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.

A taxpayer's expenses incurred due to travel outside of the United States for business activities are deductible, but under a stricter set of rules than domestic travel. Foreign travel expenses may be subject to special allocation rules if a taxpayer engages in personal activities while traveling on business. Expenses subject to allocation include travel fares, meals, lodging, and other expenses incident to travel.  

Allocation expenses

Frequently, international business trips have a personal aspect. A taxpayer who travels outside of the United States for both business and pleasure may deduct no part of his or her travel expenses (airfare, cabs, hotel, meals, etc.) if the trip is not primarily related to business. However, business expenses incurred while at the destination are deductible even though the travel expenses are not.

If the trip is primarily related to business, then that portion of travel properly allocated to the business portion may be deducted. Proper allocation is based on the amount of time spent on each activity. "Primary purpose" is a purpose of more than 50 percent. Foreign travel for purposes of allocation is travel outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The general "primary purpose" rule on foreign business travel, fortunately, has two huge exceptions, one for anyone who travels a week or less and the other for most employees on business trips under an expenses allowance arrangement.

The allocation rules do not apply to taxpayers:

• who do not have substantial control over the business trip;
• whose travel outside the United States is a week or less in duration; 
• who establish that a personal vacation was not a major factor in deciding to take the trip; and
• whose personal activities conducted during the trip are less than 25 percent of the total travel time.

Taxpayers who travel under reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangements are not considered to have substantial control over the business trip unless they are the managing executive of the employer or a party related to, or more than 10 percent owner of the employer.

Conventions

Business conventions come under a separate rule. A taxpayer cannot deduct travel expenses for attending a convention, seminar or similar business meeting held outside the "North American area" unless specific criteria are satisfied. The "North American area" includes not only the US, Canada, and Mexico but also Costa Rica, Honduras and many islands in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and the Pacific.

If you are unsure of how to allocate your business travel expenses and need additional information, please give our office a call. We would be glad to help.

With the subprime mortgage mess wreaking havoc across the country, many homeowners who over-extended themselves with creative financing arrangements and exotic loan terms are now faced with some grim tax realities. Not only are they confronted with the overwhelming possibility of losing their homes either voluntarily through selling at a loss or involuntarily through foreclosure, but they must accept certain tax consequences for which they are totally unprepared.

Many homeowners - whether in connection with their principal residence or a vacation property - may not anticipate that foreclosure and a home sale that produces a loss can trigger significant and unexpected income tax liabilities, especially when the sale does not produce enough gain to pay off outstanding mortgage debt.

Selling at a loss

Homeowners may be unpleasantly surprised to learn that they can not write-off losses incurred from the sale of their home. When a homeowner is forced to sell their personal residence for less than the price they paid, the loss incurred on the sale is considered to be a non-deductible personal expense for federal income tax purposes. What's more, if the homeowner eventually buys another home that is sold down the road at a taxable profit, previous losses cannot be used to offset that gain.

Faced with such a situation, the technique of renting out the home, rather than selling it, might help some homeowner buy time until better times. If renting eventually stops making financial sense, the homeowner who sells at a loss might then succeed in establishing a deductible business loss from the business of renting property. However, only losses incurred after the property is converted may be deducted.

Debt forgiveness

Homeowners who sell their property when their mortgage debt exceeds the net sale price of the home (a so-called "short sale") may find that they owe taxes to the IRS. For example, assume you paid $500,000 for a home that you sell for a net sale price of $400,000, but you have a mortgage of $550,000 on the property. For tax purposes, you have incurred a $100,000 loss on the sale because the sale price is lower than your tax basis in the property ($400,000 sale price - $500,000 basis = $100,000 loss). Moreover, you still owe $150,000 to your mortgage lender since a mortgage note is a personal liability in addition to being an encumbrance on the house itself. If the lender refuses to discharge the remaining debt, you'll have to pay off the loan and there is no tax break or write-off for doing so.

On the other hand, if the mortgage lender forgives part or all of the remaining $150,000 debt, the amount discharged is considered taxable income. With few exceptions, discharged debt of all types is treated as income, taxable at ordinary rates just like a salary. It is irrelevant to the IRS that no tangible income was actually received on the sale of the home or forgiveness of debt by the lender. You will owe taxes on the amount of mortgage debt that the lender discharges. What's more, there is no offset from your $100,000 loss on the sale of the property; nor is this income covered by the $250,000 exclusion on taxable gain on the sale of a principal residence ($500,000 for joint filers).

A lender who discharges any part or all of a homeowner's debt must report the forgiven debt on Form 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt) to you and to the IRS. You must report the amount of discharged debt as income on your tax return in the year the mortgage debt is forgiven.

Foreclosure

Foreclosure also produces tax consequences that may be wholly unanticipated by the homeowner. Taxable gains and income from mortgage debt forgiveness also occur in foreclosure. Tax liability upon foreclosure depends on whether you have a nonrecourse or recourse loan. A recourse loan permits the lender to sue the borrower for any outstanding debt. When a foreclosure occurs on the property of a homeowner with a nonrecourse loan, however, the lender is only entitled to collect the amount that the home is sold for, and the borrower has no further liability.

Example. Your tax basis in your home is $400,000. You have a recourse loan and your mortgage debt totals $350,000. But at the time of foreclosure the fair market value of your home has decreased to $325,000. However, the lender forgives the remaining unpaid mortgage debt of $25,000 (usually because the lender sees that the former homeowner has little assets left, the remaining debt would be hard to collect, and an immediate write off gives the lender an immediate tax deduction). Tax law treats you as having received ordinary income from the cancellation of the debt in the amount of $25,000.

Alternatively, if you had a nonrecourse loan in the amount of $350,000 and your home sold at auction for $325,000, you would have no further liability to the lender since it cannot pursue you for the lost $25,000. Therefore, since your mortgage lender cannot legally pursue you for the remaining $25,000, there will be no debt for them to discharge. Such nonrecourse loans, however, are very rare in personal, non-business settings.

Moreover, if property is foreclosed and sold at auction for more than the home's tax basis, the sale produces taxable gain. In this case, however, the gain from a foreclosure sale of an individual's principal residence may be excluded to the extent of up to $250,000 ($500,000 for married homeowners filing jointly), depending on the length of homeownership. No exclusion, however, is given on vacation property that is not a principal residence.

Future relief for homeowners?

In mid-April, Reps. Robert E. Andrews (D-New Jersey) and Ron Lewis (R-Kentucky), introduced the Mortgage Cancellation Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 1876), a bill that would assist many homeowners affected by the loss of their home through foreclosure or short sale. The legislation would exempt discharged debt on primary home mortgages from treatment as income subject to income taxation. Currently, the bill is before the House Ways and Means Committee.

If you would like more information on the tax consequences of foreclosure or the potential implications of taking a loss on the sale of your home or vacation property, please call our office and we can discuss your options for minimizing your tax liabilities.

These days, both individuals and businesses buy goods, services, even food on-line. Credit card payments and other bills are paid over the internet, from the comfort of one's home or office and without any trip to the mailbox or post office.

Now, what is probably your biggest "bill" can be paid on-line: your federal income taxes.

There are three online federal tax payment options available for both businesses and individuals: electronic funds withdrawal, credit card payments and the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System. If you are not doing so already, you should certainly consider the convenience -and safety-- of paying your tax bill online.  While all the options are now "mainstream" and have been used for at least several years, safe and convenient, each has its own benefits as well as possible drawbacks. The pros and cons of each payment option should be weighed in light of your needs and preferences.

Electronic Funds Withdrawal

Electronic funds withdrawal (or EFW) is available only to taxpayers who e-file their returns. EFW is available whether you e-file on your own, or with the help of a tax professional or software such as TurboTax. E-filing and e-paying through EFW eliminates the need to send in associated paper forms.

Through EFW, you schedule when a tax payment is to be directly withdrawn from your bank account. The EFW option allows you to e-file early and, at the same time, schedule a tax payment in the future. The ability to schedule payment for a specific day is an important feature since you decide when the payment is taken out of your account. You can even schedule a payment right up to your particular filing deadline.

The following are some of the tax liabilities you can pay with EFW:

• Individual income tax returns (Form 1040)
• Trust and estate income tax returns (Form 1041)
• Partnership income tax returns (Forms 1065 and 1065-B)
• Corporation income tax returns for Schedule K-1 (Forms 1120, 1120S, and 1120POL)
• Estimated tax for individuals (Form 1040)
• Unemployment taxes (Form 940)
• Quarterly employment taxes (Form 941)
• Employers annual federal tax return (Form 944)
• Private foundation returns (Form 990-PF)
• Heavy highway vehicle use returns (Form 2290)
• Quarterly federal excise tax returns (Form 720)

For a return filed after the filing deadline, the payment is effective on the filing date. However, electronic funds withdrawals can not be initiated after the tax return or Form 1040 is filed with the IRS. Moreover, a scheduled payment can be canceled up until two days before the payment.

EFW does not allow you to make payments greater than the balance you owe on your return. Therefore, you can't pay any penalty or interest due through EFW and would need to choose another option for these types of payments. While a payment can be cancelled up to two business days before the scheduled payment date, once your e-filed return is accepted by the IRS, your scheduled payment date cannot be changed. Thus, if you need to change the date of the payment, you have to cancel the original payment transaction and chose another payment method. Importantly, if your financial institution can't process your payment, such as if there are insufficient funds, you are responsible for making the payment, including potential penalties and interest. Finally, while EFW is a free service provided by the Treasury, your financial institution most likely charges a "convenience fee."

Credit Card Payments

Do you have your card ready? The Treasury Department is now accepting American Express, Discover, MasterCard, and VISA.

Both businesses and individual taxpayers can make tax payments with a credit card, whether they file a paper return or e-file. A credit card payment can be made by phone, when e-filing with tax software or a professional tax preparer, or with an on-line service provider authorized by the IRS. Some tax software developers offer integrated e-file and e-pay options for taxpayers who e-file their return and want to use a credit card to pay a balance due.

However, there is a convenience fee charged by service providers. While fees vary by service provider, they are typically based on the amount of your tax payment or a flat fee per transaction. For example, you owe $2,500 in taxes and your service provider charges a 2.49% convenience fee. The total fee to the service provider will be $62.25. Generally, the minimum convenience fee is $1.00 and they can rise to as much as 3.93% of your payment.

The following are some tax payments that can be made with a credit card:

• Individual income tax returns (Form 1040)
• Estimated income taxes for individuals (Form 1040-ES)
• Unemployment taxes (Form 940)
• Quarterly employment taxes (Form 941)
• Employers annual federal tax returns (Form 944)
• Corporate income tax returns (Form 1120)
• S-corporation returns (Form 1120S)
• Extension for corporate returns (Form 7004)
• Income tax returns for private foundations (Form 990-PF)

However, as is the case is with the EFW option, if a service provider fails to forward your payment to the Treasury, you are responsible for the missed payment, including potential penalties and interest.

Electronic Federal Tax Payment System

EFTPS is a system that allows individuals and businesses to pay all their federal taxes electronically, including income, employment, estimated, and excise taxes. EFTPS is available to both individuals and businesses and, once enrolled, taxpayers can use the system to pay their taxes 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year round. Businesses can schedule payments 120 days in advance while individuals can schedule payments 365 days in advance. With EFTPS, you indicate the date on which funds are to be moved from your account to pay your taxes. You can also change or cancel a payment up to 2 business days in advance of the scheduled payment date.

EFTPS is an ideal payment option for taxpayers who make monthly installment agreement payments or quarterly 1040ES estimated payments. Businesses should also consider using EFTPS to make payments that their third-party provider is not making for them.

EFTPS is a free tax payment system provided by the Treasury Department that allows you to make all your tax payments on-line or by phone. You must enroll in EFTPS, however, but the process is simple.

We would be happy to discuss these payment options and which may best suit your individual or business needs. Please call our office learn more about your on-line federal tax payment options.

Fringe benefits have not only become an important component of employee compensation, they also have a large financial impact on an employer's business. Fringe benefits are non-compensation benefits provided by an employer to employees. Unless they fall within one of the specific categories of tax-exempt fringe benefits, however, are taxable to employees.

Qualified employee discounts are among several categories of fringe benefits that are non-taxable to the employee under Code Sec. 132 and also deductible by the employer as an ordinary and necessary business expense. If you want to give employee discounts, this is the type you should consider first.

Qualified employee discounts

For an employee discount to be excludable from an employee's income and deductible by the employer, it must constitute a qualified employee discount. A qualified employee discount is an employee discount provided on qualified property or services. If the benefits are not qualified, they are taxable to the employee.

Qualified employee discounts are those that are provided on products or services sold in the ordinary course of the employer's line of business. For instance, employee discounts on items sold only at an employee store are not excludable from gross income because they are not offered for sale to non-employee customers in the ordinary course of the employer's line of business.

An employer may exclude the value of an employee discount provided to an employee from his or her wages, up to the following limits:

• For a discount on services, 20% of the price the employer charges non-employee customers for the service.

• For a discount on merchandise or other property, the employer's gross profit percentage times the price the employer charges non-employee customers for the property.

For example, if an employer's business sells a product for $100 and its cost is $75, the gross profit margin is $25. Therefore, to be tax-free to the employee, the discount cannot exceed $25. If an employer charges customers $100 for a certain service, the employee's tax-free discount for the same service cannot exceed $20 (i.e. 20 percent of the value of the service). Any excess discount will be treated as taxable income to the employee.

Qualified employee discounts can be provided through a direct reduction in the price of property or services as well through a cash rebate system. However, the discounts cannot be provided on real estate or investment property, such as stocks and bonds.

Non-discrimination

Qualified employee discounts must be available to employees on a nondiscriminatory basis, which requires that the benefits be available on substantially the same terms to all employees or to each member of a reasonable classification of employees that does not discriminate in favor of highly compensation employees. An employer engaged in more than one line of business must treat each line of business separately in applying the discrimination test. If an employer's plan fails the test, only your employees who are not highly compensated may exclude the value of the benefit from income.

Business expense deduction

An employer can deduct the actual cost of providing fringe benefits to employees as an ordinary and necessary business expense, whether or not the benefits are taxable to the employees. Employers can deduct the cost of providing qualified employee discounts as either compensation for services rendered or as a tax deductible business expense under Code Sec. 162.

As with other business expenses incurred by an employer for which tax deductions are sought, expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business are deductible only if they are ordinary and necessary. Ordinary and necessary expenses must be reasonable in amount to be deductible.

Because a qualified employee discount is a type of fringe benefit (albeit tax exempt), and fringe benefits are a form of employee compensation under Code Sec. 61, a qualified employee discount will meet the business expense requirements of Code Sec. 162, providing for deduction by an employer. Thus, employers can deduct the cost of qualified employee discounts and not pay any employment taxes on them.

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.

Why IRS Is Interested

A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.

Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.

Factors Examined

The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:

1. The salary history of the individual employee
2. Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
3. The salary history of other employees of the company
4. Special employee expertise or efforts
5. Year-end payments
6. Independent inactive investor analysis
7. Deferred compensation plan contributions
8. Independence of the board of directors
9. Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.

Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.

Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)

The S Corp Enigma

The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.

Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.

Conclusions

Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.

Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.

There are tax benefits for which you may be eligible if you are paying education expenses for yourself or an immediate member of your family. In the rush to claim one of two education tax credits or the higher-education expense deduction, IRS statistics indicate that a more modest yet still significant tax break is often being overlooked: the higher education student-loan interest deduction.

The student loan interest deduction for 2006 was the smaller of $2,500 or the amount of interest paid. The deduction amount may be gradually reduced or eliminated based on your filing status and modified adjusted gross income (MAGI).

Form 1098-E

Form 1098-E will help you calculate your student loan interest deduction. An institution that received interest payments of $600 or more during a calendar year on one or more qualified student loans must send Form 1098-E to each borrower.

Modified adjusted gross income

For 2007, the $2,500 maximum deduction for interest paid on qualified education loans begins to phase out ratably for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $55,000 ($110,000 for joint returns), and is completely phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $70,000 or more ($140,000 or more for joint returns).

Reduced deduction

If your credit must be reduced because of your MAGI, you must calculate your reduced deduction. To calculate your reduced amount, multiply your interest deduction (before the reduction) by a fraction. The numerator is your MAGI minus $55,000 ($110,000 for joint return filers). The denominator is $15,000 ($30,000 for joint return filers). Subtract the result from your deduction (before the reduction). This result is the amount you can deduct.

Example A. During 2007 Ed pays $800 interest on a qualified student loan. Ed's 2007 MAGI is $130,000 and he files a joint return. $800 X ($130,000-$110,000 / $30,000) =$533. Ed must reduce his deduction by $533. His reduced student loan interest deduction is $267 ($800 - $533).

Example B. During 2007 Bea, who is single, pays $2,750 interest on a qualified student loan. Bea's maximum deduction for 2007 is $2,500. However, Bea must further limit her maximum deduction since her MAGI is $60,000. Her required reduction is $2,500 x ($60,000 - $55,000 / $15,000) or $833.33 Her reduced student loan interest deduction is $2,500 - $833.33 or $1,666.67.

If you are unsure of your eligibility for the student loan interest deduction, please give our office a call and we will be happy to assist you.