Don's view of the tax world....
The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.
The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.
Under Code Sec. 6050K, partnerships must file Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, for transfers involving Code Sec. 751(a) property. The IRS and Treasury Department received comments that many partnerships could not determine the information required for Part IV of Form 8308 by the January 31 furnishing deadline. As a result, the final regulations remove Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) and revise Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1) to permit partnerships to furnish Form 8308 completed in accordance with the form instructions.
Although partnerships are no longer required to furnish Part IV information to transferors and transferees by January 31, they must still file a completed Form 8308, including Part IV, with Form 1065. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2025.
T.D. 10048
The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.
The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.
Background
The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0 Act), permitted defined contribution plans to make qualified long-term care distributions, effective for distributions made after December 29, 2025. The 10 percent additional tax on early distributions would not apply to distributions under Code Sec. 401(a)(39). However, a qualified long-term care distribution would be included in the taxpayer’s gross income.
Disclosure Requirements
The guidance addresses content requirements and procedures for submitting an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS. There is no general deadline for submitting an Issuer Disclosure. However, an issuer must submit an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS before the issuer can file a long-term care premium statement with a defined contribution plan.
Distribution Requirements
Under the guidance, the plan administrator is permitted to rely on the issuer’s statement and the information provided on the long-term care premium statement in making a qualified long-term care distribution. It is optional for a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions, but the exception to the 10% additional tax only applies if the plan permits qualified long-term care distributions, even if the employee uses a distribution to pay for long-term care insurance. Unlike other permitted distributions, a qualified long-term care distribution would not be eligible for an extended 3-year repayment to a retirement plan.
Reporting Requirements
The payment of a qualified long-term care distribution to an employee must be reported by the payor on Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.
Further, issuers must make a return to the IRS using Form 1099-LPS, Long-Term Care Premiums Paid Statement. The issuer will report the long-term care premiums paid for the calendar year. The Form 1099-LPS must be filed with the IRS no later than February 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year the long-term care premium statement was filed with the plan.
Deadline Extension
The guidance extends the deadline for a plan sponsor of a defined contribution plan that is not a governmental plan, a section 403(b) plan maintained by a public school, or an applicable collectively bargained plan, to amend its plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions from December 31, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The deadlines to amend defined contribution plans that are applicable collectively bargained plans or governmental plans remain as provided in Notice 2024-02. Thus, Notice 2024-2, I.R.B. 2024-2, 316, is modified in part.
Notice 2026-33
The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.
The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.
Fishing rights-related income is exempt from federal income tax and employment tax under Code Sec. 7873. However, proposed reliance regulations would allow contributions to be made to qualified retirement plans based on fishing rights-related income. Also, plans that accept contributions of fishing rights-related income may still use safe harbor definitions of compensation. The IRS finalized this rule as proposed without material modification.
Although the final rule is somewhat limited in scope, the IRS addressed additional issues in the preamble. The IRS clarified that plan contributions attributable to a Tribal employee's fishing rights-related activiity is treated as investment in the contract under Code Sec. 72 . Thus, distributions of the amount contributed would generally be tax-free (subject to basis recovery rules) and distributions attributable to earnings would be taxable. The IRS also indicated that plans that permit designated Roth contributions may allow contributions attributable to fishing rights-related activity to be made on a Roth basis.
T.D. 10046
The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.
The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.
Taxpayers generally have two years from the disallowance notice to resolve the claim or file a refund suit, but an administrative appeal does not suspend this deadline. Once the period expires, the IRS cannot issue a refund even if the taxpayer later prevails. To address this, eligible taxpayers may execute Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit, provided it is signed by both parties before the limitation period ends.
The IRS now permits submission of Form 907 through its Document Upload Tool, with qualifying requests reviewed and confirmed in writing. While the IRS is issuing notices to eligible taxpayers, others meeting the criteria may also apply. The agency indicated that the initiative is intended to preserve taxpayer rights and facilitate administrative resolution of ERC disputes.
The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.
The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.
The significant issue ruling program allows taxpayers to request rulings on one or more issues that:
- are solely under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate);
- are significant issues, as defined in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21; and
- involve the tax consequences or characterization of a transaction (or part of a transaction) that is described in Code Sec. 332, 351, 355, 368, or 1036.
Significant Issue Ruling Program
Taxpayers may request, and the IRS may issue, a ruling on part of an integrated transaction described in the above provisions, or a ruling on a particular legal issue under a section of the Code or regulations with respect to a transaction (or part thereof) rather than a ruling that addresses all aspects of that section (or any other section) with respect to the transaction (or part thereof).
In addition, the IRS may rule on the tax consequences resulting from integrated transactions described in the above provisions to the extent that a significant issue is presented under related Code sections that address such tax consequences.
A significant issue generally is a germane and specific issue of law, provided that a ruling on the issue would not be a comfort ruling or the conclusion in such a ruling otherwise would not be essentially free from doubt.
The requests for ruling must contain (1) narrative description of the transaction that puts the significant issue in context; (2) statement identifying the issue; (3) analysis of the solvability of issue; and more.
Effect on Other Documents
Rev. Proc. 2026-1 and Rev. Proc. 2026-3 are modified and amplified.
Effective Date
The significant issue ruling program applies to all letter ruling requests described in section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21 postmarked or, if not mailed, received by the IRS after May 5, 2026.
Rev. Proc. 2026-21
Other References:
Other References:
Other References:
Other References:
Other References:
The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions.
The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions. Since 2020, the IRS has settled 405 cases through earlier initiatives, although taxpayers still had to pay penalties and were allowed only limited deductions for certain out-of-pocket costs. More than 1,100 conservation easement cases currently remain pending before the IRS and the Tax Court. Under the new initiative, many eligible partnerships will not have to make an upfront payment to participate. In addition, taxpayers whose earlier settlement offers expired or were rejected may now have another chance to resolve their cases, while some partnerships that were not previously eligible may also qualify. IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said Congress created the conservation easement deduction to encourage legitimate preservation efforts rather than tax shelters based on inflated property values.
The IRS said partnerships that accept the offer during the initial 90-day period generally will not be allowed a charitable contribution deduction, but they may qualify for a limited deduction tied to certain out-of-pocket expenses. Those partnerships generally would face a 10 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty, while partnerships settling during an additional 45-day period generally would face a 20 percent penalty. Interest also will continue to accrue as required by law. At the same time, the IRS noted that courts have repeatedly reduced claimed deductions and upheld significant penalties in conservation easement disputes. Certain cases, such as those already tried or currently under appeal, will not qualify for the initiative. The IRS added that eligibility will depend on the status and specific facts of each case.
Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.
Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.
“Based on limited and anecdotal information, many practitioners noted that the IRS appeared to operating consistently compared with the prior year’s service,” AICPA said in a recent letter to the Senate Finance Committee’s top leadership following a hearing on the 2026 tax filing season, adding that data currently available shows “tax return processing remained relatively consistent, though the quality of telephone services appeared to vary depending on the hotline.”
AICPA did observe that while Internal Revenue Service modernization efforts have allowed for consistent customer service levels compared to recent prior years, “IRS customer service has not returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels according to IRS data and the AICPA’s most recent annual membership survey.”
With that, the industry organization offered recommendations in the areas of governance and oversight, taxpayer services, and dedicated practitioner services.
In the area of IRS governance and oversight, AICPA recommended the following:
- Requiring a Government Accountability Office review to determine whether a private sector board with sufficient authority to hold the IRS accountable and oversee implementation of key recommendations from advisory groups;
- Re-establish the annual joint hearing review to focus on strategic and business plans, taxpayer service and compliance, technology and modernization, and the filing season; and
- The Joint Committee on Taxation should provide a bi-annual report on the overall state of the Federal tax system.
In the area of taxpayer service, the following recommendations were offered:
- Hire more qualified and experienced professionals from the private sector, adequately train all agency employees, skillfully manage IRS resources, and ensure organizational alignment between Congress, the executive branch, and the IRS;
- Congress should determine what the appropriate level of service is and then ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated to achieve that level;
- Continue to improve the technology infrastructure modernization; and
- Effectively utilize customer satisfaction surveys to assess IRS performance, improve the taxpayer experience, and effectuate modernization efforts or process improvement.
AICPA pushed for the passage of the Taxpayer Assistance and Services Act, which it states “would significantly improve IRS services, reinforce fairness and transparency in our tax system, and reduce tax administrative burdens on taxpayers and practitioners, including many critical tax provisions for which AICPA has previously advocated.”
In the area of dedicated practitioner services, AICPA recommended:
- Create consolidated dedicated “executive-level” practitioner services comparable to private sector services that are implemented and adapted based on practitioner feedback solicited periodically; and
- Continue to expand the functionality of a robust and enhanced tax professional account as part of the IRS’s online portal with account access to all of a practitioner’s client information, allowing for IRS to communicate directly with authorized practitioners, enable a centralized login system, and prioritize the protection and privacy of user identities and data;
- Provide practitioners with a robust practitioner priority hotline with high-skilled employees capable of resolving complex technical and procedural issues; and
- Assign customer service representatives to each geographic area to address unusual or complex issues that practitioners were unable to resolve through the priority hotlines.
The letter to the Senate Finance Committee leadership and other AICPA 2026 tax policy and advocacy comment letter can be found here.
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.
