Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

Immediate Expensing

The Restoring Investment in Improvements Act (HR 1869), sponsored by House tax writers Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., would allow restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders to immediately write off the cost of certain improvements. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, inadvertently excludes qualified improvement property (QIP) from the new 100 percent bonus depreciation provision.

The measure is a "small but critical fix for our job creators, and technical corrections like this are a normal part of the process when Congress enacts major reforms," Walorski said in a recent press release. "This bipartisan, commonsense bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses to unlock the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our nation’s economic growth."

Similarly, Panetta highlighted the negative impact that the loss of immediate expensing has caused many small businesses. "Our bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other businesses to make the improvements they need to keep their stores competitive and safe and plan for the future," he said.

Although the "retail glitch" measure has solid bipartisan support, Democrats in general have seemed hesitant to fix any errors in the GOP tax law. To that end, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has said he would like to hold a hearing on technical corrections for the TCJA. The committee’s March 27 hearing on the TCJA did not specifically address technical corrections.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

IRS Reform

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (HR 1957), as amended, cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by voice on April 2. The House and Senate both introduced the bicameral, bipartisan measure on March 28. If enacted, the bill would make numerous reforms to the IRS, some of which include modernizing antiquated information technology systems and enhancing taxpayer services and identity protections.

"With a new tax code, it is time for a new tax administrator," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 9 statement. "I applaud the House for passing the Taxpayer First Act—a bold step to redesign the IRS to be an agency with one singular mission: putting taxpayers first."

The IRS Reform bill has been "years in the making," Brady said on April 9, echoing a joint statement that he and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with other bipartisan tax writers recently issued. "The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have carefully and thoughtfully developed this legislation over several years, after numerous hearings and roundtables, in a bipartisan, bicameral manner," the lawmakers said.

AICPA Applauds Taxpayer First Act

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) issued an April 9 statement commending the House for passing HR 1957. "The AICPA appreciates the bipartisan recognition by members of the U.S. House of Representatives for bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st Century," Edward S. Karl, vice president of taxation, said in a statement on behalf of the AICPA. "The AICPA has long been interested in and active in working to find ways to modernize the IRS so that it can better serve the needs of taxpayers and tax practitioners."

Free File Alliance

However, the bipartisan, bicameral bill has not advanced without its share of criticism. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized a provision within the bill that would codify the Free File Alliance, which is an agreement between the IRS and certain tax preparation companies that includes the IRS being unable to directly assist in tax return preparation.

"Again and again in my service in the Senate I have battled the tax-preparation software industry to simplify filing taxes for the typical American," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an April 9 statement. "During the debate on the tax administration bill, my staff pushed back on a prohibition on the agency competing with private tax preparation services, and I will continue to push for my proposal for the pre-filed ‘simple’ return and the principle that a taxpayer should not have to use a private company to pay their taxes online," he added.

Looking Ahead

It remains unclear when the Senate will take up the Taxpayer First Act bill. However, the bill is presently expected on Capitol Hill to easily be approved in the Senate.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

The proposed regulations also withdraw and replace placeholder provisions in an earlier set of proposed regulations ( REG-115420-18). These concern:

• the definition of "substantially all"regulations
• transactions that can trigger includible gain;
• the timing and amount of deferred gain that is included;
• treatment of leased property used in the qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) business;
• use of QOZ business property in the QOZ;
• sourcing of income to the QOZ business; and
• the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets.

In addition, within a few months the IRS expects to address administrative rules for a QOF that fails to maintain the required 90-percent investment standard, as well as information reporting requirements.

Finally, the IRS expects to revise Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, for 2019 and subsequent tax years. These revisions may require additional information, including the employer identification number (EIN) for the QOF business, and the amounts invested by QOFs and QOZ businesses located in particular QOZs.

"Substantially All" for QOZ Business

The 2018 regulations provided that a trade or business satisfies the "substantially all" test for a QOZ business if at least 70 percent of its tangible property is qualified opportunity zone business property. The new proposed regulations generally extend this 70-percent threshold to the "substantially all" tests for use. However, in the holding period context, the "substantially all" threshold is 90 percent.

Original Use of Purchased Tangible Property

The proposed regulations generally provide that the "original use" of tangible property acquired by purchase by any person starts on the date when that person or a prior person:

• first places the property in service in the qualified opportunity zone for purposes of depreciation or amortization; or
• first uses the property in the qualified opportunity zone in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property’s owner.

Used tangible property will satisfy the original use requirement with respect to a QOZ so long as the property has not been previously used (that is, has not previously been used within that QOZ in a manner that would have allowed it to depreciated or amortized) by any taxpayer

In addition, a building or other structure that has been vacant for at least five years before being purchased by a QOF or QOZ business satisfies the original use requirement. Improvements made by a lessee to leased property satisfy the original use requirement and are considered purchased property for the amount of the unadjusted cost basis of the improvements.

Land can be treated as QOZ business property only if it is used in a trade or business of a QOF or QOZ business. The holding of land for investment does not give rise to a trade or business, and the land cannot be QOZ business property. Anti-abuse rules determine whether unimproved land can be qualifying property. However, other purchased real property generally must be substantially improved, determined on an asset-by-asset basis.

Leased Tangible Property in QOZ

Leased tangible property may be QOZ property if:

• the lease is entered into after 2017; and
• substantially all of the property’s use is in a QOZ during substantially all of the lease period.

However, the first-use requirement does not apply to leased tangible property. The leased property can generally also be acquired from a related person, though several conditions apply. The proposed regulations also provide methods for valuing the leased property.

QOZ Businesses

The proposed regulations:

• provide that in determining whether a substantial portion of intangible property of a QOZ is used in the active conduct of a trade or business, a substantial portion is at least 40 percent;
• address real property that straddles a QOZ;
• provide three safe harbors and a facts-and-circumstances test for determining whether a corporation or partnership derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business;
• define "trade or business" by reference to Code Sec. 162, except that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property used in a trade or business can also be the active conduct of a trade or business; and
• provide a safe harbor for working capital.

Other Business Rules

The proposed regulations also address:

• Section 1231 gains;
• relief regarding the 90 percent asset test, including relief for newly contributed assets and QOF reinvestments;
• the amount of an investment for purposes of the deferral election;
• inclusion events, the timing on basis adjustments, includible amounts, and special rules for partnerships and S corporations;
• gifts and bequests;
• exceptions for disregarded transfers and some nonrecognition transactions;
• distributions and contributions;
• consolidated return provisions;
• holding periods and tacking rules;
• anti-abuse rules;
• special rules for Indian tribes and tribally leased property.

Comments Requested; Public Hearing Scheduled

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for 10 am on July 9, 2019, at the New Carrollton Federal Building in Latnham, MD. Public comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120186-18).

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

Value of Professional Sports Contracts

Professional sports teams enter into contracts with their personnel (e.g., managers, coaches, players, etc.). Typical personnel contracts provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for a certain duration of service. The value of such a contract may fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including:

• player performance;
• the changing needs of the team and of other teams;
• a player’s effect on fan attendance; and
• the number of years until a player becomes a free agent and is able to sign a contract to play for any team in a league.

Other considerations affecting the value of a player contract include:

• the size of the team’s market (i.e., whether a smaller city or a major urban population);
• the cost of player development; and
• the impact of injuries and slumps on player performance.

In most cases, teams do not trade personnel contracts or draft picks unless the team thinks that it is receiving contracts of an equal or greater value. Because each party believes that they are receiving personnel contracts or draft picks of an equal or greater value, it is difficult to assign a monetary value to them. Accordingly, the IRS developed a safe harbor whereby each team is able to treat the traded contracts or draft picks as having a basis of zero, thus avoiding the recognition of gain or loss on the trade.

Safe Harbor Requirements

In order to use the safe harbor, professional sports teams must meet the following requirements:

• all teams involved in the trade must use the safe harbor;
• teams may only trade personnel contracts, draft picks, and/or cash;
• personnel contracts and/or draft picks cannot be Code Sec. 197 intangibles; and
• the financial statements of all teams involved in the trade must not reflect assets or liabilities resulting from the trade other than cash.

Application

Sports teams using the safe harbor will not recognize any gain or loss if they only trade personnel contracts or draft picks. However, teams that receive cash in a trade will recognize the amount of cash received as gain. In addition, the team providing cash to another team in the trade will receive basis in the personnel contract or draft pick equal to the amount of cash that it provided. A team providing cash to another team in a trade for two or more draft picks or personnel contracts must allocate its basis to each personnel contract or draft pick received from the other team by dividing the basis by the number of personnel contracts or draft picks received.

In certain cases, a team may have unrecovered basis in a draft pick or personnel contract under Code Sec. 167(c). In those instances, the team may recognize gain or loss based on the difference between the unrecovered basis and any cash received.

Effective Date

Teams may use the safe harbor for any trades involving personnel contracts or draft picks entered into after April 10, 2019. However, teams may choose to apply these rules in any open tax year.

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended.

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended:

Section 179 expensing. The PATH Act permanently extended the Code Section 179 dollar of investment limitations at the higher $500,000 and $2 million, levels, which are adjusted for inflation for tax years beginning after 2015 (it is $500,000 and $2,010,000 for 2016). In addition, starting only in 2016, the $250,000 limitation on the amount of section 179 property that can be attributable to qualified real property has been eliminated. Further, for tax years beginning after 2015, the Code Section 179 expense deduction is now allowed for air conditioning and heating units.

Bonus depreciation. In addition to the big news that the PATH Act extended Code Section 168(k) bonus depreciation to apply to most qualifying property placed in service before January 1, 2020, it made a number of modifications, including:

• replacement of the bonus allowance for qualified leasehold improvement property with a bonus allowance for additions and improvements to the interior of any nonresidential real property, effective for property placed in service after 2015; and
• allowance to farmers of a 50 percent deduction in place of bonus depreciation on certain trees, vines, and plants in the year of planting or grafting rather than the placed-in-service year, effective for planting and grafting after 2015.

Section 181 expensing. Special Section 181 expensing for qualified film and television productions is extended for two years to apply to qualified film and television productions commencing before January 1, 2017. However, the expensing rule is also expanded to apply to qualified live theatrical productions commencing after December 31, 2015.

WOTC. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) has been extended five years through December 31, 2019. In addition, the credit has been expanded and made available to employers who hire individuals who are qualified long-term unemployment recipients who begin work for the employer after December 31, 2015.

Research credit. The PATH Act permanently extended the research credit that applies to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2014. However, a new allowance of the research credit against alternative minimum tax liability applies to credits determined for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015. In addition, a new payroll tax credit associated with the research credit applies only to tax years beginning after December 31, 2015 (Act Sec. 121(d) (3) of the PATH Act).

Military differential pay. The PATH Act extended the employer tax credit for differential wage payments made to qualified employees on active military duty has been made permanent and applies to payments made after December 31, 2014. Effective only for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015, however, the credit may be claimed by all employers regardless of the average number of individuals employed during the tax year. The credit is also no longer limited to eligible small business employers with less than 50 employees.

Teachers' classroom expense deduction. The PATH Act permanently extended the above-the-line deduction for elementary and secondary school teachers' classroom expenses. Additionally, for tax years after 2015, the Act includes "professional development expenses" within the scope of the deduction. These expenses include courses related to the curriculum in which the educator provides instruction.

Nonbusiness energy property credit. The PATH Act extended the nonrefundable nonbusiness energy property credit allowed to individuals under Code Sec. 25C for two years, making it available for qualified energy improvements and property placed in service before January 1, 2017. For property placed in service after December 31, 2015, the standards for energy efficient building envelope components are modified to meet new conservation criteria. 

If you have any questions about these new “extenders,” please contact our office.

Individual taxpayers may claim a nonrefundable personal tax credit for qualified residential alternative energy expenditures. The residential alternative energy credit generally is equal to 30 percent of the cost of eligible solar water heaters, solar electricity equipment, fuel cell plants, small wind energy property, and geothermal heat pump property. After 2016, the credit is available only for qualified solar electric property and qualified solar water heating property placed in service before 2022.

Individual taxpayers may claim a nonrefundable personal tax credit for qualified residential alternative energy expenditures. The residential alternative energy credit generally is equal to 30 percent of the cost of eligible solar water heaters, solar electricity equipment, fuel cell plants, small wind energy property, and geothermal heat pump property. After 2016, the credit is available only for qualified solar electric property and qualified solar water heating property placed in service before 2022.

Solar electric property. A qualified solar electric property expenditure must meet these requirements:

• an individual taxpayer must make the expenditure for qualified solar electric property,
• the qualified solar electric property must use solar energy to generate electricity,
• the electricity must be for use in a dwelling unit,
• the dwelling unit must be located in the United States, and
• the dwelling unit must be used as a residence by the taxpayer (but it does not have to be the taxpayer’s principal residence).

Expenditures for purposes of the credit include labor costs properly allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original installation of the qualified solar electric property and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to the dwelling unit. Generally, for purposes of determining the tax year when the credit is allowed, an expenditure with respect to an item is treated as made when the original installation of the item is completed.

Solar electric property panels, such as photovoltaic panels, are eligible for the credit even if they constitute structural components of a building, such as when they are installed as a roof or a portion of a roof. Conversely, qualified solar electric property does not have to be installed directly on the taxpayer’s home, as long as the panels use solar energy to generate electricity for use in a home that the taxpayer uses as a residence. Under certain circumstances, a purchase of solar panels that are placed on an off-site solar array may meet the definition of qualified solar electric property expenditures. 

Caution. This credit should not be confused with the credit for nonbusiness energy property. For property placed in service through 2016, a tax credit is available for nonbusiness energy property that meets the requirements for qualified energy efficiency improvements (building envelope components) and residential energy property expenditures (furnaces, central air conditioners, water heaters, certain heat pumps, biomass stoves).

Tweaks to enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing and the high-dollar health care excise tax are two proposals in President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget that could become law before the end of his term. President Obama released his FY 2017 budget proposals in February. Other proposals that could be passed by Congress include enhancements to small business tax incentives, expanded opportunities for retirement saving, revisions to the net investment income (NII) tax, and more.

Tweaks to enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing and the high-dollar health care excise tax are two proposals in President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget that could become law before the end of his term. President Obama released his FY 2017 budget proposals in February. Other proposals that could be passed by Congress include enhancements to small business tax incentives, expanded opportunities for retirement saving, revisions to the net investment income (NII) tax, and more.

Small businesses

A long-sought goal of many small businesses was made permanent by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act): enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing. President Obama proposed more tweaks to Code Sec. 179 expensing. Under the President’s proposal, the annual expensing limitation would increase from an inflation-adjusted $500,000 to an inflation-adjusted $1 million. The phase-out threshold would remain at an inflation-adjusted $2 million level. President Obama also proposed to increase the deduction for start-up expenses and the tax break for small employers that obtain health coverage for their employees through SHOP.

High-cost health plans

Certain employer-sponsored health insurance plans (high-cost plans also known as “Cadillac plans”) may be liable for an excise tax. Generally, if the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored coverage provided to an employee exceeds a statutory dollar limit, adjusted annually, the excess benefit is subject to a 40 percent excise tax.

Originally, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposed the excise tax on high-cost health plans effective after 2017. The PATH Act delayed the excise tax on high dollar health plans until after 2019. President Obama has proposed to increase the excise tax threshold to the greater of the current law threshold or a "gold plan average premium."

Retirement savings

In his 2016 State of the Union Address, President Obama urged lawmakers to expand the availability of retirement savings plans, especially to part-time employees and workers at businesses without retirement plans. The President’s FY 2017 budget follows through on some of these approaches. The President proposed to require employers in business for at least two years and having more than ten employees and offering no retirement plan to offer an automatic payroll-deduction IRA option. Another proposal would allow unaffiliated employers to maintain a single multiple-employer retirement plan.

NII tax

The ACA also created the NII tax to help fund health care reform. Generally, individuals with incomes over certain threshold amounts are subject to the 3.8 percent tax on NII. Under current law, the NII tax does not apply to self-employment earnings. The President has proposed to ensure that the 3.8 percent is paid (either through the NII tax or the Self-Employed Contributions Act (SECA)) by amending the definition of net investment income to include gross income and gain from any trades or businesses of an individual that is not otherwise subject to employment taxes.

Higher income individuals

President Obama renewed previous proposals to tighten tax breaks for higher income individuals. The so-called “Buffett Rule” would impose a minimum 30 percent tax on higher income taxpayers with large deductions and other tax preferences. Certain tax expenditures of higher income individuals would be capped at 28 percent. Tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends would also be increased in individuals in the higher brackets.

EITC and other incentives

In 2012 and subsequent years, Congress made permanent some enhancements to the earned income tax credit (EITC). President Obama has proposed to continue this pattern of enhancements, by, among other changes, expanding the EITC to qualified taxpayers without children. Other proposals targeted to individuals’ income include a second-earner credit (for two-earner families), reforms to the child and dependent care tax credit, and some enhancements to the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC).

Fossil fuels

As in past years, President Obama proposed to repeal fossil fuel tax preferences. The President also proposed a new revenue raiser: a fee of $10.25 (adjusted for inflation from 2016) per barrel on oil to be phased-in over a five year period beginning October 1, 2016. The fee would be collected on domestically produced as well as imported petroleum requirements.

If you have any questions about the President’s proposals, please contact our office.

Hiring new employees imposes many burdens on an employer. One of the most important is the collection and filing of Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. Mistakes can be very costly to employers and employees. Here's a look at some problems and simple steps employers can take to avoid them.

Hiring new employees imposes many burdens on an employer. One of the most important is the collection and filing of Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. Mistakes can be very costly to employers and employees. Here's a look at some problems and simple steps employers can take to avoid them.

Name and social security number

First, an employer should verify the name and social security number submitted on the W-4. The Social Security Administration (SSA) offers a free program to confirm an employee's name and social security number. To request SSA assistance, employers should contact the SSA, provide their employer identification number, and the name and social security number of the employee in question. If the information is inaccurate, the employer should give the employee the opportunity to submit a new form before taking disciplinary action. Employers should also advise the IRS of the incorrect social security number.

Invalid W-4s

Employers must reject a W-4 form if the employer is aware that the form is invalid. This occurs in one of two circumstances: (1) the form has been altered or (2) the employee makes a comment to the employer that the W-4 is inaccurate.

The second scenario includes, for example, a statement by the employee that he or she is claiming to be exempt from withholding because the tax system is unconstitutional or the payment of taxes is voluntary. These claims are wrong and would invalidate the W-4. The employer must reject the W-4 until the employee submits an accurate form. During the interim, the employer must withhold at the highest withholding rate.

The employer also must withhold at the highest rate if an employee fails to submit a Form W-4 unless the employee had previously filed a valid W-4. In that case, the employer should withhold at the rate indicated on the old W-4.

Questionable W-4s

Employers may also be confronted with so-called "questionable" W-4s. An employer must send a copy of Form W-4 to the IRS for verification when the employee is claiming:

--More than 10 allowances; or

--Exemption from withholding if expected wages exceed $200 per week.

In either of these situations, however, the employer is not free to reject the W-4, but must withhold at the rate indicated by the employee until the IRS instructs otherwise. The law presumes that the form, unless "invalid," is accurate until proven otherwise.

Questionable W-4s should be submitted to the IRS with a letter asking the IRS to determine the accuracy of the submission. The letter must include the employer's name, address and EIN.

Caution. Only in the two situations outlined above is the employer required to consider the Form W-4 "questionable." In other questionable cases, there is no obligation to inform the IRS. However, if the IRS deems the reason sufficient to make it "invalid" rather than "questionable" the employer may have been required to withhold taxes at the highest rate rather than at the level indicated on the W-4.

After the IRS conducts an examination, it will send the employer and the employee a "lock-in" letter stipulating the correct rate of withholding. The letter is binding and failure to comply may result in the imposition of civil penalties on the employer. To encourage employees to submit an accurate W-4, employers should remind them that filing a false W-4 may result in a $500 penalty.