Newsletters

Running a business is easy as long as it's not yours.-John Jennings

New IRS guidance fills in several more pieces of the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction puzzle. Taxpayers can generally rely on all of these new final and proposed rules.

New IRS guidance fills in several more pieces of the Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction puzzle. Taxpayers can generally rely on all of these new final and proposed rules.

Final Regulations

The final regulations in T.D. 98xx_1 largely adopt the proposed regulations in NPRM REG-107892-18 (August 16, 2018), but with substantial modifications.

Taxpayers are likely to be disappointed in one thing that did not change: all items treated as capital gain or loss, including Section 1231 gains and losses, are still excluded from qualified business income (QBI). Taxpayers should continue to apply the Section 1231 netting and recapture rules when calculating the Code Sec. 199A deduction.

However, the final regulations drop the rule that treated an incidental non-specified services trade or business (SSTB) as part of an SSTB if the businesses were commonly owned and shared expenses, and the non-SSTB’s gross receipts were no more than five percent of the business’s combined gross receipts.

The final regulations make several adjustments to the proposed regulations for estates and trusts. Most significantly, the final regulations remove the definition of "principal purpose" under the anti-abuse rule that allows the IRS to aggregate multiple trusts. The IRS is taking this issue under advisement. Also, in determining if a trust or estate has taxable income that exceeds the threshold amount, distributions are no longer excluded. Instead, the entity’s taxable income is determined after taking into account any distribution deduction under Code Sec. 651 or Code Sec. 661.

The final regulations retain the presumption that an employee continues to be an employee while doing the same work for the same employer. However, the regulations provide a new three-year look back rule, and allow the worker to rebut the presumption by showing records (such as contracts or partnership agreements) that corroborate the individual’s status as a non-employee.

Other changes of note include:

• Disallowed, limited or suspended losses must be used in order from the oldest to the newest, on a FIFO (first in, first out) basis.
• A relevant passthrough entity (RPE) can aggregate businesses.
• If an RPE fails to report an item, only that item is presumed to be zero; the missing information may be reported on an amended return.
• The S portion and non-S portion of an electing small business trust (ESBT) are treated as a single trust for purposes of determining the threshold amounts.

Proposed Regs for QBI, RICs, Trusts, Estates

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations in NPRM REG-134652-18, which cover three broad topics.

First, in calculating QBI, previously disallowed losses are treated as losses from a separate trade or business. If the losses relate to a publicly traded partnership (PTP), they must be treated as losses from a separate PTP. Attributes of the disallowed loss are determined in the year the loss is incurred.

Second, a RIC that receives qualified REIT dividends may pay Section 199A dividends. The IRS continues to consider permitting conduit treatment for qualified PTP income received by a RIC, and seeks public comment on this issue.

Finally, the proposed regulations also provide rules for charitable remainder unitrusts (and their beneficiaries), split-interest trusts, and separate shares.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise

The proposed revenue procedure set forth in Notice 2019-7 provides a safe harbor for a rental real estate enterprise to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A. RPEs can also use the safe harbor.

A rental real estate enterprise must satisfy three conditions to qualify for the safe harbor:

• Separate books and records must be maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise.
• At least 250 or more hours of rental services must be performed per year with respect to the rental enterprise. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, this test can be satisfied in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
• The taxpayer must maintain contemporaneous records of relevant items, including time reports, logs, or similar documents. (This requirement does not apply to tax years beginning in 2018.)

Relevant items include hours of all services performed, description of all services performed, dates on which such services were performed, and who performed the services.

W-2 Wages

Rev. Proc. 2019-11 allows taxpayers to use one of three methods to calculate W-2 wages for the passthrough deduction:

• the unmodified Box method;
• the modified Box 1 method; or
• the tracking wages method.

These methods were proposed in Notice 2018-64, I.R.B. 2018-35, 347. The unmodified Box method is simplest, but the other two methods are more accurate.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on the proposed regulations and the proposed safe harbor. The IRS must receive the comments and any requests for public hearing within 60 days after the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

The IRS has issued interim guidance on the excise tax payable by exempt organizations on remuneration in excess of $1 million and any excess parachute payments made to certain highly compensated current and former employees in the tax year. The excise tax imposed by Code Sec. 4960 is equal to the maximum corporate tax rate on income (currently 21 percent).

The IRS has issued interim guidance on the excise tax payable by exempt organizations on remuneration in excess of $1 million and any excess parachute payments made to certain highly compensated current and former employees in the tax year. The excise tax imposed by Code Sec. 4960 is equal to the maximum corporate tax rate on income (currently 21 percent).

Q&A on Section 4960

The current guidance is contained in a Question-and-Answer format. The interim guidance addresses:

• general application of Code Sec. 4960;
• applicable tax-exempt organizations and related organizations;
• covered employees;
• excess remuneration;
• medical and veterinary services;
• excess parachute payments;
• three-times-base-amount test for parachute payments;
• computation of excess parachute payments;
• reporting liability under Section 4960;
• miscellaneous issues; and
• the effective date.

Reliance

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 which will incorporate the interim guidance. Until future guidance is issued, taxpayers may rely on the rules in the interim guidance from December 22, 2017. Any future guidance will be prospective and will not apply to tax years beginning before the guidance is issued. Until additional guidance is issued, taxpayers may base their positions upon a good faith, reasonable interpretation of the statute and legislative history, where appropriate. Specifically, the positions reflected in the guidance constitute a good faith and reasonable interpretation.

Comments Requested

The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the topics addressed in the interim guidance and any other issues arising under Code Sec. 4960. Comments should be submitted no later than April 2, 2019.

The IRS has provided safe harbors for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a state or local tax (SALT) credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose. Proposed regulations that limit the charitable contribution deduction do not affect the deduction as a business expense.

The IRS has provided safe harbors for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a state or local tax (SALT) credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose. Proposed regulations that limit the charitable contribution deduction do not affect the deduction as a business expense.

Charitable Contributions and SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately). Some states and local governments have adopted or considered adopting laws that allowed individuals to receive a tax credit for contributions to funds controlled by the state and local government.

Under proposed regulations, however, an individual, estate, and trust generally must reduce the amount of any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit he or she receives or expects to receive for the transfer. A de minimis exception allows a taxpayer to disregard up to 15 percent of the payment or transfer to the charitable organization.

C Corporations

If a C corporation makes the charitable payment in exchange for a state and local tax credit, it may deduct the payment as an ordinary and necessary business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to receive.

Specified Pass-Through Entity

A specified pass-through entity may also deduct the payment as an ordinary and necessary business expense, but only if the SALT credit applies or is expected to apply to offset a SALT other than an income tax. A specified pass-through entity for this purpose is any business entity other than a C corporation that is regarded as separate from its owner for all federal income tax purposes (i.e., disregarded entity). The entity also must operate a trade or business within the meaning of Code Sec. 162 and be subject to SALT incurred in carrying on that trade or business that is imposed directly on the entity.

Effective Date

The safe harbors apply to any payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for a SALT credit paid on or after January 1, 2018.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations for determining the inclusion under Code Sec. 965 of a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation with post-1986 accumulated deferred foreign income. Code Sec. 965 imposes a "transition tax" on the inclusion. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations, with certain changes.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations for determining the inclusion under Code Sec. 965 of a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation with post-1986 accumulated deferred foreign income. Code Sec. 965 imposes a "transition tax" on the inclusion. The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations, with certain changes.

The final regulations generally apply beginning the last tax year of the foreign corporation that begins before January 1, 2018, and with respect to a U.S. person, beginning the tax year in or with which such tax year of the foreign corporation ends.

Note: The final regulations were published without a T.D. number. According to the IRS, a T.D. number will be assigned after the IRS resumes normal operations.

Controlled Domestic Partnerships

Certain controlled domestic partnerships may be treated as foreign partnerships for determining the section 958(a) U.S. shareholders of a specified foreign corporation owned by the controlled domestic partnership and the section 958(a) stock owned by the shareholders. The definition of controlled domestic partnership is revised to not be defined only with respect to a U.S. shareholder, so that the controlled foreign partnership is clearly treated as a foreign partnership for all partners if the rule applies.

Pro Rata Share

The definitions of pro rata share and section 958(a) U.S. shareholder inclusion year are modified. The final regulations will require a section 965(a)inclusion by a section 958(a) U.S. shareholder if the specified foreign corporation, whether or not it is a CFC, ceases to be a specified foreign corporation during its inclusion year.

Downward Attribution Rule

A special rule applies when determining downward attribution from a partner to a partnership where the partner has a de minimis interest in the partnership. The threshold for applying the special attribution rule for partnerships is increased from five to 10 percent, and is extended to trusts.

Basis Election Rules

The final regulations allow a taxpayer elect to increase its basis in the stock of its deferred foreign income corporations (DFICs) by the lesser of its section 965(b) previously taxed earnings and profits or the amount it can reduce the stock basis of its E&P deficit foreign corporations without recognizing gain. Within limits, a taxpayer may designate which stock of a DFIC is increased and by how much.

Exception from Anti-Abuse Rules

The final regulations provide an exception from the anti-abuse rules for certain incorporation transactions. The rules will not apply to disregard a transfer of stock of a specified foreign corporation by U.S. shareholder of a domestic corporation, if certain requirements are met. The section 965(a) inclusion amount with respect to the transferred stock of the specified foreign corporation must not be reduced, and the aggregate foreign cash position of both the transferor and the transferee is determined as if each had held the transferred stock of the specified foreign corporation owned by the other on each of the cash measurement dates.

Cash Position

Code Sec. 965 taxes foreign earnings of a domestic corporate U.S. shareholder at a 15.5-percent rate if held in cash, but only an 8-percent rate if held otherwise. Cash includes cash and cash equivalents. The final regulations provide a narrow exception from the definition of cash position for certain commodities held by a specified foreign corporation in the ordinary course of its trade or business, as well as for certain privately negotiated contracts to buy and sell these assets.

Election and Payment Rules

Under the final regulations, the signature requirement on an election statement is satisfied if the unsigned copy is attached to a timely-filed return of the person making the election, provided that the person retains the signed original in the manner specified.

Transition rules for filing transfer agreements have also been updated. If a triggering event or acceleration event occurs on or before December 31, 2018, the transfer agreement must be filed by January 31, 2019. Rules are added to address the death of an S corporation shareholder transferor. The final regulations also include modifications to certain requirements for the terms of a transfer agreement.

The final regulations provide that in the case of an additional liability reported on a return or amended return, any amount that is prorated to an installment, the due date of which has already passed, will be due with the return reporting the additional amount. The rule on deficiencies remains the same, and payment for a deficiency prorated to an installment, the due date of which has already passed, is due on notice and demand.

Total Net Tax Liability

A taxpayer may elect to defer the payment of its total net tax liability under Code Sec. 965(h) and (i). Total net tax liability under Code Sec. 965, which defines the portion of a taxpayer’s income tax eligible for deferral, is equal to the difference between a taxpayer’s net income tax with and without the application of Code Sec. 965. The final regulations will disregard effective repatriations taxed similarly to dividends under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B) resulting from investments in U.S. property under Code Sec. 956 when determining net income tax liability without the application of Code Sec. 965.

Consolidated Groups

The consolidated group aggregate foreign cash position is determined under the final regulations as if all members of the consolidated group that are section 958(a) U.S. shareholders of a specified foreign corporation are a single section 958(a) U.S. shareholder.

Obsolete Guidance

The following previous guidance is obsolete:

• Notice 2018-7, I.R.B. 2018-4, 317;
• Notice 2018-13, I.R.B. 2018-6 341, Secs. 1-4, 6;
• Notice 2018-26, I.R.B. 2018-16, 480, Secs. 1-5, 7; and
• Notice 2018-78, I.R.B. 2018-42, 604, Secs. 1-3, 5.

The IRS has issued its annual revisions to the general procedures for ruling requests, technical memoranda, determination letters, and user fees, as well as areas on which the Associate Chief Counsel offices will not rule. The revised procedures are generally effective January 2, 2019.

The IRS has issued its annual revisions to the general procedures for ruling requests, technical memoranda, determination letters, and user fees, as well as areas on which the Associate Chief Counsel offices will not rule. The revised procedures are generally effective January 2, 2019.

Rev. Proc. 2019-1

This procedure explains how the IRS provides advice to taxpayers in the form of letter rulings, closing agreements, determination letters and information letters, and orally on issues under the jurisdiction of the various Associate Chief Counsel offices. It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-1, I.R.B. 2018-1, 1. In addition to changes made throughout the guidance, significant changes in the new procedure include:

• Sections 1, 1.01, 3.07, 5.12, 5.14, 5.15, 6.08, 9.23, 10.07, 15.11, Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E have been amended to reflect the name change from "Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities)" to "Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes)."
• Section 5.15(3) has been removed to reflect the transfer of authority to waive excise tax under Code Sec. 4980F to the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements.
• Section 8.02 has been amended to remove the exception for changes in accounting methods or accounting periods from the 21-day notification rule.
  Appendix A (Schedule of User Fees) has been amended with increased user fees to match the increase in costs incurred by the IRS. The new user fee schedule is effective February 2, 2019.
• Appendix E (Church Plan Checklist) has been amended to add a new item 11 to reflect the requirement that an applicant include a representation as to whether an election under Reg. §1.410(d)-1 to apply certain provisions of the Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to the plan has ever been made.

Rev. Proc. 2019-2

This procedure explains when and how an Associate Office provides technical advice conveyed in a technical advice memorandum (TAM), as well as a taxpayer’s rights when a field office requests a TAM regarding a tax matter. It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-2, I.R.B. 2018-1, 106. Significant changes in the new procedure include:

• All references to Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities) have been revised to read “Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes).” All references to “Appeals Policy” have been revised to read “Appeals Policy Planning Quality & Analysis.”
• Section 3.04 has been amended to delete the mandatory TAM requirement in qualified retirement plan matters in cases concerning proposed adverse letters or proposed revocation letters on collectively bargained plans.
• Section 14.02 has been amended to clarify that requests for relief under Code Sec. 7805(b) on the revocation or modification of determination letters and letter rulings issued by TE/GE are handled under the procedures in sections 23 and 29 of Rev. Proc. 2019-4, and section 12 of Rev. Proc. 2019-5.

Rev. Proc. 2019-3

This procedure provides a revised list of areas under the jurisdiction of certain Associate Chief Counsel offices for which letter rulings or determination letters will not be issued. (Lists of areas of nonissuance under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) and the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (relating to plans or plan amendments) are presented in separate revenue procedures.) It supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-3, I.R.B. 2019-1, 130.

The following have been added to the list of issues for which advance rulings will not be issued:

• Gross Income. Whether an amount is not included in a taxpayer’s gross income under Code Sec. 61 because the taxpayer receives the amount subject to an unconditional obligation to repay the amount.
• Trade or Business Expenses. Whether a taxpayer is engaged in a trade or business. This area does not include a request for a ruling that relies on a representation from a taxpayer that the taxpayer is or is not engaged in a trade or business, or a request for a ruling that relies on factual information provided by the taxpayer evidencing the active conduct of a trade or business.
• Losses; Carryovers in Certain Corporate Acquisitions; Regulations. In determining whether a loss for worthless securities is subject to Code Sec. 165(g)(3), (i) whether the source of any gross receipts may be determined by reference to the source of gross receipts of a counter party to an intercompany transaction, as defined in Reg. §1.1502-13(b)(1) (e.g., an intercompany distribution to which Reg. §1.1502-13(f)(2) applies), other than an intercompany transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies, and (ii) in an intercompany transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies, whether the acquiring corporation takes into account historic gross receipts of the distributor or transferor corporation, if the intercompany transaction is part of a plan to claim a deduction for worthless securities under Code Sec. 165(g)(3).
• Treatment of multiple trusts. Whether two or more trusts shall be treated as one trust for purposes of subchapter J of chapter 1.
• Returns Relating to the Cancellation of Indebtedness by Certain Entities. Requests for a ruling that the creditor is not required to report a discharge that include as grounds for the request a dispute regarding the underlying liability.

The following issues have been modified:

• Special Rules for Exchanges Between Related Persons. Except in the case of (i) a transaction involving an exchange of undivided interests in different properties that results in each taxpayer holding either the entire interest in a single property or a larger undivided interest in any of the properties or (ii) a disposition of property in a nonrecognition transaction in which the taxpayer or the related party receives no cash or other property that results in gain recognition, whether a Code Sec. 1031(f) exchange involving related parties, or a subsequent disposition of property involved in the exchange, has as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of federal income tax, or is part of a transaction (or series of transactions) structured to avoid the purposes of Code Sec. 1031(f).

Rev. Proc. 2019-4

This procedure explains how the IRS provides advice to taxpayers on issues under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE) Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements Office, and details the types of advice available to taxpayers, and the manner in which the advice is requested and provided. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-4, I.R.B. 2018-1, 146. In addition to minor non-substantive changes, the following changes are made:

• Modifications to reflect Employee Plans Rulings and Agreement’s current practice of considering voluntary requests for closing agreements to resolve certain income or excise tax issues that are ineligible for resolution under the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).
• Letter ruling requests may not be submitted via facsimile transmission.
• A new category called "Other Circumstances" for which determination letters can be requested has been added.
• Code Secs. 414(b), (c) and (m) have been added to the list of sections for which a determination is not made when a determination letter is issued in accordance with the revenue procedure.
• For a plan to be reviewed for, and a determination letter relied upon with respect to, whether the terms of the plan satisfy one of the design-based safe harbors, the plan document must provide a definition of compensation that satisfies Reg. §1.414(s)-1(c).
• Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements will consider a request for an extension of time for making an election under Reg. §301.9100-3 to recharacterize annual contributions made to a Roth IRA. Employee Plans Rulings and Agreements will also consider recharacterization requests that relate to a conversion or rollover contribution to a Roth IRA but only if the rollover or conversion was made prior to January 1, 2018.
• SB/SE Exam will be notified if a request for an extension of time for making an election or other application for relief under Reg. §301.9100-3 is submitted when the return is under examination.
• Beginning April 1, 2019, VCP submissions and the applicable user fees must be made using www.pay.gov. Further, the payment of user fees for pre-approved plan submissions and letter ruling requests may not be made using www.pay.gov and such requests must still be accompanied by a check in the amount of the applicable user fee.
• Clarification has been provided regarding which forms must be submitted for VCP submissions made prior to April 1, 2019.
• User fee for Form 5310 will increase from $2,300 to $3,000 for submissions postmarked on or after July 1, 2019.

Rev. Proc. 2019-5

This procedure updates the procedures for organizations applying for, and the issuing of determination letters on, exempt status under Code Secs. 501and 521. These apply to exempt organizations other than those relating to pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, annuity, and employee stock ownership plans. The procedures also apply to revocation or modification of determination letters. In addition, the procedure provides guidance on the exhaustion of administrative remedies for declaratory judgment under Code Sec. 7428. Finally, new procedure provides guidance on applicable user fees for requesting determination letters. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-5, I.R.B. 2018-1, 233. Notable changes include:

• "Tax Exempt and Government Entities" was changed to "Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes" throughout the document to reflect the office’s name change.
• Section 2.02 was amended to add (6), which discusses Rev. Proc. 2018-15, I.R.B. 2018-9, 379.
• Section 2.03(1) was amended to clarify that a Code Sec. 501(c)(4) organization must submit a user fee along with its completed Form 8976.
• Section 3.02(4) was amended to clarify that the section only applies to an organization seeking to qualify under Code Sec. 501(c)(6).
• Sections 4, 15, and 18 were amended to reflect the new Form 1024-A.
• Section 4.09 was amended to clarify that a request for expedited handling of a determination letter will not be forwarded to the appropriate group for action unless the application is complete.
• Section 13 was amended throughout because Rev. Proc. 2018-32, I.R.B. 2018-23, 739, superseded Rev. Proc. 81-7, 1981-1 CB 621.
• Appendix A was amended to reflect the single user fee for non-1023-EZ exemption applications, and to reflect a change in the user fee for submissions postmarked on or after July 1, 2019, for advance approval of Code Sec. 4942(g)(2) set asides, Code Sec. 4945 advance approval of an organization’s grant making procedures, and Code Sec. 4945(f) advance approval of voter registration activities.

Rev. Proc. 2019-7

This procedure provides an updated list of subject areas under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) for which it will not issue advance letter rulings or determination letters, or will issue letters only if justified by unique and compelling circumstances. Section 4.01(01) related to Code Sec. 367(a) has been removed as obsolete. There are no other changes except renumbering to reflect the foregoing and updates to cross references and citations. The new procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2018-7, I.R.B. 2018-1, 271

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

Scope

Under the proposed regulations, to which Congress left many details to be filled in, the new audit regime covers any adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership and any partner’s distributive share of those adjusted items. Further, any income tax resulting from an adjustment to items under the centralized partnership audit regime is assessed and collected at the partnership level. The applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to any such item or share is also determined at the partnership level.

Immediate Impact

Although perhaps streamlined and eventually destined to simplify partnership audits for the IRS, the new centralized audit regime may prove more complicated in several respects for many partnerships. Of immediate concern for most partnerships, whether benefiting or not, is how to reflect this new centralized audit regime within partnership agreements, especially when some of the procedural issues within the new regime are yet to be ironed out.

Issues for many partnerships that have either been generated or heightened by the new regulations include:

• Selecting a method of satisfying an imputed underpayment;
• Designation of a partnership representative;
• Allocating economic responsibility for an imputed underpayment among partners including situations in which partners’ interests change between a reviewed year and the adjustment year; and
• Indemnifications between partnerships and partnership representatives, as well as among current partners and those who were partners during the tax year under audit.

Election out

Starting for tax year 2018, virtually all partnerships will be subject to the new partnership audit regime …unless an “election out” option is affirmatively elected. Only an eligible partnership may elect out of the centralized partnership audit regime. A partnership is an eligible partnership if it has 100 or fewer partners during the year and, if at all times during the tax year, all partners are eligible partners. A special rule applies to partnerships that have S corporation partners.

Consistent returns

A partner’s treatment of each item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership must be consistent with the treatment of those items on the partnership return, including treatment with respect to the amount, timing, and characterization of those items. Under the new rules, the IRS may assess and collect any underpayment of tax that results from adjusting a partner’s inconsistently reported item to conform that item with the treatment on the partnership return as if the resulting underpayment of tax were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. A partner may not request an abatement of that assessment.

Partnership representative

The new regulations require a partnership to designate a partnership representative, as well as provide rules describing the eligibility requirements for a partnership representative, the designation of the partnership representative, and the representative’s authority. Actions by the partnership representative bind all the partners as far as the IRS is concerned. Indemnification agreements among partners may ameliorate some, but not all, of the liability triggered by this rule.

Imputed underpayment, alternatives and "push-outs"

Generally, if a partnership adjustment results in an imputed underpayment, the partnership must pay the imputed underpayment in the adjustment year. The partnership may request modification with respect to an imputed underpayment only under the procedures described in the new rules.

In multi-tiered partnership arrangements, the new rules provide that a partnership may elect to "push out" adjustments to its reviewed year partners. If a partnership makes a valid election, the partnership is no longer liable for the imputed underpayment. Rather, the reviewed year partners of the partnership are liable for tax, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts plus interest, after taking into account their share of the partnership adjustments determined in the final partnership adjustment (FPA). The new regulations provide rules for making the election, the requirements for partners to file statements with the IRS and furnish statements to reviewed year partners, and the computation of tax resulting from taking adjustments into account.

Retiring, disappearing partners

Partnership agreements that reflect the new partnership audit regime must especially consider the problems that may be created by partners that have withdrawn, and partnerships that have since dissolved, between the tax year being audited and the year in which a deficiency involving that tax year is to be resolved. Collection of prior-year taxes due from a former partner, especially as time lapses, becomes more difficult as a practical matter unless specific remedies are set forth in the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement might specify that if any partner withdraws and disposes of their interest, they must keep the partnership advised of their contact information until released by the partnership in writing.

If you have any questions about how your partnership may be impacted by these new rules, please feel free to call our office.

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Nontax considerations

State law and nontax considerations are an important consideration in choosing the form of the business and may play a decisive role. A general partner of a partnership has unlimited liability for the debts of the business. This can be modified by using a limited partnership (LP), which must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. The general partner still have unlimited liability, but a limited partner's liability is limited to its contribution to the partnership. A corporation has limited liability; shareholders generally are not responsible for the liabilities of the corporation beyond their contributions to the entity.

Federal tax considerations

At the same time, it is crucial to consider federal tax requirements and consequences when choosing the form of business entity. A primary federal tax consideration is avoiding a double layer of tax on business income. This can be accomplished by operating as a passthrough entity, such as a partnership or S corporation. Income is not taxed at the entity level. It passes through to partners and shareholders and is taxed at their rates.

In contrast, C corporations are taxable entities. Furthermore, when a C corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, this generally is taxable to the shareholder. It must be noted that income of a passthrough entity is allocable and taxable to its owners, whether or not the income is actually distributed to the partner or shareholder. Dividends are not taxed unless there is an actual distribution.

While a partnership is organized under state law, an S corporation is a creature of the federal tax system. The S corporation is a regular corporation for state law purposes.

Advantages of partnerships

Unlike an S corporation shareholder, anyone or any entity can be a partner. S corporations are limited to 100 shareholders; only certain individuals, estates and trusts are eligible to be shareholders. C corporations and nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders of an S corporation.

S corporations are limited to a single class of stock; income and losses must be allocated on the same basis to each shareholder. Having only one class of stock may affect the corporation's ability to raise capital. A partnership can have different classes of partners and has more flexibility for allocating income and losses to different types of partners.

Partnership liabilities can increase a partner's basis in the partnership, offsetting distributions of cash and reducing their taxation. The increased basis allowed partners to use losses generated by the partnership. Liabilities of an S corporation do not create stock basis; separate bases in stock and debt must be calculated. This lack of basis may limit the use of losses generated by the S corporation.

Contributions of appreciated property by a partner to the partnership generally are not taxable, even if the partner is not part of a group controlling the partnership. Contributions by a shareholder to a corporation are tax-free only if the shareholders are part of a group controlling 80 percent of the corporation after the contribution. However, a partnership must follow special allocation rules for handling built-in gain on contributed property, whereas S corporations do not have special allocation rules in this circumstance.

Conclusion

In general, a partnership offers more flexibility than an S corporation in the treatment of taxes. However, S corporation shareholders do have limited legal liability, while general partners are not insulated from the partnership's debts and liabilities.

Since 2009, the IRS has operated an Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for U.S. taxpayers who have failed to disclose foreign assets or report foreign income from those assets to the IRS or Treasury. The program provides reduced penalties and other benefits, thus giving taxpayers an opportunity to address their past noncompliance and "become right" with the government.

Since 2009, the IRS has operated an Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for U.S. taxpayers who have failed to disclose foreign assets or report foreign income from those assets to the IRS or Treasury. The program provides reduced penalties and other benefits, thus giving taxpayers an opportunity to address their past noncompliance and "become right" with the government.

The IRS reports that 45,000 taxpayers have made voluntary disclosures since 2009 and have paid $6.5 billion in back taxes, interest, and penalties. In 2014, the IRS made important changes to the OVDP, with the expectation that the revised program will lead to a significant increase in the number of U.S. taxpayers who participate in the OVDP and report their undisclosed foreign assets.

Reporting obligations

U.S. taxpayers, including U.S. citizens living abroad, must report and pay taxes on their worldwide income, including income from foreign assets. Taxpayers must report foreign accounts on Form 1040, Schedule B; if their value exceeds certain thresholds, they must report on Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Accounts. Taxpayers with accounts worth more than $10,000 must report the accounts on the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), which is filed with Treasury (not the IRS).

The IRS provided temporary OVDPs in 2009 and 2011. In 2012, it opened another OVDP that it continues to offer. Under the 2012 program, taxpayers must enter into a closing agreement with the IRS, provide updated returns for the prior eight years, and pay a penalty as high as 27.5 percent. In return, the IRS agrees not to pursue criminal penalties against taxpayers who may have willfully failed to report their foreign assets and/or income. In 2012, the IRS also unveiled a "streamlined procedures" program, with lighter penalties for U.S. taxpayers residing abroad who were nonwillful evaders.

2014 revisions

The revised streamlined procedures program has been expanded to taxpayers living in the United States. Participants are no longer required to have an unpaid tax balance of $1,500 or less per year. Participants self-certify that their noncompliance was not willful; the IRS will review their circumstances. Taxpayers must pay taxes on any unreported income from the past three years and must file required FBAR reports for the previous six years. Participants living abroad pay no penalty, while U.S. residents pay a miscellaneous offshore penalty of five percent.

The OVDP program for potentially willful evaders has been tightened. Taxpayers must provide increased information and must pay the 27.5 percent penalty at the time of application. In light of the expanded streamlined program, the IRS eliminated reduced penalties (five and 12.5 percent) that had been offered to nonwillful OVDP participants. To increase the pressure on nonfilers, the IRS increased the penalty from 27.5 percent to 50 percent for taxpayers who used a foreign financial institution or a facilitator that the IRS or Justice Department publicly acknowledges to be under investigation.

Taxpayers are advised to consult with their tax adviser about these programs and choose carefully. A taxpayer cannot participate in both the streamlined and the OVDP programs; it is an either/or proposition. If a taxpayer is confident that his or her noncompliance was not willful, the streamlined program is a reasonable choice. However, this program provides no protection from criminal prosecution, further audits, or proposed tax increases, if the IRS decides that the taxpayer acted willfully.

No, taxpayers may destroy the original hardcopy of books and records and the original computerized records detailing the expenses of a business if they use an electronic storage system.

Business often maintain their books and records by scanning hardcopies of their documents onto a computer hard drive, burning them onto compact disc, or saving them to a portable storage device. The IRS classifies records stored in this manner as an "electronic storage system." Businesses using an electronic storage system are considered to have fulfilled IRS records requirements for all taxpayers, should they meet certain requirements. And, they have the freedom to reduce the amount of paperwork their enterprise must manage.

Record-keeping requirements

Code Sec. 6001 requires all persons liable for tax to keep records as the IRS requires. In addition to persons liable for tax, those who file informational returns must file such returns and make use of their records to prove their gross income, deductions, credits, and other matters. For example, businesses must substantiate deductions for business expenses with appropriate records and they must file informational returns showing salaries and benefits paid to employees.

It is possible for businesses using an electronic storage system to satisfy these requirements under Code Sec. 6001. However, they must fulfill certain obligations.

Paperwork reduction

In addition, using an electronic storage system may allow businesses to destroy the original hardcopy of their books and records, as well as the original computerized records used to fulfill the record-keeping requirements of code Sec. 6001. To take advantage of this option, taxpayers must:

(1) Test their electronic storage system to establish that hardcopy and computerized books and records are being reproduced according to certain requirements, and

(2) Implement procedures to assure that its electronic storage system is compliant with IRS requirements into the future.

Our firm would be glad to work with you to meet the IRS's specifications, should you want to establish a computerized recordkeeping system for your business. The time spent now can be worth considerable time and money saved by a streamlined and organized system of receipts and records.

The decision to start your own business comes with many other important decisions. One of the first tasks you will encounter is choosing the legal form of your new business. There are quite a few choices of legal entities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration along with your own personal tax situation.

The decision to start your own business comes with many other important decisions. One of the first tasks you will encounter is choosing the legal form of your new business. There are quite a few choices of legal entities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration along with your own personal tax situation.

Sole proprietorships. By far the simplest and least expensive business form to set up, a sole proprietorship can be maintained with few formalities. However, this type of entity offers no personal liability protection and doesn't allow you to take advantage of many of the tax benefits that are available to corporate employees. Income and expenses from the business are reported on Schedule C of the owner's individual income tax return. Net income is subject to both social security and income taxes.

Partnerships. Similar to a sole proprietorship, a partnership is owned and operated by more than one person. A partnership can resolve the personal liability issue to a certain extent by operating as a limited partnership, but partners whose liability is limited cannot be involved in actively managing the business. In addition, the passive activity loss rules may apply and can reduce the amount of loss deductible from these partnerships. Partners receive a Schedule K-1 with their share of the partnership's income or loss, which is then reported on the partner's individual income tax return.

S corporations. This type of legal entity is somewhat of a hybrid between a partnership and a C corporation. Owners of an S corporation have the same liability protection that is available from a C corporation but business income and expenses are passed through to the owner's (as with a partnership). Like partners and sole proprietors, however, more-than 2% S corporation shareholders are ineligible for tax-favored fringe benefits. Another disadvantage of S corporations is the limitations on the number and kind of permissible shareholders, which can limit an S corporation's growth potential and access to capital. As with a partnership, shareholders receive a Schedule K-1 with their share of the S corporation's income or loss, which is then reported on the shareholder's individual income tax return.

C corporations. Although they do not have the shareholder restrictions that apply to S corporations, the biggest disadvantage of a C corporation is double taxation. Double taxation means that the profits are subject to income tax at the corporate level, and are also taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends. This negative tax effect can be minimized, however, by investing the profits back into the business to support the company's growth. An advantage to this form of operation is that shareholder-employees are entitled to tax-advantaged corporate-type fringe benefits, such as medical coverage, disability insurance, and group-term life.

Limited liability company. A relatively new form of legal entity, a limited liability company can be set up to be taxed as a partnership, avoiding the corporate income tax, while limiting the personal liability of the managing members to their investment in the company. A LLC is not subject to tax at the corporate level. However, some states may impose a fee. Like a partnership, the business income and expenses flow through to the owners for inclusion on their individual returns.

Limited liability partnership. An LLP is similar to an LLC, except that an LLP does not offer all of the liability limitations that are available in an LLC structure. Generally, partners are liable for their own actions; however, individual partners are not completely liable for the actions of other partners.

There are more detailed differences and reasons for your choice of an entity, however, these discussions are beyond the scope of this article. Please contact the office for more information.

Please contact the office for more information on this subject and how it pertains to your specific tax or financial situation.