NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

Speaking during a plenary session August 18, 2026, at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum, Zeigler said it is his “hope that the IRS is going to a better job of telling this story” about how the agency is using technology to help improve its operations and make lives easier for taxpayers and the tax professionals who assist them.

As an example, Zeigler specifically highlighted some of the work the agency is doing with AI.

“When we talk about AI, AI is not meant to replace bodies or people and computers doing the work and there is no human input,” he said. Rather it is about how the IRS “can give our employees tools and resources [and] technology to make them better, more efficient” and improve the quality of their work. “All of those things is what I believe that AI and technology were meant for.”

He continued: “It’s taking our world-class employees and putting them on steroids, giving them the ability to come to the right answer sooner.”

And at the end is the ultimate goal of making the taxpayer experience that much better and more in line with what they expect from their customer interactions with the private sector.

“If we can come to an answer that right the first time, and we can come to it quick, and we can report it to the taxpayer [and say] here’s what’s going on,” he said. “All those things are at our fingertips.”

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS indicates that these sample forms are not inftended to be used for rollovers and transfers between IRAs. According to reports made by the Government Accountability Office and the IRS's conversations with IRA stakeholders, IRA-to-IRA transfers are already completed through an electronic transfer system that is considered uniform and efficient.

The guidance includes:

• (1) a proposed rollover procedure;
• (2) the participant's rollover request form;
• (3) the receiving plan's request to the distributing plan;
• (4) the distributing plan's rollover certification; and
• (5) the receiving plan's rollover acceptance.

The IRS is considering additional guidance to facilitate rollovers. Guidance under consideration includes: (1) eliminating the safe harbor that allows plans to send paper checks to participants to complete a direct rollover; (2) requiring administrators and trustees to complete rollovers via electronic transfers or paper checks sent directly to the receiving plan; and (3) providing for new safe harbors based on the use of sample forms.

Notice 2026-49

IR 2026-91

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

Background

On April 30, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to (1) increase public awareness of saver’s match contributions; (2) facilitate participation in eligible retirement savings vehicles; and (3) establish a website that informs about high-quality, low-cost IRAs and taxpayers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These taxpayers include independent contractors.

Saver’s Match Contributions vs Saver’s Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Saver’s Match contributions would replace the Saver’s Credit under Code Sec. 25B. This would apply to elective contributions, qualifying retirement plans and IRAs.

However, the Saver’s Credit would continue to be available after December 31, 2026, with respect to contributions made to ABLE accounts under Code Sec. 529A. Saver’s match contributions would be claimed on a new (unpublished) Form 8880-A, Saver’s Match for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions.

Eligibility

Individual taxpayers who make qualified retirement savings contributions could be eligible for a Saver's Match contribution based on those contributions. The contributions to a new or already-existing IRA after the end of a tax year could be made until the tax filing deadline. The contributions should be designated as being made for the prior tax year.

Tax Status

An eligible individual taxpayer’s saver’s match contribution directly paid by the Treasury to a retirement plan is generally treated as an elective deferral made by the individual taxpayer. The contribution is not taken into account for any elective deferral and catch-up limitations that apply to Code Secs. 401(k), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans.

Comments Requested

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the issues addressed on or before October 5, 2026. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Notice 2026-48

IR 2026-89

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

Premium Method for Credit

The credit may be claimed under the premium method beginning in 2026 only to the extent the insurance premium funds a benefit that would be creditable under the wage method. Thus, the premium must be for insurance coverage with respect to leave that is:

• paid family and medical leave as defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or required by state local law or paid for by a state or local government,
• payable to an individual who is a qualifying employee of the employer at the time the premium is paid or incurred, and
• provides a benefit that would constitute wages to the employee.

In the case of a premium paid or incurred for an insurance policy that provides both creditable coverage and noncreditable coverage, the employer must allocate the premium between the creditable coverage and the noncreditable coverage using any reasonable method. For example, a blended premium would be a premium for coverage that provides both qualifying paid family and medical leave and other types of leave, or coverage for qualifying employees and nonqualifying employees.

An employer may calculate the tax credit using both the wage method with respect to certain leave and the premium method with respect to other leave. However, an employer may not use the wage method to claim a credit for wages paid to the extent that the employer claims a credit using the premium method for creditable coverage that funds such benefits (or vice versa).

Notice 2026-28

IR 2026-86

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

Qualified Overtime Compensation Deduction

The deduction is up to $12,500 of qualified overtime compensation earned for the year per individual tax return. It is $25,000 for joint return. The deduction is reduced if a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year exceeds $150,000, and $300,000 for joint filers.

Coverage and Exemptions Under FLSA

The IRS noted that overtime under the FLSA must be paid to individual taxpayers who are (1) covered by the FLSA; and (2) not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. Ineligible taxpayers would not receive qualified overtime compensation regardless of other laws or circumstances. Employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement include teachers, academic administration personnel, employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments and more.

Employee-owners of businesses are not FLSA overtime-eligible employees. An employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they are employed is ineligible.

Reporting Requirements

Starting in tax year 2026, payors and employers are required to separately report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099-MISC, Form 1099-NEC or Form W-2. Independent contractors would only report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099- MISC or Form 1099-NEC.

FS-2026-13

IR 2026-88

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

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.

No Significant Role in Management

The Fifth Circuit stated that the backdrop against which Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) in 1977 suggested that some participation is allowed, so long as the partners do not exercise control over the business, and that the plain text of the statute points towards this conclusion. The court observed that all relevant sources suggested that when the statute was enacted, the ordinary public meaning of"limited partner" included a partner who did not play a significant role in managing or running the business.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s Soroban decision, which held that that the term "limited partner" could refer only to passive investors. The court stated that the Tax Court had selected a rule that was divorced from statutory text and that appeared to prohibit even the most minor involvement in corporate affairs. In the Fifth Circuit's view, it would have been understood at the time Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) that a limited partner could not manage the partnership, but perhaps could participate in certain nonmanagerial aspects of the business.

The court also stated that the Soroban decision could not be squared with decades of IRS-approved guidance insisting that what mattered was limited liability alone. The court characterized the IRS's position to be that it could change the meaning of "limited partner" from "limited liability alone" to the "passive investor" standard with no action from Congress to amend the text of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Even assuming that the IRS could unilaterally effectuate such changes through tax instructions, the court stated that the IRS's instructions must comport with the original public meaning of the text enacted by Congress.

Withdrawing Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5, 2026-1 ustc ¶50,109, and vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

K Alain, L.L.L.P., CA-5

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Under the de minimis payment rule of Code Sec. 6050W(e) for information reporting purposes, a third party settlement organization (TPSO) must report payments made in settlement of third party network transactions to a payee only if the payments exceed $20,000 and 200 transactions in a calendar year. The final regulations align the backup withholding obligations under Code Sec. 3406 with this reporting threshold.

A payment will be considered a reportable payment subject to backup withholding only if both the $20,000 and 200 transaction thresholds are exceeded during the calendar year. The amount subject to backup withholding includes the entire amount of the transaction that causes either threshold to be breached, whichever occurs later, and the amount of any subsequent transactions made to the payee during the same calendar year. Further, if the TPSO made payments in settlement of third party network transactions to the payee in the previous calendar year that were reportable payments under the backup withholding rules, the de minimis exception to backup withholding would not to payments made to that payee in the current calendar year.

Participating Payees

In the preamble to the Treasury Decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS used the opportunity to clarify that de minimis TPSO reporting and the backup withholding thresholds apply with respect to each participating payee, as defined by Code Sec. 6050W(d)(1).

T.D. 10053

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted in 2021 as part of the broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. Its reporting requirement had been characterized as an important step in the fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, piracy, securities fraud, financial fraud, and acts of foreign corruption.

In late 2024 and early 2025, however, several federal district courts preliminarily enjoined FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the reporting rule. The Treasury Department announced in March 2025 that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA and its reporting requirements against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and issued the interim final rule.

BOI Reporting Exemptions

The final rule:

• adopts exemptions that make the rollback of beneficial ownership reporting by U.S. companies permanent,
• exempts foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States from reporting the BOI of a U.S person in control of the investment vehicle, and
• confirms that FinCEN will delete information about any individual that it reasonably believes is a U.S. person (for example, information that is linked to a U.S. passport or U.S. driver's license).

The final rule also makes substantive changes that expand on the relief in the interim final rule, by:

• exempting foreign companies from the requirement to report U.S. person “company applicants” (i.e., the individuals who helped those foreign companies register to do business in the United States), and
• exempting U.S. persons who have applied for FinCEN Identifiers (FinCEN IDs) from having to update or correct the information they provided to FinCEN when they applied.

Foreign entities that are reporting companies are still required under the final rule to report BOI for foreign individuals.

FinCEN has also issued answers to frequently asked questions on the final rule.

FinCEN Final Rule RIN-1506-AB67

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.