Donald H. Lehman, CPA

Don's view of the tax world....

Enter Full Text Here

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation added by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals on eligibility for the deduction and how the deduction is determined.

General Information

The FAQs explain what constitutes qualified overtime compensation for purposes of the deduction, including overtime compensation required under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that exceeds an employee’s regular rate of pay. The FAQs also describe which individuals are covered by and not exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSA Overtime Eligibility

The FAQs address how individuals, including federal employees, can determine whether they are FLSA overtime-eligible. For federal employees, eligibility is generally reflected on Standard Form 50 and administered by the Office of Personnel Management, subject to certain exceptions.

Deduction Amount and Limits

The FAQs explain that the deduction is limited to a maximum amount of qualified overtime compensation per return and is subject to phase-out based on modified adjusted gross income. Special filing and identification requirements also apply to claim the deduction.

Reporting and Calculation Rules

The FAQs describe how qualified overtime compensation is reported for tax purposes, including special reporting rules for tax year 2025 and required separate reporting by employers for tax years 2026 and later. The FAQs also outline methods taxpayers may use to calculate the deduction if separate reporting is not provided.

FS-2026-1

IR 2026-10

Close

Proposed regulations regarding the deduction for qualified passenger vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) and the information reporting requirements for the receipt of interest on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL), Code Sec. 163(h)(4), as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), provides that for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, personal interest does not include QPVLI. Code Sec. 6050AA provides that any person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives interest from an individual aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL must file an information return reporting the receipt of the interest.

Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest

QPVLI is deductible by an individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust, including a with respect to a grantor trust or disregarded entity deemed owned by the individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust. The deduction for QPVLI may be taken by taxpayers who itemize deductions and those who take the standard deduction. Lease financing would not be considered a purchase of an applicable passenger vehicle (APV) and, thus, would not be considered a SPVL. QPVLI would not include any amounts paid or accrued with respect to lease financing.

Indebtedness will qualify as an SPVL only to the extent it is incurred for the purchase of an APV and for any other items or amounts customarily financed in an APV purchase transaction and that directly relate to the purchased APV, such as vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales, and vehicle-related fees. Indebtedness is an SPVL only if it was originally incurred by the taxpayer, with an exception provided for a change in obligor due to the obligor's death. Original use begins with the first person that takes delivery of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold, registered, or titled and does not begin with the dealer unless the dealer registers or titles the vehicle to itself.

Personal use is defined to mean use by an individual other than in any trade or business, except for use in the trade or business of performing services as an employee, or for the production of income. An APV is considered purchased for personal use if, at the time of the indebtedness is incurred, the taxpayer expects the APV will be used for personal use by the taxpayer that incurred the indebtedness, or by certain members of that taxpayer's family and household, for more than 50 percent of the time. Rules with respect to interest that is both QPVLI and interest otherwise deductible under Code Sec. 163(a) or other Code section are provided and intended to provide clarity and to prevent taxpayers from claiming duplicative interest deductions. The $10,000 limitation of Code Sec. 163(h)(4)(C)(i) applies per federal tax return. Therefore, the maximum deduction on a joint return is $10,000. If two taxpayers have a status of married filing separately, the $10,000 limitation would apply separately to each return.

Information Reporting Requirements

If the interest recipient receives from any individual at least $600 of interest on an SPVL for a calendar year, the interest recipient would need to file an information return with the IRS and furnish a statement to the payor or record on the SPVL. Definitions of terms used in the proposed rules are provided in Prop. Reg. §1.6050AA-1(b).

Assignees of the right to receive interest payments from the lender of record are permitted to rely on the information in the contract if it is sufficient to satisfy its information reporting obligations. The assignee may choose to make arrangements to obtain information regarding personal use from the obligor, lender of record, or by other means. The written statement provided to the payor of record must include the information that was reported to the IRS and identify the statement as important tax information that is being furnished to the IRS and state that penalties may apply for overstated interest deductions.

Effective Dates and Requests for Comments

The regulations are proposed to apply to tax years in which taxpayers may deduct QPVLI pursuant to Code Sec. 163(h)(4). Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 163 with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner. Likewise, interest recipients may rely on the proposed regulations with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the date the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner.

Written or electronic comments must be received by February 2, 2026. A public hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2026.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-113515-25

IR 2025-129

Close

The IRS has released interim guidance to apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68, with some modifications, to the the acquisition date requirement for property qualifying for 100 percent bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k)(1), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). In addition, taxpayers may apply modified rules under to the elections to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, the transitional election to apply the bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA, and the addition of qualified sound recording productions to qualified property under Code Sec, 168(k)(2). Proposed regulations for Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 are forthcoming.

Under OBBBA qualified property acquired and specified plants planted or grafted after January 19, 2025, qualify for 100 percent bonus depreciation. When determining whether such property meets the acquisition date requirements, taxpayers may generally apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68 by substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017” and “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017” each place it appears. In addition taxpayers should substitute “100 percent” for “the applicable percentage” each place it appears, except for the examples provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(g)(2)(iv). Specifically, these rules apply to the acquisition date (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5) and Reg. §1.1502-68(a) through (d)) and the component election for components of larger self-constructed property (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(c)).

With regards to the Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, taxpayer may follow the rules set forth in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(2). Taxpayers making the transitional election to apply the lower bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA may follow Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(3) after substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017”, “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017”, and “40 percent” (“60 percent” in the case of Longer production period property or certain noncommercial aircrafts) for “50 percent”, and applicable Form 4562, Depreciation and Amortization,” for “2017 Form 4562, “Depreciation and Amortization,” each place it appears .

For qualified sound recording productions acquired before January 20, 2025, in a tax year ending after July 4, 2025, taxpayers should apply the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2 as though a qualified sound recording production (as defined in Code Sec. 181(f)) is included in the list of qualified property provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(2)(i). If electing out of bonus depreciation for a qualified sound recording production under Code Sec. 168(k)(7) a taxpayer should follow the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(1) as if the definition of class of property is expanded to each separate production of a qualified sound recording production.

Taxpayers may rely on this guidance for property placed in service in tax years beginning before the date the forthcoming proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Notice 2026-11

IR 2026-6

Close

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

business,
medical, and
charitable purposes

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2026 Standard Mileage Rates

The standard mileage rates for 2026 are:

72.5 cents per mile for business uses;
20.5 cents per mile for medical uses; and
14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2026

For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2026 is:

$61,700 for passenger automobiles, and
$61,700 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2026 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses

The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20.5 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
on active military duty, and
moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses

For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2025-5, is superseded.

Notice 2026-10

IR 2025-128

Close

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the limitation on the deduction for business interest expense under Code Sec. 163(j). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and reflect statutory changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, and the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.

General Information

The FAQs explain the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, identify taxpayers subject to the limitation, and describe the gross receipts test used to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies as an exempt small business.

Excepted Trades or Businesses

The FAQs address trades or businesses that are excepted from the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, regulated utility trades or businesses, and services performed as an employee.

Determining the Section 163(j) Limitation Amount

The FAQs explain how to calculate the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including the definitions of business interest expense and business interest income, the computation of adjusted taxable income, and the treatment of disallowed business interest expense carryforwards.

CARES Act Changes

The FAQs describe temporary modifications to Code Sec. 163(j) made by the CARES Act, including increased adjusted taxable income percentages and special rules and elections applicable to partnerships and partners for taxable years beginning in 2019 and 2020.

One, Big, Beautiful Bill Changes

The FAQs outline amendments made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, including changes affecting the calculation of adjusted taxable income for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, and the application of Code Sec. 163(j) before interest capitalization provisions for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.

FS-2025-9

IR 2025-126

Close

The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing updates to the Premium Tax Credit. The FAQs clarified changes to repayment rules, the removal of outdated provisions and how the IRS will treat updated guidance.

Removal of Repayment Limitations

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, limitations on the repayment of excess advance payments of the Premium Tax Credit no longer applied.

Previously Applicable Provisions

Premium Tax Credit rules that applied only to tax years 2020 and 2021 were no longer applicable and were removed from the FAQs.

Updated FAQs

The FAQs were updated throughout for minor style clarifications, topic updates and question renumbering.

Reliance on FAQs

The FAQs were issued to provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and were not published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Legal Authority

If an FAQ was inconsistent with the law as applied to a taxpayer’s specific circumstances, the law controlled the taxpayer’s tax liability.

Penalty Relief

Taxpayers who reasonably and in good faith relied on the FAQs were not subject to penalties that included a reasonable cause standard for relief, to the extent reliance resulted in an underpayment of tax.

FS-2025-10

IR 2025-127

Close

The IRS issued guidance providing penalty relief to individuals and corporations that make a valid Code Sec. 1062 election to defer taxes on gains from the sale of qualified farmland. Taxpayers who opt to pay their applicable net tax liability in four annual installments will not be penalized under sections 6654 or 6655 for underpaying estimated taxes in the year of the sale.

The relief permits these taxpayers to exclude 75 percent of the deferred tax from their estimated tax calculations for that year. However, 25 percent of the tax liability must still be paid by the return due date for the year of the sale. The IRS emphasized that this waiver applies automatically if the taxpayer qualifies and does not self-report the penalty.

Taxpayers who have already reported a penalty or receive an IRS notice can request abatement by filing Form 843, noting the relief under Notice 2026-3. This measure aligns with the policy objectives of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which introduced section 1062 to support farmland continuity by facilitating sales to qualified farmers. The IRS also plans to update relevant forms and instructions to reflect the changes, ensuring clarity for those seeking relief.

Notice 2026-3

Close

The IRS has extended the transition period provided in Rev. Rul. 2025-4, I.R.B. 2025-6, for states administering paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs and employers participating in such programs with respect to the portion of medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual that is attributable to employer contributions, for an additional year.

The IRS found that states with PMFL statuses have requested that the transition period be extended for an additional year or that the effective date be amended because the required changes cannot occur within the current timeline. For this reason, calendar year 2026 will be regarded as an additional transition period for purposes of IRS enforcement and administration with respect to the following components:

For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026,with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to follow the income tax withholding and reporting requirements applicable to third-party sick pay, and (b)consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties under Code Sec. 6721 for failure to file a correct information return or under Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish a correct payee statement to the payee; and
For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026, with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to comply with § 32.1 and related Code sections (as well as similar requirements under § 3306) during thecalendar year; (b) a state or an employer is not required to withhold and pay associatedtaxes; and (c) consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties.

This notice is effective for medical leave benefits paid from states to individuals during calendar year 2026.

Notice 2026-6

Close

Addressing health care will be the key legislative priority a 2026 starts, leaving little chance that Congress will take up any significant tax-related legislation in the coming election year, at least until health care is taken care of.

Top legislative staff from the tax writing committees in Congress (House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee) were all in basic agreement during a January 7, 2026, panel discussion at the 2026 D.C. Bar Tax Conference that health care would be tackled first.

“I will say that my judgement, and this is not the official party line, by that my judgement is that a deal on health care is going to have to unlock before there’s a meaningful tax vehicle,” Andrew Grossman, chief tax counsel for the House Ways And Means Committee Democratic staff, said, adding that it is difficult to see Democratic members working on tax extenders and other provisions when 15 million are about to lose their health insurance.

Sean Clerget, chief tax counsel for the Ways and Means GOP staff, added that “our view’s consistent with what Andrew [Grossman] said, adding that committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) “would be very open to having a tax vehicle whether or not there’s a health care deal, but obviously we need bipartisan cooperation to move something like that. And so, Andrew’s comments are sort of very important to the outlook on this.”

Even some of the smaller items that may have bipartisan support could be held up as the parties work to find common ground on health care legislation.

“It’s hard to see some of the smaller tax items that are hanging out there getting over the finish line without a deal on health, Sarah Schaefer, chief tax advisor to the Democratic staff of the Senate Finance Committee, said. “And I think our caucus will certainly hold out for that.”

Randy Herndon, deputy chief tax counsel for the Finance Committee Republican staff, added that he agreed with Clerget and said that Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) would be “open to a tax vehicle absent any health care deal, but understand, again, the bipartisan cooperation that would be required.”

No Planned OBBBA Part 2

Clerget said that currently there no major reconciliation bill on the horizon to follow up on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but “I’ve always thought that if there were to be a second reconciliation bill, it would need to be very narrow for a very specific purpose, rather than a large kind of open, multicommittee, big bill.”

Herndon added that Chairman Crapo’s “current focus is on pursuing potential bipartisan priorities in the Finance Committee jurisdiction,” noting that a lot of the GOP priorities were addressed in the OBBBA “and our members are very invested in seeing that through the implementation process.”

Of the things we can expect the committees to work on, Herndon identified areas ripe for legislative activity in the coming year, including crypto and tax administration bills and other focused issues surrounding affordability, but GOP members will more be paying attention to the implementation of OBBBA.

Schaefer said that Finance Committee Democrats will maintain a focus on the child tax credit as well as working to get reinstated clean energy credits that were allowed to expire.

Clerget said that of the things that could happen on this legislative calendar is on the taxation of digital assets, stating that “I think there’s a lot of interest in establishing clear tax rules in the digital asset space.… I think we have a good prospect of getting bipartisan cooperation on the tax side of digital assets.”

He also said there has been a lot of bipartisan cooperation on tax administration in 2025, suggesting that the parties could keep working on improving the taxpayer experience in 2026.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

Close

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a limited partner in a state-law limited partnership that has limited liability. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310).

Background

A limited liability limited partnership operated a business consulting firm, and was owned by several limited partners and one general partner. For the tax years at issue, the limited partnership allocated all of its ordinary business income to its limited partners. Based on the limited partnership tax exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), the limited partnership excluded the limited partners’ distributive shares of partnership income or loss from its calculation of net earnings from self-employment during those years, and reported zero net earnings from self-employment.

The IRS adjusted the limited partnership's net earnings from self-employment, and determined that the distributive share exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply because none of the limited partnership’s limited partners counted as "limited partners" for purposes of the statutory exception. The Tax Court upheld the adjustments, stating it was bound by Soroban.

Limited Partners and Self Employment Tax

Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) excludes from a partnership's calculation of net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments in Code Sec. 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services.

In Soroban, the Tax Court determined that Congress had enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) to exclude earnings from a mere investment, and intended for the phrase “limited partners, as such” to refer to passive investors. Thus, the Tax Court there held that the limited partner exception of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply to a partner who is limited in name only, and that determining whether a partner is a limited partner in name only required an inquiry into the limited partner's functions and roles.

Passive Investor Treatment

Here, the Fifth Circuit rejected the interpretation that "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) refers only to passive investors in a limited partnership. Reviewing the text of the statute, the court determined that dictionaries at the time of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13)’s enactment defined "limited partner" as a partner in a limited partnership that has limited liability and is not bound by the obligations of the partnership. Also, longstanding interpretation by the Social Security Administration and the IRS had confirmed that a "limited partner" is a partner with limited liability in a limited partnership. IRS partnership tax return instructions had for decades defined "limited partner" as one whose potential personal liability for partnership debts was limited to the amount of money or other property that the partner contributed or was required to contribute to the partnership.

The Fifth Circuit determined that the interpretation of "limited partner" as a mere "passive investor" in a limited partnership is wrong. The court stated that the passive-investor interpretation makes little sense of the "guaranteed payments" clause in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), and that the text of the statute contemplates that "limited partners" would provide actual services to the partnership and thus participate in partnership affairs. A strict passive-investor interpretation that defined "limited partner" in a way that prohibited him from providing any services to the partnership would make the "guaranteed payments" clause superfluous.

Further, the court stated that had Congress wished to only exclude passive investors from the tax, it could have easily written the exception to do so, but it did not do so in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Additionally, the passive investor interpretation would require the IRS to balance an infinite number of factors in performing its "functional analysis test," and would make it more complicated for limited partners to determine their tax liability.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court's conclusion in Soroban that by adding the words "as such" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), Congress had made clear that the limited partner exception applies only to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner. Adding "as such" did not restrict or narrow the class of limited partners, and does not upset the ordinary meaning of "limited partner."

Vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close