Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

A bipartisan House bill has been introduced that would fix a GOP tax law drafting error known as the "retail glitch." The House bill, having over a dozen co-sponsors, is a companion measure to a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March.

Immediate Expensing

The Restoring Investment in Improvements Act (HR 1869), sponsored by House tax writers Reps. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., would allow restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders to immediately write off the cost of certain improvements. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, inadvertently excludes qualified improvement property (QIP) from the new 100 percent bonus depreciation provision.

The measure is a "small but critical fix for our job creators, and technical corrections like this are a normal part of the process when Congress enacts major reforms," Walorski said in a recent press release. "This bipartisan, commonsense bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses to unlock the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our nation’s economic growth."

Similarly, Panetta highlighted the negative impact that the loss of immediate expensing has caused many small businesses. "Our bill will allow restaurants, retailers, and other businesses to make the improvements they need to keep their stores competitive and safe and plan for the future," he said.

Although the "retail glitch" measure has solid bipartisan support, Democrats in general have seemed hesitant to fix any errors in the GOP tax law. To that end, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has said he would like to hold a hearing on technical corrections for the TCJA. The committee’s March 27 hearing on the TCJA did not specifically address technical corrections.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

The House on April 9 approved by voice vote a bipartisan, bicameral IRS reform bill. The IRS bill, which now heads to the Senate, would redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

IRS Reform

The Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (HR 1957), as amended, cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by voice on April 2. The House and Senate both introduced the bicameral, bipartisan measure on March 28. If enacted, the bill would make numerous reforms to the IRS, some of which include modernizing antiquated information technology systems and enhancing taxpayer services and identity protections.

"With a new tax code, it is time for a new tax administrator," House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an April 9 statement. "I applaud the House for passing the Taxpayer First Act—a bold step to redesign the IRS to be an agency with one singular mission: putting taxpayers first."

The IRS Reform bill has been "years in the making," Brady said on April 9, echoing a joint statement that he and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., along with other bipartisan tax writers recently issued. "The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have carefully and thoughtfully developed this legislation over several years, after numerous hearings and roundtables, in a bipartisan, bicameral manner," the lawmakers said.

AICPA Applauds Taxpayer First Act

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) issued an April 9 statement commending the House for passing HR 1957. "The AICPA appreciates the bipartisan recognition by members of the U.S. House of Representatives for bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st Century," Edward S. Karl, vice president of taxation, said in a statement on behalf of the AICPA. "The AICPA has long been interested in and active in working to find ways to modernize the IRS so that it can better serve the needs of taxpayers and tax practitioners."

Free File Alliance

However, the bipartisan, bicameral bill has not advanced without its share of criticism. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized a provision within the bill that would codify the Free File Alliance, which is an agreement between the IRS and certain tax preparation companies that includes the IRS being unable to directly assist in tax return preparation.

"Again and again in my service in the Senate I have battled the tax-preparation software industry to simplify filing taxes for the typical American," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an April 9 statement. "During the debate on the tax administration bill, my staff pushed back on a prohibition on the agency competing with private tax preparation services, and I will continue to push for my proposal for the pre-filed ‘simple’ return and the principle that a taxpayer should not have to use a private company to pay their taxes online," he added.

Looking Ahead

It remains unclear when the Senate will take up the Taxpayer First Act bill. However, the bill is presently expected on Capitol Hill to easily be approved in the Senate.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

Proposed regulations address gains that may be deferred when taxpayers invest in a qualified opportunity fund (QOF). Taxpayers may generally rely on these new proposed regulations. The IRS has also requested comments.

The proposed regulations also withdraw and replace placeholder provisions in an earlier set of proposed regulations ( REG-115420-18). These concern:

• the definition of "substantially all"regulations
• transactions that can trigger includible gain;
• the timing and amount of deferred gain that is included;
• treatment of leased property used in the qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) business;
• use of QOZ business property in the QOZ;
• sourcing of income to the QOZ business; and
• the reasonable period for a QOF to reinvest proceeds from the sale of qualifying assets.

In addition, within a few months the IRS expects to address administrative rules for a QOF that fails to maintain the required 90-percent investment standard, as well as information reporting requirements.

Finally, the IRS expects to revise Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, for 2019 and subsequent tax years. These revisions may require additional information, including the employer identification number (EIN) for the QOF business, and the amounts invested by QOFs and QOZ businesses located in particular QOZs.

"Substantially All" for QOZ Business

The 2018 regulations provided that a trade or business satisfies the "substantially all" test for a QOZ business if at least 70 percent of its tangible property is qualified opportunity zone business property. The new proposed regulations generally extend this 70-percent threshold to the "substantially all" tests for use. However, in the holding period context, the "substantially all" threshold is 90 percent.

Original Use of Purchased Tangible Property

The proposed regulations generally provide that the "original use" of tangible property acquired by purchase by any person starts on the date when that person or a prior person:

• first places the property in service in the qualified opportunity zone for purposes of depreciation or amortization; or
• first uses the property in the qualified opportunity zone in a manner that would allow depreciation or amortization if that person were the property’s owner.

Used tangible property will satisfy the original use requirement with respect to a QOZ so long as the property has not been previously used (that is, has not previously been used within that QOZ in a manner that would have allowed it to depreciated or amortized) by any taxpayer

In addition, a building or other structure that has been vacant for at least five years before being purchased by a QOF or QOZ business satisfies the original use requirement. Improvements made by a lessee to leased property satisfy the original use requirement and are considered purchased property for the amount of the unadjusted cost basis of the improvements.

Land can be treated as QOZ business property only if it is used in a trade or business of a QOF or QOZ business. The holding of land for investment does not give rise to a trade or business, and the land cannot be QOZ business property. Anti-abuse rules determine whether unimproved land can be qualifying property. However, other purchased real property generally must be substantially improved, determined on an asset-by-asset basis.

Leased Tangible Property in QOZ

Leased tangible property may be QOZ property if:

• the lease is entered into after 2017; and
• substantially all of the property’s use is in a QOZ during substantially all of the lease period.

However, the first-use requirement does not apply to leased tangible property. The leased property can generally also be acquired from a related person, though several conditions apply. The proposed regulations also provide methods for valuing the leased property.

QOZ Businesses

The proposed regulations:

• provide that in determining whether a substantial portion of intangible property of a QOZ is used in the active conduct of a trade or business, a substantial portion is at least 40 percent;
• address real property that straddles a QOZ;
• provide three safe harbors and a facts-and-circumstances test for determining whether a corporation or partnership derives at least 50 percent of its gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business;
• define "trade or business" by reference to Code Sec. 162, except that the ownership and operation (including leasing) of real property used in a trade or business can also be the active conduct of a trade or business; and
• provide a safe harbor for working capital.

Other Business Rules

The proposed regulations also address:

• Section 1231 gains;
• relief regarding the 90 percent asset test, including relief for newly contributed assets and QOF reinvestments;
• the amount of an investment for purposes of the deferral election;
• inclusion events, the timing on basis adjustments, includible amounts, and special rules for partnerships and S corporations;
• gifts and bequests;
• exceptions for disregarded transfers and some nonrecognition transactions;
• distributions and contributions;
• consolidated return provisions;
• holding periods and tacking rules;
• anti-abuse rules;
• special rules for Indian tribes and tribally leased property.

Comments Requested; Public Hearing Scheduled

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for 10 am on July 9, 2019, at the New Carrollton Federal Building in Latnham, MD. Public comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to the IRS, or submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120186-18).

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

The IRS has provided a safe harbor for professional sports teams to avoid the recognition of gain or loss when trading players and/or draft picks. Under the safe harbor provision, the traded player’s contract or the traded draft pick would have a zero basis.

Value of Professional Sports Contracts

Professional sports teams enter into contracts with their personnel (e.g., managers, coaches, players, etc.). Typical personnel contracts provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for a certain duration of service. The value of such a contract may fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including:

• player performance;
• the changing needs of the team and of other teams;
• a player’s effect on fan attendance; and
• the number of years until a player becomes a free agent and is able to sign a contract to play for any team in a league.

Other considerations affecting the value of a player contract include:

• the size of the team’s market (i.e., whether a smaller city or a major urban population);
• the cost of player development; and
• the impact of injuries and slumps on player performance.

In most cases, teams do not trade personnel contracts or draft picks unless the team thinks that it is receiving contracts of an equal or greater value. Because each party believes that they are receiving personnel contracts or draft picks of an equal or greater value, it is difficult to assign a monetary value to them. Accordingly, the IRS developed a safe harbor whereby each team is able to treat the traded contracts or draft picks as having a basis of zero, thus avoiding the recognition of gain or loss on the trade.

Safe Harbor Requirements

In order to use the safe harbor, professional sports teams must meet the following requirements:

• all teams involved in the trade must use the safe harbor;
• teams may only trade personnel contracts, draft picks, and/or cash;
• personnel contracts and/or draft picks cannot be Code Sec. 197 intangibles; and
• the financial statements of all teams involved in the trade must not reflect assets or liabilities resulting from the trade other than cash.

Application

Sports teams using the safe harbor will not recognize any gain or loss if they only trade personnel contracts or draft picks. However, teams that receive cash in a trade will recognize the amount of cash received as gain. In addition, the team providing cash to another team in the trade will receive basis in the personnel contract or draft pick equal to the amount of cash that it provided. A team providing cash to another team in a trade for two or more draft picks or personnel contracts must allocate its basis to each personnel contract or draft pick received from the other team by dividing the basis by the number of personnel contracts or draft picks received.

In certain cases, a team may have unrecovered basis in a draft pick or personnel contract under Code Sec. 167(c). In those instances, the team may recognize gain or loss based on the difference between the unrecovered basis and any cash received.

Effective Date

Teams may use the safe harbor for any trades involving personnel contracts or draft picks entered into after April 10, 2019. However, teams may choose to apply these rules in any open tax year.

The new Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed into law by President Obama in November, makes some far-reaching changes to partnership audits along with repealing automatic enrollment in health plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The new law is a good preview of how Congress is looking to enhanced tax compliance as a revenue raiser. The tax compliance measures in the budget law, largely targeted to partnerships, are projected to generate more than $10 billion in revenue over 10 years.

The new Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed into law by President Obama in November, makes some far-reaching changes to partnership audits along with repealing automatic enrollment in health plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The new law is a good preview of how Congress is looking to enhanced tax compliance as a revenue raiser. The tax compliance measures in the budget law, largely targeted to partnerships, are projected to generate more than $10 billion in revenue over 10 years.

TEFRA repeal

More than 30 years ago, Congress passed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). The law was intended to help the IRS better audit partnerships. For many years, TEFRA worked as intended. However, as partnerships have grown in number and complexity since passage of TEFRA, the IRS has been challenged to keep up with the changes. Today, it is not uncommon for partnerships subject to TEFRA to have hundreds or even thousands of partners.

The TEFRA rules generally applied to partnerships with more than 10 partners. Partnerships with 10 or fewer partners are audited as part of each partner’s individual audit. Additionally, partnerships with 100 or more partners that elect to be treated as Electing Large Partnerships (ELPs) are subject to a unified audit under which any adjustments are reflected on the partners’ current year return rather than on an amended prior-year return.

The Budget Act repeals the TEFRA and ELP rules (with a delayed effective date, discussed below). The Budget Act replaces TEFRA with a streamlined structure for auditing partnerships and their partners at the partnership level.

As mentioned above, the TEFRA repeal is not officially effective immediately. Rather, the changes made by the 2015 Budget Act apply to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after 2017. However, subject to certain exceptions, partnerships may choose to apply the new rules in the Budget Act to any partnership tax year beginning after the date of enactment, which is November 2, 2015.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), repeal of TEFRA will generate more than $9 billion in revenue over 10 years. Revenue is expected to be raised through enhanced audits of partnerships. The partnership universe is very large. For 2012, partnerships passed through $1,400.8 billion in total income minus total deductions available for allocation to their partners.

The Budget Act also clarifies that Congress did not intend for the family partnership rules to provide an alternative test for whether a person is a partner in a partnership. The determination of whether the owner of a capital interest is a partner should be made under the generally applicable rules defining a partnership and a partner. Further, the 2015 Budget Act clarifies that a person is treated as a partner in a partnership in which capital is a material income-producing factor whether the interest was obtained by purchase or gift and regardless of whether the interest was acquired from a family member. According to the JCT, this provision is projected to raise more than $1 billion over 10 years, again through enhanced compliance.

Affordable Care Act

One of the goals of the ACA was to expand enrollment in health insurance plans. For employers with more than 200 full-time employees, the ACA required them to automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of the employer’s health benefits plans (subject to any authorized waiting period), and to continue the enrollment of current employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer. The ACA was passed in 2010 but the IRS has not issued any regulations. In fact, the IRS announced in 2012 that it was holding off on the issuance of regulations.

The 2015 Budget Act repeals the ACA’s requirement for automatic enrollment in health insurance plans. In this case, repeal is effective as of the date of enactment of the new law: November 2, 2015.

Pension plans

The Budget Act also impacts defined benefit (DB) pension plans. These are traditional pension plans maintained by employers. Current law requires DB plans to make a contribution for each plan year to fund plan benefits. The Budget Act extends funding stabilization rules for DB plans through 2019. The Budget Act also gives DB plans some flexibility in their use of mortality tables. Additionally, the Budget Act increases premiums paid by pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

If you have any questions about repeal of TEFRA or any of the provisions in the Budget Act, please contact our office.

Small businesses received some welcomed news in October with passage of the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act. The new law revises the definition of small employer for purposes of market reforms under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The PACE Act is intended to help protect small businesses from potential health care premium increases. At the same time, many small businesses wait for expected relief from potential penalties for stand-alone health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) deemed not to comply with the ACA.

Small businesses received some welcomed news in October with passage of the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act. The new law revises the definition of small employer for purposes of market reforms under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The PACE Act is intended to help protect small businesses from potential health care premium increases. At the same time, many small businesses wait for expected relief from potential penalties for stand-alone health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) deemed not to comply with the ACA.

Note. The PACE Act does not revise the ACA's employer shared responsibility provision (also known as the "employer mandate"). The PACE Act only applies to the definition of small employer under the ACA for purposes of the small group market.

Small employer market

Before the ACA, the definition of a small employer in connection with a group health plan with respect to a calendar year and a plan year was an employer who employed an average of at least two but not more than 50 employees on business days during the preceding calendar year and who employs at least 2 employees on the first day of the plan year. The ACA revised this threshold. Employers with 51 to 100 employees are treated as small employers for purposes of health insurance markets but states have the option to treat them as large employers until January 1, 2016.

This change under the ACA was projected to subject many small businesses to different rating rules and requirements, including emergency services, hospitalization, rehabilitative services), and more. One result could be that small employers would choose to self-insure instead of remaining in the small group market because those employers will no longer be subject to the various requirements of the small group market. This could further increase the premiums for small employers.

PACE Act

The PACE Act to provide relief to small businesses was introduced earlier this year. The PACE Act was passed by the House on September 28, the Senate on October 1, and signed into law by President Obama on October 7.

The PACE Act generally defines a small employer as an employer who employed an average of 1-50 employees on business days during the preceding calendar year. The PACE Act also provides states the option of extending the definition of small employer to include employers with up to 100 employees. The PACE Act is effective upon enactment.

HRAs

Following passage of the ACA, the IRS announced that certain stand-alone HRAs did not satisfy the ACA's minimum benefit and annual dollar cap requirements for health insurance plans offered by employers. Many small employers have used these arrangements to reimburse employees for health care expenses. The IRS also announced transition relief from significant potential excise taxes, but the relief has expired. Now, small businesses are looking for a legislative fix.

Pending legislation in Congress would provide such a fix. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate (HR 2911; Sen. 1697) to provide permanent relief for small employers. The bills would allow small businesses to use HRAs to financially assist their employees with the purchase of health coverage and related costs without violating the ACA's market reforms. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act (P.L. 114-60)

Small Business Health Care Relief Act of 2015 (HR 2911, Sen. 1697)

After acknowledging earlier this year that hackers breached one of its popular online apps, the IRS has promised more identity theft protections in the 2016 filing season. The IRS, along with partners in the tax preparation community, has identified and tested more than 20 new data elements on returns to help detect and prevent identity-theft related filings. The agency is also working to prevent criminals from accessing tax-time financial products.

After acknowledging earlier this year that hackers breached one of its popular online apps, the IRS has promised more identity theft protections in the 2016 filing season. The IRS, along with partners in the tax preparation community, has identified and tested more than 20 new data elements on returns to help detect and prevent identity-theft related filings. The agency is also working to prevent criminals from accessing tax-time financial products.

Identity theft

Combatting identity theft is on ongoing process as criminals continue to create new ways of stealing personal information and using it for their gain. Tax-related identity theft typically peaks early in the filing season. Criminals file bogus returns early so taxpayers remain unaware you have been victimized until they try to file a return and learn one already has been filed. Between 2011 and 2015, the IRS identified 19 million suspicious returns and prevented the issuance of some $60 billion in fraudulent refunds. During the 2015 filing season, the IRS detected and stopped more than 3.8 million suspicious returns.

However, criminals continue to probe for weaknesses. In May, the IRS discovered that criminals had breached its Get Transcript app. Return information of as many as 300,000 taxpayers may have been compromised, the IRS reported.

New protections

In March, the IRS began working with the return preparation community and the tax software industry to develop a coordinated response to tax-related identity theft. The stakeholders, the IRS reported, have focused on a number of areas including improved validation of the authenticity of taxpayers and information on returns, increased information sharing to improve refund fraud detection and expand prevention, as well as more sophisticated threat assessment and strategy development to prevent risks and threats.

One outgrowth of the process is the creation of new data elements that can be shared at the time of filing with the IRS to help authenticate a taxpayer's identity. The IRS explained that there are more than 20 new data components. They will be submitted with electronic return transmissions during the 2016 filing season. Some of the data elements are

• Reviewing the transmission of the tax return, including the improper and/or repetitive use of internet addresses from which the return is originating;
• Reviewing the time it takes to complete a tax return, so computer mechanized fraud can be detected.
• Capturing metadata in the computer transaction that will allow review for identity theft related fraud.

"We are taking new steps upfront to protect taxpayers at the time they file and beyond," IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said at a news conference in Washington, D.C. "Thanks to the cooperative efforts taking place between the industry, the states and the IRS, we will have new tools in place this January to protect taxpayers during the 2016 filing season."

Financial products

Previously, the IRS announced that it would limit the number of direct deposit refunds to a single financial account or pre-paid debit card to three. Fourth and subsequent valid refunds will convert to paper checks and be mailed to the taxpayer. The IRS emphasized that it will continue to bolster its efforts to curb tax-time financial product fraud.

If you have any questions about tax-related identity theft, please contact our office.

IR-2015-117, FS-2015-23

As the calendar approaches the end of 2015, it is helpful to think about ways to shift income and deductions into the following year. For example, spikes in income from selling investments or other property may push a taxpayer into a higher income tax bracket for 2015, including a top bracket of 39.6 percent for ordinary income and short-term capital gains, and a top bracket of 20 percent for dividends and long-term capital gains. Adjusted gross incomes that exceed the threshold for the net investment income (NII) tax can also trigger increased tax liability. Accordingly, traditional year-end techniques to defer income or to accelerate deductions can be useful.

As the calendar approaches the end of 2015, it is helpful to think about ways to shift income and deductions into the following year. For example, spikes in income from selling investments or other property may push a taxpayer into a higher income tax bracket for 2015, including a top bracket of 39.6 percent for ordinary income and short-term capital gains, and a top bracket of 20 percent for dividends and long-term capital gains. Adjusted gross incomes that exceed the threshold for the net investment income (NII) tax can also trigger increased tax liability. Accordingly, traditional year-end techniques to defer income or to accelerate deductions can be useful.

Techniques for deferring income include:

• Hold appreciated assets;
• Consider a tax-fee like-kind exchange or property if disposing of appreciated assets used for investment or in a business;
• Sell depreciated capital assets, especially if capital gains have been realized;
• Hold U.S. savings bonds;
• Sell property on the installment basis;
• Defer bonuses earned in 2015 until 2016;
• Make salary-reduction contributions into employer-sponsored plans, such as 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, and 457 plans, and into flexible spending accounts;
• Minimize retirement distributions;
• Defer billings and collections;
• Recharacterize a Roth IRA as a traditional IRA if the traditional IRA was converted to a Roth IRA in 2015, and the assets in the Roth IRA have subsequently declined in value.

It is important to monitor the progress of tax legislation. Congress has not yet renewed individual and business tax extender provisions that expired at the end of 2014, but historically Congress does renew these provisions. Extenders for individuals include the state and local sales tax deduction (in lieu of the state and local income tax deduction), the higher education tuition and fees deduction, the teacher's classroom expense deduction, and the residential energy property credit.

Techniques for accelerating deductions include into 2015:

• Bunch itemized deductions into 2015 by paying medical expenses, making charitable contributions, and paying miscellaneous expenses such as employment-related items (don't delay bill payments until 2016);
• Accelerate payments of state and local taxes by increasing withholding or making the final state estimated tax payment installment in 2015;
• Make payments/contributions by credit card (timing is based on payment by credit card, not on payment of the credit card bill);
• Use Code Sec. 179 for business expensing and bonus depreciation to write off the costs of newly-acquired equipment.

For a business to start writing off the cost of depreciable equipment and property, it is necessary that the equipment be placed in service. To write off costs in 2015, the equipment must be placed in service by December 31, 2015. The "placed-in-service" requirement applies, for example, for taking depreciation, especially first-year bonus depreciation, under Code Sec. 168, expensing of the cost of property under Code Sec. 179, and other write-offs such as the investment tax credit under Code Sec. 46.

For a business to start writing off the cost of depreciable equipment and property, it is necessary that the equipment be placed in service. To write off costs in 2015, the equipment must be placed in service by December 31, 2015. The "placed-in-service" requirement applies, for example, for taking depreciation, especially first-year bonus depreciation, under Code Sec. 168, expensing of the cost of property under Code Sec. 179, and other write-offs such as the investment tax credit under Code Sec. 46.

The actual date an asset is placed in service is particularly important in the case of year-end acquisitions. Thus, determining when property is placed in service is an important concept for year-end planning.

Under the current legislative regime, some tax provisions are renewed from year-to-year but have not been permanently extended (such as bonus depreciation and enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing). The year that the property is placed in service thus determines whether or not the tax benefit is available in addition to the year for which a business claims the benefit.

Depreciation begins in the tax year that an asset is placed in service. An asset is placed in service (for purposes of computing depreciation or claiming the investment credit) on the date that it is in a condition or state of readiness for a specifically assigned function on a regular, ongoing basis, for use in a trade or business, for the production of income, in a tax-exempt activity, or in a personal activity. The placed-in-service date is not necessarily the date that the property is acquired. This distinction should also be kept in mind where a tax provision has requirements for the acquisition date as well as the placed-in-service date.

An asset actually put to use in a trade or business is clearly placed in service. If the asset is not yet put to use, it is still considered placed in service if the taxpayer has done everything needed to put the asset to use. For example, a canal barge was placed in service in the year acquired, even though it was not used until the following year because the canal was frozen.

A building that is intended to house machinery and equipment is placed in service when the building's construction is substantially complete, whether or not the machinery and equipment have been placed in service. A federal district court concluded that a building designed to be a retail store was placed in service when the building was substantially complete, even though the building was not yet open to the public. For a building (as opposed to equipment) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is a key factor that indicates the building has been placed in service.

A business operated by two or more owners can elect to be taxed as a partnership by filing Form 8832, the Entity Classification Election form. A business is eligible to elect partnership status if it has two or more members and:

A business operated by two or more owners can elect to be taxed as a partnership by filing Form 8832, the Entity Classification Election form. A business is eligible to elect partnership status if it has two or more members and:

• is not registered as anything under state law,
• is a partnership, limited partnership, or limited liability partnership, or
• is a limited liability company.

Publicly traded businesses cannot elect to be treated as partnerships. They are automatically taxed as corporations.

Form 8832 allows a business to select its classification for tax purposes by checking the box on the form: partnership, corporation, or disregarded. If no check-the-box form is filed, the IRS will assume that the entity should be taxed as a partnership or disregarded as a separate entity. An LLC that makes no federal election will be taxed as a partnership if it has more than one member and disregarded if it has only one member. An LLC must make an affirmative election to be taxed as a corporation. The IRS language on Form 8832 uses the term "association" to describe an LLC taxed as a corporation.

Form 8832 has no particular due date. There is a space on the form (line 4) for the entity to note what date the election should take effect. The date named can be no earlier than 75 days before the form is filed, and no later than 12 months after the form is filed. It is most important to file Form 8832 within the first few months of operations if the entity desires a tax treatment that differs from the tax status the IRS will apply by default if no election is made.

A few businesses do not qualify to be partnerships for federal tax purposes. These are:

1. a business that is a corporation under state law,
2. a joint stock company (a corporation without limited liability),
3. an insurance company,
4. most banks,
5. an organization owned by a state or local government,
6. a tax-exempt organization
7. a real estate investment trust, or
8. a trust.

Although these businesses cannot be partnerships, they can be partners in a partnership (they can join together to form a partnership).

Of course, whether your business is best operated as a partnership, as a corporation or as another type of entity should not only be driven by short-term tax considerations. How you envision your business will develop over time, whether your business is asset or service intensive, and what personal financial stake you plan to take, among other factors, are all additional factors that should be considered.

Taxpayers that invest in a trade or business or an activity for the production of income can only deduct losses from the activity or business if the taxpayer is at risk for the investment. A taxpayer is at risk for the amount of cash and the basis of property contributed to the activity. Taxpayers are also at risk for amounts borrowed if the taxpayer is personally liable to pay the liability, or if the taxpayer has pledged property as security for the loan (other than property already used in the business).

Taxpayers that invest in a trade or business or an activity for the production of income can only deduct losses from the activity or business if the taxpayer is at risk for the investment. A taxpayer is at risk for the amount of cash and the basis of property contributed to the activity. Taxpayers are also at risk for amounts borrowed if the taxpayer is personally liable to pay the liability, or if the taxpayer has pledged property as security for the loan (other than property already used in the business).

At-risk or not?

A taxpayer is not at risk for a nonrecourse loan, since there is no personal liability. However, amounts at risk include "qualified nonrecourse financing" used in connection with the holding of real estate. A taxpayer also is not at risk for contributions that are protected against loss by a guarantee, stop loss arrangement, or other similar arrangement. For certain activities, such as farming, oil and gas exploration, motion pictures, and the leasing of Code Sec. 1245 property, a taxpayer is not at risk for amounts borrowed from related persons or from persons who have an interest in the activity (other than as a creditor).

Scope of at-risk rules

The at-risk rules apply to all trade or business activities and to activities for the production of income. The rules apply to individuals, partners, S corporation shareholders, estates, trusts, and certain closely-held corporations. The at-risk rules generally do not apply to widely-held C corporations, whether public or private. There also is an exception for equipment leasing activities of closely-held corporations.

Deduction of losses

The taxpayer's amount at risk limits the allowable loss from the activity.  The loss subject to the at-risk limitation is the excess of allowable deductions over the income received from the activity for that year. Under proposed regulations under Code Sec. 465, losses that are allowed as deductions for the tax year reduce the taxpayer's at-risk amount for the activity for the succeeding year. Losses that are denied under the at-risk rules can be carried over to subsequent years and deducted against amounts at risk in the subsequent years.

Adjustment of amount at risk

The amount at risk must be adjusted each year. At the close of the tax year, the following procedures are used to determine the amount at risk:

• As stated above, amounts at risk at the end of the prior year must be reduced by the amount of loss allowed in that prior year;
• Amounts at risk are increased by items, such as contributions of money or property, that add to the amount at risk; and
• Amounts at risk are decreased by items, such as withdrawals of money or property, which reduce the amount at risk.

The IRS expects to receive more than 150 million individual income tax returns this year and issue billions of dollars in refunds. That huge pool of refunds drives scam artists and criminals to steal taxpayer identities and claim fraudulent refunds. The IRS has many protections in place to discover false returns and refund claims, but taxpayers still need to be proactive.

The IRS expects to receive more than 150 million individual income tax returns this year and issue billions of dollars in refunds. That huge pool of refunds drives scam artists and criminals to steal taxpayer identities and claim fraudulent refunds. The IRS has many protections in place to discover false returns and refund claims, but taxpayers still need to be proactive.

Tax-related identity theft

Tax-related identity theft most often occurs when a criminal uses a stolen Social Security number to file a tax return claiming a fraudulent refund. Often, criminals will claim bogus tax credits or deductions to generate large refunds. Fraud is particularly prevalent for the earned income tax credit, residential energy credits and others. In many cases, the victims of tax-related identity theft only discover the crime when they file their genuine return with the IRS. By this time, all the taxpayer can do is to take steps to prevent a recurrence.

Being proactive

However, there are steps taxpayers can take to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of tax-related identity theft. Personal information must be kept confidential. This includes not only an individual's Social Security number (SSN) but other identification materials, such as bank and other financial account numbers, credit and debit card numbers, and medical and insurance information. Paper documents, including old tax returns if they were filed on paper returns, should be kept in a secure location. Documents that are no longer needed should be shredded.

Online information is especially vulnerable and should be protected by using firewalls, anti-spam/virus software, updating security patches and changing passwords frequently. Identity thieves are very skilled at leveraging whatever information they can find online to create a false tax return.

Impersonators

Criminals do not only steal a taxpayer's identity from documents. Telephone tax scams soared during the 2015 filing season. Indeed, a government watchdog reported that this year was a record high for telephone tax scams. These criminals impersonate IRS officials and threaten legal action unless a taxpayer immediately pays a purported tax debt. These criminals sound convincing when they call and use fake names and bogus IRS identification badge numbers. One sure sign of a telephone tax scam is a demand for payment by prepaid debit card. The IRS never demands payment using a prepaid debit card, nor does the IRS ask for credit or debit card numbers over the phone.

The IRS, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) and the Federal Tax Commission (FTC) are investigating telephone tax fraud. Individuals who have received these types of calls should alert the IRS, TIGTA or the FTC, even if they have not been victimized.

Tax-related identity theft is a time consuming process for victims so the best defense is a good offense. Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax-related identity theft.

An employer must withhold income taxes from compensation paid to common-law employees (but not from compensation paid to independent contractors). The amount withheld from an employee's wages is determined in part by the number of withholding exemptions and allowances the employee claims. Note that although the Tax Code and regulations distinguish between withholding exemptions and withholding allowances, the terms are interchangeable. The amount of reduction attributable to one withholding allowance is the same as that attributable to one withholding exemption. Form W-4 and most informal IRS publications refer to both as withholding allowances, probably to avoid confusion with the complete exemption from withholding for employees with no tax liability.

An employer must withhold income taxes from compensation paid to common-law employees (but not from compensation paid to independent contractors). The amount withheld from an employee's wages is determined in part by the number of withholding exemptions and allowances the employee claims. Note that although the Tax Code and regulations distinguish between "withholding exemptions" and "withholding allowances," the terms are interchangeable. The amount of reduction attributable to one withholding allowance is the same as that attributable to one withholding exemption. Form W-4 and most informal IRS publications refer to both as withholding allowances, probably to avoid confusion with the complete exemption from withholding for employees with no tax liability.

An employee may change the number of withholding exemptions and/or allowances she claims on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. It is generally advisable for an employee to change his or her withholding so that it matches his or her projected federal tax liability as closely as possible. If an employer overwithholds through Form W-4 instructions, then the employee has essentially provided the IRS with an interest-free loan. If, on the other hand, the employer underwithholds, the employee could be liable for a large income tax bill at the end of the year, as well as interest and potential penalties.

How allowances affect withholding

For each exemption or allowance claimed, an amount equal to one personal exemption, prorated to the payroll period, is subtracted from the total amount of wages paid. This reduced amount, rather than the total wage amount, is subject to withholding. In other words, the personal exemption amount is $4,000 for 2015, meaning the prorated exemption amount for an employee receiving a biweekly paycheck is $153.85 ($4,000 divided by 26 paychecks per year) for 2015.

In addition, if an employee's expected income when offset by deductions and credits is low enough so that the employee will not have any income tax liability for the year, the employee may be able to claim a complete exemption from withholding.

Changing the amount withheld

Taxpayers may change the number of withholding allowances they claim based on their estimated and anticipated deductions, credits, and losses for the year.  For example, an employee who anticipates claiming a large number of itemized deductions and tax credits may wish to claim additional withholding allowances if the current number of withholding exemptions he is currently claiming for the year is too low and would result in overwithholding.

Withholding allowances are claimed on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, with the withholding exemptions. An employer should have a Form W-4 on file for each employee. New employees generally must complete Form W-4 for their employer. Existing employees may update that Form W-4 at any time during the year, and should be encouraged to do so as early as possible in 2015 if they either owed significant taxes or received a large refund when filing their 2014 tax return.

The IRS provides an IRS Withholding Calculator at www.irs.gov/individuals that can help individuals to determine how many withholding allowances to claim on their Forms-W-4. In the alternative, employees can use the worksheets and tables that accompany the Form W-4 to compute the appropriate number of allowances.

Employers should note that a Form W-4 remains in effect until an employee provides a new one. If an employee does update her Form W-4, the employer should not adjust withholding for pay periods before the effective date of the new form. If an employee provides the employer with a Form W-4 that replaces an existing Form W-4, the employer should begin to withhold in accordance with the new Form W-4 no later than the start of the first payroll period ending on or after the 30th day from the date on which the employer received the replacement Form W-4.

In Rev. Proc. 2015-20, the IRS substantially simplified the requirements for small businesses to adopt the tangible property regulations (the "repair regulations") for 2014. The relief allows small businesses to change their accounting methods, to comply with the regulations, without having to apply Code Sec. 481 and without having to file Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.

In Rev. Proc. 2015-20, the IRS substantially simplified the requirements for small businesses to adopt the tangible property regulations (the "repair regulations") for 2014. The relief allows small businesses to change their accounting methods, to comply with the regulations, without having to apply Code Sec. 481 and without having to file Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.

The repair regulations are broad and comprehensive, applying to any business that uses tangible property. The regulations totally redo the rules for deducting and capitalizing expenses associated with fixed assets. IRS adopted final regulations in September 2013, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. Taxpayers also have the option of applying the final regulations in 2012 and/or 2013.

Change of accounting method

Taxpayers ordinarily have to file Form 3115 to request IRS consent to change a method of accounting. The IRS provided automatic consent for taxpayers to change their accounting methods to comply with the repair regulations, but this did not relieve taxpayers of the requirement to file Form 3115. Furthermore, taxpayers changing their accounting method must apply Code Sec. 481(a), which requires them to calculate an adjustment to their accounting treatment of the same items for prior years, as if the new method were used in the prior years.  Code Sec. 481 is designed to prevent any duplication of deductions or omission of income upon a change in accounting method.

Small businesses in particular had complained to the IRS about the burden of implementing the regulations with a full Code Sec. 481 adjustment. Taxpayers would be required to go back in time (as far back as their books allow) and redo their analysis of prior year tangible property costs.

Relief

The IRS has now responded by providing relief from the requirements for changing an accounting method. Small business taxpayers can make the change without filing Form 3115 and without having to make a 481 adjustment. Instead, taxpayers can make the change on a "cutoff" basis, by taking into account only amounts paid or incurred, and dispositions of property, in their 2014 tax year. In effect, small business taxpayers can make the change prospectively.

The relief applies to a taxpayer that has one or more separate and distinct trade(s) or business(es) with either total assets under $10 million at the start of the 2014 tax year, or that has average annual gross receipts of $10 million or less for the prior three years.

Claiming relief

Because the IRS provided automatic consent, taxpayers making the change for 2014 would not have to file Form 3115 until the deadline for their 2014 income tax return, either March 15 or, with an extension, September 15. So taxpayers (and their tax representatives) are right in the middle of the process to comply with the regulations for 2014. The timing of the IRS's relief, in February 2015, is opportune, and gives small businesses plenty of time to comply with the regulations for 2014.

The relief is elective. Small businesses can follow normal change of accounting procedures, or can use the relief provided in Rev. Proc. 2015-20. There are trade-offs to claiming the relief. For some taxpayers, there may be tax savings from applying Code Sec. 481 to prior years, regardless of the burden involved to make the calculations. Furthermore, taxpayers that do not file Form 3115 will not get audit protection for tax years before 2014.

Rev. Proc. 2015-20, IR-2015-29

Form  1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, is a new information return. The IRS requires the Health Insurance Marketplace to report certain information  about every individual who receives health insurance coverage through the Marketplace to the agency and also to the enrollee. Form 1095-A reports information about the individual(s) covered by Marketplace coverage, the starting and ending dates of coverage, and the insurer that provided coverage. Form 1095-A also reports the cost of coverage, the plan's total monthly payment, any advance payment, and more.

Form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, is a new information return. The IRS requires the Health Insurance Marketplace to report certain information about every individual who receives health insurance coverage through the Marketplace to the agency and also to the enrollee. Form 1095-A reports information about the individual(s) covered by Marketplace coverage, the starting and ending dates of coverage, and the insurer that provided coverage. Form 1095-A also reports the cost of coverage, the plan's total monthly payment, any advance payment, and more.

Copies to IRS and enrollees

IRS rules require the Marketplace to file Form 1095-A with the agency and provide a copy to individuals on or before January 31, 2015, for coverage in 2014. If an individual did not receive a Form 1095-A in February 2015, he or she should contact the Marketplace and not the IRS. The IRS has cautioned that it is unable to answer questions about the information on Form 1095-A or about missing or lost forms because these forms come from the Marketplace.

Form 1040

Health insurance obtained through the Marketplace satisfies the requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that all individuals carry minimum essential health coverage, unless exempt. On 2014 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, the IRS has added a new line on which individuals will report if they had minimum essential coverage for 2014 (and on Forms 1040-EZ and 1040A). Individuals who had coverage through the Marketplace for 2014 will check this box on their Form 1040.

Code Sec. 36B credit

According to the IRS, nearly nine out of 10 individuals who obtained health insurance coverage through the Marketplace in 2014 qualified for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. This credit helps to offset the cost of health insurance. Form 1095-A includes information about the credit that individuals will need when they file their returns, such as the second lowest cost Silver Plan.

All individuals who claim the Code Sec. 36B credit must file a return. The IRS has developed a special form (Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit) for individuals to file with their return.

Many enrollees in Marketplace coverage were likely eligible for advance payments of the credit to their insurer. In this case, these individuals must reconcile the amount of the advance payment with the amount of the actual credit when they file their 2014 returns.  Keep in mind that that changes in income, family size or other life events may result in the amount of the actual credit being different from the amount estimated by the Marketplace at the time coverage was obtained.  If an individual's actual allowable credit is less than the amount of advance credit payments, the difference, subject to certain caps, will be subtracted from any refund or added to any balance due. If the actual allowable credit is more than the advance credit payments, the difference will be added to any refund or subtracted from any balance due.

Errors

In late February, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that some 800,000 Forms 1095-As reporting coverage for 2014 were calculated incorrectly by the Marketplace.  HHS has advised enrollees that they should receive corrected Forms 1095-A in early March. If you have any questions about your Form 1095-A please contact our office.