President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

Payroll Tax Cut
Reports on Capitol Hill had begun swirling recently that the Trump administration was considering cutting payroll taxes.

"We’re looking at various tax reductions," Trump told reporters at the White House on August 20. "I have been thinking about payroll taxes for a long time," he added. "A lot of people would like to see that."

However, White House staff swiftly denied that any payroll tax cut was under consideration, according to several reports.

Along those lines, Michael Zona, communications director for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that no such discussions were occurring between the SFC majority and the president. "Chairman Grassley has not discussed a potential payroll tax cut with the Administration," Zona told Wolters Kluwer.

Payroll taxes are used to fund certain social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Generally, payroll taxes are paid primarily through the wages and salaries of employees, as noted by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Amid recent reports that the U.S. economy could be heading toward a recession, cutting payroll taxes could potentially benefit middle-income taxpayers and bolster consumer spending.

On August 20, Trump disputed the notion that a recession could be around the bend. Additionally, Trump told reporters that any consideration of a payroll tax cut is unrelated to mostly Democratic claims of an impending recession. In that vein, Zona told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that "[a]t this point, recession seems more of a political wish by Democrats than an economic reality."

Indexing Capital Gains to Inflation
Further, Trump confirmed to reporters at the White House on August 20 that he is still considering indexing capital gains to inflation. Lately, lawmakers have become increasingly vocal concerning their differing viewpoints on the matter, both as to tax policy and legality.

"We’ve been talking about indexing [capital gains to inflation] for a long time," Trump said. "It can be done directly by me…I can do it directly," he said, referencing a recent uptick in debate between Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the legality of such an executive move.

No Tax Cuts, No Indexing
Then on August 21, Trump told reporters at the White House that "I’m not looking at a tax cut now; we don’t need it. We have a strong economy."

Additionally, Trump followed up his initial assertion of authority to circumvent Congress on the tax policy issue by stating on August 21 that if he wanted to unilaterally index capital gains to inflation, he would need a letter from the Attorney General.

However, the longstanding Republican and Democratic debate as to whether the executive branch has authority to index capital gains to inflation appears to be moot, at least for the time being.

"I’m not looking to do indexing," Trump said on August 21. "I’ve studied indexing for a long time. I want tax [cuts] for middle-class workers. I think indexing is probably better for the upper income groups; I’m not looking to do that."

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

Tax Extenders Task Forces
Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on August 13 released three of six reports detailing the work of bipartisan task forces that were created to examine certain tax breaks, which expired or will expire between December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2019. The three remaining tax extenders task force reports are expected to be released soon.

The reports released by Grassley and Wyden on August 13 were from the following task forces:

• Energy;
• Cost Recovery; and
• Individual, Excise and Other Temporary Tax Policy.

Next Steps
Wyden also highlighted the importance of moving away from the notion of temporary tax provisions in general, which Democrats and Republicans alike largely agree is not good tax policy. "Tax policy should not be set a year or two at a time. We need to find permanent solutions that provide certainty to families and businesses," Wyden said in an August 13 press release.

Grassley and Wyden introduced their bipartisan tax extenders bill earlier this year. However, Grassley reiterated on August 13 that movement of all tax legislation must be initiated in the House. Although House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has also introduced his own tax extenders proposal, the bill is unlikely to garner enough support from Senate Republicans.

"The next step will be to put together a legislative package based on the proposals that the taskforces received, the areas of consensus among the taskforce members and continued bipartisan discussions," Grassley said in an August 13 press release. "Taxpayers deserve predictability and clarity, and they haven’t received either for far too long on temporary tax policy."

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to...

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to:

• elect out of 100 percent bonus depreciation;
• elect 100 percent bonus depreciation on specified plants in the year of planting or grafting; or
• elect the 50 percent rate in place of the 100 percent rate.

The late election or revocation may be made by filing an accounting method change, or in certain cases by filing an amended return. The taxpayer must have timely filed its federal tax return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year. Most taxpayers will prefer the administrative ease of filing an accounting method change with their next return and making a single Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment. This route is easier than filling an amended return and, if necessary, amended returns for any subsequent affected year.

Background
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) increased the bonus depreciation rate from 50 percent to 100 percent, effective for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017. Many taxpayers filed returns for a 2016 or 2017 tax year that included September 27, 2017, before proposed bonus depreciation regulations ( REG-104397-18, August 8, 2018) were issued to explain the related bonus depreciation changes. Consequently, the IRS is granting relief to taxpayers, and disregarding the general rule that advance IRS permission must be obtained in a letter ruling to make a late election or revoke a prior election and that making or revoking an election is not an accounting method change.

Amended Returns
A late election or revocation of an election may be made on an amended return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017. However, according to the guidance, the amended return must be filed before the taxpayer files its federal return for the first tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year, and must include the adjustment directly related to the late election or revocation as well as any collateral adjustments. Thus, for a calendar year taxpayer, an amended return for 2017 may be filed if the 2018 tax year return has not been filed. (e.g., if an October 15, 2019 filing extension was obtained).

Accounting Method Changes
Instead of filing an amended return, a taxpayer may file Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, with a taxpayer’s timely filed federal tax return for the first, second, or third tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017, to make or revoke a covered election.

The automatic consent procedures apply. Accordingly, no fee is required. Multiple Forms 3115 do not need to be filed if more than one election or revocation is made.

Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, which lists all automatic accounting method changes, is modified to include this accounting method change.

Deemed Elections
A taxpayer who filed a timely 2016 or 2017 return that includes September 28, 2017, without following the formal election procedures in Rev. Proc. 2017-33, I.R.B. 2017-19, 1236, may be deemed to have made a valid election. Specifically, with respect to property placed in service after September 27, 2017, in a 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017:

• An election to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on a specified plant in the year of planting or grafting is considered made if the 100 percent rate was actually claimed on the return.
• An election not to claim bonus depreciation for a class of property is considered made if the taxpayer did not claim 100 percent bonus depreciation (or the elective 50 percent rate) for that class of property on the return.
• An election to claim the 50 percent bonus rate in lieu of the 100 percent bonus rate is considered made if the taxpayer claimed bonus depreciation on all qualified property using the 50 percent rate or on all specified plants in the year of planting or grafting.

These deemed elections may be revoked by filing an amended return or an accounting method change under the general rules above.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The relief is available to a partnership that satisfies the following eligibility requirements for the applicable tax year:

• the partnership has not elected the application of Code Sec. 6221(b) (Election Out for Certain Partnerships with 100 or Fewer Partners);
• it has timely filed Form 1065 and
• it has timely furnished all required Schedules K-1 (without regard to the extensions of time provided by the revenue procedure).

The extensions are available only to partnerships that timely filed Form 1065 and timely furnished Schedules K-1 and also file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 on or before the date that is six-months after the non-extended deadline. Further, the filing and furnishing extensions apply only to partnership tax years that ended prior to the issuance of the revenue procedure and for which the extended due date for the partnership tax year is after July 25, 2019.

The IRS is allowing the extensions because certain Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) partnerships timely filed Form 1065 for the 2018 tax year and timely furnished Schedules K-1 to their partners but may have made errors, including not properly reporting all of the required information on the Schedules K-1. The relief is directed at partnerships that, having timely filed, did not request an extension of the deadline to file and, due to the restrictions on amending Schedules K-1 under Code Sec. 6031(a) may not amend the Schedules K-1, including for the 2018 tax year.

Eligible partnerships taking advantage of the extensions should file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 in the same manner as the original return and Schedules K-1 and write on the top of the superseding Form 1065 "SUPERSEDING FORM 1065 PURSUANT TO REVENUE PROCEDURE 2019-32."

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until final regulation amendments are published in the Federal Register.

Depreciation Limits Increased, Inflation Calculation Changed
The Tax Cuts and Job Act ( P.L. 115-97) substantially increased the maximum annual dollar limitations on the depreciation deductions for passenger automobiles. The new dollar limitations are based on the depreciation, over a five-year recovery period, of a passenger automobile with a cost of $50,000. As a result, the IRS issued Notice 2019-8, I.R.B. 2019-3, 354, providing that it intends to amend Reg. §1.61-21(d) and (e) to:

• incorporate a higher base value of $50,000 as the maximum value for use of the vehicle cents-per-mile and fleet-average valuation rules, effective for the 2018 calendar year; and
• adjust the $50,000 base value annually for inflation in 2019 and subsequent years.

Additionally, the Notice provides that the IRS will not publish separate maximum values for trucks and vans for use with the fleet-average and vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rules. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, inflation adjustments for these purposes are calculated using both the consumer price index (CPI) automobile component and the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) automobile component ( Code Sec. 280F(d)(7)(B)). The C-CPI-U automobile component does not currently have separate components for new cars and new trucks.

The IRS later issued Notice 2019-34, I.R.B. 2019-22, 1257, to:

• provide a 2019 inflation increase to $50,400 for these amounts; and
• announce it would revise Reg. §1.61-21(d) to provide a transition rule for certain employers.

Transition Rules
The proposed regulations include the following transition rules.

Fleet-average valuation rule. If an employer did not qualify to use the fleet-average valuation rule prior to January 1, 2018, because the automobile’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted maximum value requirement for the year the automobile was first made available to the employee for personal use, the employer may adopt the fleet-average valuation rule for 2018 or 2019, provided the fair market value of the automobile does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. An employer that did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for a vehicle first made available to an employee for personal use before calendar year 2018 may first adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year for the vehicle if:

• the employer did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the vehicle was first used by the employee for personal use; and
• the vehicle’s fair market value does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Similarly, if the employer first used the commuting valuation rule, the employer may adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year if:

• the employer did not qualify to switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule on the first day on which the commuting valuation rule was not used because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the commuting valuation rule was first not used; and
• the fair market value of the vehicle does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

COMMENT 
An employer that adopts the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule generally must continue to use the rule for all subsequent years in which the vehicle qualifies for it. However, the employer may use the commuting valuation rule for any year during which use of the vehicle qualifies for the commuting valuation rule.
 

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

Closed Defined Benefit Plans
Employers have been moving away from traditional defined benefit plans for rank and file employees. Existing plans are sometimes closed for new employees as of a specified date. These plans are referred to as "closed plans," and the employees who continue to earn pension benefits under the closed plan are often known as a "grandfathered group of employees."

Closed plans must continue to meet the coverage and nondiscrimination tests, but they may eventually find it difficult because the proportion of the grandfathered group of employees who are highly compensated employees compared to the employer’s total workforce increases over time. This occurs because grandfathered employees usually continue to receive pay raises and so may become highly compensated employees, while new employees who are generally nonhighly compensated employees are not covered by the closed plan.

Notice 2014-5 Relief
For plan years beginning before 2016, Notice 2014-5 provides testing relief for defined benefit/defined contribution plans that include a closed defined benefit plan that was closed before December 13, 2013. Under this relief the plan can demonstrate satisfaction of the nondiscrimination in amount requirement on the basis of equivalent benefits, even if the does not meet any of the existing eligibility conditions for testing on that basis.

This relief has been extended several times in anticipation of the IRS issuing final amendments to the Code Sec. 401(a)(4) regulations. Most recently the relief was extended until plan years beginning in 2019, and it is now extended for plan years beginning in 2020. The IRS issued proposed regulations in 2016 to provide a permanent fix ( NPRM REG-125761-14, Jan. 29, 2016). The IRS expects the final regulations will provide that the reliance granted in the preamble to the proposed regulations may be applied for plan years beginning before 2021.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The final regulations—

• clarify the effect of Code Sec. 743(b) adjustments on the determination of net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how deductible allocations (that is, allocations that give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how nondeductible guaranteed payments (that is, guaranteed payments that do not give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category; and
• include a clarification of the rules regarding the treatment of disregarded payments between branches of a partnership for purposes of determining income attributable to an activity included in a CFTE category.

A transition rule applies to partnerships whose agreements were entered into before February 14, 2012.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Digital Content Transactions
Existing Reg. §1.861-18 provides rules for classifying transactions involving computer programs. The proposed regulations broaden the scope of the rules to apply to all transfers of digital content. "Digital content" is defined as any content in digital format that is either protected by copyright law or is no longer protected due solely to the passage of time.

The proposed regulations clarify that a transfer of the mere right to public performance or display of digital content for advertising does not alone constitute a transfer of a copyright.

Additionally, the proposed regulations clarify the title passage rule. When there is a sale of a copyrighted article through an electronic medium, the sale will occur at the location of the download or installation onto the end user’s device, or, in the absence of that information, the location of the customer.

A sale of personal property occurs at the place where the rights, title, and interest of the seller in the property are transferred to the buyer. If bare legal title is retained by the seller, the sale occurs where beneficial ownership passes.

Cloud Computing Transactions
Cloud computing transactions are typically characterized by on-demand network access to computer resources. The proposed regulations classify a "cloud transaction" as either:

• a lease of property (i.e., computer hardware, digital content, or other similar resources); or
• a provision of services.

The proposed regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of factors for determining how a cloud transaction is classified. In general, application of the relevant factors will result in a transaction being treated as a provision of services, rather than a lease of property. The factors include both statutory factors under Code Sec. 7701(e)(1) and factors applied by the courts.

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

U.S. taxpayers that are cost sharing participants must include SBC as intangible development costs (IDCs), under Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) and Reg. §1.482-7(d)(3) if these costs are directly identified with, or reasonably allocable to, the intangible development activity of the CSA. In 2015, the Tax Court invalidated Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) in Altera Corp., 145 TC 91, Dec. 60,354. The IRS appealed Alteraand issued Directive LB&I-04-0118-005 on January 12, 2018, directing examiners to stop opening new examinations for issues related to SBC included in CSA IDCs until the outcome of the Altera appeal was known.

On June 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s opinion (Altera Corp., CA-9, 2019-1 ustc ¶50,231). Based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision, LB&I has formally withdrawn LB&I-04-0118-005.

LB&I has instructed examiners to continue applying Reg. §§1.482-7A(d)(2) and 1.482-7(d)(3), including opening new examinations of CSA SBC issues when appropriate. Because the issues may be factually intensive, LB&I states that transfer pricing teams should develop the facts to support their analyses and conclusions. Finally, LB&I instructs issue teams to consider consulting the Practice Network and Counsel where appropriate, for support in developing the most reliable analyses of this issue.

LB&I will continue to monitor further developments related to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

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.