J. Michael Grinnan, CPA

"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

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, several key requirements for employers have been delayed, including reporting of health coverage offered to employees, known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting. As 2015 nears, and the prospects of further delay appear unlikely, employers and the IRS are preparing for the filing of these new information returns.

Three related provisions

Three provisions of the Affordable Care Act are closely related: the employer mandate for applicable large employers (ALEs), the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. To administer the employer mandate and the Code Sec. 36 credit, the IRS must receive information from ALEs, such as the type of health coverage offered, if any, by the ALE, the number of employees, and the cost of coverage.

Who must report?

Not all employers must report under Code Sec. 6056. The most important exception is for employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees. These smaller employers are exempt—at all times—from Code Sec. 6056 reporting and the employer mandate.

For 2015, there is also a temporary exemption for some ALEs from the employer mandate only. ALEs are employers that employ on average at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents but fewer than 100 full-time employees including full-time equivalents. However, mid-size employers must file Code Sec. 6056 information returns for 2015. All other ALEs are subject to the employer mandate for 2015 as well as Code Sec. 6056.

What must be reported?

The IRS has posted draft forms for Code Sec. 6056 reporting on its website: Form 1094-C Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns and Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage. Draft Instructions for these forms are expected to be released in the near future.

ALEs generally must report:

The employer's name, address, and employer identification number;
The calendar year for which information is being reported;
A certification as to whether the employer offered to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan;
The number, address and Social Security/taxpayer identification number of all full-time employees;
The number of full-time employees eligible for coverage under the employer's plan; and
The employee's share of the lowest cost monthly premium for self-only coverage providing minimum value offered to that full-time employee.

Under IRS regulations, Code Sec. 6056 reporting is optional for 2014. Reporting for 2015 is required. Information returns must be filed no later than March 1, 2016 (February 28, 2016, being a Sunday), or March 31, 2016, if filed electronically.

Simplified method

The IRS has provided ALEs with simplified methods of reporting. Employers that provide a "qualifying offer" to any of their full-time employees may be eligible as are employers that offer coverage to a certain percentage of employees. For more details about the simplified method, please contact our office.

Employers that self-insure

The Affordable Care Act also requires every health insurance issuer, sponsor of a self-insured health plan, government agency that administers government-sponsored health insurance programs, and other entities that provide minimum essential coverage to file information returns. This is known as "Code Sec. 6055 reporting." The IRS has posted draft versions of Form 1094-B, Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns, and Form 1095-B, Health Coverage on its website.

Employers that self-insure have a streamlined way to report for purposes of Code Sec. 6055 reporting and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The top half of Form 1095-C includes information needed for Code Sec. 6056 reporting; the bottom half includes information needed for Code Sec. 6055 reporting.

If you have any questions about Code Sec. 6056 reporting, please contact our office.

Close

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Nontax considerations

State law and nontax considerations are an important consideration in choosing the form of the business and may play a decisive role. A general partner of a partnership has unlimited liability for the debts of the business. This can be modified by using a limited partnership (LP), which must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. The general partner still have unlimited liability, but a limited partner's liability is limited to its contribution to the partnership. A corporation has limited liability; shareholders generally are not responsible for the liabilities of the corporation beyond their contributions to the entity.

Federal tax considerations

At the same time, it is crucial to consider federal tax requirements and consequences when choosing the form of business entity. A primary federal tax consideration is avoiding a double layer of tax on business income. This can be accomplished by operating as a passthrough entity, such as a partnership or S corporation. Income is not taxed at the entity level. It passes through to partners and shareholders and is taxed at their rates.

In contrast, C corporations are taxable entities. Furthermore, when a C corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, this generally is taxable to the shareholder. It must be noted that income of a passthrough entity is allocable and taxable to its owners, whether or not the income is actually distributed to the partner or shareholder. Dividends are not taxed unless there is an actual distribution.

While a partnership is organized under state law, an S corporation is a creature of the federal tax system. The S corporation is a regular corporation for state law purposes.

Advantages of partnerships

Unlike an S corporation shareholder, anyone or any entity can be a partner. S corporations are limited to 100 shareholders; only certain individuals, estates and trusts are eligible to be shareholders. C corporations and nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders of an S corporation.

S corporations are limited to a single class of stock; income and losses must be allocated on the same basis to each shareholder. Having only one class of stock may affect the corporation's ability to raise capital. A partnership can have different classes of partners and has more flexibility for allocating income and losses to different types of partners.

Partnership liabilities can increase a partner's basis in the partnership, offsetting distributions of cash and reducing their taxation. The increased basis allowed partners to use losses generated by the partnership. Liabilities of an S corporation do not create stock basis; separate bases in stock and debt must be calculated. This lack of basis may limit the use of losses generated by the S corporation.

Contributions of appreciated property by a partner to the partnership generally are not taxable, even if the partner is not part of a group controlling the partnership. Contributions by a shareholder to a corporation are tax-free only if the shareholders are part of a group controlling 80 percent of the corporation after the contribution. However, a partnership must follow special allocation rules for handling built-in gain on contributed property, whereas S corporations do not have special allocation rules in this circumstance.

Conclusion

In general, a partnership offers more flexibility than an S corporation in the treatment of taxes. However, S corporation shareholders do have limited legal liability, while general partners are not insulated from the partnership's debts and liabilities.

Close

Taxpayers who are self-employed must pay self-employment tax on their income from self-employment. The self-employment tax applies in lieu of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes paid by employees and employers on compensation from employment. Like FICA taxes, the self-employment tax consists of taxes collected for Social Security and for Medicare (hospital insurance or HI).

The self-employment tax is levied and collected as part of the income tax. The tax must be taken into account in determining an individual's estimated taxes. The self-employed taxpayer is responsible for the self-employment tax, in effect paying both the employer's and the employee's share of the tax. The tax is calculated on Schedule SE, filed with the individual's income tax return, and is then reported on the Form 1040.

Self-Employment Tax Rate

The self-employment tax rate is 15.3 percent of self-employment income. This is the same overall percentage that applies to an employee's compensation. The rate combines the 12.4 percent Social Security tax and the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. Self-employed individuals can deduct one-half of the self-employment tax. (For 2011 and 2012, the Social Security tax rate was reduced from 12.4 to 10.4 percent.) If the individual's net earnings from self-employment are less than $400 (or $100 for a church employee), the individual does not owe self-employment tax.

Like FICA taxes, the 12.4 percent Social Security tax only applies to earning up to a specified threshold. For 2013, this threshold was $113,700; for 2014, the threshold is $117,000. There is no ceiling for applying the 2.9 percent Medicare tax.

Self-Employment

The tax applies to net earnings from self-employment. This is the taxpayer's gross income for the year from operating a trade or business, minus the deductions allowable to the trade or business, plus the taxpayer's distributive share of income or loss from a partnership.

A person is self-employed if he or she carries on a trade or business as a sole proprietor or independent contractor. A general partner of a partnership that carries on a trade or business is also considered to be self-employed. Self-employment does not include the performance of services by an employee. However, an employee who also carries on a separate business part-time can be self-employed with respect to the business.

Additional Medicare Tax

Effective for 2013 and subsequent years, both employees and self-employed individuals must pay an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax if their FICA wages or self-employment income exceeds specified thresholds $250,000 for joint filers; $125,000 for married filing separately; and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. This tax is determined on Form 8959.

Close

Code Sec. 162 permits a business to deduct its ordinary and necessary expenses for carrying on the business. However, Code Sec. 274 restricts the deduction of entertainment expenses incurred for business by disallowing expenses of entertainment activities and entertainment facilities. Many expenses are totally disallowed; other amounts, if allowed under Code Sec. 274, are limited to 50 percent of the expense.

The income tax regulations define entertainment as any activity of a type generally considered to be entertainment, amusement, or recreation, such as entertaining at night clubs, lounges, theaters, country clubs, golf and athletic clubs, and sports events, as well as hunting, fishing, vacation and similar trips. There are special rules for the costs of facilities used to entertain the customer, such as a boat or a country club membership. Dues or fees for any social, athletic or sporting club or organization are treated as items involving facilities.

Deduction allowed

Expenses are allowed if the expense was either "directly related" to the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business, or "associated with" the conduct of the trade or business. An activity is "associated with" business if the activity directly precedes or follows a substantial and bona fide business discussion.

Entertainment expenses are not directly related to the business if the activity occurred under circumstances with little or no possibility of engaging in the active conduct of the trade or business. These circumstances include an activity where the distractions are substantial, such as a meeting or discussion at a night club, theater, or sporting event. However, taking a customer to a meal at a restaurant or for drinks at a bar can be considered conducive to a business discussion, if there are no substantial distractions to a discussion.

Substantial business discussion

For expenses that are either directly related to or associated with business, the taxpayer must establish that the he or she conducted a substantial and bona fide business discussion with the customer. The IRS has said that there is no specified length for a discussion to be substantial; all facts and circumstances will be considered. The discussion is substantial if the active conduct of the business was the principal character of the combined business and entertainment activity, but it is not necessary that more time be devoted to business than to entertainment.

For an activity that is associated with, the discussion can directly precede or follow the activity. For a discussion to be directly before or after the activity, it generally must be on the same day as the activity. However, facts and circumstances may allow the entertainment and the discussion to be on consecutive days, for example if the customer is from out of town.

Season tickets

The special rules for facilities do not apply to season tickets. Instead, the taxpayer must allocate the cost of the season tickets to each separate entertainment event. The amount deductible is limited to the face value of the ticket. For a "skybox" or other area leased and used exclusively by the taxpayer and guests, the amount deductible is limited to the face value of non-luxury seats for the area covered by the lease.

Under these rules, it appears that the deductible costs of baseball season tickets must be determined separately for each baseball game. Attendance at a baseball game would involve a "distracting" activity that is not conducive to a business discussion, so the cost of the game would not be directly related to the conduct of the trade or business. However, attendance at a game before or after the conduct of a substantial business discussion could qualify as being associated with the business; in these circumstances, the cost of the event would be deductible.

If the taxpayer provided food to the customer at the baseball game, the cost of the food would be deductible as part of the cost of the event. Some "luxury" seats include food provided by the baseball team to the ticket user. It appears that the taxpayer would have to determine the fair market value of the ticket and the food separately, although the costs of food actually provided to the customer may still be deductible.

Close

In January, the U.S. Tax Court threw a curve ball in many retirement planning strategies. The court held that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover contribution within each one-year period regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer has. The court found that the one-year limitation under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) is not specific to any single IRA owned by an individual but instead applies to all IRAs owned by a taxpayer. The court's decision was a departure from a long-time understanding of IRS rules and publications and, for several weeks after, it was unclear what approach the IRS would take. Now, the IRS has announced that it will follow the court's decision and revise its rules and publications. Everyone contemplating an IRA rollover needs to be aware of this important development.

Rollovers

Individuals have traditionally enjoyed flexibility in moving their retirement savings from one type of retirement plan to another type of plan. A rollover is a transfer of a distribution received from an IRA or other retirement plan by the recipient to another IRA or type of retirement plan owned by the same recipient. A rollover has important tax considerations. The amount distributed is not included in the recipient's income if the distribution is transferred to an eligible arrangement within 60 days after it is received. In certain cases, the 60-day period may be extended by the IRS.

Generally, only the owner of the IRA may roll over an amount. A surviving spouse who receives a distribution after the death of the account owner can make rollovers to the same extent as the account owner could have. There are also special rules for Roth IRAs and other retirement arrangements.

Tax Court case

In Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, a married couple received distributions from more than one IRA in 2008. The couple claimed that they could make more than one tax-free rollover. The Tax Court disagreed.

The court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) limits the frequency with which a taxpayer may make a nontaxable rollover contribution. The one-year limitation is not specific to any single IRA a taxpayer has but instead applies to all of the taxpayer's IRAs. If Congress had intended to allow individuals to take nontaxable distributions from multiple IRAs per year, the court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) would have been worded differently.

Immediately after the decision, many benefits professionals pointed out that the IRS's rules and publications appeared to be contrary to the court's decision. In particular, many taxpayers noted that IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Plans, seemed to say that multiple rollovers were permissible if taken from different accounts.

IRS action

The IRS intends to amend the existing rules and revise Publication 590 to clarify that it will adopt the court's decision. Additionally, many IRA trustees, the IRS explained, may need time to make changes to reflect Bobrow. Therefore, in a relief measure, the IRS will not apply the Tax Court's decision to any rollover that involves an IRA distribution occurring before January 1, 2015.

Trustee-to-trustee transfers

A rollover must be distinguished from a trustee-to-trustee transfer. The Tax Court explained in its opinion that individuals who maintain more than one IRA may make multiple direct rollovers from the trustee of one IRA to the trustee of another IRA without triggering the one-year limit under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B). Transferring funds directly between trustees, the court found, does not result in a distribution within the meaning of Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(A). Since the funds are not within the direct control and use of the participant, they are not considered to be rollovers.

Planning

The court's decision and the IRS's action may impact your retirement planning. Keep in mind also that trustee-to-trustee transfers are not affected by the court's decision, which leaves some flexibility intact for planning. If you have any questions about IRA rollovers, please contact our office.

Close

One of the most complex, if not the most complex, provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the employer shared responsibility requirement (the so-called "employer mandate") and related reporting of health insurance coverage. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration has twice delayed the employer mandate and reporting. The employer mandate and reporting will generally apply to applicable large employers (ALE) starting in 2015 and to mid-size employers starting in 2016. Employers with fewer than 50 employees, have never been required, and continue to be exempt, from the employer mandate and reporting.

Employer mandate

The employer mandate under Code Sec. 4980H and employer reporting under Code Sec. 6056 are very connected. Code Sec. 4980H generally provides that an ALE is required to pay a penalty if it fails to offer minimum essential coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. An ALE would also pay a penalty if it offers coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B credit.

To receive the Code Sec. 36B credit, an individual must have obtained coverage through an Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The Marketplaces will report the names of individuals who receive the credit to the IRS. ALEs must report the terms and conditions of health care coverage provided to employees (This is known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting). The IRS will use all of this information to determine if the ALE must pay a penalty.

ALEs

Only ALEs are subject to the employer mandate and must report health insurance coverage under Code Sec. 6056. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are never subject to the employer mandate and do not have to report coverage under Code Sec. 6056.

In February, the Obama administration announced important transition rules for the employer mandate that affects Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The Obama administration limited the employer mandate in 2015 to employers with 100 or more full-time employees. ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees will be subject to the employer mandate starting in 2016. At all times, employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees are exempt from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Reporting

The IRS has issued regulations describing how ALEs will report health insurance coverage. The IRS has not yet issued any of the forms that ALEs will use but has advised that ALEs generally will report the requisite information to the agency electronically.

ALEs also must provide statements to employees. The statements will describe, among other things, the coverage provided to the employee.

30-Hour Threshold

A fundamental question for the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting is who is a full-time employee. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued much guidance to answer this question. The answer is extremely technical and there are many exceptions but generally a full-time employee means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. The IRS has designed two methods for determining full-time employee status: the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method. However, special rules apply to seasonal workers, student employees, volunteers, individuals who work on-call, and many more. If you have any questions about who is a full-time employee, please contact our office.

Form W-2 reporting

The Affordable Care Act also requires employers to disclose the aggregate cost of employer-provided health coverage on an employee's Form W-2. This requirement is separate from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The reporting of health insurance costs on Form W-2 is for informational purposes only. It does not affect an employee's tax liability or an employer's liability for the employer mandate.

Shortly after the Affordable Care Act was passed, the IRS provided transition relief to small employers that remains in effect today. An employer is not subject the reporting requirement for any calendar year if the employer was required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year. Special rules apply to multiemployer plans, health reimbursement arrangements, and many more.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about ALEs, the employer mandate or Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Close

The IRS's final "repair" regulations became effective January 1, 2014. The regulations provide a massive revision to the rules on capitalizing and deducting costs incurred with respect to tangible property. The regulations apply to amounts paid to acquire, produce or improve tangible property; every business is affected, especially those with significant fixed assets.

Required and elective changes

There is a lot of work ahead for most taxpayers to comply with the new rules. There are three categories of changes under the regulations:

Changes that are required and are retroactive, with full adjustments under Code Sec. 481(a), in effect applying the regulations to previous years;
Required changes with modified or prospective Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment beginning in 2014; and
Elective changes that do not require any adjustments under Code Sec. 481.

Required changes with full adjustments include unit of property changes, deducting repairs (including the routine maintenance safe harbor), deducting dealer expenses that facilitate the sale of property, the optional method for rotable spare parts, capitalizing improvements and capitalizing certain acquisition or production costs. Elective changes can include capitalizing repair and maintenance costs of they are capitalized for financial accounting purposes.

Rev. Proc. 2014-16

The IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2014-16, granting automatic consent to taxpayers to change their accounting methods to comply with the final regulations. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 applies to all the significant provisions in the final regulations, such as repairs and improvements; materials and supplies, including rotable and temporary spare parts; and costs that have to be capitalized as improvements. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 supersedes Rev. Proc. 2012-19, which applied to changes made under the temporary and proposed repair regulations issued at the end of 2011.

There are 14 automatic method changes provided by Rev. Proc. 2014-16 for the repair regulations. Taxpayers may file for automatic consent on a single Form 3115, even if they are making changes in more than area. The normal scope limitations on changing accounting methods do not apply to a taxpayer making one or more changes for any tax year beginning before January 1, 2015. Scope changes would normally apply if the taxpayer is under examination, is in the final year of a trade or business, or is changing the same accounting method it changed in the previous five years.

Filing deadlines

For past years, taxpayers can apply the 2011 proposed and temporary (TD 9564) regulations or the 2013 final regulations to either 2012 or 2013, and can do this on a section-by-section basis. Taxpayers that decide to apply the final or temporary regulations to 2013 must file for an automatic change of accounting method (Form 3115) by September 15, 2014. Taxpayers applying the regulations to 2014 must file for an automatic change by September 15, 2015. (Both dates apply to calendar-year taxpayers.) The government has indicated it is unlikely to postpone the effective date of the regulations.

Dispositions

Rev. Proc. 2014-16 does not apply to dispositions of tangible property. The government issued reproposed regulations in this area (NPRM REG-110732-13). Although these regulations may not be finalized until later in 2014, the IRS expects to issue Rev. Proc. 2014-17 before then to allow taxpayers to make automatic accounting method changes under the proposed regulations. The procedure will provide some relief by allowing taxpayers to revoke general asset account elections that they made under the temporary regulations. No comments were submitted on these proposed regulations; it is likely the final regulations will not have any significant changes.

Close