Newsletters

2011 ENGAGEMENT LETTER

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.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

Immediate Expensing

The Restoring Investment in Improvements Act (HR 1869), sponsored by House tax writers Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., would allow restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders to immediately write off the cost of certain improvements. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, inadvertently excludes qualified improvement property (QIP) from the new 100 percent bonus depreciation provision.

The measure is a "small but critical fix for our job creators, and technical corrections like this are a normal part of the process when Congress enacts major reforms," Walorski said in a recent press release. "This bipartisan, commonsense bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses to unlock the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our nation’s economic growth."

Similarly, Panetta highlighted the negative impact that the loss of immediate expensing has caused many small businesses. "Our bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other businesses to make the improvements they need to keep their stores competitive and safe and plan for the future," he said.

Although the "retail glitch" measure has solid bipartisan support, Democrats in general have seemed hesitant to fix any errors in the GOP tax law. To that end, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has said he would like to hold a hearing on technical corrections for the TCJA. The committee’s March 27 hearing on the TCJA did not specifically address technical corrections.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

IRS Reform

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (HR 1957), as amended, cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by voice on April 2. The House and Senate both introduced the bicameral, bipartisan measure on March 28. If enacted, the bill would make numerous reforms to the IRS, some of which include modernizing antiquated information technology systems and enhancing taxpayer services and identity protections.

"With a new tax code, it is time for a new tax administrator," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 9 statement. "I applaud the House for passing the Taxpayer First Act—a bold step to redesign the IRS to be an agency with one singular mission: putting taxpayers first."

The IRS Reform bill has been "years in the making," Brady said on April 9, echoing a joint statement that he and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with other bipartisan tax writers recently issued. "The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have carefully and thoughtfully developed this legislation over several years, after numerous hearings and roundtables, in a bipartisan, bicameral manner," the lawmakers said.

AICPA Applauds Taxpayer First Act

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) issued an April 9 statement commending the House for passing HR 1957. "The AICPA appreciates the bipartisan recognition by members of the U.S. House of Representatives for bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st Century," Edward S. Karl, vice president of taxation, said in a statement on behalf of the AICPA. "The AICPA has long been interested in and active in working to find ways to modernize the IRS so that it can better serve the needs of taxpayers and tax practitioners."

Free File Alliance

However, the bipartisan, bicameral bill has not advanced without its share of criticism. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized a provision within the bill that would codify the Free File Alliance, which is an agreement between the IRS and certain tax preparation companies that includes the IRS being unable to directly assist in tax return preparation.

"Again and again in my service in the Senate I have battled the tax-preparation software industry to simplify filing taxes for the typical American," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an April 9 statement. "During the debate on the tax administration bill, my staff pushed back on a prohibition on the agency competing with private tax preparation services, and I will continue to push for my proposal for the pre-filed ‘simple’ return and the principle that a taxpayer should not have to use a private company to pay their taxes online," he added.

Looking Ahead

It remains unclear when the Senate will take up the Taxpayer First Act bill. However, the bill is presently expected on Capitol Hill to easily be approved in the Senate.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

The proposed regulations also withdraw and replace placeholder provisions in an earlier set of proposed regulations ( REG-115420-18). These concern:

• the definition of "substantially all"regulations
• transactions that can trigger includible gain;
• the timing and amount of deferred gain that is included;
• treatment of leased property used in the qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) business;
• use of QOZ business property in the QOZ;
• sourcing of income to the QOZ business; and
• the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets.

In addition, within a few months the IRS expects to address administrative rules for a QOF that fails to maintain the required 90-percent investment standard, as well as information reporting requirements.

Finally, the IRS expects to revise Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, for 2019 and subsequent tax years. These revisions may require additional information, including the employer identification number (EIN) for the QOF business, and the amounts invested by QOFs and QOZ businesses located in particular QOZs.

"Substantially All" for QOZ Business

The 2018 regulations provided that a trade or business satisfies the "substantially all" test for a QOZ business if at least 70 percent of its tangible property is qualified opportunity zone business property. The new proposed regulations generally extend this 70-percent threshold to the "substantially all" tests for use. However, in the holding period context, the "substantially all" threshold is 90 percent.

Original Use of Purchased Tangible Property

The proposed regulations generally provide that the "original use" of tangible property acquired by purchase by any person starts on the date when that person or a prior person:

• first places the property in service in the qualified opportunity zone for purposes of depreciation or amortization; or
• first uses the property in the qualified opportunity zone in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property’s owner.

Used tangible property will satisfy the original use requirement with respect to a QOZ so long as the property has not been previously used (that is, has not previously been used within that QOZ in a manner that would have allowed it to depreciated or amortized) by any taxpayer

In addition, a building or other structure that has been vacant for at least five years before being purchased by a QOF or QOZ business satisfies the original use requirement. Improvements made by a lessee to leased property satisfy the original use requirement and are considered purchased property for the amount of the unadjusted cost basis of the improvements.

Land can be treated as QOZ business property only if it is used in a trade or business of a QOF or QOZ business. The holding of land for investment does not give rise to a trade or business, and the land cannot be QOZ business property. Anti-abuse rules determine whether unimproved land can be qualifying property. However, other purchased real property generally must be substantially improved, determined on an asset-by-asset basis.

Leased Tangible Property in QOZ

Leased tangible property may be QOZ property if:

• the lease is entered into after 2017; and
• substantially all of the property’s use is in a QOZ during substantially all of the lease period.

However, the first-use requirement does not apply to leased tangible property. The leased property can generally also be acquired from a related person, though several conditions apply. The proposed regulations also provide methods for valuing the leased property.

QOZ Businesses

The proposed regulations:

• provide that in determining whether a substantial portion of intangible property of a QOZ is used in the active conduct of a trade or business, a substantial portion is at least 40 percent;
• address real property that straddles a QOZ;
• provide three safe harbors and a facts-and-circumstances test for determining whether a corporation or partnership derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business;
• define "trade or business" by reference to Code Sec. 162, except that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property used in a trade or business can also be the active conduct of a trade or business; and
• provide a safe harbor for working capital.

Other Business Rules

The proposed regulations also address:

• Section 1231 gains;
• relief regarding the 90 percent asset test, including relief for newly contributed assets and QOF reinvestments;
• the amount of an investment for purposes of the deferral election;
• inclusion events, the timing on basis adjustments, includible amounts, and special rules for partnerships and S corporations;
• gifts and bequests;
• exceptions for disregarded transfers and some nonrecognition transactions;
• distributions and contributions;
• consolidated return provisions;
• holding periods and tacking rules;
• anti-abuse rules;
• special rules for Indian tribes and tribally leased property.

Comments Requested; Public Hearing Scheduled

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for 10 am on July 9, 2019, at the New Carrollton Federal Building in Latnham, MD. Public comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120186-18).

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

Value of Professional Sports Contracts

Professional sports teams enter into contracts with their personnel (e.g., managers, coaches, players, etc.). Typical personnel contracts provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for a certain duration of service. The value of such a contract may fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including:

• player performance;
• the changing needs of the team and of other teams;
• a player’s effect on fan attendance; and
• the number of years until a player becomes a free agent and is able to sign a contract to play for any team in a league.

Other considerations affecting the value of a player contract include:

• the size of the team’s market (i.e., whether a smaller city or a major urban population);
• the cost of player development; and
• the impact of injuries and slumps on player performance.

In most cases, teams do not trade personnel contracts or draft picks unless the team thinks that it is receiving contracts of an equal or greater value. Because each party believes that they are receiving personnel contracts or draft picks of an equal or greater value, it is difficult to assign a monetary value to them. Accordingly, the IRS developed a safe harbor whereby each team is able to treat the traded contracts or draft picks as having a basis of zero, thus avoiding the recognition of gain or loss on the trade.

Safe Harbor Requirements

In order to use the safe harbor, professional sports teams must meet the following requirements:

• all teams involved in the trade must use the safe harbor;
• teams may only trade personnel contracts, draft picks, and/or cash;
• personnel contracts and/or draft picks cannot be Code Sec. 197 intangibles; and
• the financial statements of all teams involved in the trade must not reflect assets or liabilities resulting from the trade other than cash.

Application

Sports teams using the safe harbor will not recognize any gain or loss if they only trade personnel contracts or draft picks. However, teams that receive cash in a trade will recognize the amount of cash received as gain. In addition, the team providing cash to another team in the trade will receive basis in the personnel contract or draft pick equal to the amount of cash that it provided. A team providing cash to another team in a trade for two or more draft picks or personnel contracts must allocate its basis to each personnel contract or draft pick received from the other team by dividing the basis by the number of personnel contracts or draft picks received.

In certain cases, a team may have unrecovered basis in a draft pick or personnel contract under Code Sec. 167(c). In those instances, the team may recognize gain or loss based on the difference between the unrecovered basis and any cash received.

Effective Date

Teams may use the safe harbor for any trades involving personnel contracts or draft picks entered into after April 10, 2019. However, teams may choose to apply these rules in any open tax year.

The IRS recently announced that inflation is increasing many dollar amounts in the Tax Code for 2012.  For taxpayers, the inflation adjustments may help reduce their overall tax liability in 2012.

Inflation adjustments

Many provisions in the Tax Code are required to be adjusted annually for inflation. These include various deductions, exemptions and exclusion amounts.  The tax law also requires that the individual income tax brackets be adjusted annually for inflation.  Low inflation in 2009 and 2010 resulted in many of the provisions experiencing no increases for 2010 and 2011.

Next year is different. In October, the IRS announced that inflation is running at just over 3.8 percent. In response, the IRS adjusted a number of amounts in the Tax Code upward for 2012.

Retirement accounts

401(k) plans. For 2012, the maximum amount an individual can contribute tax-free to a 401(k) plan increases $500 from $16,500 to $17,000.  However, some 401(k) plans limit maximum contributions to levels below the ceiling in the Tax Code.

IRAs. The deduction for taxpayers making contributions to a traditional IRA is phased out for single individuals and heads of households who are covered by a workplace retirement plan and whose modified adjusted gross incomes fall within certain ranges. For 2012, the income phaseout range starts at $58,000 and ends at $68,000, up from $56,000 and $66,000, respectively, for 2011.  For married couples filing jointly, in which the spouse who makes the IRA contribution is covered by a workplace retirement plan, the income phaseout range for 2012 starts at $92,000 and ends at $112,000, up from $90,000 and $110,000, respectively, for 2011.  For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out for 2012 if the couple’s income is between $173,000 and $183,000, up from $169,000 and $179,000, respectively, for 2011.

Roth IRAs are subject to similar rules. The AGI limit for maximum Roth IRA contributions for a married couple filing a joint return for 2012 is $173,000, an increase of $4,000 from 2011. The AGI limitation for all other taxpayers (other than married taxpayers filing separate returns) increases from $107,000 for 2011 to $110,000 for 2012.

Saver’s credit.  The Code Sec. 25B credit rewards eligible individuals with a tax credit for contributing to a retirement plan or an IRA.  For 2012, the AGI limit for the “saver’s credit” increases for single individuals to $28,750, an increase of $500 from 2011. The AGI limit for married couples filing joint returns increases from $56,500 for 2011 to $57,500 for 2012.

Individual income tax brackets

Inflation also impacts the individual income tax rate brackets (which are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively, for 2011 and 2012).  Indexing of the income tax rate brackets effectively lowers tax bills by including more of an individual’s income in lower brackets.

More inflation adjustments

Standard deduction. Taxpayers who elect not to itemize deductions use the standard deduction amount. The standard deduction increases by $500 for married couples filing a joint return from $11,400 for 2011 to $11,900 for 2012.   The standard deduction for single individuals increases from $5,700 for 2011 to $5,950 for 2012.

Personal exemption.  Taxpayers may claim a personal exemption deduction (and an exemption deduction for each person they claim as a dependent). The amount of the personal exemption and the dependency exemption increases from $3,700 for 2011 to $3,800 for 2012.  The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) repealed the personal exemption phaseout for higher income taxpayers for 2011 and 2012.

Estate tax.  The 2010 Tax Relief Act provided that the basic exclusion amount for determining the amount of the unified credit against estate tax for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009 is $5 million. The $5 million amount is adjusted for inflation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2011. For 2012, the inflation-adjusted amount is $5,120,000.

Gift tax exclusion.  For 2012, you can give up to $13,000 to any person without incurring gift tax. Married couples can gift up to $26,000 tax-free to any person. There is no limit on the number of individuals you can make the $13,000 ($26,000) gift. The $13,000 and $26,000 amounts are unchanged from 2011.

If you have any questions about these or other inflation adjustments, please contact our office.

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), which it announced this fall, the distinction between independent contractors and employees has become a “hot issue” for many businesses. The IRS has devoted considerable effort to rectifying worker misclassification in the past, and continues the trend with this new program.  It is available to employers that have misclassified employees as independent contractors and wish to voluntarily rectify the situation before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

The distinction between independent contractors and employees is significant for employers, especially when they file their federal tax returns. While employers owe only the payment to independent contractors, employers owe employees a series of federal payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and federal tax withholding. Thus, it is often tempting for employers to avoid these taxes by classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

If, however, the IRS discovers this misclassification, the consequences might include not only the requirement that the employer pay all owed payroll taxes, but also hefty penalties. It is important that employers be aware of the risk they take by classifying a worker who should or could be an employee as an independent contractor.

“All the facts and circumstances”

The IRS considers all the facts and circumstances of the parties in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These are numerous and sometimes confusing, but in short summary, the IRS traditionally considers 20 factors, which can be categorized according to three aspects: (1) behavioral control; (2) financial control; (3) and the relationship of the parties.

Examples of behavioral and financial factors that tend to indicate a worker is an employee include:

• The worker is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work;
• The worker is trained by an experienced employee, indicating the employer wants services performed in a particular manner;
• The worker’s hours are set by the employer;
• The worker must submit regular oral or written reports to the employer;
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month;
• The worker receives payment or reimbursement from the employer for his or her business and traveling expenses; and
• The worker has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability.

In other words, any existing facts or circumstances that point to an employer’s having more behavioral and/or financial control over the worker tip the balance towards classifying that worker as an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS’s factors do not always apply, however; and if one or several factors indicate independent contractor status, but more indicate the worker is an employee, the IRS may still determine the worker is an employee.

Finally, in examining the relationship of the parties, benefits, permanency of the employment term, and issuance of a Form W-2 rather than a Form 1099 are some indicators that the relationship is that of an employer–employee.

Conclusion

Worker classification is fact-sensitive, and the IRS may see a worker you may label an independent contractor in a very different light. One key point to remember is that the IRS generally frowns on independent contractors and actively looks for factors that indicate employee status.

Please do not hesitate to call our offices if you would like a reassessment of how you are currently classifying workers in your business, as well as an evaluation of whether IRS’s new Voluntary Classification Program may be worth investigating.

Job-hunting expenses are generally deductible as long as you are not searching for a job in a new field. This tax benefit can be particularly useful in a tough job market. It does not matter whether your job hunt is successful, or whether you are employed or unemployed when you are looking.

Expenses directly connected with a job search are deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. You can deduct job-hunting expenses if the amount of all your so-called miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeds two percent of your adjusted gross income. However, if you claim the standard deduction, you cannot deduct job-hunting expenses. Therefore, as a practical matter for many job seekers, job hunting expenses do not materialize as a tax deduction.

For those who are able to use job seeking expenses as a deduction, it can be difficult to determine what a new field is. A professional photographer who pursues a job in the retail industry clearly is searching in a new field and cannot deduct any of his or her job-hunting expenses. But there are exceptions. The IRS has allowed persons who retired from the military to search for jobs in new fields and claim their job-hunting expenses. Taking a temporary job while searching for permanent employment in your current field will not be considered a job change that disqualifies your job-hunting expenses.

Persons entering the job market for the first time, such as college students, and persons who have been out of the job market for a long period of time, such as parents of young children, cannot deduct their job-hunting expenses. However, a college student who worked in a particular field while in school may be able to deduct job-hunting expenses.

Deductible expenses include typing, printing and mailing a resume. Long-distance phone calls are also deductible. You can deduct travel costs for going on a job search or an interview, including air transportation, railroad, or car expenses. The standard rate for car expenses for business is 55 cents per mile for 2012. Amounts you pay to a job counselor, employment agency or job referral service are all deductible.

It is important to keep records of your costs. While your individual expenses may not be substantial, your total expenses can add up to a significant amount.

Many tax benefits for business will either expire at the end of 2011 or become less valuable after 2011. Two of the most important benefits are bonus depreciation and Code Sec. 179 expensing. Both apply to investments in tangible property that can be depreciated. Other sunsetting opportunities might also be considered.

Bonus depreciation

Bonus depreciation is 100 percent for 2011. A business can write-off, in the first year, the entire cost of its investment in new depreciable property. Under current law, bonus depreciation will decrease to 50 percent in 2012 and will terminate after 2012. (These deadlines are extended one year for certain transportation property and property with a longer production period). President Obama has proposed to extend 100 percent bonus depreciation through 2012. Normally, this would have a good chance of being approved, but with the focus on deficit reduction and the linking of tax benefits to tax increases, it is not at all clear what will happen.

So, if a business has income in 2011 and plans to invest in depreciable property, it is worthwhile to consider making that investment in 2011, while the available write-off is at its highest. Under normal depreciation rules, a business will still be able to claim accelerated write-offs, but this may be 50 percent or less of the cost of the property, with the balance written-off over several years, instead of all in one year.

Planning for bonus depreciation is important because the property must satisfy placed-in-service and acquisition date requirements. Property is placed in service when it is in a condition or state of readiness on a regular ongoing basis for a specifically assigned function in a trade or business. The acquisition date rules may vary. For 2011, property is acquired when the taxpayer incurs or pays its cost. This could occur when the property is delivered, but it could also be when title to the property passes. For 2012, property is acquired when the taxpayer takes physical possession of the property.

Code Sec. 179 expensing

Code Sec. 179 expensing (first-year writeoff) has been around for awhile, but at higher amounts more recently. While there is no limit on bonus depreciation, expensing is limited to a statutory amount. For 2011, this amount is $500,000. It is scheduled to drop to $125,000 in 2012 and to $25,000 after 2012 (adjusted for inflation). Moreover, the cap is reduced for the amount of total investment in Code Sec. 179 property. The phaseout threshold is $2 million for 2011, dropping to $500,000 for 2012 and $200,000 for 2013 and subsequent years. For businesses who want to invest in depreciable property, the payoff is definitely greater in 2011. Taxpayers taking advantage of expensing should write off assets that would otherwise have the longest recovery periods.

Other 2011 benefits

Some other important benefits expire at the end of 2011 or become less valuable. A significant benefit in 2011 is the 100 percent exclusion for small business stock. After 2012, the normal exclusion rate will drop to 50 percent, although it has been 75 percent in recent years. The exclusion is based on the year the stock is acquired; the stock must be held for five years before sold and satisfy other requirements.

Another important benefit is the 20 percent research credit. The credit has been extended one year at a time for a long period, so it is likely to be extended again. Nevertheless, until Congress acts, there is some uncertainty for research expenses incurred after 2011.

Conclusion

To maximize the benefits of 2011 year-end tax planning, a business must be proactive in determining what upcoming capital investments might be accelerated into this year and what investments become cost effective because of the immediate tax benefits that they offer. Some business-related tax benefits will be less valuable after 2011; for others, it is not clear what Congress and the administration will do in terms of surprising taxpayers with a year-end tax bill. Please contact this office if you have any questions over how year-end tax strategies that begin now and continue through December can help maximize tax benefits for your business.

When an individual dies, certain family members may be eligible for Social Security benefits. In certain cases, the recipient of Social Security survivor benefits may incur a tax liability.

Family members

Family members who can collect benefits include children if they are unmarried and are younger than 18 years old; or between 18 and 19 years old, but in an elementary or secondary school as full-time students; or age 18 or older and severely disabled (the disability must have started before age 22).  If the individual has enough credits, Social Security pays a one-time death benefit of $255 to the decedent’s spouse or minor children if they meet certain requirements.

Benefit amount

The benefit amount is based on the earnings of the decedent.  The more the decedent paid into Social Security, the larger the benefit amount. Social Security uses the decedent’s basic benefit amount and calculates what percentage survivors may receive. That percentage depends on the age of the survivors and their relationship to the decedent. Children, for example, receive 75 percent of the decedent’s benefit amount. 

Taxation

The person who has the legal right to receive Social Security benefits must determine whether the benefits are taxable. For example, if a taxpayer receives checks that include benefits paid to the taxpayer and the taxpayer's child, the child's benefits are not considered in determining whether the taxpayer's benefits are taxable. Instead, one half of the portion of the benefits that belongs to the child must be added to the child's other income to see whether any of those benefits are taxable to the child.

Social security benefits are included in gross income only if the recipient's "provisional income" exceeds a specified amount, called the "base amount" or "adjusted base amount."  There are two tiers of benefit inclusion. A 50-percent rate is used to figure the taxable part of income that exceeds the base amount but does not exceed the higher adjusted base amount. An 85-percent rate is used to figure the taxable part of income that exceeds the adjusted base amount.

Up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits could be included in taxable income if a recipient's provisional income is more than the following base amounts:

--$25,000 for single individuals, qualifying surviving spouses, heads of household, and married individuals who live apart from their spouse for the entire tax year and file a separate return; and

--$32,000 for married individuals filing a joint return;

--zero for married individuals who do not file a joint return and do not live apart from their spouse during the entire tax year

Up to 85 percent of benefits could be included in taxable income if a recipient's provisional income is more than the following adjusted base amounts:

--$34,000 for single individuals, qualifying surviving spouses, heads of household, and married individuals who live apart from their spouse for the entire tax year and file a separate return; and

--$44,000 for married individuals filing a joint return;

--zero for married individuals who do not file a joint return and do not live apart from their spouse during the entire tax year.

If the taxpayer's provisional income does not exceed the base amount, no part of Social Security benefits will be taxed. For taxpayers whose income exceeds the base amount, but not the higher adjusted base amount, the amount of benefits that must be included in income is the lesser of:

--One-half of the annual benefits received; or

--One-half of the amount that remains after subtracting the appropriate base amount from the taxpayer's provisional income.

Taxpayers whose provisional income exceeds the adjusted base amount must include in income the lesser of:

--85 percent of the annual benefits received; or

--85 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's provisional income over the applicable adjusted base amount plus the smaller of: (a) the amount calculated under the 50-percent rules above, or (b) one-half of the difference between the taxpayer's applicable adjusted base amount and the applicable base amount. One-half of the difference between the base amount and the adjusted base amount is $6,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and $4,500 for other taxpayers. For taxpayers who are married, not living apart from their spouse, and filing separately, the amount will always be zero.

If you have any questions about the taxation of Social Security benefits, please contact our office.

Congress has returned to work after its August recess under a tight deadline to reduce the federal budget deficit and also, possibly, extend some expiring tax incentives.  Between now and the end of the year, Congress could enact significant tax reform in a deficit reduction package; or it may take a piecemeal approach. All this Congressional activity contributes to uncertainty in tax planning.

Joint committee’s task

On August 2, 2011, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).  Along with cutting approximately $1 trillion in federal spending and raising the federal debt ceiling, the Budget Control Act creates a special a bipartisan joint select committee of Congress to propose more deficit reduction measures.   The Budget Control Act charges the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction with reducing the federal government budget deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over fiscal years 2012 to 2021. If the joint committee cannot agree on deficit reduction measures, or if Congress rejects the committee’s proposals, the Budget Control Act provides for automatic cuts over the coming decade.

The12-member joint committee is composed of an equal number of members from both parties: six Democrats and six Republicans.  The joint committee must make its proposals, in legislative language, not later than November 23, 2011 (if a majority of the committee agrees on the proposals). Congress must vote on the proposals not later than December 23, 2011.

Flood of proposals expected

The joint committee is expected to be flooded with proposals to reduce the federal deficit.  President Obama has urged the joint committee to take a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction. The president has called for reducing the federal deficit through a combination of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Some of the tax provisions mentioned by President Obama for repeal or reform include tax incentives for oil and gas producers and the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting. President Obama also wants Congress to extend the two percent payroll tax cut, which is scheduled to expire after 2011.

One of the most contentious proposals the joint committee may address is the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act (2010 Tax Relief Act) extended the Bush-era tax cuts through the end of 2012. President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and middle income taxpayers but not for higher income taxpayers (which the White House defines as individuals with incomes over $200,000 and families with incomes over $250,000).  It is unclear at this time if the joint committee will take up the Bush-era tax cuts.

The joint committee may look to some recent tax reform proposals for guidance. In 2010, the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform developed a six-part plan to reduce the federal deficit. The commission recommended reducing or eliminating many tax incentives for individuals in exchange for lower individual income tax rates. The commission also endorsed lowering the corporate tax rate to 26 percent. In July 2011, a bipartisan group of senators, known as the "gang of six," introduced a plan for deficit reduction. The senators' plan would, among other provisions, replace the current individual income tax rate schedule with three new tax brackets along with abolishing the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

Expiring tax provisions

A number of popular but temporary tax incentives (known as “tax extenders) are scheduled to expire after 2011. In past years, Congress has routinely extended many of them. This year may be different. The joint committee could include the tax extenders in its work, extending some but allowing others to expire. Alternatively, the joint committee could decide not to touch the tax extenders. In that case, some or all of them could be extended in separate legislation.

Some of the extenders scheduled to expire after 2011 are (not an exhaustive list):

• Research tax credit
• 15-year recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, restaurant property and retail improvements
• Work Opportunity Tax Credit
• Employer wage credit for activity military reservists
• Indian employment credit and accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations
• Special expensing rules for film and production costs
• Basis adjustment to stock of an S corporation making charitable contributions
• Enhanced deduction for charitable contributions of food inventory, corporate charitable contributions of book inventory and corporate charitable contributions of computers
• Expensing of environmental remediation costs
• Grants for investment in certain energy property in lieu of tax credits
• Income tax credit for alcohol fuels
• Refined coal production facilities credit
• Tax treatment of payments to controlling exempt organizations
• Subpart F exceptions for active financing income

Additionally, one hundred percent bonus depreciation is scheduled to expire after 2011 (except for property with a longer production period).  Enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing ($500,000 maximum amount/$2 million investment ceiling) also is scheduled to expire after 2011.

At this time, September 2011, it is not too early to contemplate how tax reform could impact your planning. Please contact our office and we can schedule a time to review your tax strategy.