Tag Archives: 20% deduction

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