Category Archives: Legislation

199A Regulations Address Specified Service Trades or Businesses with Other Business Elements

In a prior blog post, we addressed rules in the proposed regulations for the treatment of a trade or business that is not a specified service trades or business (“SSTB”) but has some relatively small elements that are attributable to the performance of services in a field that would qualify as an SSTB. The topic of this post is the rules for the treatment of an SSTB that has some incidental or relatively small non-SSTB elements, which are contained in Section 1.199A-5(c)(3).

Under these rules, if a non-SSTB has (1) 50% or more common ownership with an SSTB, (2) shares expenses, such as shared wages or overhead expenses, with the SSTB, and (3) gross receipts that are no more than 5% of the total combined (SSTB and non-SSTB) gross receipts, then the non-SSTB will be treated as part of the SSTB for Section 199A purposes. Common ownership is determined by applying the related party rules in Sections 267(b) and 707(b).

The proposed regulations provide an example where a dermatologist provides medical services to patients and also sells skin care products to patients. The same employees and office space are used for the medical services and the sale of skin care products. The gross receipts of the skin care product sales do not exceed 5% of the combined gross receipts. Under the rule, the sale of the skin care products (which is not an SSTB) will be treated as incident to, and part of, the medical service SSTB. Therefore, the qualified business income, w-2 wages, and any unadjusted basis of qualified property attributable to the skin care products business will not be eligible for Section 199A purposes unless the dermatologist is under the taxable income thresholds specified in Section 199A.

The proposed regulations do not address a scenario where the gross receipts of the skin care products business were, for example, 6% of the total combined gross receipts. Presumably, the skin care products business would then be considered a separate trade or business (a non-SSTB) from the dermatology practice, which would be an SSTB. A potential gotcha is for a business that is an SSTB that is entrepreneurial and tries to expand into a business that is not a SSTB. For example, consider a financial services business that starts-up a business to create personal budgeting and retirement software and that uses some of the employees and office space of the financial services business. Unless and until either (1) the gross receipts of the software start-up exceeds 5% of the combined gross receipts or (2) there are no longer any shared expenses, then the software business will be treated as a part of the financial services SSTB.

View the proposed regulations. 

Michael J. Wilson
mwilson@williamsparker.com
941-536-2043

199A Proposed Regulations Address Businesses with De Minimis Specified Service Trade or Business Elements

The proposed Section 199A regulations contain rules for the treatment of a trade or business that is not a specified service trades or business (“SSTB”) but has some relatively small elements that are attributable to the performance of services in a field that would qualify as an SSTB. These rules are contained in Section 1.199A-5(c)(1), and the SSTB issue is important because, with some exceptions based upon income level, income from an SSTB is not eligible for the Section 199A deduction.

Under these rules, if a non-SSTB has some relatively small elements that are SSTB services, then the SSTB services will not taint the treatment of the overall business. Specifically, the rule provides that for a trade or business with gross receipts of $25M or less for a taxable year (before application of the aggregation rules), the trade or business will not be treated as an SSTB if less than 10% of its gross receipts are attributable to an SSTB. If the gross receipts of the trade or business are more than $25M, then the 10% threshold is dropped to 5%. For example, if an eye glass store had $10M total gross receipts, and $9.5M of such gross receipts were attributable to the sale of eye glasses, and $0.5M of the gross receipts attributable to eye examinations performed by ophthalmologists, then the entire trade or business would be considered a non-SSTB for purposes of the Section 199A deduction.

The regulations do not address a scenario where, for example, $2M of the gross receipts were attributable to eye examinations. In that scenario, will the entire $10M business be treated as an SSTB? That does not seem like it should be the correct answer. A better answer would be that the eye glass and eye exam activities are treated as two separate trades or business for Section 199A purposes.

In interesting scenario is if the individual taxpayer operated the eye glass ($9.5M of gross receipts) and eye exam ($0.50M of gross receipts) businesses in separate entities. In that case, the eye glass business would be a non-SSTB, and the eye exam business would be an SSTB (and thus not eligible for the Section 199A deduction). However, a tax planning opportunity may exist to merge the two entities, and then take advantage of the aggregation rule to “cleanse” the eye exam business of its SSTB taint by having it become a de minimis part of the eye glass business under the aggregation rules.

View the proposed regulations. 

Michael J. Wilson
mwilson@williamsparker.com
941-536-2043

199A Proposed Regulations Address the ”Crack-and-Pack” Strategy

Since the enactment of Section 199A as part of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act late last year, tax practitioners have been devising ways to take a specified service trade or business, such as a physician group, and segregate the parts of the business that are a specified service trade or business from the parts that are not. For example, there has been speculation as to whether an S corporation operating a physician group that provides medical services (which is a specified service trade or business), owns its building, and employs administrative and billing staff could be divided into three S corporations. S corporation 1 would provide medical services to patients, S corporation 2 would own the medical office building and lease it to S corporation 1, and S corporation 3 would employ the administrative and billing staff and provide its services to S corporation 1 in exchange for fees. The hope would be that the common owners of the three S corporations would be eligible for a 199A deduction with respect to S corporation 2 and S corporation 3 (they would generally not be eligible for a 199A deduction if all of the components of the physician group were contained within one entity).

The proposed 199A regulations provide rules addressing this issue in Section 1.199A-5(c)(2). These rules provide that a specified service trade or business includes any trade or business that provides 80% or more of its property or services to a specified service trade or business if there is 50% or more common ownership (using the related party rules in Sections 267(b) and 707(b)) of the two trades or businesses. If a trade or business provides less than 80% of its property or services to a specified service trade or business that has 50% or more common ownership, then the portion of the trade or business providing property or services to the commonly-controlled business will be treated as part of the specified service trade or business. For example, if a dentist owns a dental practice and a building used in the practice in separate entities, and 40% of the real estate is leased to the dental practice and 60% of the real estate is leased to an unrelated tenant, then 40% of the real estate business will be treated as part of the dental specified service trade or business. But, if 80% of the real estate was leased to the dental practice, then all of the real estate would be treated as part of the dental specified service trade or business.

View the proposed regulations. 

Michael J. Wilson
mwilson@williamsparker.com
941-536-2043

IRS Issues Small Business Tax Reform Regulations, Clarifies Combinations of Business Entities

The tax reform legislation Congress passed in December left many details unanswered, especially regarding the small business tax benefit giving some businesses a twenty percent deduction against their income if the businesses satisfy certain employee payroll and property ownership thresholds. On August 8, the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations attempting to address many of the open questions.

One of the biggest questions was whether taxpayers can treat employee payroll and property owned across multiple business entities (like corporation and limited liability companies) as a single combined business for the purpose of satisfying the employee payroll and property ownership tests.

For most types of businesses, the regulations generally would allow aggregation of property and payroll amongst different entities (such as partnerships and S corporations) if the same group of persons own the majority of the business for the majority of the year, the entities satisfy certain integration and interdependence tests, and the taxpayers follow specified filing procedures.

Those rules will not apply to most professional businesses, which are subject to limitations in the use of the small business deduction. These businesses are subject to rules forcing aggregation of income to prevent circumvention of the deduction limitations.

The rules are not fully binding until finalized, but IRS will apply the anti-abuse rules retroactively. Taxpayers can rely on these proposed rules until they are finalized.

We will provide more perspective on these important new rules soon. In the meantime, for more details, you can read the proposed regulations at irs.gov.

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

Tax Cuts and Job Act – Estate Planning Update

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with a clear emphasis on job creation, introduced major tax changes for businesses. However, it also included a doubling of the exemption amount for federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax purposes. With the increased exemption expected to sunset on December 31, 2025, or earlier, now is the time for persons with taxable estates to consider how best to use and lock-in the increased exemption. For those persons safely under the current and prior exemption, care needs to be taken that their current documents do not result in a misallocation of assets where such allocation is tied to the exemption amount.

A recent presentation given to the FICPA explores these issues as well as other changes that may affect estate planning and administration.

Daniel L. Tullidge
dtullidge@williamsparker.com
(941) 329-6627

Business Tax Changes Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The Tax Act passed at the end of 2017 brought with it a number of changes to how businesses both big and small are to be taxed moving forward. While the most visible change has been the lowering of the corporate tax rate to a flat 21 percent rate, most businesses should be able to find additional benefits from changes in how business equipment is to be depreciated, how net operating losses can be carried forward into future years, and what improvements to non-residential real property are eligible for an immediate deduction.

A recent presentation given to FICPA discusses the aspects of the Tax Act, other than the Qualified Business Income Deduction, which are most likely to affect the tax savings of your business.

Jamie E. Koepsel
jkoepsel@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2562

Charitable Giving Under the New Tax Act – The Standard Deduction Bump

One of the more visible changes from the Tax Act will be the increase in the standard deduction. When completing an annual tax return, a taxpayer has the choice to either take a standard deduction or to itemize deductions. The standard deduction is a flat dollar amount which reduces your taxable income for the year, with the same standard deduction amount applying to every taxpayer who takes the standard deduction. The itemized deduction instead allows a taxpayer to deduct a number of different expenses from throughout the year, including certain medical expenses, mortgage interest, casualty and theft losses, state and local taxes paid, and charitable contributions. Whether a taxpayer uses the standard deduction or itemizes his or her deductions will depend on whether that taxpayer’s itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction amount.

In 2017, the standard deduction amount was $6,350 for single taxpayers and $12,700 for married taxpayers filing jointly. The Tax Act has nearly doubled these amounts for 2018, with the standard deduction increased to $12,000 for single taxpayers and $24,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Limitations have also been placed on deducting state and local taxes (capped at $10,000) and on mortgage interest (limited to new loans, capped at $750,000).

Taxpayers now have a higher standard deduction amount they need to pass before itemizing their deductions and they have more limited expenses available in order to get over that bar. Fewer people will be generating the expenses needed to make itemizing deductions worthwhile. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the percentage of taxpayers itemizing deductions will drop from 30% to only 6%.

If fewer taxpayers are itemizing their deductions, the tax benefits of charitable giving will be available to fewer taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center estimates charitable giving to drop anywhere from $12 billion to $20 billion in the next year. Taxpayers may instead bunch their charitable gifts into a single year, itemizing their deductions in such a year while using the standard deduction in subsequent years rather than spreading out these gifts over a stretch of years.

People charitably give to their favorite organizations out of a humanitarian desire to help less fortunate people and to benefit the wider community; a smaller tax incentive will not change this. But the smaller tax incentive is expected to have a negative impact both for a taxpayer’s ability to deduct charitable gifts and for the amount of gifts charitable organizations expect to receive.

Jamie E. Koepsel
jkoepsel@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2562

When is a Rose Not a Rose? IRS Tries to Plug Carried Interest Loophole by Claiming Roses are Not Flowers

The sweeping tax law passed in December requires partners holding some “carried interests” (partnership interests disproportionately large as compared to the relative capital contributed) to recognize gain at ordinary income tax rates (up to 37%) if their holding periods do not exceed three years, as opposed to the one-year holding period normally required to qualify for 20%-tax-rate long-term capital gain. The idea is that these interests are associated with services — often performed by hedge fund and private equity managers — that don’t carry the investment risk associated with a normal capital asset, and therefore holders of these partnership interests should have to own the interests longer to qualify for a low tax rate.

The statute categorically exempts partnership interests held by “corporations” from the new rules. Without explanation, the IRS announced this week it will take the position that “S corporations” are not “corporations” for the purposes of the carried interest law, even though by definition the opposite is true throughout the Internal Revenue Code. Their interpretation is akin to claiming roses aren’t flowers.

There are common sense reasons why S corporations should not be exempt from the carried interest statute. Because S corporations are pass-through entities, there is no practical difference between an individual owning a carried interest directly, as opposed to owning it through an S corporation. Yet read literally, the statute produces different results in these practically comparable situations.

Still, statutes are supposed to mean what they say. S corporations are corporations, just like roses are flowers. Unless Congress changes the statute, the Internal Revenue Service may have a hard time defending its position in litigation.

See our prior discussion of the new carried interest law:

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

Accrual-Method Taxpayers with Audited Financials May Have to Recognize Income Sooner

Section 13221 of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended IRC section 451 to link the all events test for accrual-method taxpayers to revenue recognition on the taxpayer’s audited and certain other financial statements. Specifically, new IRC section 451(b) (old 451(b) through (i) were redesignated as 451(d) through (k)) provides that for accrual-method taxpayers “the all events test with respect to any item of gross income (or portion thereof) shall not be treated as met any later than when such item (or portion thereof) is taken into account in revenue in” either (1) an applicable financial statement or (2) another financial statement specified by the IRS. In other words, taxpayers subject to this rule must include an item in income for tax purposes upon the earlier satisfaction of the all events test or the recognition of such item in revenue in the applicable or specified financial statement. For example, any unbilled receivables for partially performed services must be recognized for income tax purposes to the extent the amounts are taken into income for financial statement purposes, instead of when the services are complete or the taxpayer has the right to invoice the customer. The new rule does not apply to income from mortgage servicing rights.

The new rule defines an “applicable financial statement” as (1) a financial statement that is certified as being prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that is (a) a 10-K or annual statement to shareholders required to be filed with the SEC, (b) an audited financial statement used for credit purposes, reporting to shareholders, partners, other proprietors, or beneficiaries, or for any other substantial nontax purpose, or (c) filed with any other federal agency for purposes other than federal tax purposes; (2) certain financial statements made on the basis of international financial reporting standards filed with certain agencies of a foreign government; or (3) a financial statement filed with any other regulatory or governmental body specified by the IRS. It appears that (1)(b) would capture accrual-method taxpayers that have audited GAAP financial statements as a requirement of their lender or as a requirement of their owners, such as a private equity fund owner.

This new rule should also be considered by affected taxpayers in relation to the relatively new and complex revenue recognition standards in ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which becomes applicable to nonpublic GAAP companies later this year (unless adopted earlier). For example, a taxpayer’s tax function and financial accounting function would need to coordinate to ensure that the sales price of contracts containing multiple performance obligations (i.e., bundles of goods and services, such as software sales agreements that include a software license, periodic software updates, and maintenance and support services) is allocated to the separate components in the same manner for financial statement and tax purposes.

The new tax rule is effective for tax years beginning after 2017.

Discussion of the new tax rule begins on page 272 of the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report.

Michael J. Wilson
mwilson@williamsparker.com
941-536-2043

A Little Clarity for Non-U.S. Persons Selling Partnership Interests

A Spanish translation of this post appears below. La traducción al español de este artículo aparece a continuación.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided clarity to a question of how to treat gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a partnership interest held by a foreign person. The IRS, through Revenue Ruling 91-32, previously provided that “the gain realized by a foreign partner upon disposing of its interest in a U.S. partnership should be analyzed asset by asset and, to the extent any such asset would give rise to effectively connected income, the departing partner’s pro rata share of such gain should be treated as effectively connected income.” The Tax Court disagreed with the findings of Revenue Ruling 91-32 in Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and instead held that income, gain, or loss from the sale or exchange of a U.S. partnership interest by a foreign person will only be attributable to a U.S. office, and thus taxed as effectively connected income, if the U.S. office is a material factor in the production of such income, gain, or loss in the ordinary course of business of that U.S. office.

Rather than waiting for courts to come to a consensus as to how to treat gain or loss from a foreign person’s sale of a partnership interest, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended the previous tax law and took the position of Revenue Ruling 91-32. Now if a partnership has a U.S. office and a foreign person sells an interest in such a partnership, then an asset-by-asset analysis will need to be conducted to determine how much of the gain or loss from such a sale will be subject to U.S. taxes.

For more information regarding the Tax Act, please see our recent related blog posts linked below:

Jamie E. Koepsel
jkoepsel@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2562

Un poco de claridad para personas no estadounidenses que ofrecen a la venta su participación en una sociedad americana (también conocida como “U.S. Partnership”)

La ley de recortes fiscales y empleos de 2017, conocida como el “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” dió claridad a la cuestión de cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas de capital generadas después de la venta o intercambio de capital de una sociedad americana (“U.S. partnership”) en poder de una persona no estadounidense.

El IRS (Servicio de Impuestos Internos), a través de la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32, sostenía que las ganancias generadas por un socio extranjero al vender o transferir su parte en una sociedad americana debían ser analizadas activo por activo y, en la medida en que las ganancias de cualquier activo estuviesen vinculadas a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos, las ganancias de dicho socio (medidas en proporción a su participación en la sociedad) debían ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos.

El tribunal de impuestos no estuvo de acuerdo con la forma en que la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32 fue interpretada en el caso de Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. El tribunal sostuvo que los ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas generadas en la venta o intercambio de la participación de una sociedad americana por una persona extranjera debían ser atribuibles solamente a una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados, solamente si la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos era indispensable para la producción de dichos ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas en el curso ordinario de los negocios de la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos.

En lugar de esperar a que los tribunales llegaran a un consenso en cuanto a cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas generadas en la venta de capital de una sociedad en propiedad de una persona extranjera, la reforma fiscal de 2017 modificó la ley tributaria anterior y asumió la regla establecida por la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32. Ahora, si una sociedad tiene una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y una persona extranjera vende su participación en tal sociedad, un análisis de cada activo debe ser conducido para determinar el monto de las ganancias o pérdidas sujetas a impuestos en los Estados Unidos.

Traducción por Juliana Ferro, Abogada