On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

• Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
• Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

• Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
• Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
• Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
• Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
• Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
• Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
• Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
• Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
• Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
• Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
• Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

• a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
• a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

• intangible property;
• sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
• the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

• a specific document;
• information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
• a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

• evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
• provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
• define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
• provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

• a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
• a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

• a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
• the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
• the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
• elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
• clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
• removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

The small business health insurance tax credit, created by the health care reform package, rewards employers that offer health insurance to their employees with a tax break. The credit is targeted to small employers; generally employers with 25 or fewer employees. In May 2010, the IRS issued Notice 2010-44, which describes the steps employers take to determine eligibility for the credit and how to calculate the credit.

Initial steps

1. Determine the employees taken into account for purposes of the credit.

Generally, any employee who performs services for you during the tax year is taken into account in determining your full-time employees (FTEs), average wages, and premiums paid. However partners and certain business owners are excluded. Additionally, family members of these owners and partners are also not taken into account as employees.

Example. A partnership employs five individuals, including one of the partners, Elise, and her spouse, Ron. For purposes of the credit, Elise and Ron are not taken into account as employees in determining the number of FTEs for purposes of the credit.

2. Determine the number of hours of service performed by those employees.

An employee's hours of service include (1) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, for the performance of duties for the employer during the employer's tax year; and (2) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, by the employer on account of vacation, holiday, illness, and similar events. The IRS allows you to use one of three alternative methods to calculate hours of service: (1) actual hours of service; (2) days-worked equivalency; or (3) weeks-worked equivalency.

Example. Priscilla is an employee of ABC Co. ABC's payroll records show that Priscilla worked 2,000 hours and was paid for an additional 80 hours on account of vacation, holiday and illness in 2010. Priscilla performed 2,080 hours of service.

3. Calculate the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.

Employers use a formula to calculate the number of FTEs. Total hours of service credited during the year to qualified employees (but not more than 2,080 hours for any employee) are divided by 2,080. The result, if not a whole number, is then rounded to the next lowest whole number.

Example. An employer pays five employees wages for 2,080 hours each, pays three employees wages for 1,040 hours each, and pays one employee wages for 2,300 hours. The employer's FTEs would be calculated as follows:

(1) Total hours of service not exceeding 2,080 per employee is the sum of:

(a) 10,400 hours of service for the five employees paid for 2,080 hours each (5 x 2,080);

(b) 3,120 hours of service for the three employees paid for 1,040 hours each (3 x 1,040); and

(c) 2,080 hours of service for the one employee paid for 2,300 hours (the lesser of 2,300 and 2,080).

The sum of (a), (b) and (c) equals 15,600 hours of service.

(2) The hours of service -- 15,600 -- are divided by 2,080, which equals 7.5. That number is rounded to the next lowest whole number, which is seven. The employer has seven FTEs.

4. Determine the average annual wages paid per FTE.

Employers also use a formula to determine average annual wages paid for a tax year. The amount of total wages paid to qualified employees is divided by the number of the employer's FTEs for the year. The result is then rounded down to the nearest $1,000 (if not otherwise a multiple of $1,000).

Example. XYZ Co. has 10 FTEs and pays average annual wages of $224,000 for the 2010 tax year. The amount of XYZ's average annual wages is $224,000 divided by 10, which equals $22,400. When rounded down to the nearest $1,000, is $22,000.

5. Determine the amount of premiums paid by the employer.

Only premiums paid by the employer for health insurance coverage are counted in calculating the credit. If an employer pays only a portion of the premiums for the coverage provided to employees (with employees paying the rest), only the portion paid by the employer is taken into account.

However, an employer's premium payments are not taken into account for purposes of the credit unless the payments are for health insurance coverage under a qualifying arrangement. Generally, this is an arrangement under which the employer pays premiums for each employee enrolled in health insurance coverage offered by the employer in an amount equal to a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of the coverage.

Additionally, the amount of an employer's premium payments taken into account in calculating the credit is limited to the premium payments the employer would have made under the same arrangement if the average premium for the small group market in the state (or an area within the state) in which the employer offers coverage were substituted for the actual premium.

Example. MNO Co. offers a health insurance plan with single and family coverage to its nine FTEs with average annual wages of $23,000 per FTE. Four employees are enrolled in single coverage and five are enrolled in family coverage.

MNO pays 50 percent of the premiums for all employees enrolled in single coverage and 50 percent of the premiums for all employees enrolled in family coverage. The premiums are $4,000 a year for single coverage and $10,000 a year for family coverage. The average premium for the small group market in employer's State is $5,000 for single coverage and $12,000 for family coverage.

MNO's premium payments for each FTE ($2,000 for single coverage and $5,000 for family coverage) do not exceed 50 percent of the average premium for the small group market in employer's state ($2,500 for single coverage and $6,000 for family coverage).

The amount of premiums paid by the employer for purposes of computing the credit equals $33,000 ((4 x $2,000) + (5 x $5,000) = $33,000).

Calculating the credit

After determining eligibility for the credit, employers calculate the amount of their credit. The maximum credit is 35 percent for employers with 10 or fewer FTEs paying average annual wages of not more than $25,000. The maximum credit for a tax-exempt employer is 25 percent. The maximum 35 percent and 25 percent credits are available for 2010 through 2013. The maximum amounts rise for 2014 and 2015, but at that time the credit is linked to an employer's participation in a state insurance exchange.

The credit is subject to phase-out. The credit is reduced by 6.667 percent for each FTE in excess of 10 employees and by four percent for each $1,000 that average annual compensation paid to an employee exceeds $25,000.

The following examples illustrate calculation of the credit:

Small for-profit employer

PRS Co. employs nine FTEs with average annual wages of $23,000 per FTE for the 2010 tax year. PRS pays $72,000 in health insurance premiums for those employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's state) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. PRS's credit for 2010 is $25,200 (35 percent x $72,000).

Small tax-exempt employer

TUV employs 10 FTES with average annual wages of $21,000 per FTE for the 2010 tax year. TUV pays $80,000 in health insurance premiums for its employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's state) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. The total amount of the employer's income tax and Medicare tax withholding plus the employer's share of the Medicare tax equals $30,000 in 2010.

The credit is calculated as follows: (1) The initial amount of the credit is determined before any reduction: (25 percent x $80,000) = $20,000; (2) The employer's withholding and Medicare taxes are $30,000; (3) the total 2010 tax credit equals $20,000 (the lesser of $20,000 and $30,000).

We've covered a lot of material. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the small employer health insurance tax credit.

The health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) imposes a new 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on the investment income of higher-income individuals. Although the tax does not take effect until 2013, it is not too soon to examine methods to lessen the impact of the tax.

Net investment income

"Net investment income" includes interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents and other gross income attributable to a passive activity. Gains from the sale of property not used in an active business and income from the investment of working capital are also treated as investment income. Further, an individual's capital gains income will be subject to the tax. This includes gain from the sale of a principal residence, unless the gain is excluded from income under Code Sec. 121, and gains from the sale of a vacation home. However, contemplated sales made before 2013 would avoid the tax.

The tax applies to estates and trusts, on the lesser of undistributed net income or the excess of the trust/estate adjusted gross income (AGI) over the threshold amount ($11,200) for the highest tax bracket for trusts and estates, and to investment income they distribute.

However, the tax will not apply to nontaxable income, such as tax-exempt interest or veterans' benefits.

Deductions

Net investment income is gross income or net gain, reduced by deductions that are "properly allocable" to the income or gain. This is a key term that the Treasury Department expects to address in guidance, and which we will update on developments. For passively-managed real property, allocable expenses will still include depreciation and operating expenses. Indirect expenses such as tax preparation fees may also qualify.

For capital gain property, this formula puts a premium on keeping tabs on amounts that increase your property's basis. It also focuses on investment expenses that may reduce net gains: interest on loans to purchase investments, investment counsel and advice, and fees to collect income. Other costs, such as brokers' fees, may increase basis or reduce the amount realized from an investment. As such, taxpayers may want to consider avoiding installment sales with net capital gains (and interest) running past 2012.

Thresholds

The tax applies to the lesser of net investment income or modified AGI above $200,000 for individuals and heads of household, $250,000 for joint filers and surviving spouses, and $125,000 for married filing separately. MAGI is your AGI increased by any foreign earned income otherwise excluded under Code Sec. 911; MAGI is the same as AGI for someone who does not work overseas.

Example. Jim, a single individual, has modified AGI of $220,000 and net investment income of $40,000. The tax applies to the lesser of (i) net investment income ($40,000) or (ii) modified AGI ($220,000) over the threshold amount for an individual ($200,000), or $20,000. The tax is 3.8 percent of $20,000, or $760. In this case, the tax is not applied to the entire $40,000 of investment income.

Exceptions to the tax

Certain items and taxpayers are not subject to the 3.8 percent Medicare tax. A significant exception applies to distributions from qualified plans, 401(k) plans, tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and eligible 457 plans. There is no exception for distributions from nonqualified deferred compensation plans subject to Code Sec. 409A. However, distributions from these plans (including amounts deemed as interest) are generally treated as compensation, not as investment income.

The exception for distributions from retirement plans suggests that potentially taxable investors may want to shift wages and investments to retirement plans such as 401(k) plans, 403(b) annuities, and IRAs, or to 409A deferred compensation plans. Increasing contributions will reduce income and may help you stay below the applicable thresholds. Small business owners may want to set up retirement plans, especially 401(k) plans, if they have not yet established a plan, and should consider increasing their contributions to existing plans.

Another exception is provided for income ordinarily derived from a trade or business that is not a passive activity under Code Sec. 469, such as a sole proprietorship. Investment income from an active trade or business is also excluded. However, SECA (Self-Employment Contributions Act) tax will still apply to proprietors and partners. Income from trading in financial instruments and commodities is also subject to the tax.

The additional 3.8 percent Medicare tax does not apply to income from the sale of an interest in a partnership or S corporation, to the extent that gain of the entity's property would be from an active trade or business. The tax also does not apply to business entities (such as corporations and limited liability companies), nonresident aliens (NRAs), charitable trusts that are tax-exempt, and charitable remainder trusts that are nontaxable under Code Sec. 664.

Income tax rates

In addition to the tax on investment income, certain other tax increases proposed by the Obama administration may take effect in 2011. The top two marginal income tax rates on individuals would rise from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively. The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. Moreover, dividends, which are currently capped at the 15 percent long-term capital gain rate, would be taxed as ordinary income. Thus, the cumulative rate on capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent in 2013, and the rate on dividends would jump to as much as 43.4 percent. Moreover, the thresholds are not indexed for inflation, so more taxpayers may be affected as time elapses.

Please contact our office if you would like to discuss the tax consequences to your investments of the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income.

The answer is no for 2010, but yes, in practical terms, for 2014 and beyond. The health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) does not require individuals to carry health insurance in 2010. However, after 2013, individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for a penalty unless otherwise exempt.

Shared responsibility

The health care reform package describes health insurance coverage as "shared responsibility." Individuals, employers, the federal government, and the states all have roles to play in guaranteeing that individuals do not lack minimum essential health insurance coverage.

The health care reform package assumes that employer-provided health insurance will continue to be the primary means of delivering coverage after 2013. The health care reform package includes measures that lawmakers hope will keep premium costs down along with tax incentives, so employers continue to offer health insurance. For larger employers (those with 50 or more employees), that "encouragement" is also combined with penalties if alternate health insurance is not offered.

Millions of Americans are also currently covered by Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs. They will continue to be covered by these programs after 2013. Indeed, some of these government programs will be expanded between now and 2013, covering more individuals.

Individual responsibility

Beginning in 2014, the health care reform package imposes a penalty on individuals for each month they fail to have minimum essential health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents. Another name for the penalty is "shared responsibility payment."

As a baseline, all individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for the penalty. However, the health care reform package expressly excludes certain individuals from liability for the penalty. They include:

• Individuals whose household income is below their income thresholds for filing a federal income tax return;
  
• Individuals who are exempt on religious conscience grounds;
  
• Individuals whose contribution to employer-provided coverage exceeds a threshold percentage;
  
• Hardship cases;
  
• Native Americans;
  
• Undocumented aliens;
  
• Incarcerated individuals;
  
• Individuals with short lapses of minimum essential coverage;
  
• Individuals covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs; and
  
• Certain individuals outside the U.S.

Amount of penalty

The monthly penalty after 2013 is 1/12 of the flat dollar amount or a percentage of income, whichever is greater. For 2014, the flat dollar amount is $95 and the percentage of income is one percent. The flat dollar amount rises to $695 in 2016 (indexed for inflation thereafter) and the percentage of income increases to 2.5 percent.

For individuals under age 18, the flat dollar amount is 50 percent of the amount for adults. Generally, a family's total penalty cannot exceed $285 for 2014 (rising to $2,085 by 2016) or the national average annual premium for the "bronze" level of coverage through a state insurance exchange. By 2014, each state must establish an insurance exchange where individuals can shop for health insurance coverage. The exchanges will have four levels of coverage: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Example. Ana, age 38, is self-employed with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $68,500 for 2014. Ana does not have minimum essential coverage for all 12 months of 2014 and is not exempt from carrying minimum essential coverage because of income or other qualifying reasons. Ana will be liable for a penalty of the greater of $95 or one percent of her modified AGI.

Example. Ana's mother, Barbara, is enrolled in Medicare. Barbara has minimum essential coverage because she is enrolled in Medicare and is not liable for a penalty.

Health insurance tax credits

At the same time the individual responsibility requirement kicks in, the health care reform package provides a refundable health insurance premium assistance tax credit to qualified persons. The premium assistance credit will operate on a sliding scale based on an individual's relationship to the federal poverty level (between 100 and 400 percent).

The healthcare reform package makes the premium assistance tax credit refundable and also provides for advance payment of the credit. Advance payment will be made to the health plan in which the individual is enrolled.

Adult children

There is one important change regarding individual coverage for 2010. Effective September 23, 2010, the health care reform package enables more young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Generally, employer-sponsored group health plans will be required to provide coverage for adult children up to age 26 if the adult child is ineligible to enroll in another employer-sponsored plan. The health care reform package also extends the employer-provided health coverage gross income exclusion to coverage for adult children under age 27 as of the end of the tax year.

Guidance

The IRS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies are expected to issue extensive guidance on the individual responsibility mandate. Our office will keep you posted on developments.

On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. The $18 billion HIRE Act is expected to be the first of several "jobs" bills out of Congress in 2010. The new law encourages companies to hire unemployed workers and also retain existing workers by providing two key tax incentives: payroll tax relief and a worker retention tax credit. Employers can take a tax credit of up to $1,000 for the year if they hire an unemployed worker and retain the new worker for at least one year.

Payroll tax forgiveness

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is made up of two taxes: Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) (Social Security) and hospital insurance (HI)(Medicare). Employers pay OASDI tax equal to 6.2 percent of an employee's taxable wages up to $106,800. The HIRE Act temporarily lifts the employer's 6.2 percent OASDI tax.

The covered employee must be on the employer's payroll after February 3, 2010 and before January 1, 2011. However, payroll tax forgiveness applies only to wages paid to covered employees after March 18, 2010 and before January 1, 2011.

Example #1. Ann is hired as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week by ABC Co. Ann's hire date is January 31, 2010. On March 19, ABC Co. hires Nate as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week. On April 30, ABC Co. hires Cai as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week. Ann is not a covered employee for purposes of the HIRE Act because she began employment with ABC Co. before February 3, 2010. Cai and Nate are covered employees under the HIRE Act because their start dates are after February 3, 2010 and they are on the company's payroll after March 18, 2010.

The HIRE Act requires that employees certify they had not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date their employment with the qualified employer began. The IRS is developing a form that employers can use to obtain the certification from covered employees.

Example #2. In example #1, Cai and Nate were covered employees under the HIRE Act because their start dates with ABC Co. were after February 3, 2010 and they were on the payroll after March 18, 2010. Before coming to work for ABC Co., Cai was employed full-time (40 hours per week) by XYZ Co. between November 1, 2002 and April 29, 2010 (one day before her date of hire by ABC Co.). Consequently, Cai cannot certify that she had not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date of her employment with ABC Co.

A covered employee must not replace another employee of the employer, with some exceptions. The exceptions cover employees who voluntarily quit and employees who are fired for cause. Additionally, the covered employee must not be related to the employer or own a certain share of the employer's business. Some employees, for example household employees, are expressly excluded from the HIRE Act.

Retained worker tax credit

As part of the general business credit, the HIRE Act allows employers to claim a worker retention credit. For each qualified employee, the employer's general business credit is increased by the lesser of $1,000 or 6.2 percent of the retained worker's wages paid during a 52-week consecutive period.

The covered employee must be on the employer's payroll after March 18 and continue in employment for at least 52 consecutive weeks. Additionally, the covered employee's wages during the last 26 weeks of the 52 consecutive week period must equal at least 80 percent of the wages paid during the first 26 weeks of that period.

Example #3. In example #1, Nate was a covered employee under the HIRE Act because his start date with ABC Co. was after February 3, 2010. Additionally, Nate qualified his employer for payroll tax forgiveness because he was on the company's payroll after March 18, 2010. At the close of business on September 24, 2010, Nate resigns from ABC Co. Consequently, ABC Co. may claim payroll tax forgiveness for Nate for the period between March 19, 2010 and September 24, 2010 but ABC Co. cannot claim the retained worker tax credit because Nate did not remain employed with the company for at least 52 consecutive weeks.

Employers will need to maintain careful records with respect to each new employee hired in order to show that the new worker qualifies the employer for the credit. It is presumed that the IRS will begin crafting a form to be used by employers in order to claim the credit.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the HIRE Act. The business incentives are temporary, so don't delay.

Health care reform is now law and many employers are asking how does it affect my business and my employees? The first thing to keep in mind is that reform is gradual. The health care reforms and tax provisions in the new health care reform package play out over time, with some taking effect this year or next year but others not until 2014 and beyond. However, the health care package imposes significant new responsibilities and taxes on employers and individuals so it is not too early to start preparing.

Two new laws

Health care reform is actually made up of two new laws. The first is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on March 23. The second is the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, signed by the president on March 26. The Patient Protection Act, which reflects the Senate's original health care reform bill, provides the overall framework for reform. The Reconciliation Act was drafted in the House to make changes to the Patient Protection Act, especially in the area of cost-sharing and in some of the revenue raisers.

Employer responsibility

The final health care package, unlike earlier versions, does not include an employer mandate. However, any employer with more than 50 full-time employees that does not offer health insurance and has at least one full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing will pay a per-employee penalty. An employer with more than 50 full-time employees that offers coverage that the government deems unaffordable or fails to meet minimum standards and has at least one full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing also will pay a per-employee penalty. Small employers with less than 50 employees will not be penalized in any case. The penalty rules apply starting in 2014.

Small employers that provide health insurance coverage are eligible for a new tax credit. A sliding scale tax credit is available immediately in 2010 for qualified small employers. The IRS is expected to make guidance for the new credit a priority. If your small business offers or is thinking of offering health insurance to your workers, the credit could generate significant cost-savings. Please contact our office and we can discuss the details of the credit in depth.

Individual responsibility

Unlike employers, individuals have a mandate under the health care reform package. Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be responsible for maintaining health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents. If they do not have minimum essential coverage, they will be liable for a penalty.

The health care package excludes many individuals from the mandatory coverage requirement. Any individual or family who currently has coverage can retain that coverage under a "grandfather" provision. Individuals with incomes below the federal filing threshold, religious objectors, individuals covered by Medicaid and Medicare and others are also exempt.

The health care package provides a premium assistance tax credit and cost-sharing to help make coverage more affordable. The premium assistance tax credit is calculated on a sliding scale based on the individual's income in relation to the federal poverty level. Cost-sharing reduces the cost of coverage for qualified individuals. The premium assistance tax credit and cost-sharing generally will be available after 2013.

High-dollar plans

One of the principal revenue raisers to fund health care reform is a new excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans. The health care reform package imposes an excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies or plan administrators for any health insurance plan with an annual premium in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The excise tax applies to the amount in excess of the $10,200/$27,500 levels. The thresholds are higher for individuals in high-risk occupations and individuals over age 55. The excise tax will not kick in until 2018.

Medicare additional tax and surtax

Changes to the hospital insurance (HI)(Medicare) tax also fund health care reform. These changes impact higher-income individuals and families.

The health care reform package increases the Medicare tax by 0.9 percent for individuals who receive wages in excess of $200,000 (the threshold increases to $250,000 for married couples who file a joint federal income tax return). Additionally, the new law imposes a 3.8 percent surtax (called the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution) on investment income for individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly). Investment income includes income from interest and dividends.

The additional Medicare tax on wages and the additional Medicare contribution on investment income take effect in 2013, so taxpayers have some time to prepare. Please contact our office for more details about how these tax changes may impact you.

Flexible spending arrangements

Flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) are a very popular way to save and pay for health care expenses. One of the most attractive features is the ability to use FSA dollars for over-the-counter medications. The health care reform package ends that feature after 2010.

In 2011 and subsequent years, FSA dollars can only be used to pay for prescription medications (with some limited exceptions). In 2013, the health care reform package limits the amount of contributions to health FSAs to $2,500 per year. The $2,500 amount will be indexed for inflation after 2013.

More provisions

The health care reform package als

• Increases the AGI threshold for claiming the itemized deduction for medical expenses for regular tax purposes to 10 percent after 2012 with a delayed effective date for seniors;
• Extends dependent coverage up to age 26;
• Expands Medicaid eligibility;
• Requires states to establish insurance exchanges to help individuals and small employers obtain coverage;
• Increases the additional tax on distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) not used for qualified medical expenses;
• Eliminates the employer deduction for Medicare Part D;
• Imposes annual fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers and health insurance providers;
• Imposes an excise tax on medical device manufacturers;
• Requires more corporate information reporting;
• Imposes new requirements on non-profit hospitals;
• Accelerates some corporate estimated income taxes in 2014;
• Imposes an excise tax on indoor tanning services;
• Codifies the economic substance doctrine; and
• Modifies the biofuel credit.

In the coming months and years, the IRS and other federal agencies will issue many new rules and regulations to implement health care reform. Our office will keep you posted of developments, and, as always, please contact us if you have any questions.

As 2010 unfolds, small businesses are confronted with tax challenges and opportunities on many fronts. Lackluster consumer spending, combined with tight credit, has many small businesses in a holding pattern. Congress may respond with a new tax credit to encourage hiring. Small businesses are also faced with uncertainty over many temporary provisions in the federal Tax Code. Many of these incentives have expired. At the same time, small businesses are uncertain how health care reform, the fate of the federal estate tax and proposed retirement savings initiatives may impact them.

Hiring and retention tax credit

To encourage businesses to hire more workers, the Senate has passed a hiring and retention tax credit (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act). The credit exempts employers from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security tax for qualified new hires up to the Social Security wage base of $106,800. The new hire must have been unemployed for at least 60 days and added to the employer's payroll before January 1, 2011. Employers would also be eligible for an additional $1,000 tax credit for each new hire that they keep on the payroll for at least 52 consecutive weeks.

The House has not scheduled a vote on the Senate's hiring and retention credit and it is unclear if it will. The House approved a jobs bill late last year (Jobs for Main Street Act, H.R. 2847), which does not include a hiring and retention credit.

Extenders

Businesses may be surprised that some of the tax breaks they took in 2009 are not available in 2010. That's because many of these popular business tax incentives are temporary and they expired at the end of 2009. They include the research tax credit, 15-year recovery periods for qualified leasehold improvement, restaurant, and retail improvement property, enhanced corporate contributions to qualified organizations, special incentives for producers of alternative energy, and others.

In December 2009, the House approved legislation extending these temporary business incentives through December 31, 2010 (Tax Extenders Act of 2009, H.R. 4213). The Senate, however, has yet to act on the House bill or vote on its own version of an extenders package. Traditionally, the extenders have been renewed but this year there is a chance that renewal may be later rather than sooner. High unemployment numbers have Congress focused on job creation. A growing number of lawmakers view many of the extenders as having little if any impact on immediate job creation in the private sector.

Expensing/bonus depreciation

Under a temporary provision expiring at the end of 2009, taxpayers could expense up to $250,000 in annual investment expenditures for qualified property. The maximum amount that could be expensed for property placed in service in 2009 was reduced by the amount that the qualified property exceeded $800,000. The Obama administration has proposed extending enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing, with the $250,000/$800,000 threshold, through December 31, 2010. The Senate approved an extension in its jobs bill and the House approved an extension last year but the chambers have yet to approve the extension in a common bill that they can send to the White House for the president's signature.

Another expired pending incentive is bonus depreciation. Under a temporary provision, an additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 50 percent of the adjusted basis of the property was provided for qualified property acquired and placed in service before January 1, 2010. The Obama administration has proposed extending bonus depreciation through December 31, 2010. The House approved an extension last year but the Senate has not. There is growing sentiment among some senators that the extension of bonus depreciation into 2010 would be an expensive "budget buster" not worth the price tag.

Health care reform

Health care reform, which dominated the news in recent months, has been on the back burner as lawmakers have switched their attention to jobs. However, health care reform remains a priority of the Obama administration. Some form of a reform package may be enacted in 2010 and it could impose new mandates on employers.

The House health care reform bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962) would require employers to satisfy certain minimum coverage requirements. Otherwise, the employer would be liable for an additional payroll tax. Small employers, generally businesses with annual payrolls below $500,000, would be exempt. The Senate health care reform bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590) does not require employers of any size to provide health insurance coverage.

Estate tax

Many small business owners are reviewing their estate plans after the federal estate tax expired January 1, 2010. Effective for decedents dying on and after January 1, 2010 and on or before December 31, 2010 the federal estate tax is replaced with a carryover basis regime. Generally, the income tax basis of property acquired from a decedent is carried over from the decedent. Executors may partially increase the basis of property by up to $1.3 million ($3 million in the case of property passing to a surviving spouse).

The House passed a bill late last year extending the 2009 estate tax into 2010 (Permanent Estate Tax Relief Bill of 2009, H.R. 4154). However, the Senate has not acted on the House bill. Democratic leaders have said the Senate will vote on an extension but have not laid out a timetable. If you have not reviewed your estate plans in light of the expiration of the federal estate tax, please contact our office.

Retirement plans

The Obama administration proposes requiring employers that do not currently offer a retirement plan to offer their employees automatic enrollment in an individual retirement account (IRA). Small businesses (generally employers with 10 or fewer employees) would be exempt from the proposed requirement. The administration's proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after January 1, 2011. Qualified employers would be eligible for a temporary tax credit of $25 for each employee up to a total credit of $250 per year for a maximum of two years.

At the same time, the administration proposes to enhance the existing tax incentive for small employers that establish a retirement plan. Under current law, employers with 100 or fewer employees that adopt a new qualified retirement plan are entitled to a temporary tax credit equal to 50 percent of their expenses to establish and administer the plan. The credit is limited to $500 per year for three years. The administration has asked Congress to double the tax credit to $1,000 per year for three years. The administration's proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after January 1, 2011.

Employment tax audits

In addition to trying to cope with the changing tax laws, small businesses should be aware that the IRS has identified their group as a target for vigorous tax audits. Recent surveys have confirmed for the IRS that the small business environment presents easy opportunities for some "bad apples" to cheat on their taxes. Armed with those statistics as justification, the IRS is now aggressively looking to small businesses to help close "the tax gap," the difference between what taxpayers owe and what is actually collected. One initial area of concern involves employment taxes.

The IRS recently launched a special study of employment tax compliance. The IRS will randomly audit 2,000 taxpayers, including small businesses, each year for the next three years. Employers selected for the study will receive notices from the IRS. According to the IRS, these examinations will be comprehensive, will look at all aspects of employment tax compliance, and will be used to form more effective criteria for auditing many more small businesses.

If you have any questions about the tax opportunities and challenges we have discussed, please contact our office.

People are buzzing about Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Unlike traditional IRAs, "qualified" distributions from a Roth IRA are tax-free, provided they are held for five years and are made after age 59 1/2, death or disability. You can establish a Roth IRA just as you would a traditional IRA. You can also convert assets in a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

Before 2010, only taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were eligible to convert their traditional IRA (provided they were not married taxpayers filing separate returns). Beginning in 2010, anyone can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, regardless of income level or filing status.

Comment: While you can only contribute a maximum of $5,000 to a Roth IRA for 2010 (plus a $1,000 catch-up contribution if you are over age 50), you can convert an unlimited amount from a traditional IRA.

Conversion is treated as a taxable distribution of assets from the traditional IRA to the IRA holder, although it is not subject to the 10 percent tax on early distributions. While paying taxes on conversion is undesirable, the advantages of holding assets in a Roth IRA usually outweigh this disadvantage, especially if you will not be retiring soon. Furthermore, if you convert assets in 2010, you have the option of including them in income in 2011 and 2012 (50 percent each year) instead of 2010.

Comment: Generally, this income-splitting would be advantageous to any taxpayer who does not expect a sharp increase in income in 2011 or 2012. A wildcard factor is that the lower income tax rates that have been in effect since 2001 will expire after 2010 and could increase in 2011.

There are four ways to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA:

• A rollover - you receive a distribution from a traditional IRA and roll it over to a Roth IRA within 60 days;
• Trustee-to-trustee transfer - you direct the trustee of the traditional IRA to transfer an amount to the trustee of a Roth IRA;
• Same-trustee transfer - the trustee of the traditional IRA transfers assets to a Roth IRA maintained by the same trustee; or
• Redesignation - you designate a traditional IRA as a Roth IRA, instead of opening a new Roth account.

Comment: The account holder does not have to convert all of the assets in the traditional IRA.

Another advantage of converting assets from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is that you can change your mind and put the assets back into the traditional IRA. This is known as a recharacterization. You have until the due date, with extensions, for the return filed for the year of conversion. Thus, if you convert assets in 2010, you have until mid-October in 2011 to undo the conversion.

This ability to recharacterize the conversion allows you to use hindsight to check whether your assets declined in value after the conversion. Since you are paying taxes on the amount converted, a decline in asset value means that you paid taxes on phantom income that no longer exists. However, if you convert assets into multiple Roth IRAs, you can choose to recharacterize the assets in a Roth IRA that decreased in value, while maintaining the conversion for a Roth IRA's assets that appreciated in value.

The use of a Roth IRA can be a savvy investment, but whether to convert assets is not an easy decision. If you would like to explore your options, please contact this office.