application of certain law changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA) does not further complicate the application of Code Sec. 382(h).

Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are issued. When these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, it is expected that Notice 87-79, 1987-2 CB 387, Notice 90-27, 1990-1 CB 336, Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, and Notice 2018-30, 2018-21 I.R.B. 610, will be withdrawn and declared obsolete.

Built-in Gains and Losses
Generally, Code Sec. 382 imposes a value-based limitation (section 382 limitation) on the ability of a loss corporation to offset its taxable income in periods subsequent to an ownership change with losses attributable to periods prior to that ownership change.

Code Sec. 382(h) provides rules relating to the determination of a loss corporation’s built-in gains and losses as of the date of the ownership change (change date). In general, built-in gains recognized during the five-year period beginning on the change date (recognition period) allow a loss corporation to increase its section 382 limitation. Built-in losses recognized during the recognition period are subject to the loss corporation’s section 382 limitation.

Specifically, if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG), the section 382 limitation for any tax year ending during the recognition period is increased by the recognized built-in gain (RBIG) for the year, with cumulative increases limited to the amount of the NUBIG. If a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), the use of any recognized built-in loss (RBIL) during the recognition period is subject to the section 382 limitation.

IRS Guidance and TCJA
Notice 2003-65 provides interim guidance on the identification of 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.

Notice 2003-65 provides (i) a single safe harbor for computing the NUBIG or NUBIL of a loss corporation, based on principles underlying the calculation of net recognized built-in gain under Code Sec. 1374, and (ii) two safe harbors for the computation of a loss corporation’s RBIG or RBIL: the 1374 approach and the 338 approach.

The 1374 approach identifies RBIG and RBIL at the time of the disposition of a loss corporation’s assets during the recognition period. Generally, this approach relies on accrual method of accounting principles to identify built-in income and deduction items at the time of the ownership change, with certain exceptions.

In contrast, the 338 approach identifies items of RBIG and RBIL generally by comparing the loss corporation’s actual items of income, gain, deduction, and loss recognized during the recognition period with those that would have been recognized had an election under Code Sec. 338 (section 338 election) been made with respect to a hypothetical purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the loss corporation on the change date.

Taxpayers may rely on either the 338 approach or the 1374 approach until the IRS issues temporary or final regulations under Code Sec. 382(h). Compared to the 338 approach, the accrual-based 1374 approach is simpler to apply and administer and provides greater certainty for taxpayers.

Prior to the issuance of Notice 2003-65, the IRS had issued Notice 87-79 and Notice 90-27, which provided much more limited guidance regarding the determination of built-in gains and losses. After the TCJA, the IRS issued Notice 2018-30, which makes the 338 approach unavailable when computing items arising from bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k).

The law changes made by the TCJA created additional uncertainty regarding the application of Code Sec. 382 in general, and Notice 2003-65 in particular. Specifically, certain important changes under the TCJA could potentially compromise the mechanics of the 338 approach and further complicate its application.

1374 Approach
For purposes of computing NUBIG and NUBIL, the proposed regulations would adopt as mandatory the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65, with certain modifications. These modifications would include technical fixes to calculations involving cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income, deductions for contingent liabilities, and cost recovery deductions. Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that carryovers of Code Sec. 163(j) disallowed business interest are counted only once for purposes of Code Sec. 382.

The modifications to the existing NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach would ensure greater consistency between:

amounts that are included in the NUBIG/NUBIL computation; and
items that could become RBIG or RBIL during the recognition period.

Comment
According to the IRS, the proposed regulations would modestly restrict net operating loss usage by reducing the amount that would qualify as RBIG, reducing the incentive to engage in inefficient, tax-motivated mergers and acquisitions.

NUBIG or NUBIL Computation
The proposed rules for the computation of NUBIG/NUBIL would capture a range of items that closely tracks the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor computation in Notice 2003-65. However, the component steps of the proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would be more explicit, as follows:

The proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would first take into account the aggregate amount that would be realized in a hypothetical disposition of all of the loss corporation’s assets in two steps treated as taking place immediately before the ownership change:
- —Step 1: the loss corporation would be treated as satisfying any inadequately secured nonrecourse liability by surrendering to each creditor the assets securing such debt.
- —Step 2 : the loss corporation would be treated as selling all remaining assets pertinent to the NUBIG/NUBIL computation in a sale to an unrelated third party, with the hypothetical buyer assuming no amount of the seller’s liabilities.
- That total hypothetical amount realized by the loss corporation pursuant to Steps 1 and 2, above, would be then decreased by (i) the sum of the loss corporation’s deductible liabilities (both fixed and contingent), and (ii) the loss corporation’s basis in its assets.
- Finally, the decreased hypothetical total would be then increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following:
- —(i) the net amount of the total RBIG and RBIL income and deduction items that could be recognized during the recognition period (excluding COD income); and
- —(ii) the net amount of positive and negative section 481 adjustments that would be required to be included on the previously-described hypothetical disposal of all of the loss corporation’s assets.

The proposed regulations generally would not allow COD income to be included in the calculation of NUBIG/NUBIL, but would provide certain exceptions.

RBIG and RBIL Items
As mentioned above, the proposed regulations would apply a methodology for identifying RBIG or RBIL that closely tracks the accrual based 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65. However, the proposed regulations would significantly modify the 1374 approach to include as RBIL the amount of any deductible contingent liabilities paid or accrued during the recognition period, to the extent of the estimated value of those liabilities on the change date.

The proposed regulations also would add a rule clarifying that certain items do not constitute RBIG (such as dividends paid during the recognition period). In addition, limitations would be provided on the extent to which excluded COD income is treated as RBIG. Further, the proposed regulations would provide two different RBIG ceilings with regard to COD on recourse debt, and would provide special rules for COD income on nonrecourse debt.

Finally, rules would be provided for the interaction between Code Sec. 163(j) and Code Sec. 382. To eliminate the possibility of duplication of RBIL items, the proposed regulations would provide that Code Sec. 382 disallowed business interest carryforwards would not be treated as RBIL if such amounts were allowable as a deduction during the recognition period. The proposed regulations also would clarify the treatment of certain items allocated from a partnership.

Applicability Date
The regulations are proposed to be effective for ownership changes occurring after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers and their related parties may apply these proposed regulations to any ownership change occurring during a tax year with respect to which the period described in Code Sec. 6511(a) has not expired, so long as the taxpayers and all of their related parties consistently apply the rules of these proposed regulations to such ownership change and all subsequent ownership changes that occur before the applicability date of the final regulations.

Comments and Requests for Hearing
Written or electronic comments must be received by November 9, 2019. Written or electronic requests for a public hearing and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by November 9, 2019. Electronic submissions must be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-125710-18) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Treasury and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to its public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.

Hard copy submissions must be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125710-18), Room 5203, Post Office Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (indicate REG-125710-18), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

Close

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The final regulations:

reflect statutory changes affecting Code Sec. 401(k) plans, including changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123); and
affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of plans that include cash or deferred arrangements or provide for employee or matching contributions.

Deemed Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need. The final regulations:

add "primary beneficiary under the plan" as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
modify the expense listed in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to provide that the limitations in Code Sec. 165(h)(5) do not apply for this purpose; and
add to the list a new type of expense, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

Distribution Necessary to Satisfy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need, by:

eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution; and
eliminating any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.

In particular, the final regulations, like the proposed regulations, eliminate the safe harbor in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E), under which a distribution is deemed necessary to satisfy the financial need only if elective contributions and employee contributions are suspended for at least six months after a hardship distribution is made and, if available, nontaxable plan loans are taken before the hardship distribution is made.

Expanded Sources for Hardship Distributions
The final regulations modify existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3) to permit hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned.

Section 403(b) Plans
A hardship distribution of Code Sec. 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3). Accordingly, the preamble to the proposed regulations had stated that the new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Code Sec. 401(k) plan generally apply to Code Sec. 403(b) plans. Because this requirement is retained in the final regulations, at Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B), it applies to Code Sec. 403(b) plans.

Applicability Dates
The changes to the hardship distribution rules made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Plan Amendments
The Treasury Department and IRS expect that plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions to reflect the final regulations, and any such amendment must be effective for distributions beginning no later than January 1, 2020. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Rev. Proc. 2016-37, I.R.B. 2016-29,136.

Close

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

Year-by-Year Application
The proposed regulations provide that the AFS income inclusion rule generally applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS when the timing of income inclusion for one or more items of income is determined using the all events test. They further clarify that the AFS income inclusion rule applies only to taxpayers that have one or more AFS covering the entire tax year.

The AFS income inclusion rule applies on a year-by-year basis and, therefore, an accrual taxpayer with an AFS in one tax year that does not have an AFS in another tax year must apply the AFS income inclusion rule in the tax year that it has an AFS, and does not apply the rule in the tax year in which it does not have an AFS.

No Change to Income Tax Treatment
The proposed regulations also clarify that AFS income inclusion rule does not change the treatment of a transaction for federal income tax purposes:

The treatment of a transaction or event in a tax year may be different for federal income tax and AFS purposes.
The applicability of any exclusion provision, or the treatment of nonrecognition transactions, in the Code, the Income Tax Regulations, or other guidance does not change.

Partial Payment
The proposed regulations provide that an amount included in the transaction price for AFS purposes may not be treated as contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event if the taxpayer has been paid or has an equitable, contractual, or other right to partial payment for performance completed to date. Additionally, that transaction price may not be reduced for amounts subject to Code Sec. 461, including reward amounts in credit card transactions.

Special Methods and Multi-Year Contracts
The proposed regulations clarify that when a taxpayer uses a special method of accounting, the special method of accounting determines the timing of the income inclusion.

Proposed regulations also provide guidance for taxpayers with a financial reporting period that is different than the taxpayer’s tax year. The taxpayer must use one of three permissible methods in order to determine whether an item of income has been included in revenue on an AFS.

For a contract with multiple performance obligations, the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation equals the amount allocated to each performance obligation for purposes of including the item in revenue in the taxpayer's AFS. The proposed regulations clarify that a transaction price does not include amounts collected on behalf of third parties, or amounts that are contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event.

A taxpayer with a multi-year contract applies the all events test by applying a cumulative approach reflecting amounts previously included under Code Sec. 451 rather than an annualized approach.

Fees
Under the proposed regulations if the taxpayer does not treat a fee as discount or as an adjustment to the yield of a debt instrument over the life of the instrument (such as points) in its AFS, and the fee otherwise would be treated as creating or increasing original issue discount (OID) for federal income tax purposes (specified fee), then the rules in the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 451(b) apply before the rules in Code Secs. 1271 through Code Sec. 1275. Removing specified fees and specified credit card fees from the calculation of OID will permit taxpayers to apply only the rules of Code Sec. 451(b) to these fees, without also having to apply the rules relevant to OID.

The proposed section regulations would not apply to determine the time at which OID generally is includible in income.

Effective Date
The regulations are proposed generally to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, in the case of a specified fee, Proposed Reg. §1.451-3(i)(2) is proposed to apply for a taxpayer’s first tax year beginning one year after the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final is published in the Federal Register.

A taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations (other than the proposed regulations relating to specified fees) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 (after December 31, 2018, for specified credit card fees), as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in the proposed regulations for specified credit card fees; and (2) consistently applies the proposed regulations to all items of income during the tax year (other than specified fees).

Close

Proposed regulations provide rules for accrual method taxpayers who receive advance payments. The proposed regulations include provisions affecting both taxpayers both with and without applicable financial statements (AFS), and describe and clarify the statutory requirements of Code Sec. 451(c).

Similar to Rev. Proc. 2004-34
The proposed regulations include many provisions similar to those of Rev. Proc. 2004-34, I.R.B. 2004-22, 991. For example the proposed regulations:

provide a similar deferral method for non-AFS taxpayers;
provide a list of items excluded from the definition of advance payment;
provide rules consistent with Rev. Proc. 2004-34 to ensure the acceleration of an advance payment when a taxpayer dies or ceases to exist, or when a taxpayer’s obligation is satisfied or otherwise ends; and
use the short tax year rules of Rev. Proc. 2004-34 for the AFS and non-AFS deferral methods
The proposed regulations also provide additional definitions and clarifications.

Change in Accounting Method
The IRS intends to provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may change its method of accounting to use one of the deferral methods described in these proposed regulations. Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 2004-34, as described in Notice 2018-35, I.R.B. 2018-18, 520.

Effective Date
The proposed regulations are to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. Until the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register, a taxpayer may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in these proposed regulations, and (2) consistently applies these proposed regulations to all advance payments.

Close

Taxpayers may use the automatic consent procedures to change accounting methods to comply with the recent proposed regulations described above. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

The proposed regulations provide rules for:

inclusion in gross income under the all events test for taxpayers with an applicable financial statement (AFS) ( NPRM REG-104870-18); and
use of the deferral method for advance payments for taxpayers with or without an AFS ( NPRM REG-104554-18).

Certain qualifying taxpayers may apply for a change to comply with the proposed regulations without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.

Taxpayers Affected
The accounting change procedures for inclusion in gross income for taxpayers with an AFS generally apply to taxpayers with an AFS that want to:

change to a method of accounting that treats an item of gross income as meeting the all events test no later than when the item is taken into account as revenue in its AFS under Code Sec. 451(b)(1)(A);
in certain cases, allocate the transaction price to performance obligations under Code Sec. 451(b)(4);
change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-3; or
change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(c).

The procedures also apply to taxpayers that do not have an AFS and that want to change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(d).

In addition, the procedures apply to a change in AFS in order to apply certain revenue recognition methods of accounting.

Pending Nonautomatic Applications
The IRS will return any Form 3115 requesting a change in method of accounting available under this revenue procedure that:

was filed on or before September 9, 2019, under the non-automatic procedures for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2017; and
is pending with the National Office on September 9, 2019.

The National Office will send a letter to the taxpayer acknowledging the return of the Form 3115, and will return the user fee submitted with the form. A timely resubmitted Form 3115 will be considered filed as of the date the taxpayer originally filed the Form 3115 under the nonautomatic change procedures.

Effective Date
This revenue procedure is generally effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. For specified credit card fees, it is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Close

Amendments to have been proposed to update the information reporting regulations under Code Sec. 6033, which generally apply to organizations exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a). The proposed regulations reflect statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced through guidance that has been made since the current regulations were adopted. The amendments and grants of relief apply particularly with respect to tax-exempt organizations required to file an annual Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or a Form 990-EZ information return.

Annual Return and Reporting Requirements
Code Sec. 6033 outlines various requirements for an annual information return to be filed by organizations that are exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) or are described in Code Sec. 527, including exceptions to the filing requirement. The reporting requirements under Code Sec. 6033(h) mandate controlling organizations to include on their returns:

interest, annuities, royalties, or rents received from each controlled entity under Code Sec. 512(b)(13);
any loans made to each such controlled entity; and
any transfers of funds between such controlling organization and each such controlled entity.

Penalty Relief
Under Code Sec. 6104(b), the IRS must make the filed annual returns available to the public. Under Rev. Proc. 2018-38, I.R.B. 2018-31, 280, tax-exempt organizations (other than charities exempt under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) and Code Sec. 527 political organizations) were no longer required to report the names and addresses of contributors on Schedule B when filing their information returns. This change applied to information reporting for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, for donations above certain applicable thresholds.

However, Rev. Proc. 2018-38 has been overturned by a federal district court ( S.C. Bullock, DC Mont., 2019-2 ustc ¶50,245), which held that the IRS failed to follow the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Code Sec. 6652(c)(1)(A) imposes penalties for a failure to file a return required under Code Sec. 6033, failure to include any required information, or failure to provide correct information. Under Code Sec. 6652(c)(5), the penalty is not imposed if it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause. Notice 2019-47 provides that the IRS will consider there to be a reasonable cause based on reliance on Rev. Proc. 2018-38 for any organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ and did not include on their 2018 information return such donor information as Rev. Proc. 2018-38 indicated was not required.

Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments to the regulations would restore relief from the requirement to report contributor names and addresses on the annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations that was previously provided in Rev. Proc. 2018-38 before the federal district court overturned that rule. Therefore, only organizations exempt under Code Secs. 501(c)(3) and 527 would need to continue reporting their donor information on their Forms 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

In addition, the proposed amendments would incorporate into the regulations the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, found in Rev. Proc. 2011-15, I.R.B. 2011-3, 322.

Close