Concept Business Solutions, Inc.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

Wolters Kluwer recently sat down with Jennifer Acuña, Principal, Federal Legislative and Regulatory Services, KPMG LLP, in Washington, D.C. to discuss over 30 temporary tax provisions known as "tax extenders," which have expired or will soon expire spanning from 2017 to 2019. Before joining KPMG, Acuña served as chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), and was previously tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee.

New Tax Extenders Climate on Capitol Hill
"There is an interesting dynamic going on with tax extenders on Capitol Hill. In the past, extenders were viewed as a priority item, and that has changed," Acuña said.

Generally, tax extenders have been viewed on Capitol Hill as a consistently bipartisan annual or biannual year-end legislative initiative. However, the fate of tax extenders is more uncertain than it has been in the past – in part because it is not clear yet whether there will be an opportunity for any further tax legislation to become law this year, Acuña observed.

Funding Bill Likely Driver for Tax Package
Lawmakers are revving up negotiations as Congress races against this year’s dwindling legislative calendar to reach an agreement on fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations. Government funding is scheduled to expire on November 21.

Given the political climate on Capitol Hill and Congress’s limited time left on the legislative calendar, a stand-alone tax package is considered unlikely to make its way through both chambers successfully. That said, November’s "must-pass" government funding bill could be the legislative vehicle for dozens of expired or soon-to-be expired tax extenders, as well as for any other tax provisions that may crop up during lawmakers’ negotiations.

SFC Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced their bipartisan Tax Extenders and Disaster Relief bill (Sen. 617) earlier this year. Subsequently, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., introduced his version of a similarly named tax extenders bill (HR 3301). However, Neal’s bill—which proposes undoing certain provisions related to estate taxes under 2017 tax reform as a "pay for"—was immediately deemed a nonstarter by Senate Republicans.

Notably, Acuña observed that House Democrats may be viewing their tax extenders bill as an opening offer, providing leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation. "In today’s climate it seems that some of the signaling that’s taking place is that House Democrats are trying to position tax extenders as a Republican priority to build up leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation," Acuña said. "Once you have a tax title on a big bill, there is no limit as to which tax provisions could actually be included in the bill," she added.

Larger Tax Package Could Emerge
In that vein, there has been talk among lawmakers that a larger, catch-all tax package could emerge from these negotiations. Any tax package that is unveiled in the coming weeks must have significant bipartisan support to make it to the president’s desk. That said, amidst the new climate surrounding tax extenders on Capitol Hill. several lawmakers have alluded that bipartisan negotiations could result in any number of tax provisions being added to the anticipated tax package, including technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Staking Ground on Extenders
"Right now, what is happening is that parties are staking their ground," Acuña said. While Neal’s bill was largely seen on Capitol Hill as an opening bid to these negotiations, "no one opens with their best offer," Acuña said. However, "there is common ground with respect to tax extenders," she added.

Additionally, Acuña noted that these temporary tax provisions benefit a broad range of constituents. "They have been extended historically without fail for a reason. And it is because there has typically been general bipartisan support for extenders; there is a little bit of something for everyone" she said.

However, as for which tax extenders will be renewed this year, as well as retroactively or all together forgotten, Grassley recently indicated that all eligible provisions will likely make the cut. "I would expect that as of right now, if there is an extenders package there won’t be anything left out," Grassley told reporters.

When asked if Grassley was likely referring to all expired or soon-to-be expired tax incentives spanning from 2017 to 2019, Acuña told Wolters Kluwer "that would seem to be the case." While discussing the possibility of yet another temporary extension, Acuña noted that it is hard to make policy calls on a temporary tax extenders package.

"If you want a drama free negotiation on temporary extensions, it’s a clean date change. It is easier – you do not have a policy debate," she said. "If there is an opportunity for a tax title to be attached to a larger bill this year, it is infinitely harder to include changes that some Members of Congress will not like than it is to just do what has been done in the past and kick the can down the road by temporarily extending everything."

In looking ahead, deciding which temporary tax provisions get the axe is a policy call that is unlikely to be made this year and will not easily be done on a bipartisan basis, according to Acuña.

To Pay For or Not to Pay For
As for tax extenders’ cost, the issue of pay-fors has not generally been a longwinded discussion among lawmakers. "In the past, there have been very short-lived debates on whether to pay for them," Acuña said, adding that extenders generally have not been paid for. "It is hard to find a way to raise the kind of money needed to pay for a tax extenders bill that would be politically palatable for both sides of the aisle."

However, cost can be a leading issue when Congress creates these tax breaks on a temporary rather than permanent basis, Acuña explained. "In theory, everyone might agree that a tax incentive is excellent tax policy, but because of revenue constraints, Congress will not or cannot pay for it on a permanent basis—and that is usually where Congress lands in this temporary tax policy pickle."

Additionally, Acuna highlighted that many of the individual tax cuts under the TCJA were enacted temporarily through 2025 due to budgetary reasons. "A lot of the TCJA provisions gave life to new expiring provisions," Acuña noted. Likening the TCJA’s individual provisions to the long list of tax extenders currently awaiting possible renewal, Acuña noted that tax policy is not usually made temporary "because the members viewed the underlying tax policy as unsound but because of other constraints."

The End for Tax Extenders?
Many Republican and Democratic lawmakers’ have called for an end to tax extenders, citing to the annual year-end dash to renew temporary tax provisions as bad tax policy overall. Indeed, five taskforces comprised of bipartisan SFC members recently reviewed these tax extenders and largely agreed that temporary tax policy in general is less than ideal. While many House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress and those before it, have agreed that enacting permanent tax invectives is better policy than doing so temporarily, actually getting there remains a challenge, even if just procedurally.

Close

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

QBI Deduction and Rental Real Estate
Under Code Sec. 199A, certain noncorporate taxpayers can deduct up to 20 percent of the taxpayer’s QBI from each of the taxpayer's qualified trades or businesses, including those operated through a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. Certain relevant passthrough entities (RPEs) (partnerships, S corporations, trust funds) calculate the deduction and pass it along to their owners or beneficiaries. A qualified trade or business is generally any trade or business under Code Sec. 162, but not a specified service trade or business (SSTB) or a trade or business of performing services as an employee.

Rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property (i.e., rental activity) that is not a Code Sec. 162 trade or business is still treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if the property is rented or licensed to a trade or business conducted by the individual or a RPE which is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4 ( Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14)).

Earlier this year, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure with a safe harbor for treating a rental real estate enterprise as a trade or business under Code Sec. 199A ( Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740). The IRS has issued the new revenue procedure after considering public comments on Notice 2019-7.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise
The new safe harbor applies to a "rental real estate enterprise." This is an interest in real property held for the production of rents, and may consist of an interest in a single property or interests in multiple properties. The taxpayer or RPE must hold each interest directly or through a disregarded entity, and may either:

treat each interest in similar property held for the production of rents as a separate rental real estate enterprise; or
treat interests in all similar properties held for the production of rents as a single rental real estate enterprise.

Properties are similar if they are part of the same rental real estate category: either residential or commercial. Commercial real estate held for the production of rents can only be part of the same enterprise with other commercial real estate. Residential properties can only be part of the same enterprise with other residential properties.

A taxpayer or RPE that treats interests in similar properties as a single rental real estate enterprise must continue to treat interests in all similar properties, including newly acquired properties, as a single rental real estate enterprise if it continues to rely on the safe harbor. However, a taxpayer or RPE that chooses to treat its interest in each residential or commercial property as a separate rental real estate enterprise can choose to treat its interests in all similar commercial or all similar residential properties as a single rental real estate enterprise in a future year.

An interest in mixed-use property—a single building that combines residential and commercial units—can be treated as a single rental real estate enterprise, or bifurcated into separate residential and commercial interests. A mixed-use property interest that is treated as a single rental real estate enterprise cannot be treated as part of the same enterprise as other residential, commercial, or mixed-use property.

Safe Harbor Requirements
The safe harbor determination must be made annually. For a rental real estate enterprise to qualify for the safe harbor, all of the following requirements must be met during the tax year:

Separate books and records are maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise. If an enterprise has more than one property, the requirement can be met if income and expense information statements for each property are maintained and then consolidated.
For rental real estate enterprises in existence for less than four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year. For rental real estate enterprises in existence for at least four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
The taxpayer maintains contemporaneous records (including time reports, logs, or similar documents) on the hours of all services performed, a description of all services performed, the dates when the services were performed, and who performed the services. For services performed by employees or independent contractors, the taxpayer may provide a description of the rental services, the amount of time generally spent performing the services, and the time, wage, or payment records for the employee or independent contractor. Records must be made available for inspection at the IRS's request. (The contemporaneous records requirement does not apply to tax years that begin before January 1, 2020.)
For each tax year for which it relies on the safe harbor, the taxpayer or RPE must attach a statement to a timely filed original return (or an amended return for the 2018 tax year only) that includes: (i) a description (including the address and rental category) of all rental real estate properties in each rental real estate enterprise; (ii) a description (including the address and rental category) of rental real estate properties acquired and disposed of during the tax year; and (iii) a representation that the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2019-38 have been satisfied.

"Rental services" include, but are not limited to:

advertising to rent or lease the real estate;
negotiating and executing leases;
verifying information contained in prospective tenant applications;
collecting rent;
daily operation, maintenance, and repair of the property, including purchasing materials and
supplies;
managing the real estate; and
supervising employees and independent contractors.

Rental services does not include:

financial or investment management activities, such as arranging financing;
procuring property;
studying and reviewing financial statements or reports on operations;
improving property under Reg. §1.263(a)-3(d); or
time spent traveling to and from the real estate.

If an enterprise fails to satisfy the safe harbor requirements, it can still be treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if it otherwise meets the trade or business definition in Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14).

Property Excluded From Safe Harbor
The safe harbor does not apply to:

real estate used by the taxpayer (including an owner or beneficiary of an RPE) as a residence under Code Sec. 280A(d);
real estate rented or leased under a triple net lease, which includes a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to pay for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities;
real estate rented to a trade or business conducted by a taxpayer or an RPE that is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4(b)(1)(i); or
the entire rental real estate interest, if any portion of it is treated as an SSTB under Reg. §1.199A-5(c)(2).

Effective Date
The safe harbor applies to tax years ending after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers and RPEs can rely on the prior safe harbor in Notice 2019-7 for the 2018 tax year.

Close

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency. Under the cryptocurrency guidance:

a taxpayer does not have gross income from a "hard fork" of the taxpayer's cryptocurrency if the taxpayer does not receive units of a new cryptocurrency; and
a taxpayer has ordinary income as a result of an "airdrop" of a new cryptocurrency following a hard fork if the taxpayer receives units of the new cryptocurrency.

The IRS has posted the FAQs on its website ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions).

Virtual Currency and Cryptocurrency
Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency.

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality.

Hard Forks and Air Drops
A hard fork occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger.

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. A hard fork followed by an airdrop results in the distribution of units of the new cryptocurrency to addresses containing the legacy cryptocurrency. Note, however, that a hard fork is not always followed by an airdrop.

Cryptocurrency from an airdrop generally is received on the date and at the time it is recorded on the distributed ledger. However, a taxpayer may constructively receive cryptocurrency prior to the airdrop being recorded on the distributed ledger. A taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency.

Gross Income
If the taxpayer did not receive units of new cryptocurrency from a hard fork, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth and does not have gross income as a result of the hard fork.

If the taxpayer receives units of new cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, the taxpayer received a new asset. Therefore, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth and has ordinary income in the year in which the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency. The taxpayer includes in gross income the fair market value of the cryptocurrency received. The taxpayer’s basis in the new cryptocurrency is the amount of income recognized.

Schedule 1, Form 1040 for 2019
A draft of the 2019 Form 1040, Schedule 1, "Additional Income and Adjustments to Income," includes a question which asks: "At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?" If an individual has engaged in any virtual currency transaction in 2019, he or she must check the “Yes” box next to the question.

If the taxpayer has disposed of any virtual currency that was held as a capital asset, he or she must use Form 8949 to figure the capital gain or loss and report it on Schedule D (Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR). If the taxpayer has received any virtual currency as compensation for services, or disposed of any virtual currency that he or she held for sale to customers in a trade or business, the taxpayer must report the income as he or she would report other income of the same type.

Close

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

In 2018, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit against the IRS and Treasury alleging that the SALT cap violates the federalism principles that undergird the U.S. Constitution. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on September 30 that the SALT cap is not an unconstitutional infringement of state power.

The states’ primary concern stemmed from the claim that the introduction of the SALT cap could impair each of the states’ ability to pursue its own preferred tax policies. However, the court noted that Congress lawfully enacted the SALT cap pursuant to its broad tax powers under Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that the cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others. However, the cap, like every other feature of the federal tax code, is a part of the landscape of federal law with which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers, according to Oetken. Because the states failed to plausibly allege that the cap, more so than any other major federal initiative, meaningfully constrains this decision-making process, the district court had no basis for concluding that the SALT cap is unconstitutionally coercive.

Background
In 2017, President Trump signed into law sweeping tax reform legislation informally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which made several substantial amendments to the federal tax code. Among other things, the TCJA placed an upper limit of $10,000 on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from their federal tax income to offset those sums they have paid toward certain state and local taxes (the "SALT cap"). As enacted, the SALT cap is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.

Democrats on Capitol Hill Prepare to Move SALT Cap Repeal Bill
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to move a SALT cap repeal bill when Congress returns from its two-week recess. Specifically, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. has proposed repealing the SALT cap and raising the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, where it previously sat. Additionally, Pascrell recently told reporters that House Democrats will likely propose a temporary repeal of the SALT cap as a "compromise."

At this time, however, any Democratic-backed measure to repeal or scale back the SALT cap is expected to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Close

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

a partner’s share of a recourse liability of the partnership equals the partner’s share of the liability under the rules of Code Sec. 752 and the related regulations; and
a partner’s share of a nonrecourse liability of the partnership is determined by applying the same percentage used to determine the partner’s share of the excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2)).

Executive Order Triggers Reversion Back to Prior Disguised Sale Rules
In October 2016, the IRS issued final and temporary regulations (707 Temporary Regulations) under which a partnership would determine all partnership liabilities for disguised sales purposes—both recourse and nonrecourse—by applying the same percentage used to determine a partner’s share of excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( T.D. 9788).

In April 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789) on reducing tax regulatory burdens. In response, the IRS identified the final and temporary regulations in T.D. 9788 as implicating some of those regulatory burdens. In turn, in 2018 Proposed Regulations, the IRS proposed to withdraw the 707 Temporary Regulations and reinstate the regulations under Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2) described above. Now, the IRS has adopted the 2018 Proposed Regulations, thereby reinstating the Prior 707 rules.

Treasury and the IRS will continue to study the merits of the approach in the 707 Temporary Regulations and other approaches, including the final regulations, to determine which results in the most appropriate treatment of liabilities in the context of disguised sales.

Effective Dates
The final regulations apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 4, 2019, the date that the 707 Temporary Regulations expire. However, partnerships and their partners may apply the final regulations to any transaction where all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, the applicable date of the 707 Temporary Regulations.

Close

The IRS has released final regulation on the election to take a loss resulting from a federally declared disaster in the year preceding the disaster. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations substantially without change.

Disaster Defined
The regulations provide definitions of:

federally declared disaster;
federally declared disaster area;
disaster loss;
disaster year; and
preceding year.

Scope and Effect of Election
The election for a disaster loss attributable to a particular disaster applies to the entire loss sustained by the taxpayer from that disaster during the disaster year.

Making or Revoking Election
A taxpayer elects to deduct a disaster loss for the preceding year on:

an original federal income tax return for the preceding year; or
an amended federal income tax return for the preceding year.

The election is made in the manner specified by guidance issued pursuant to the regulations.

A taxpayer may not to take a disaster loss in the preceding year if the taxpayer claims a deduction (as a loss, as cost of goods sold, or otherwise) for the same loss for the disaster year.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the disaster year and wants to elect the loss for the preceding year, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the previously deducted loss on or before the date that the taxpayer makes the election for the preceding year loss.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the preceding year and wants to revoke that election, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the loss for the preceding year on or before the date the taxpayer files the federal income tax return or the amended federal income tax return for the disaster year that includes the loss.

Due Dates
The due date for making the election to deduct a disaster loss in the preceding year is six months after the due date for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the disaster year (determined without regard to any extension of time to file).

Subject to the final regulation requirements, a taxpayer may revoke the election on or before the date that is 90 days after the due date for making the election.

Applicability Date
The final regulations apply to elections and revocations that are made on or after the date they are published in the Federal Register.

Close

Proposed regulations provide guidance on the potential tax consequences of replacing the London interbank offered rates (LIBORs) with a new reference rate in contracts and agreements.

On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that all currency and term variants of the LIBORs may be phased out after 2021. On March 5, 2018, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) established that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) would replace the LIBOR within the United States.

Tax Implications
Because the LIBORs are being phased out, existing debt instruments and derivatives must be amended. Parties will either amend debt instruments or contracts to replace references to the LIBOR with the SOFR (if in the United States). Alternatively, parties may alter debt instruments or contracts to replace the LIBOR-referencing fallback rate with another fallback rate upon the cessation of the LIBOR.

The ARRC has expressed several concerns to the IRS about the potential tax consequences associated with these contract amendments:

Modification of Terms of Debt and Non-Debt Instruments. Currently, there are no regulations under Code Sec. 1001 that address when a modification of a debt instrument, derivative, or other non-debt contract creates a realization event.
Transactions and Hedges. Amending the LIBOR-referencing debt instrument or hedge may cause a deemed termination of the hedge, which could lead to undesirable tax consequences.
Character of a One-Time Payment. Parties may need to agree to a one-time payment to address any differences between the LIBOR and the new rate, and it is unclear what the character of this payment would be.
Grandfathered Agreements. Certain debt and non-debt instruments that are exempt from specific laws due to their grandfathered status may lose that status if they are modified to reflect the elimination of the LIBOR.
OID and Qualified Floating Rates. The transition from the LIBOR to the SOFR (or other alternative rates) raises potential issues under the original issue discount (OID) rules.
REMICs. The modification of the terms of the regular interest rate in a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) to deal with the elimination of the LIBOR could preclude the interest from being a regular interest.
Interest in Foreign Corporations. The elimination of the LIBOR could prevent a foreign bank from taking advantage of the election under Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B).

Modification of Debt Instruments, Non-Debt Contracts
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a), if the terms of a debt instrument or non-debt contract are modified to replace, or to provide a fallback to, an LIBOR-referencing rate and the modification does not change the fair market value, there is no gain or loss under Code Sec. 1001. These rules apply regardless of whether the modification occurs by an amendment to the terms of the instrument or agreement or by replacing the existing debt instrument or contract with a new one.

Furthermore, altering the debt instrument’s terms to replace the LIBOR with a qualified rate is not treated as a modification and does not result in a deemed exchange of the debt instrument under Reg. §1001-3. Likewise, an alteration to a debt instrument’s terms to include a qualified rate (see below) as a fallback to an LIBOR referencing rate is not treated as a modification and therefore does not result in an exchange of the debt instrument for purposes of Reg. §1.1001-3.

Qualified Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b) provides the rules for determining whether a rate is a qualified rate. To be a qualified rate, Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b)(2)(i) requires that the fair market value of the debt instrument or non-debt contract after the modifications must be substantially equivalent to the fair market value before that alteration or modification. The proposed regulations provide that the fair market value of a debt instrument or derivative may be determined by any reasonable valuation method, as long as that method is applied consistently and takes into account any one-time payment made in lieu of a spread adjustment.

The proposed regulations provide two safe harbors to address the fair market value requirements. The debt instrument or non-debt contract are considered equivalent in value after the modification if:

at the time of the modification, the historic average of the LIBOR-referencing rate is within 25 basis points of the historic average of the rate that replaces it; or
the parties to the debt instrument or non-debt contract are not related and, through bona fide, arm’s length negotiations, determine that the fair market value of modified instrument or contract is substantially equivalent to the fair market value prior to the modification.

Transactions and Hedges
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(c) clarifies that a taxpayer can alter the terms of a debt instrument or modify one or more of the other components of an integrated or hedged transaction to replace a rate referencing an IBOR with a qualified rate without affecting the tax treatment of either the underlying transaction or the hedge. However, the integrated or hedged transaction as modified must continue to qualify for integration.

One-Time Payment
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(d), the source and character of a one-time payment that is made in connection with a modification described above will be the same as the source and character that would otherwise apply to a payment made by a payor with respect to the debt instrument or non-debt contract that is altered or modified.

Grandfathered Agreements
Because Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a) prevents debt instruments and non-debt contracts from being treated as reissued following a deemed exchange under Code Sec. 1001, the debt instrument or contract would not lose its grandfathered status as a result of any modifications made in connection with the elimination of an LIBOR.

OID and Qualified Floating Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1275-2(m) stipulates three special rules for determining the amount and accrual of OID in the case of a variable rate debt instrument that provides both for interest at an LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and for a fallback rate that is triggered when the LIBOR becomes unavailable or unreliable.

The LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and the fallback rate are treated as a single qualified floating rate for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-5.
The possibility that the relevant LIBOR will become unavailable or unreliable is treated as a remote contingency for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-2(h).
Occurrence of the event that triggers activation of the fallback rate is not treated as a change in circumstances.

REMIC Interests
Proposed Reg. §1.860G-1(e) permits an interest in a REMIC to retain its status as a regular interest despite certain alterations and contingencies.

Foreign Corporation Interests
The proposed regulations amend the election in Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B) to allow a foreign corporation that is a bank to compute interest expense attributable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities using a yearly average SOFR in addition to the 30-day LIBOR. This amendment would allow the foreign corporation bank to make the election even after the LIBOR is phased out.

Applicability Date
The proposed regulations will apply to an alteration of the terms of a debt instrument or a modification to the terms of a non-debt contract that occurs on or after the date of publication of a Treasury Decision adopting those rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. A taxpayer may choose to apply the proposed regulations to alterations and modifications that occur before the regulations are finalized.

Close

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.

Important exceptions

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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:

The salary history of the individual employee
Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
The salary history of other employees of the company
Special employee expertise or efforts
Year-end payments
Independent inactive investor analysis
Deferred compensation plan contributions
Independence of the board of directors
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.

Close

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.

Close