The IRS has provided interim guidance on the deductions for qualified tips and qualified overtime compensation under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). For tax year 2025, employers and other payors are not required to separately account for cash tips or qualified overtime compensation on Forms W-2, 1099-NEC, or 1099-MISC furnished to individual taxpayers.

The IRS provided guidance on changes relating to health savings accounts (HSAs) under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). These changes generally expand the availability of HSAs under Code Sec. 223.

The IRS provided guidance on changes relating to health savings accounts (HSAs) under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). These changes generally expand the availability of HSAs under Code Sec. 223.

Background

To access HSAs, individual taxpayers (1) need to be covered under a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) and (2) should not have other disqualifying health coverage. The minimum annual deductible for an HDHP in 2025 is $1,650 for self-only coverage and $3,300 for family coverage. The out-of-pocket maximum for TY 2025 is $8,300 for self-only coverage and $16,600 for family coverage.

OBBBA Changes

The OBBA made a few key changes to HDHPs and, by extension, HSAs. First, it made permanent a safe harbor for HDHPs that have no deductible for telehealth and other remote care services. The OBBBA permanent extension applies retroactively after December 31, 2024.

Second, the term HDHP now includes any plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) that is available as individual coverage through an exchange, including bronze and catastrophic plans. Before the OBBBA was enacted, many bronze plans did not qualify as HDHPs because the plans’ out-of-pocket maximum exceeded the statutory limits for HDHPs or because they provided benefits that were not preventive care without a deductible. Similarly, catastrophic plans could not be HDHPs because they were required to provide three primary care visits before the minimum deductible was satisfied and to have an out-of-pocket maximum that exceeded the statutory limits for HDHPs. This provision amending the definition of an HDHP applies for months after December 31, 2025.

Finally, direct primary care service arrangements (DPCSA) under Code Sec. 223(c)(1)(E)(ii) are no longer treated as a health plan for purposes of determining HSA eligibility and enrollment, and enrolling in a DPCSA will not cause a taxpayer to fail eligibility to contribute to an HSA. These DPCSAs changes would apply after December 31, 2025.

Q&As

The IRS answered several common questions from the public regarding these three provisions with regards to administration and eligibility.

Notice 2026-5

IR 2025-119

The IRS has answered initial questions regarding Trump accounts, which it intends to address in forthcoming proposed regulations. The guidance addresses general questions relating to the establishment of the accounts, contributions to the accounts, and distributions from the accounts under Code Secs. 128, 530A, and 6434. Comments, specifically on issues identified in the notice, should be submitted in writing on or before February 20, 2026, by mail or electronically.

The IRS has answered initial questions regarding Trump accounts, which it intends to address in forthcoming proposed regulations. The guidance addresses general questions relating to the establishment of the accounts, contributions to the accounts, and distributions from the accounts under Code Secs. 128, 530A, and 6434. Comments, specifically on issues identified in the notice, should be submitted in writing on or before February 20, 2026, by mail or electronically.

Establishment of the Accounts

An account may be established for the benefit of an eligible individual by making an election on Form 4547, Trump Account Election(s), or through an online tool or application on trumpaccounts.gov. A Trump account may be created at the same time that an election is made to receive a pilot program contribution. A Trump account is a traditional IRA under Code Sec. 408(a).

A rollover Trump account can only be established after the initial Trump account is created and during the growth period of the account, which is the period that ends before January 1 of the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18. A rollover account must first be funded by a qualified rollover contribution before receiving any other contribution. Additional rules regarding the choice of trustee, rollover accounts, and the written government instrument requirements are discussed in section III.A of the notice.

Pilot Program and Contributions

The election to receive a pilot program contribution is made on Form 4547 or through the online tool, once available. Pilot program contributions will be deposited into the Trump account of an eligible child no earlier than July 4, 2026.

Trustees of Trump accounts must maintain procedures to prevent contributions from exceeding the annual limit of Code Sec. 530A(c)(2)(A). Trustees are required to collect and report the amount and sources of contributions. Contributions may be made to a Trump account and to an individual retirement arrangement for the same individual during the growth period in accordance with the rules of Code Secs. 408 and 530A(c)(2).

Qualified general contributions will be transferred by the Treasury Department or its agent to the trustee of a Trump account pursuant to a general funding contribution. More information on how and where permitted entities will make an application to make a general funding contribution will be provided before the application process opens.

An employer can exclude up to $2,500 from the gross income of an employee for a contribution made by the employer to a Trump account contribution program. The annual limit is per employee, not per dependent. A Trump account contribution may be made by salary reduction under a Code Sec. 125 cafeteria plan if the contribution is made to the Trump account of the employee's dependent and not if the contribution is made to the Trump account of the employee.

Eligible Investments

The terms "mutual fund" and "exchange traded fund" are explained, with additional comments requested on their definitions. The tracking of returns of an index and leverage for purposes of Trump accounts are also described. A mutual fund or exchange traded fund will meet the requirements of having annual fees and expenses of no more than 0.1% of the balance of the investment fund if the sum of its annual fees and expenses is less than 0.1% of the value of the fund's net assets. Additional questions regarding eligible investments are discussed in section III.D of the notice.

Distributions

Only permitted distributions, which are qualified rollover contributions or qualified ABLE rollover contributions, excess contributions, or distributions upon the death of an account beneficiary, are allowed during the growth period. Hardship distributions during the growth period are not allowed. If an account beneficiary dies after the growth period, the rules that apply to other individual retirement accounts after the death of the account owner apply. If the Trump account beneficiary dies during the growth period, the account ceases to be a Trump account and an IRA as of the date of death.

Reporting and Coordination with IRA Rules

Annual reporting by the Trump account trustee is required. Forms and instructions will be issued in the future. After the growth period, distributions from Trump accounts are governed by the IRA distribution rules of Code Sec. 408(d).

Notice 2025-68

IR 2025-117

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to implement Code Sec. 25F, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Code Sec. 25F allows a credit for an individual taxpayer's qualified contribution to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) providing qualified elementary and secondary scholarships.

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to implement Code Sec. 25F, as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Code Sec. 25F allows a credit for an individual taxpayer's qualified contribution to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) providing qualified elementary and secondary scholarships.

Tax Credit

Beginning January 1, 2027, individual taxpayers may claim a nonrefundable federal tax credit for cash contributions to SGOs. Taxpayers must be citizens or residents of the United States. The credit allowed to any taxpayer is limited to $1,700. The credit is reduced by the amount allowed as a credit on any state tax return. Additionally, to prevent a double benefit, no deduction is allowed under Code Sec. 170 for any amount taken into account as a qualified contribution for purposes of the Code Sec. 25F credit.

SGO Requirements

An organization can qualify as an SGO after satisfying conditions that include (1) being a Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organization that is exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) and not a private foundation; (2) maintaining one or more separate accounts exclusively for qualified contributions; (3) appearing on the list submitted for the applicable covered state under Code Sec. 25F(g); and (4) providing scholarships to 10 or more students who do not all attend the same school, as well as meeting certain other requirements.

Request for Comments

The forthcoming proposed regulations describe the certification process currently envisioned by the Treasury Department and the IRS for covered states to elect to participate under Code Sec. 25F . The IRS requests comments on these matters before December 26, 2025, through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal (indicate “IRS-2025-0466”). Paper submissions should be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:01:PR (Notice 2025-70), Room 5503, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

Notice 2025-70

IR-2025-115

The IRS has disclosed the first set of certifications for the qualifying advanced energy project credit under Code Sec. 48C(e).

The IRS has disclosed the first set of certifications for the qualifying advanced energy project credit under Code Sec. 48C(e) for the period beginning:

• March 29, 2024, through September 30, 2025, resulting from the Round 1 allocation; and
• January 10, 2025, through September 30, 2025, resulting from the Round 2 allocation.

The Service also disclosed the identities of taxpayers and amounts of the Code Sec. 48C credits allocated to said taxpayers.

Background

Notice 2023-18, I.R.B. 2023-10, established a program to allocate $10 billion of credits for qualified investments in eligible qualifying advanced energy projects under Code Sec. 48C(e)(1). Code Sec. 48C(e)(4)(A) provides a base credit rate of 6 percent of the qualified investment. In cases where projects satisfy Code Secs. 48C(e)(5)(A) and (6), the Service would provide an alternative rate of 30 percent of the qualified investment.

Certification

Each applicant for certification has two years from the date of acceptance of the Code Sec. 48C(e) application. During this time, the applicant needs to submit evidence that the requirements of the certification have been met. The IRS will publish additional notices annually for certifications issued during each successive 12-month period beginning on October 1, 2025 for both Round 1 and 2.

Announcement 2025-22

Announcement 2025-23

The IRS and Treasury Department have provided procedures for a state to elect to be a “covered state” to participate with the Code Sec. 25F credit program for calendar year 2027 prior to identifying any scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) in the state. Form 15714 is used by a state to make the advanced election.

The IRS and Treasury Department have provided procedures for a state to elect to be a “covered state” to participate with the Code Sec. 25F credit program for calendar year 2027 prior to identifying any scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) in the state. Form 15714 is used by a state to make the advanced election.

Background

For tax years beginning after 2026, a U.S. citizen or resident alien may claim a nonrefundable personal tax credit of up to $1,700 for qualified contributions made to a scholarship granting organization (SGO). A qualified contribution is a charitable contribution of cash to an SGO that uses the contribution to fund scholarship for eligible K-12 students.

In order for a contribution made by a taxpayer to an SGO in a state (or the District of Columbia) to be a qualified contribution eligible for the credit, the state must elect participate in the credit program and must identify by January 1 of each calendar year a list of qualified SGOs in the state.

Advanced Election for 2027

A state may make an advanced election using Form 15714 to be a covered state for the Code Sec. 25F credit for the 2027. The form may be submitted any time after December 31, 2026, and before the day before the final date on which the State is permitted to submit the State SGO list (as will be specified in future guidance).

The advance election will allow a state to inform potential SGOs of the state’s participation in the credit before submitting a full SGO limit to the IRS. Any SGO list submitted with Form 15714 will not be processed by the IRS and the state will need to resubmit the list as specified in future guidance. Once a state’s advance election has been made on Form 15714 for calendar year 2027, the only subsequent submission the IRS will accept is the official submission of the state’s SGO list for the calendar year.

Rev. Proc. 2026-6

IR 2025-121

The IRS has formally withdrawn two proposed regulations that would have clarified how married individuals may obtain relief from joint and several tax liability. The withdrawal affects taxpayers seeking protection under Code Sec. 6015 and relief from federal income tax obligations tied to State community property laws under Code Sec. 66.

The IRS has formally withdrawn two proposed regulations that would have clarified how married individuals may obtain relief from joint and several tax liability. The withdrawal affects taxpayers seeking protection under Code Sec. 6015 and relief from federal income tax obligations tied to State community property laws under Code Sec. 66.

The two notices of proposed rulemaking—originally issued on August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49242), and November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72649)—offered procedural guidance for requesting equitable, innocent spouse, or separation of liability relief. These proposals also reflected statutory amendments introduced by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 and evolving jurisprudence. The Treasury Department and the IRS decided to halt progress on these rules due to the passage of time, the scope of public comments, and resource prioritization.

While the agency acknowledged the regulatory need in this area, it cited the volume and breadth of feedback as grounds for reassessment. The IRS clarified that any future rules addressing these issues would require new proposals and another round of public comment, in line with current statutory frameworks and legal developments.

Importantly, this withdrawal does not prevent the issuance of new regulations on joint and several liability relief. Nor does it alter existing statutory or regulatory obligations in place under current law. The IRS retains authority under 26 U.S.C. 7805 to revisit and re-propose rules as necessary.

The withdrawal was announced by the IRS and Treasury on December 15, 2025, and was signed by Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Executive Officer. Tax professionals and affected individuals should continue to rely on existing law and procedures when seeking relief under Code Secs. 6015 and 66.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-132251-11; REG-134219-08

The American Institute of CPAs has voiced its opposition to the Internal Revenue Service’s proposal to combine the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Return Preparer Office

The American Institute of CPAs has voiced its opposition to the Internal Revenue Service’s proposal to combine the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Return Preparer Office.

“The AICPA has an extensive and resolute history of steadfastly supporting initiatives that would enhance compliance, elevate ethical conduct, and protect taxpayer confidence in our tax system,” the organization said in a November 14, 2025, letter to the directors of the two offices. “The proposed combination of OPR and RPO contravenes those principles.” A copy of this and other AICPA 2025 tax policy and advocacy comment letters can be found here.

AICPA said it “strongly opposes any efforts to combine OPR and RPO because it would inappropriately consolidate credentialed and uncredentialed return preparers under OPR, create potential conflicts of interest, and divert resources from the primary role of OPR.”

It added that the merger “would sow confusion among taxpayers trying to understand the differing qualifications and practice rights of preparers, which would harm taxpayers and erode taxpayer confidence in our tax system.”

AICPA noted that OPR “has the exclusive delegated authority to interpret and enforce the regulations in Treasury Department Circular 230 (Circular 230), which governs tax practitioners interacting with the tax administration system,” while RPO “administers the Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) program, manages the enrolled agent practitioner program, encourages enrollment in the Annual Filing Season Program (AFSP), and processes some complaints against return preparers.”

“These two offices perform dissimilar government functions, oversee different types of preparers, and, therefore, should remain separate to avoid potential conflicts of interest,” AICPA said in the letter.

AICPA argued that the combination would divert resources away from the primary role of OPR and could undermine the credibility of OPR’s enforcement objective.

“Under a combined OPR unit, unscrupulous and incompetent preparers could readily misrepresent that they are subject to ethical obligations overseen by the ‘Office of Professional Responsibility,’ which would give such preparers a foothold to abuse taxpayers and undermine public trust and accountability in the tax profession,” AICPA stated in the letter.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.