A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

Tribal Distributions

The Miccosukee Tribe distributed income to its members in quarterly payments. Historically, these payments were in the $20 to $25 range. In 1990, however, the tribe opened a gaming center that offered high-stakes bingo, poker, and video pull-tab machines. The tribe’s income, and its distributions to its members, increased substantially.

Each quarter, the tribe used the revenue of the gaming activities to fund per capita distributions to its members. But the tribe disregarded its federal tax obligations on these distributions. It neither reported the distributions nor withheld taxes on them. The tribe also told its members not to discuss the payments with outsiders, not to report them to credit card agencies, and not to cash the distribution checks in places that would report them to the IRS.

For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer received a total of $272,000, which represented payments for herself, her husband, and her two children. She did not file a tax return or pay any income tax for that year.

After the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties against her, the taxpayer attempted to file a late return that reported the $272,000 as nontaxable income. She did not pay any of her assessment. The tribe intervened in her case as a matter of right.

District Court Decision

The District Court agreed with the IRS that the payments were distributions of gaming income that were fully taxable to the taxpayer. Most of the funds came from the gaming operation. The taxpayer and the tribe did not show what portion may have come from other, nontaxable sources.

Although the $272,000 included payments on behalf of the taxpayer’s husband and children, the taxpayer was responsible for tax on the entire amount. The tribe was structured as a matriarchy. Thus, the taxpayer was the head of her household, and the payments were all made available to her. She also spent all of the payments on household expenses, and she had reported all of the payments as her income when she tried to file a late return.

IGRA vs GWEA

The main issue on appeal was whether the tribe’s distributions were covered by the Indian Gaming Revenue Act or the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

The Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. It allows an Indian tribe to engage in gaming and distribute the revenue to members on a per capita basis. It also explicitly includes those distributions in a tribe member’s taxable income.

Code Sec. 139E was enacted in 2014 as part of the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act (GWEA). It excludes from federal taxation any payment made or services provided to or on behalf of an Indian tribe member under an Indian tribal government program. To be excludible, benefits provided under the program must be for the promotion of general welfare.

The court held that the exemption for Indian general welfare benefits under Code Sec. 139Edoes not apply to the per capita payments an Indian tribe makes from gaming revenue.

The taxpayer and the tribe claimed that GWEA effectively amended IGRA because it was more recent. The court disagreed, clarifying that IGRA applied only to gaming income, while GWEA was a law of general application. Thus, under the rules of statutory construction, IGRA continued to apply to distributions of gaming income because it was more specific than GWEA.

The court also rejected the characterization of the payments as distributions of the tribe’s tax revenues rather than its gaming income. The tax did not affect the nature of the gaming income. Instead, it was merely a mechanism to collect the income and distribute it to members.

The distributions also were not nontaxable income from Indian land, because they did not come directly from the use of the reservation land or its resources. Instead, the distributions came from improvements and related business activities–that is, gambling in the casino.

Effect on the Tribe

The tribe argued that it should not be included in the District Court’s judgment. However, the tribe had intervened as a matter of right because, if the court determined the payments were taxable, the tribe would have to report them and withhold income tax from them.

As an intervenor, the tribe had the same status as an original party. It also fully participated in the trial by arguing motions, attending depositions, presenting evidence, and examining witnesses. Thus, it was bound by the District Court’s judgment.

Affirming a DC Fla. decision, 2016-2 ustc ¶50,474.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

Background

The restaurants owned by the S corporation had hired “tipped employees” whose earnings came partly from customer tips. The S corporation was required to pay taxes on these tips as part of its FICA tax payments. For the two tax years at issue, the S corporation did not claim any FICA tip credits. Instead, the S corporation deducted its payments of the FICA tip taxes on its Forms 1120S, and did not later amend those returns.

On his amended Forms 1040 for those tax years, the shareholder claimed he was entitled to flowthrough FICA tip credits with respect to his interest in the S corporation.

FICA Tip Credit

Code Sec. 45B allows an employer working in the food and beverage industry to claim business tax credits for the portion of the FICA taxes—i.e., social security and Medicare taxes—that it paid on employee tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must have employees who receive tips from customers for providing food or beverages for consumption, and must be deemed to have paid FICA taxes on the tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must not have already claimed a deduction for the FICA tax payment. An employer claims its FICA tip credits on Form 8846.

Here, when the S corporation chose to deduct its FICA tax payments, it had made an election not to claim any FICA tip credits. The S corporation never claimed or intended to claim FICA tip credits. Based on this reporting position, the shareholder was not entitled to any flowthrough FICA tip credits for either tax year.

S Corporation Elections

Under Code Sec. 1363(c) and its regulations, elections that affect the computation of items derived from an S corporation generally must be made by the S corporation, not separately by its shareholders. There are two exceptions: the shareholder claims any elections (1) for the deduction and recapture of certain mining exploration expenditures, and (2) for foreign tax credits.

In this case, the shareholder argued in effect that the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tax payments could be changed unilaterally by his request, made in his capacity as a shareholder, that the S corporation amend its returns to claim the FICA tip credit. The shareholder’s position was rejected based on the plain text of Code Sec. 1363(c), and of Code Sec. 45B(d), which states that the credit does not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer elects to have the credit provision not apply.

Further, the Tax Court stated that it refused to create a new precedent that would give each individual shareholder the power to change an S corporation’s tax election unilaterally. Such a change, stated the court, would not only affect the tax liabilities of the requesting shareholder, but could also affect the tax liabilities of the shareholders who have not consented to the change.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Decision adopts as final certain rules set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2015, under Code Sec. 337(d) (with only minor, nonsubstantive clarifications) ( NPRM REG-149518-03), and Code Sec. 732(f) ( NPRM REG-138759-14).

The final regulations affect partnerships and their partners, and apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015. The regulations are effective on June 8, 2018.

Acquisition of Interest in Stock to Avoid Gain on Appreciated Property

A corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders has to recognize gain under Code Secs. 311(b) and 336(a) as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. However, taxpayers have tried to postpone or avoiding the recognition of that gain.

For example, if a corporation exchanges appreciated property for its own stock, the corporation would recognize gain on the exchange. But corporations have tried to avoid recognizing that gain by, for example, taking these steps:

• the corporation enters into a partnership and contributes appreciated property;
• the partnership acquires stock of that corporate partner; then
• the partnership makes a liquidating distribution of the stock to the corporate partner.

The final regulations under Code Sec. 337(d) aim to prevent a corporate partner from avoiding gain recognition when it acquires or increases its interest in stock held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property. Under the final regulations, a corporate partner may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in stock of the corporate partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under Code Sec. 311(b) or Code Sec. 336(a). The final regulations also provide exceptions under which a corporate partner is not required to recognize gain.

Limit on Basis Reduction or Gain Recognition for Consolidated Group Members

The final regulations limit rules that cause basis reduction or gain recognition for consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership. Code Sec. 732(f)limits the basis of a distributed corporation’s property if—

• a corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation);
• the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation, defined as ownership of stock meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2), immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (control requirement); and
• the partnership’s basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner’s basis in the stock immediately after the distribution.

Under these circumstances, the basis of the distributed corporation’s property must be reduced by this excess. Further, the corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation’s property cannot be reduced.

In applying this rule, the final regulations allow the bases of consolidated group members to be aggregated if when two conditions are met: (1) two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation from the partnership; and (2) the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners’ consolidated group after the distribution.

Elimination Transactions

Final regulations restrict corporate partners from entering into gain elimination transactions. They focus on attempts to eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions. Under the regulations, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, Code Sec. 732(f) will apply as though the corporate partner acquired control of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

Future Proposed Regs?

The Treasury and IRS are considering publishing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to propose more substantive amendments to the final 337(d) regulations, and to allow for additional public comment with respect to proposals in response to certain comments received, further reflection by the Treasury IRS, and concerns raised by practitioners.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Son-of-BOSS Arrangements

Son-of-BOSS is a variation of a slightly older tax shelter known as the "bond and options sales strategy," or BOSS. Son-of-BOSS transactions take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Assets that are encumbered by significant liabilities must always be transferred to a partnership. The goal is to increase basis in that partnership or in the assets themselves.

The liabilities are usually obligations to buy securities. However, they are typically not completely fixed when they are transferred to the partnership.

This contingency is supposed to let the partnership treat the liabilities as uncertain. This, in turn, is supposed to let the partnership ignore the liabilities in computing basis. The result is supposed to give the partners basis in the partnership or in the assets themselves. This increased basis is supposed to translate into large loss deductions for the partners, all with no actual economic losses.

The Tax Court has yet to fall for the scheme.

Invalid Partnerships

The court has used several theories to reject Son-of-Boss losses. In this case, the court once again relied on the fact that the two partnerships involved in the transactions did not actually exist.

The partnerships were invalid because they were created only to carry out tax avoidance schemes. Thus, their members never intended to run any business through them.

The partnerships also failed the “prongified” test for determining whether the parties intended to, and did in fact, join together for the present conduct of an undertaking or enterprise. One managed to scrupulously adhere to the formal requirements for looking like a partnership. However, it did not display any objective indication of a mutual combination for the conduct of an ongoing enterprise.

The second partnership barely even went through the motions. It filed partnership returns and issued K-1s to its purported partners. However:

• There was no evidence the purported partners made any contributions to the partnership;
• The partnership did not have a formal operating agreement;
• The partnership did not conduct any business in its own name;
• There was no real profit for the partners to control or withdraw; and
• The partnership did not keep any books or records.

Since the partnerships were invalid, they were simply disregarded. Thus, the purported partners were treated as directly engaging in the partnerships’ activities and directly owning the partnerships’ property. This meant that the supposedly separate long and short options that were the heart of the transaction were actually a single-option spread. Thus the options were part of one contract, and they could not be separated to produce artificial losses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.