The IRS and the Treasury intend to provide regulations that will address issues affecting foreign corporations with previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP). The regulations are in response to changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), and are intended to include rules for:

• the maintenance of PTEP in annual accounts and within certain groups;
• the ordering of PTEP upon distribution and reclassification; and
• the adjustment required when an income inclusion exceeds a foreign corporation's earnings and profits.

The IRS and Treasury intend to withdraw 2006 proposed regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of PTEP and associated basis adjustments ( NPRM REG-121509-00), and issue new proposed regulations under Code Sec. 959 and Code Sec. 961.

Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
Previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) are a foreign corporation's earnings and profits attributable to amounts which are or have been included in a U.S. shareholder's gross income under Code Sec. 951(a) or under Code Sec. 1248(a). Under the subpart F rules, a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is generally currently taxed on certain income earned by the CFC, and on certain earnings invested in U.S. property.

To prevent double taxation, Code Sec. 959 provides that earnings and profits of the foreign corporation that are attributable to the inclusion are excluded from gross income when actually distributed. An exclusion is also allowed when earnings and profits are attributable to amounts included in the U.S. shareholder’s gross income that would otherwise again be included in gross income under the rule for investment of earnings in U.S. property.

To determine the amount of an actual distribution that is not taxable because it represents previously taxed income upon an actual distribution by the CFC, the earnings distributed are treated as attributable in the following order:

• first, to retained earnings that were required in prior years to be included in income on account of investments in excess passive assets, together with the earnings in prior years that were required to be included in income on account of investments in U.S. property under Code Sec. 956, allocated to each category on a pro rata basis ( “section 959(c)(1) PTEP");
• next, to retained earnings that were required to be included in income as subpart F income ( “section 959(c)(2) PTEP"); and
• finally, to other earnings and profits ( “section 959(c)(3) E&P").

Changes made by the TCJA created the need to account for new groups of PTEP, because section 959(c)(2) PTEP may arise due to income inclusions under Code Secs. 951(a)(1)(A), 245A(e)(2), 951A(f)(1), 959(e), 964(e)(4), or 965(a), or by applying Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A). Those different groups of PTEP may be subject to different rules under Code Secs. 960, 965(g), 245A(e)(3), and 986(c).

In addition, Proposed Reg. § 1.960-3(c) establishes, for purposes of determining the amount of foreign income taxes deemed paid, a system of accounting for PTEP in annual accounts for each separate category of income ( “section 904 category") and further segregate each annual account among 10 PTEP groups.

Annual Accounts and Groups of Previously Taxed Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that an annual account must be maintained and each annual PTEP account must be segregated into 16 PTEP groups in each section 904 category:

• reclassified section 965(a) PTEP;
• reclassified section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951(a)(1)(B) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951A PTEP;
• reclassified section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• reclassified section 959(e) PTEP;
• reclassified section 964(e)(4) PTEP;
• reclassified section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP;
• section 956A PTEP;
• section 965(a) PTEP;
• section 965(b) PTEP;
• section 951A PTEP;
• section 245A(e)(2) PTEP;
• section 959(e) PTEP;
• section 964(e) PTEP; and
• section 951(a)(1)(A) PTEP.

Section 959(c)(1) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (1) through (9), and section 959(c)(2) PTEP will consist of PTEP groups (10) through (16). Once PTEP is assigned to a PTEP group within an annual PTEP account for the year of the income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1) or the year of application of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A), the PTEP will be maintained in an annual PTEP account with a year that corresponds to the year of the account from which the PTEP originated if PTEP is distributed or reclassified in a subsequent tax year.

Additionally, the new regulations are expected to provide that:

• to the extent a CFC has E&P in a PTEP group that is in more than one section 904 category, any distribution out of that PTEP group is made pro rata out of the earnings and profits in each such category;
• dollar basis must be tracked for each annual PTEP account, and, to the extent provided in the regulations, separately for each PTEP group within an annual account; and
• distributions from any PTEP group reduce the shareholder’s stock basis under Code Sec. 961(b)(1) without regard to how that basis was originally created.

The regulations also will provide transition rules for annual PTEP accounts maintained before the regulations’ applicability date.

Ordering of Earnings and Profits upon Distribution and Reclassification
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• a distribution will be a distribution of PTEP only to the extent it would have otherwise been a dividend under Code Sec. 316;
• a “last in, first out" approach will be required for sourcing distributions from annual PTEP accounts, subject to the special priority rule for PTEP arising due to Code Sec. 965;
• PTEP attributable to income inclusions under Code Sec. 965(a) or by reason of Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) receive priority when determining the group of PTEP from which a distribution is made; and
• reclassifications of PTEP under Code Sec. 959(a)(2) will be sourced first from section 965(a) PTEP, then section 965(b) PTEP, and then, under a last-in, first-out approach, pro rata from the remaining section 959(c)(2) PTEP groups in each annual PTEP account, starting from the most recent annual PTEP account.

Adjustments Due to an Income Inclusion in Excess of Current Earnings and Profits
The new regulations are expected to provide that:

• current E&P are first classified as section 959(c)(3) E&P, and then section 959(c)(3) E&P are reclassified as section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP, as appropriate, in full, which may result in creating or increasing a deficit in section 959(c)(3) E&P; and
• if a foreign corporation has a current-year deficit in E&P, that deficit will solely reduce the foreign corporation’s section 959(c)(3) E&P without affecting the amount of its section 959(c)(1) PTEP or section 959(c)(2) PTEP.

Application
The new regulations are expected to apply to tax years of U.S. shareholders and successors in interest ending after December 14, 2018, and to tax years of foreign corporations ending with or within the U.S. shareholders’ tax years. Before the regulations are issued, a shareholder can rely on the rules provided in the announcement notice if the shareholder and each related shareholder apply the rules consistently regarding the PTEP of all foreign corporations in which they own stock for all tax years beginning with the shareholder’s or related shareholder’s tax year that includes the tax year end of any such foreign corporation to which Code Sec. 965 applies.

The IRS has proposed regulations on the limitation on the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The IRS also has issued a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as real property trades or businesses solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business under Code Sec. 163(j)(7)(B).

Business Interest Limitation
For tax years beginning after 2017, the deduction of interest paid or incurred on debt properly allocable to a trade or business is limited to the sum of:

30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (but not less than zero);

the taxpayer’s business interest income (not including investment income); and

the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The proposed regulations provide general rules and definitions related to the limitation, as well as rules for calculating the limitation in consolidated group, partnership, and international contexts. The regulations affect taxpayers that have deductible business interest expense, other than certain small businesses, electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain utility businesses. The IRS is also withdrawing a prior notice of proposed rulemaking on the disallowance of a deduction for certain interest paid or accrued by a corporation under former Code Sec. 163(j).

The proposed regulations will generally be effective for tax years ending after the date the Treasury Decision adopting them as final is published in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers can apply certain provisions to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, so long as the rules are consistently applied.

Safe Harbor
Further, in Rev. Proc. 2018-59, a safe harbor is provided allowing taxpayers to treat certain infrastructure trades or businesses as electing real property trades or businesses not subject to the Code Sec. 163(j) business interest deduction limit. These include trades or businesses that are conducted in connection with the designing, building, managing, operating, or maintaining of certain core infrastructure projects for purposes of private activity bond financing proposals. If a taxpayer makes this election, the taxpayer must use the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to depreciate property. Taxpayers may apply the safe harbor to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Comments Requested
Public comments to the proposed regulations should be submitted no later than 60 days after the date that the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-106089-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-106089-18).

A public hearing has been scheduled for February 25, 2019. It will be held on February 25, 2019, beginning at 10 a.m., in the Main IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.

A nonprofit corporation that operated a medical-marijuana dispensary legally under California law was not allowed to claim deductions for business expenses on its federal return. Code Sec. 280E, which prevents any trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances from deducting any business expenses, applied.

Meaning of “Consists of"
The corporation argued that a business does not “consist of" drug trafficking within the meaning of Code Sec. 280E unless its activities relate exclusively with drug trafficking (i.e., selling marijuana). Since its dispensary offered services and goods to its clients other than the sale of medical marijuana, the corporation claimed that Code Sec. 280E does not apply to any of its activities.

The court rejected this argument, noting that it had previously considered and rejected the same argument in an earlier case involving a different taxpayer ( M. Olive, Dec. 59,146, aff’d, CA-9, 2015-2 ustc ¶50,377). Although the phrase “consists of" in common usage refers to an exhaustive or exclusive list, the court noted that the corporation’s interpretation would render Code Sec. 280E ineffective. For example, a drug dealer selling a single item that was not a controlled substance would not be covered by the provision. The court found that various dictionary definitions, certain usage in other Code Sections, and case law that considered the meaning of the phrase did not require an interpretation based on exclusiveness.

Non-Trafficking Trades or Businesses
Although Code Sec. 280E applied to deductions related to the corporation’s marijuana sales, the court had previously ruled that it does not apply to any separate, non-trafficking trades or businesses ( Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. (CHAMP), Dec. 56,935). The court considered whether any of the corporation’s non-trafficking activities were separate trades or businesses. According to the corporation, non-trafficking activities consisted of sales of products with no marijuana, therapeutic services, and brand development.

The court concluded that the sale of products other marijuana than at the corporation’s dispensaries was too closely linked to the sale of the marijuana itself to constitute a separate trade or business. The products generally related to the promotion or use of marijuana and were sold by the same staff that sold the marijuana. Similarly, free “holistic" services that were paid for with approximately one percent of the proceeds from its marijuana sales were not a separate trade or business. Finally, the corporation’s brand development activity was entirely entwined with the marijuana business and could not be treated as a separate enterprise.

Cost of Goods Sold
Although the corporation was not entitled to any business deductions, it was liable for tax only on its gross receipts as reduced by cost of goods sold. For purposes of determining cost of goods sold, the court determined that the corporation could not apply Code Sec. 263A to include indirect expenses. Code Sec. 263A(a)(2) specifically prohibits the capitalization of otherwise nondeductible costs, such as drug trafficking expenses. Therefore, only direct expenses (and a few specified indirect expenses) required to be included in cost of goods sold under the general rules of Code Sec. 471 could be taken into account. For purposes of applying Code Sec. 471, the corporation was considered a reseller rather a producer because it had no ownership in the plants from which the marijuana it sold was produced.

The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2019. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:

• business,
• medical, and
• charitable purposes.

Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.

2019 Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rates for 2019 are:

• 58 cents per mile for business uses;
• 20 cents per mile for medical uses; and
• 14 cents per mile for charitable uses.

Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.

FAVR Allowance for 2019
For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2018 is:

• $50,400 for passenger automobiles, and
• $50,400 for trucks and vans.

Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.

2019 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses
The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:

• a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
• on active military duty, and
• moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.

Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses
For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:

• members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
• state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
• performing artists with relatively low incomes.

Notice 2018-3, I.R.B. 2018-2, 285, as modified by Notice 2018-42, I.R.B. 2018-24, 750, is superseded.

The IRS has provided guidance and examples for calculating the nondeductible portion of parking expenses. In addition, the IRS has provided guidance to tax-exempt organizations to help such organizations determine how unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) will be increased by the nondeductible amount of such fringe benefit expenses paid or incurred.

The IRS also has provided transitional estimated tax penalty relief to tax-exempt organizations that offer qualified transportation fringe benefit expenses and were not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, last filing season.

Parking Fringe Expenses
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) added Code Sec. 274(a)(4) to preclude employers from deducting Code Sec. 132(f) qualified transportation fringe benefits expenses paid or incurred after December 31, 2017. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include van pools, transit passes, bicycle commuting, and qualified parking.

There are two types of calculations. The first is for cases where the employer pays a third party for the use of its parking lot for the employer’s employees. The second is for cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot.

Employer contracts with third party. When an employer contracts with a third party for the use of the parking lot, the disallowance under Code Sec. 274(a)(4) is generally the amount that the employer pays to the third party. However, if that monthly amount exceeds $260 an employee, the employer must treat the excess as additional compensation. Thus, the monthly amount in excess of $260 is excluded from the disallowance amount.

For example, if Employer A pays $300 per month for each of the employer’s ten employees to park, $31,200 (($260 x 10) x 12) is disallowed under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). The remaining $4,800 (($40 x 10) x 12) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) and remains deductible.

Employer owns or leases the parking lot. According to the IRS, until it issues further guidance, employers may use any reasonable method to calculate the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance in cases where the employer owns or leases the parking lot. The IRS has provided a four-step reasonable method:

• Calculate the disallowance for reserved employee spots.
• Determine the primary use of the remaining spots (for the general public (over 50 percent) or for employees).
• Calculate the allowance for reserved nonemployee spots.
• Determine the remaining use and allocable expenses.

For example, an Employer E, owns a surface parking lot adjacent to its plant. E incurs $10,000 of total parking expenses. E’s parking lot has 500 spots that are used by its visitors and employees. E has 50 spots reserved for management and has approximately 400 employees parking in the lot in non-reserved spots during normal business hours on a typical business day. Additionally, E has 10 reserved nonemployee spots for visitors.

Step 1. Because E has 50 reserved spots for management, $1,000 ((50/500) x $10,000) is the amount of total parking expenses that is nondeductible for reserved employee spots.

Step 2. The primary use of the remainder of E’s parking lot is not to provide parking to the general public because 89% (400/450 = 89 percent) of the remaining parking spots in the lot are used by its employees. Therefore, expenses allocable to these spots are not excluded from the Code Sec. 274(a)(4)

Step 3. Because 2 percent (10/450) of E’s remaining parking lot spots are reserved nonemployee spots, the $200 allocable to those spots ($10,000 x 2 percent)) is not subject to the Code Sec. 274(a)(4) disallowance. That amount continues to be deductible.

Step 4. E must reasonably determine the employee use of the remaining parking spots during normal business hours on a typical business day and the expenses allocable to employee parking spots.

Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Increase Unrelated Business Taxable Income
TCJA added Code Sec. 512(a)(7), which requires exempt organizations to increase UBTI by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under Code Sec. 274 and which is paid or incurred after December 31, 2017, for any qualified transportation fringes and any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking.

The rules governing tax-exempt organizations mirror the rules for employers under Code Sec. 274(a)(4). Therefore, the expenses for a parking facility used in connection with qualified parking are treated as nondeductible qualified fringe benefit expenses. Thus, a tax-exempt organization must increase its UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) by the disallowed amount. In addition, until the IRS releases further guidance, a tax-exempt organization with only one unrelated trade or business can reduce the increase to UBTI under Code Sec. 512(a)(7) to the extent that the deductions directly connected with the carrying on of that unrelated trade or business exceed the gross income derived from such unrelated trade or business.

Estimated Tax Penalty Relief
An exempt organization may be subject to the unrelated business income tax under Code Sec. 511 at corporate rates. The organization reports its unrelated business income on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, if its gross income from unrelated business is $1,000 or more. Further, the organization must make quarterly estimated tax installment payments under Code Sec. 6655 if its estimated tax is expected to be $500 or more.

Code Sec. 6655 imposes an addition to tax for failure to make a sufficient and timely estimated income tax payment. To avoid the underpayment penalty, each installment generally must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the current year's tax return or of the actual tax if no return is filed (current-year safe harbor); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months (preceding-year safe harbor).

The IRS has recognized that Code Sec. 512(a)(7) may cause some exempt organizations to owe unrelated business income tax and have to pay estimated income tax for the first time. These organizations would not be able to use the preceding-year safe harbor, and may need more time to develop knowledge and processes to comply with estimated tax payment requirements.

In light of this, the IRS is waiving the addition to tax for failure to make estimated income tax payments for an exempt organization that:

• provides qualified transportation fringes to an employee for which estimated income tax payments, affected by changes made by TCJA to Code Sec. 274 and Code Sec. 512, would otherwise be required to be made on or before December 17, 2018;
• was not required to file a Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for the tax year preceding the organization’s first tax year ending after December 31, 2017; and
• timely pays the amount reported for the tax year for which relief is granted.

Taxpayers that do not qualify for this relief can avoid an addition to tax for underpayment of estimated income tax if they meet one of the statutory safe harbor or exception provisions under Code Sec. 6654 or Code Sec. 6655.

To claim the waiver, the exempt organization must write “Notice 2018-100" on the top of its Form 990-T.

The IRS has released initial guidance on the new Code Sec. 83(i), added by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

Code Sec. 83 generally provides for the federal income tax treatment of property transferred in connection with the performance of services. Code Sec. 83(i) allows certain employees to elect to defer recognition of income attributable to the receipt or vesting of qualified stock for up to five years.

The guidance clarifies three key issues related to Code Sec. 83(i):

• the application of the requirement that eligible corporations must make grants to not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States;
• the application of federal income tax withholding to the deferred income related to the qualified stock; and
• the ability of an employer to opt out of permitting employees to elect the deferred tax treatment even if the requirements under Code Sec. 83(i) are otherwise met.

Code Sec. 83(i) applies to stock attributable to stock options exercised, or restricted stock units (RSUs) settled, after December 31, 2017. Further guidance will be issued on these and other issues in the form of proposed regulations at a later date.

Eligible Corporations
Companies who wish to be eligible corporations and offer the Code Sec. 83(i) election must have a written plan under which, in such calendar year, not less than 80 percent of all employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States (or any possession of the United States) are granted stock options, or are granted RSUs, with the same rights and privileges to receive qualified stock.

The IRS clarifies that the determination of whether a corporation qualifies as an eligible corporation is made “with respect to any calendar year." Furthermore, to meet the 80-percent requirement, the corporation must have granted “in such calendar year" stock options to 80 percent of its employees or RSUs to 80 percent of its employees. So the determination that the corporation is an eligible corporation must be made on a calendar-year basis, and whether the corporation has satisfied the 80-percent requirement is based solely on the stock options or the RSUs granted in that calendar year to employees who provide services to the corporation in the United States. In calculating whether the 80 percent requirement is satisfied, the corporation must take into account the total number of individuals employed at any time during the year in question as well as the total number of employees receiving grants during the year.

Employment Taxes
Employment taxes include Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax, and federal income tax withholding. FICA and FUTA taxes related to deferral stock remain unaffected.

Deferral stock are considered wages under Code Sec. 3402. When the wages are treated as paid, the employer must make a reasonable estimate of the value of the stock and make deposits of the amount of income tax withholding liability based on that estimate. The wages are subject to withholding at the maximum rate of tax, and withholding is determined without regard to the employee’s Form W-4. By January 31 of the following year, the employer must determine the actual value of the deferral stock on the date it is includible in the employee’s income, and report that amount and the withholding on Form W-2 and Form 941. With respect to income tax withholding for the deferral stock that the employer pays from its own funds, the employer may recover that income tax withholding from the employee until April 1 of the year following the calendar year in which the wages were paid. An employer that fails to deduct and withhold federal income tax is liable for the payment of the tax whether or not the employer collects it from the employee.

Not Eligible Stock
Code Sec. 83(i) imposes a number of requirements and limitations that must be met for an election to be allowed. Although the election, if allowed, may be made by an employee, the corporation is responsible for creating the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election. If a corporation does not intend to create the conditions that would allow an employee to make the election, the terms of a stock option or RSU may provide that no election under Code Sec. 83(i) will be available with respect to stock received upon the exercise of the stock option or settlement of the RSU. This designation would inform employees that no Code Sec. 83(i) election may be made with respect to stock received upon exercise of the option or settlement of the RSU, even if the stock is qualified stock.

Highly anticipated foreign tax credit regulations have been issued that provide guidance on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). The proposed regulations address:

• allocation and apportionment of the deductions under Code Secs. 861 through 865, and adjustments to the foreign tax credit limitation under Code Sec. 904(b)(4);
• transition rules for overall foreign loss, separate limitation loss, and overall domestic loss accounts under Code Sec. 904(f) and (g), and for the carryover and carryback of unused foreign taxes under Code Sec. 904(c);
• addition of separate foreign tax credit limitation categories for foreign branch income and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), and other updates to the foreign tax credit limitation rules;
• calculation of the high-tax income exception from subpart F income;
• determination of the Code Sec. 960 deemed paid credits and the gross-up under Code Sec. 78; and
• the election under Code Sec. 965(n) not to apply the net operating loss deduction when calculating the Code Sec. 965 transition tax.

Deduction Allocation and Apportionment
The proposed regulations generally apply the existing approach of the expense allocation rules to income in the new Code Sec. 951A (GILTI) and foreign branch categories. The proposed regulations also provide for exempt income and exempt asset treatment for income in the GILTI category that is offset by the Code Sec. 250 deduction. This will reduce the amount of expenses apportioned to the GILTI category.

Rules are provided for the allocation and apportionment of the Code Sec. 250 deduction. A new rule addresses loans to partnerships by certain partners and their affiliates to prevent abusive borrowing arrangements that artificially increase foreign source income. Under the proposed regulations, interest income attributable to borrowing through a partnership is allocated across the foreign tax credit separate categories in the same manner as the associated interest expense.

The proposed allocation and apportionment regulations also revise the netting rule for controlled foreign corporations (CFCs), and provide rules for: valuing assets, characterizing stock for elections related to research and experimentation (R&E) expenses, and applying the Code Sec. 904(b)(4) adjustment.

Because the existing expense allocation rules have not been updated since 1988, the Treasury Department and IRS expect to reexamine existing approaches to allocating and apportioning expenses, including for example the rules for allocating interest, R&E expenses, stewardship and general and administrative expenses.

Limitations
The proposed regulations eliminate deadwood, and reflect statutory amendments made prior to the TCJA. New and transitional rules account for the separate categories for GILTI and foreign branch income. For example, foreign tax credit carryovers will by default remain in the general category, but taxpayers are allowed to allocate the transitional FTC carryovers to the foreign branch category. Also, the look-through rules are revised to clarify that nonpassive look-through payments cannot be assigned to a Code Sec. 951A category, and are generally assigned to the general category or the foreign branch category.

Additionally, changes are made to the rules relating to the passive category for high-taxed income, export financing income, and financial services income. Also addressed is the separate category for income resourced under a treaty, and rules for assigning the Code Sec. 78 gross-up and Code Sec. 986(c) gain or loss to a separate category.

Deemed Paid Tax Credits
The proposed regulations provide rules for determining a domestic corporation’s deemed paid taxes under Code Sec. 960, as revised by the TCJA. The proposed regulations treat a GILTI inclusion as a subpart F inclusion for purposes of Code Sec. 960(c). The proposed regulations also reflect the changes made by the TCJA to the Code Sec. 78 gross-up.

Proposed regulations provide much anticipated guidance on the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A and related reporting requirements. The regulations are proposed to apply generally to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, but taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are published.

Code Sec. 59A was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) and imposes a tax on base erosion payments of taxpayers with substantial gross receipts. The tax is equal to the base erosion minimum tax amount for the tax year. The TCJA also added reporting obligations regarding the BEAT for 25-percent foreign-owned corporations subject to Code Sec. 6038A and foreign corporations subject to Code Sec. 6038C.

Proposed BEAT Rules
The proposed regulations generally provide rules for determining whether a taxpayer is an applicable taxpayer on which the BEAT may be imposed and rules for computing the taxpayer’s BEAT liability. In particular, the proposed regulations provide rules:

• for determining whether a taxpayer is an applicable taxpayer on which the BEAT may be imposed ( Proposed Reg. §1.59A-2);
• for determining the amount of base erosion payments (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-3(b));
• for determining base erosion tax benefits arising from base erosion payments (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-3(c));
• for determining the amount of modified taxable income, which is computed in part by reference to a taxpayer’s base erosion tax benefits and base erosion percentage of any net operating loss deduction (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-4);
• for computing the base erosion minimum tax amount, which is computed by reference to modified taxable income (Proposed Reg. §1.59A-5);
• for applying the proposed regulations to partnerships (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-7);
• that are specific to banks and registered securities dealers;
• that are specific to insurance companies;
• that disregard certain transactions having a principal purpose of avoiding Code Sec. 59A (anti-abuse rules) (Proposed Reg. § 1.59A-9);
• regarding the general application of the BEAT to consolidated groups (Proposed Reg. § 1.1502-59A);
• addressing limitations on a loss corporation’s items under Code Secs. 382 and 383 in the context of the BEAT (Proposed Reg. § 1.383-1); and
• regarding reporting and record keeping requirements under Code Sec. 6038A.

Proposed Applicability Dates
Consistent with the Code Sec. 59A applicability date, the proposed regulations (other than the proposed reporting requirements for qualified derivatives payments (QDP)) are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, until final regulations are published, provided the taxpayer and all related parties consistently apply the proposed regulations for all those tax years that end before the finalization date.

The proposed reporting requirements for QDPs apply to tax years beginning one year after the final regulations are published. However, the simplified QDP reporting requirements are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Any provision that is finalized after June 22, 2019, will apply only to tax years ending on or after the date of filing of the proposed regulations in the Federal register.

The IRS will grant automatic consent to accounting method changes to comply with new Code Sec. 451(b), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). In addition, some taxpayers may make the accounting method change on their tax returns without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method. These procedures generally apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

All Events Test
Under Code Sec. 451(b), the date that an accrual basis taxpayer takes an item into account as revenue in its applicable financial statement (AFS) is also the deadline for treating the item as satisfying the all events test. This rule also applies to any portion of an item, any other financial statement identified by the IRS, and income from a debt instrument with original issue discount (OID).

Automatic Consent
The automatic consent procedures apply to a taxpayer with an AFS that:

• wants to change to a method of accounting that complies with Code Sec. 451(b); and/or
• for the year of the change, is not adopting Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) financial accounting standards for revenue recognition, titled “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)" that were announced on May 28, 2014.

For income from a debt instrument having OID, the Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment period for the change is six tax years (year of change plus the next five tax years). However, this applies only for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2018.

The automatic consent procedures do not apply to a taxpayer that wants to make a change to a method that adopts the FASB/IASB standard, or to a special accounting method as described in Code Sec. 451(b)(2).

Streamlined Procedure
For its first tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, a qualified taxpayer can change its accounting method to comply with Code Sec. 451(b) without filing a Form 3115. An eligible taxpayer must either:

• meet the Code Sec. 448(c) gross receipts test for a small business taxpayers (i.e., taxpayer’s average annual gross receipts for the three prior tax years cannot exceed $25 million); or
• be making the change to comply with Code Sec. 451(b)(1)(A) and/or (b)(4), and the Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment for each of the changes is zero.

These streamlined procedures do not apply to a taxpayer that wants to make a change to a method that adopts the FASB/IASB standard, or to a special accounting method as described in Code Sec. 451(b)(2), or certain other concurrent accounting method changes. Tax shelters also are not eligible.

The IRS warns that consent granted under the streamlined procedures is not a determination that the new accounting method is permissible, and that taxpayers using the streamlined change method do not receive audit protection.

The IRS has issued transition relief from the “once-in-always-in" condition for excluding part-time employees under Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B). Under the “once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, once an employee is eligible to make elective deferrals, the employee may not be excluded from making elective deferrals in any later exclusion year on the basis that he or she is a part-time employee.

Part-Time Employee Exclusion Conditions Under Final 403(b) Regulations
The Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued final regulations under Code Sec. 403(b) that were generally effective starting after 2008. Part of the final regulations include Reg. §1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B), which covers the conditions that an employer must satisfy before excluding a part-time employee from the plan. The IRS parses the regulation to impose three separate conditions for an employee to be excluded—

• a “first-year" exclusion condition, under which the employer must reasonably expect the employee to work fewer than 1,000 hours during the employee’s first year of employment;
• a “preceding-year" exclusion condition, under which the employee must have actually worked fewer than 1,000 hours in the preceding 12-month period; and
• the “once-in-always-in" exclusion condition, under which the employee may be excluded under the part-time exclusion if and only if, in the employee’s first year of employment, the employee meets the first-year exclusion condition, and, in each exclusion year ending after the first year of employment, the employee has met the preceding-year exclusion condition.

The effect of the once-in-always-in exclusion condition is that once an employee does not meet the part-time exclusion conditions, whether in the initial year of employment or for any exclusion year, the employee may no longer be excluded from making elective deferrals under the part-time exclusion.

Employers Surprised by Once-In-Always-In Condition
Employers requested transition relief because many were unaware that the part-time exclusion included the once-in-always-in exclusion condition. Many employers applied the first-year exclusion condition for an employee’s first year, and applied the preceding-year exclusion condition separately for each succeeding exclusion year, but did not apply the once-in-always-in exclusion condition to prevent an employee who failed to meet either the first-year exclusion condition or the preceding-year exclusion condition from being excluded in all subsequent exclusion years.

Transition Relief for Once-In-Always-In Condition
The IRS is providing transition relief, including—

• operations relief for a transition period referred to as the “Relief Period";
• relief regarding plan language; and
• a fresh-start opportunity after the “Relief Period" ends.

The operations “Relief Period" begins with tax years beginning after December 31, 2008. For plans with exclusion years based on plan years, the “Relief Period" ends for all employees on the last day of the last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019. For plans with exclusion years based on employee anniversary years, the “Relief Period" ends, with respect to any employee, on the last day of that employee’s last exclusion year that ends before December 31, 2019.

The IRS has provided interim guidance for the 2019 calendar year on income tax withholding from wages and withholding from retirement and annuity distributions. In general, certain 2018 withholding rules provided in Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353, will remain in effect for the 2019 calendar year, with one exception.

The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to develop income tax withholding regulations to reflect changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), as well as other changes in the Code since the regulations were last amended, and certain miscellaneous changes consistent with current procedures.

Withholding Allowances
The IRS delayed the release of the 2018 Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, in order to reflect changes made by the TCJA, such as changes in itemized deductions available, increases in the child tax credit, the new credit for other dependents, and the suspension of personal exemption deductions. Notice 2018-14 provided relief for employers and employees affected by the delay.

In June, the IRS released a draft 2019 Form W-4 and instructions, which incorporated changes that were meant to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and make the withholding system more transparent. However, in response to stakeholders’ comments, the IRS later announced that the redesigned Form W-4 would be postponed until 2020. The IRS intends to release a 2019 Form W-4 before the end of 2018 that makes minimal changes to the 2018 Form W-4.

The 2019 Form W-4 and the computational procedures in IRS Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, will continue to use the term “withholding allowances" and related terminology to incorporate the withholding allowance factors specified in Code Sec. 3402(f) and the additional allowance items in Code Sec. 3402(m). Until further guidance is issued, references to a “withholding exemption" in the Code Sec. 3402 regulations and guidance will be applied as if they were referring to a withholding allowance.

Changes in Status
The guidance provides that if an employee experiences a change of status on or before April 30, 2019, that reduces the number of withholding allowances to which he or she is entitled, and if that change is solely due to the changes made by the TCJA, the employee generally must furnish a new Form W-4 to the employer by May 10, 2019. However, if an employee no longer reasonably expects to be entitled to a claimed number of allowances due to a change in personal circumstances that is not solely related to TCJA changes, the employee must furnish his or her employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change. Similarly, if an employee claims married filing status on Form W-4 but divorces his or her spouse, the employee must furnish the employer a new Form W-4 within 10 days after the change.

Failure to Furnish
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to withdraw the regulations under Code Sec. 3401(e), and modify other regulations, so that an employee who fails to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as “single" but entitled to the number of withholding allowances determined under computational procedures provided in IRS Publication 15. Until further guidance is issued, however, employees who fail to furnish a Form W-4 will be treated as single with zero withholding allowances.

Additional Allowances
Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may include his or her estimated Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction in determining whether he or she can claim the additional withholding allowance under Code Sec. 3402(m) on Form W-4.

Alternative Procedure
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to update the withholding regulations to explicitly allow employees to determine their Form W-4 entries by using the IRS withholding calculator ( www.irs.gov/W4App) or IRS Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax, instead of having to complete certain schedules included with the Form W-4. However, the regulations are expected to provide that an employee cannot use the withholding calculator if the calculator’s instructions state that it should not be used due to his or her individual tax situation. The employee will need to use Publication 505 instead.

Alternative Methods
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables under Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), due to this alternative procedure’s unintended complexity and burden.

Lock-In Letters
The IRS may issue a “lock-in letter" to an employer, which sets the maximum number of withholding allowances an employee may claim. If the employer no longer employs the employee, the employer must send a written response to the IRS office designated in the lock-in letter that the employee is not employed by the employer. The IRS and the Treasury Department intend to eliminate the written response requirement. Pending further guidance, employers should not send a written response to the IRS under Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(iv).

Pension, Annuity Payments
The payor of certain periodic payments for pensions, annuities, and other deferred income generally must withhold tax from the payments as if they were wages, unless the individual payee elects not to have withholding apply. Before 2018, if a withholding certificate was not furnished to the payor, the withholding rate was determined by treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding exemptions. The TCJA amended this rule so that the rate “shall be determined under rules prescribed by the Secretary." The IRS has determined that, for 2019, withholding on periodic payments when no withholding certificate is in effect continues to be based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding allowances.

Comments Requested
The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on both the interim guidance and the guidance that should be provided in regulations. Comments must be received by January 25, 2019. Comments should be submitted to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2018-92), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically to Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov (include “Notice 2018-92" in the subject line of any electronic submission).

In recent years, Congress has used the Tax Code to encourage individuals to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes.  The credit is very popular. The Treasury Department estimates that more than 6.8 million individuals claimed over $5.8 billion in residential energy tax credits in 2009.

The nonrefundable Code Sec. 25C tax credit was originally enacted on a temporary basis. Most recently, Congress renewed and modified the residential energy property tax credit in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) through 2011.  

2011 rules

Under current law, the Code Sec. 25 tax credit provides a 10 percent credit for the purchase of qualified energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. A qualified energy efficiency improvement is any energy efficiency building envelope component:

• Meeting or exceeding criteria for the component established by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code or, in the case of certain windows, skylights and doors, and metal roofs, meeting Energy Star requirements;
• Installed in or on a dwelling located in the United States and owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer's principal residence;
• Original use of which commences with the taxpayer; and
• The qualified energy-efficient improvement reasonably can be expected to remain in use for at least five years.

Examples of energy-efficient improvements include, but are not limited to, qualified electric heat pumps, certain furnaces, metal roofs meeting certain criteria, certain types of exterior windows and doors. In some cases, only the cost of the energy-efficient improvement is eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit; installation costs are ineligible. For example, the costs associated with installing a qualified electric heat pump are eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but costs associated with installing a qualified metal roof are ineligible. 

Lifetime limits

The 2010 Tax Relief Act set the maximum Code Sec. 25C credit allowable is $500 over the lifetime of the taxpayer. The $500 amount must be reduced by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.  This provision can complicate planning for the Code Sec. 25C credit because Congress made changes to the credit before and after 2009, particularly regarding the lifetime limit.

Let’s look at an example.  Amanda qualified for a $400 Code Sec. 25C tax credit in 2006. The maximum credit allowable is $500 over her lifetime. This means that Amanda can get an additional Code Sec. 25C tax credit of up to $100 in 2011.

Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, no more than $200 of the Code Sec. 25C credit may be attributable to expenditures on exterior windows and skylights. Taxpayers must reduce the $200 amount by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits for windows and skylights that the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

Dollar limits

Additionally, certain dollar limitations apply to various improvements. For property placed in service in 2011, the dollar limits are $300 for any item of qualified energy-efficient property; $50 for an advanced main air circulating fan; and $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane or oil furnace or hot water boiler.

Energy standards

Moreover, the qualified energy-efficient property must meet standards set by the by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The 2010 Tax Relief Act treats exterior windows, skylights and exterior doors are qualified energy efficiency improvements if they meet the Energy Star Program requirements in 2011.

Certification statements

Many energy-efficient improvements come with a manufacturer’s certification statement.  The statement indicates if the improvement qualifies for the tax credit.  It is not necessary to submit a copy of the manufacturer’s certification statement with the individual’s tax return, but taxpayers should keep a copy of the certification statement for their records.

Another credit

The Code Sec. 25D tax credit also is intended to reward taxpayers for making certain energy-efficient improvements. The Code Sec. 25C tax credit covers items such as geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, and small wind energy systems. Many of the rules for the Code Sec. 25D tax credit are similar to the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but there are some differences. For example, the Code Sec. 25D credit has no lifetime limit. If you are considering making one of these improvements, please contact our office for more details about this tax credit.

Form 5695

Taxpayers claim the Code Sec. 25C tax credit on Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits. The IRS has identified some abuses of the Code Sec. 25C tax credit and it intends to make revisions to Form 5695 to curb fraudulent claims and verify eligibility for the credit. These changes are expected to appear on the Form 5695 that taxpayers will file in 2012.

If you have any questions about the Code Sec. 25C tax credit, please contact our office.

A transaction may comply with a literal reading of the Tax Code but result in unreasonable tax consequences that are not intended by the tax laws. To combat these transactions, the IRS has used for many years a doctrine known as the economic substance doctrine.  Congress codified the doctrine in 2010 and recently the IRS issued instructions to examiners explaining how to apply the codified doctrine.

Economic substance

In recent years, the IRS has successfully used the economic substance doctrine to fight abusive tax shelters.  These cases involved, among other things, corporate owned life insurance, limited liability companies, and other entities. According to the IRS, these entities and the transactions they entered into were designed solely for tax avoidance purposes and lacked economic substance. The IRS scored some significant victories using the economic substance doctrine against tax shelters.

Codification

The economic substance doctrine was developed by the courts over the past 70 years. Because it was judicially created, courts applied the doctrine in different ways. There was no national standard in applying the doctrine. In some cases, the differences among the courts of appeal were subtle; in other cases, they their interpretations of the doctrine varied widely.

Codification was promoted as a way to standardize application of the doctrine. Congress codified the economic substance doctrine in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA).  The codified doctrine applies to transactions entered into on or after March 30, 2010 (the date of enactment of HCERA).

Congress codified the economic substance doctrine as follows: In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, the transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position; and the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.

Congress also approved tough penalties.  There is a strict liability penalty of 20 percent (40 percent for undisclosed transactions) of any underpayment attributable to the disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of the application of the economic substance doctrine or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law.

Application

Almost immediately after HCERA became law, taxpayers asked the IRS how it intends to enforce the codified economic substance doctrine. The IRS issued a notice (Notice 2010-62) and a directive for its examiners (LMSB-20-0910-024) in September 2010.  The IRS followed up that initial guidance with a new directive on July 15, 2011.

The IRS explained that latest directive lays out a step-by-step inquiry examiners should make to determine if it is appropriate to apply the economic substance doctrine. The IRS also reiterated that any decision to apply the doctrine must be approved by senior agency personnel.

First, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the economic substance doctrine to a transaction is likely not appropriate.  Second, an examiner should evaluate whether the circumstances in the case are those under which application of the doctrine to the transaction may be appropriate.  Third, if an examiner determines that the application of the doctrine may be appropriate, the guidance provides a series of inquiries an examiner must make before seeking approval to apply the doctrine.  Fourth, if an examiner and his or her manager and territory manager determine that application of the economic substance doctrine is merited, guidance is provided on how to request senior manager approval.

The directive also advised examiners that the enhanced penalties under HCERA are limited to the application of the economic substance doctrine. Until more guidance is issued, the IRS will not impose these enhanced penalties due to the application of any “similar rule of law” as authorized by HCERA.

Measured approach

Looking ahead, it appears the IRS intends to take a measured approach in applying the codified economic substance doctrine. Senior IRS officials have indicated that the agency will be careful in applying the codified doctrine. Of course, guidance in this area is very limited at this time. Our office will keep you posted of developments. If you have any questions about the economic substance doctrine, please contact our office.

LB&I-4-0711-015, July 15, 2011

The IRS has announced that it will discontinue the high-low method used by taxpayers in a trade or business to substantiate travel expenses incurred while away from home.  The method, developed by the IRS, applies to travel expenses for meals, lodging and incidental expenses. It not only has provided a short-cut method for employers to cover the paperwork required to substantiate business travel deductions but in the past it has also helped the IRS streamline certain audits.

Background

Under the high-low method, the IRS provides optional per diem allowances that employers and employees are deemed to have substantiated.  The method can be used in lieu of substantiating actual travel-related expenses. The per diem amounts also satisfy the requirement that employees provide the employer with an adequate accounting of meal and lodging expenses.

The IRS publishes a list of localities classified as high-cost areas under the high-low method.  All other localities in the continental United States (CONUS) are classified as low-cost areas. The maximum per diem rate for high-cost areas is $233 for travel on or after October 1, 2010.  This represents $168 for lodging and $65 for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE).  The per diem rate for low-cost areas on or after October 1, 2010, is $160, which represents $108 for lodging and $52 for M&IE.

Waning interest

The IRS requested comments in 2010 on whether to continue the method and received no comments. The IRS interpreted such lack of interest as the deciding reason to discontinue the method.  It also reportedly has found the collection of data, as well as the politics that went into designating an area as “high cost,” growing more difficult when compared to the value of continuing the method in an environment in which digitized travel receipts are now so easily available. Taxpayers currently using the high-low method, however, can anticipate continuing to use it through 2011.

More guidance to come

Later in 2011, the IRS promises to issue a new revenue procedure, without the high-low method, that will provide general rules and procedures for substantiating lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred in business travel away from home.  It is unlikely that the IRS will issue high-low rates for 2012.

Government employers use the per diem method widely, practitioners report.  Private industry, however, generally prefers to reimburse employees based on actual receipts and, therefore, only a small percentage of private businesses will expected to miss using the high-low method to substantiate travel expenses.

The federal debt limit negotiations that preoccupied Washington for most of July did not result in immediate tax legislation. However, the general debate did succeed in helping to jumpstart a serious discussion over taxes that now has the momentum to continue. Tax increases, rate hikes, rate reductions and general tax reform are now all on the table.

Whether tax legislation will be recommended and passed at year-end 2011 as the result of an immediate directive to start trimming the deficit is but one possible outcome of the debt-limit debates. Another increasingly persuasive catalyst for tax legislation will result from the many Congressional hearings on tax reform now being held on Capitol Hill. Those hearings are using as springboards initial proposals that have been introduced recently by the White House Deficit Commission Report, the Republican Study Committee, and the so-called Gang of Six, a bi-partisan group of Senators suggesting ways to cut trillions from the deficit over the next 10 years. Finally, the need for Congress to act on the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire after December 31, 2012, will all but force Congress to deal with tax reform in an era in which careful budgeting is essential to economic growth.

Administration's Proposals

At the center of President Obama's plan to trim the deficit is an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and middle income taxpayers after 2012, but not for some higher income taxpayers now in the top two rate brackets. Under the president's plan, taxes would increase for higher income individuals (which the White House defines as individuals with incomes above $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000). The White House has also called for the elimination of certain oil and gas tax preferences, a permanent research tax credit and an extension of the 2011 payroll tax cut.

Gang of Six Tax Proposals

In early 2011, six members of the Senate (the Gang of Six) began negotiations on a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. On July 19, 2011, the senators released a bipartisan blueprint to reduce the budget deficit by $3.7 trillion over 10 years through a combination of spending cuts and revenue raisers.

Individual tax rates. The Gang of Six would replace the current individual marginal income tax rate schedule with three new tax brackets, ranging from: 8-12 percent; 14-22 percent; and 23-29 percent. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) would be repealed as well.

Tax expenditures.In return for lower tax rates and no AMT, the Gang of Six would reduce a yet unspecified number of “tax expenditures," aka deductions and credits. Possible tax expenditures up for reform, but not repeal, could include the home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable contributions and the deduction for certain medical expenses.

Corporate tax. The Gang of Six would establish a single, lower corporate tax rate of somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent while promising to raise as much revenue as under the current corporate tax system by eliminating many yet-to-be specified business deductions, credits and other preferences. The Gang of Six would also move to a territorial tax system under which profits would be taxed only by the country where the income is earned.

House Republican Study Committee

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) is made up of 175 conservative members of the House. The RSC drafted the deficit reduction proposal which passed the House on July 19, 2011 as the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act, ultimately rejected by the Senate, did not include any tax increases.

Tax reform. The RSC has called for a “smarter" Tax Code that would lower rates while broadening the tax base. The RSC to date has not offered any further specifics on how it would lower rates and broaden the tax base. The RSC has previously indicated its opposition to any scaling back of the Bush-era tax cuts.

White House Deficit Commission

The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued its final report, “The Moment of Truth," in December 2010. The Commission developed a six-part plan designed to reduce the federal deficit by almost $4 trillion by 2020. The 18-member commission approved the report by a vote of 11-7, with Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the vote.

Tax reform. Tax reform as envisioned by the Deficit Commission would achieve at least 20 percent of the $4 trillion reduction. The Deficit Commission plan aims to reduce, if not eliminate, $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures in the current Tax Code for individuals and businesses. Under current law, the largest tax expenditure is the tax-free treatment of contributions to health care plans at approximately $144 billion per year.

Other substantial tax expenditures include:

• $79 billion by disallowing portions of the home mortgage interest   deduction,
• $57 billion by curtailing accelerated depreciation,
• $53 billion by raising capital gains rates, and
• $49 billion by tightening the availability of the earned income credit.

At the same time, the plan would reduce tax rates, the amount depending on the amount of tax expenditures eliminated.

Individual income tax rates. Under one scenario, the Deficit Commission's plan would provide three ordinary income tax rates as low as 8, 14, and 23 percent. The plan would treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, but, of course, ordinary income rates would be lower. The plan would eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

More “reforms.“ Other targeted reforms proposed by the Deficit Commission include:

• Limiting the charitable deduction for individuals to amounts over two percent of adjusted gross income;
• Repealing the state and local tax deduction for individuals;
• Repealing all miscellaneous itemized deductions for individuals;
• Capping the income tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance; and
• Raising the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon.

Corporate tax.The Deficit Commission plan would provide a single corporate tax rate of 26 percent, compared to the current maximum rate of 35 percent. Additional business-related reforms include eliminating the Code Sec. 199 domestic manufacturing deduction, the LIFO (last-in, first-out) method of accounting, and oil and gas production incentives.

TAX WRITING COMMITTEES

In tandem with deficit reduction proposals, the tax writing committees in Congress are exploring possible reforms to the Tax Code. The Senate Finance Committee, controlled by Democrats, and the House Ways and Means Committee, controlled by Republicans, have looked at a variety of issues related to individual and business taxation.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC), under the leadership of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., has held a series of hearings in recent months on tax reform. The SFC has examined, among other issues, oil and gas tax preferences, the tax treatment of business and household debt, strategies to increase the voluntary compliance rate to 90 percent, and efforts to close the tax gap.

The House Ways and Means Committee has also held a series of hearings on tax reform in recent months. The Ways and Means Committee has examined, among other issues, the advantages and disadvantages of a value added tax (VAT), tax incentives to encourage foreign investment in the U.S., and the corporate tax rate.

Please contact this office if you have any questions over how momentum toward deficit reduction and tax reform may impact your bottom line tax liability in the future.

Whether for a day, a week or longer, many of the costs associated with business trips may be tax-deductible. The tax code includes a myriad of rules designed to prevent abuses of tax-deductible business travel. One concern is that taxpayers will disguise personal trips as business trips. However, there are times when taxpayers can include some personal activities along with business travel and not run afoul of the IRS.

Business travel

You are considered “traveling away from home” for tax purposes if your duties require you to be away from the general area of your home for a period substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and you need sleep or rest to meet the demands of work while away. Taxpayers who travel on business may deduct travel expenses if they are not otherwise lavish or extravagant. Business travel expenses include the costs of getting to and from the business destination and any business-related expenses at that destination.

Deductible travel expenses while away from home include, but are not limited to, the costs of:

• Travel by airplane, train, bus, or car to/from the business destination.
• Fares for taxis or other types of transportation between the airport or train station and lodging, the lodging location and the work location, and from one customer to another, or from one place of business to another.
• Meals and lodging.
• Tips for services related to any of these expenses.
• Dry cleaning and laundry.
• Business calls while on the business trip.
• Other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to business travel.

Business mixed with personal travel

Travel that is primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, is a nondeductible personal expense. However, taxpayers often mix personal travel with business travel. In many cases, business travelers may able to engage in some non-business activities and not lose all of the tax benefits associated with business travel.

The primary purpose of a trip is determined by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. An important factor is the amount of time you spent on personal activities during the trip as compared to the amount of time spent on activities directly relating to business.

Let’s look at an example. Amanda, a self-employed architect, resides in Seattle. Amanda travels on business to Denver. Her business trip lasts six days. Before departing for home, Amanda travels to Colorado Springs to visit her son, Jeffrey. Amanda’s total expenses are $1,800 for the nine days that she was away from home. If Amanda had not stopped in Colorado Springs, her trip would have been gone only six days and the total cost would have been $1,200. According to past IRS precedent, Amanda can deduct $1,200 for the trip, including the cost of round-trip transportation to and from Denver.

Weekend stayovers

Business travel often concludes on a Friday but it may be more economical to stay over Saturday night and take advantage of a lower travel fare. Generally, the costs of the weekend stayover are deductible as long as they are reasonable. Staying over a Saturday night is one way to add some personal time to a business trip.

Foreign travel

The rules for foreign travel are particularly complex.  The amount of deductible travel expenses for foreign travel is linked to how much of the trip was business related.  Generally, an individual can deduct all of his or her travel expenses of getting to and from the business destination if the trip is entirely for business.

In certain cases, foreign travel is considered entirely for business even if the taxpayer did not spend his or her entire time on business activities. For example, a foreign business trip is considered entirely for business if the taxpayer was outside the U.S. for more than one week and he or she spent less than 25 percent of the total time outside the U.S. on non-business activities. Other exceptions exist for business travel outside the U.S. for less than one week and in cases where the employee did not have substantial control in planning the trip.

Foreign conventions are especially difficult, but no impossible, to write off depending upon the circumstances. The taxpayer may deduct expenses incurred in attending foreign convention seminar or similar meeting only if it is directly related to active conduct of trade or business and if it is as reasonable to be held outside North American area as within North American area.

Tax home

To determine if an individual is traveling away from home on business, the first step is to determine the location of the taxpayer’s tax home. A taxpayer’s tax home is generally his or her regular place of business, regardless of where he or she maintains his or her family home. An individual may not have a regular or main place of business. In these cases, the individual’s tax home would generally be the place where he or she regularly lives.  The duration of an assignment is also a factor. If an assignment or job away from the individual’s main place of work is temporary, his or her tax home does not change. Generally, a temporary assignment is one that lasts less than one year.

The distinction between tax home and family home is important, among other reasons, to determine if certain deductions are allowed. Here’s an example.

Alec’s family home is in Tucson, where he works for ABC Co. 14 weeks a year.  Alec spends the remaining 38 weeks of the year working for ABC Co. in San Diego. Alec has maintained this work schedule for the past three years. While in San Diego, Alec resides in a hotel and takes most of his meals at restaurants.  San Diego would be treated as Alec’s tax home because he spends most of his time there. Consequently, Alec would not be able to deduct the costs of lodging and meals in San Diego.

Accountable and nonaccountable plans

Many employees are reimbursed by their employer for business travel expenses. Depending on the type of plan the employer has, the reimbursement for business travel may or may not be taxable. There are two types of plans: accountable plans and nonaccountable plans.

An accountable plan is not taxable to the employee. Amounts paid under an accountable plan are not wages and are not subject to income tax withholding and federal employment taxes. Accountable plans have a number of requirements:

• There must be a business connection to the expenditure. The expense must be a deductible business expense incurred in connection with services performed as an employee. If not reimbursed by the employer, the expense would be deductible by the employee on his or her individual income tax return.
• There must be adequate accounting by the recipient within a reasonable period of time. Employees must verify the date, time, place, amount and the business purpose of the expenses.
• Excess reimbursements or advances must be returned within a reasonable period of time.

Amounts paid under a nonaccountable plan are taxable to employees and are subject to all employment taxes and withholding.  A plan may be labeled an accountable plan but if it fails to qualify, the IRS treats it as a nonaccountable plan. If you have any questions about accountable plans, please contact our office.

As mentioned, the tax rules for business travel are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.