President Biden is looking to add $2.1 billion more to the Department of the Treasury budget over 2023 enacted levels, an increase that would give the agency $16.3 billion in discretionary budget authority, with the majority of those funds earmarked for the Internal Revenue Service.

President Biden is looking to add $2.1 billion more to the Department of the Treasury budget over 2023 enacted levels, an increase that would give the agency $16.3 billion in discretionary budget authority, with the majority of those funds earmarked for the Internal Revenue Service.

"To ensure that taxpayers receive the highest quality customer service and that all Americans are treated fairly by the U.S. tax system, the Budget provides a total of $14.1 billion for the IRS, $1.8 billion, or 15percent, above the 2023 enacted level," the White House stated in the budget document released on March 9, 2023.

On the same day, the Treasury Department released the so-called “Greenbook” which outlines the administration’s revenue proposals for Fiscal Year 2024.

Adding some additional details, the budget document noted that the IRS budget includes "an increase of $642 million to improve the taxpayer experience and expand customer service outreach to underserved communities and the entire taxpaying public," the document states, adding that $290 million will be allocated to information technology modernization.

The budget document also notes that in "addition to the annual discretionary funding, the Budget proposes to maintain deficit reducing Inflation Reduction Act-funded initiatives in 2032 and beyond. This proposal builds on decades of analysis demonstrating that program integrity investments to enforce existing tax laws and increase revenues in a progressive way by closing the tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid."

Tax Policy Highlights

The budget document notes that spending within the overall budget will be offset "by tax reforms to ensure that the wealthiest Americans and multinational corporations pay at least a minimum tax rate and reforming taxation of stock buybacks," which is expected to reduce the deficit by $1.17 trillion during the next decade.

On the corporate side, the document states it plans to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent.

The budget also notes that it will invest "in working families, by cutting taxes for working people and families with children, providing paid leave, and improving home care."

President Biden is proposing in the budget to restore "and make permanent the American Rescue Plan expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers without qualifying children," as well as other tax provisions, including:

• Providing a neighborhood homes credit;
• Expanding and enhancing the low-income housing credit;
• Expanding the child credit, and making permanent full refundability and advanceability;
• Making the adoption tax credit refundable and allowing certain guardianship arrangements to qualify; and
• Making permanent the income exclusion for forgiven student debt.

The Greenbook also provides some additional clarity on the tax policy proposals. The Biden Administration once again will be seeking the implementation of a billionaire minimum tax of 25 percent, targeted at the wealthiest 0.01 percent of individuals to ensure they are paying their fair share of taxes.

The budget also includes health-related tax policy proposals, including the closure of Medicare tax loopholes and increasing the Medicare tax and the Net Investment Income Tax rate by 1.2 percentage points above $400,000 for a total Medicare tax rate of 5 percent on high-income taxpayers. It also looks to expand tax credits for health insurance premiums.

The IRS has offered tips to taxpayers who received an incorrect Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions or received one of these forms in error. 2022 transactions were reported on the form taxpayers received by January 31, 2023. If the information on the form is incorrect or wrong, taxpayers are directed to contact the issuer of the Form 1099-K immediately. The issuer’s name appears in the upper left corner on the form along with their phone number. Further, taxpayers should keep a copy of all correspondence with the issuer for their records.

The IRS has offered tips to taxpayers who received an incorrect Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions or received one of these forms in error. 2022 transactions were reported on the form taxpayers received by January 31, 2023. If the information on the form is incorrect or wrong, taxpayers are directed to contact the issuer of the Form 1099-K immediately. The issuer’s name appears in the upper left corner on the form along with their phone number. Further, taxpayers should keep a copy of all correspondence with the issuer for their records.

If taxpayers can’t get a corrected Form 1099-K, they should report the information on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), Additional Income and Adjustments to Income, as follows:

• Part I – Line 8z – Other Income – Form 1099-K Received in Error.
• Part II – Line 24z – Other Adjustments - Form 1099-K Received in Error.

The net effect of these two adjustments on adjusted gross income would be $0.

Personal Item Sold at Loss

If a taxpayer receives a Form 1099-K for a personal item sold at a loss, report the information on Schedule 1 with offsetting transactions. The net effect of these two adjustments on adjusted gross income would be $0.

Personal Item Sold at Gain

If a taxpayer sells an item owned for personal use, they should report the gain as any other capital gain on Form 8949, Sales and other Dispositions of Capital Assets, and Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses.

Mix of Personal Items Sold

If a taxpayer sold an item owned for personal use at a gain, see Personal items sold at a gain for information on how to report. For personal items sold at a loss, follow the instructions for Personal items sold at a loss.

New Reporting Threshhold

The IRS announced that the new Form 1099-K reporting threshold will start in tax year 2023.

• The old threshold was $20,000 and 200 transactions per year. This applies to tax year 2022 and prior years.
• The new threshold is more than $600. This applies to tax year 2023 and future years.

The IRS has provided relief that permits taxpayers affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency who had a return filing due date postponed by Notice 2020-23, I.R.B. 2020-18, 742, or Notice 2021-21, I.R.B. 2021-15, 986, who did not receive an extension of time for filing such return, and who file timely credit or refund claims, to be credited or refunded amounts deemed paid on April 15 of each year.

The IRS has provided relief that permits taxpayers affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency who had a return filing due date postponed by Notice 2020-23, I.R.B. 2020-18, 742, or Notice 2021-21, I.R.B. 2021-15, 986, who did not receive an extension of time for filing such return, and who file timely credit or refund claims, to be credited or refunded amounts deemed paid on April 15 of each year.

Among other things, Notice 2020-23 postponed certain federal tax return filing and payment obligations that were due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020, to July 15, 2020. Notice 2021-21 postponed the due date for both filing Form 1040 series returns with an original due date of April 15, 2021, and making federal income tax payments in connection with one of these forms, to May 17, 2021.

Under Code Sec. 6511, a taxpayer must file a refund or credit claim within three years from the time the taxpayer’s return was filed, or two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever period expires later. Under Code Sec. 6511(b)(2), the credit or refund amount is limited to the amount of tax paid within a specified period immediately preceding the filing of the refund or credit claim (the "lookback period"). When a taxpayer files a claim within three years of filing the return, the lookback period is three years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. Otherwise, the lookback period is two years.

While Notice 2020-23 and Notice 2021-21 postponed certain return filing due dates, they did not extend the time for filing the returns because a postponement is not an extension. As a result, the postponements did not lengthen the lookback periods.

Relief for Determining Lookback Period

The relief applies for determining the credit or refund amount on the tax for which the return filing or payment due date was postponed:

• For any person with a federal tax return filing or payment obligation that was postponed by Notice 2020-23 to July 15, 2020, the period beginning on April 15, 2020, and ending on July 15, 2020, will be disregarded in determining the beginning of the lookback period.
• For any person with a filing or payment obligation for a Form 1040 series federal income tax return that was postponed by Notice 2021-21 to May 17, 2021, the period beginning on April 15, 2021, and ending on May 17, 2021, will be disregarded in determining the beginning of the lookback period.

The relief is automatic, so affected taxpayers do not have to call the IRS, file any form, or send letters or other documents to receive the relief.

The IRS has issued final regulations for filing certain returns and other documents electronically (e-file). The regulations affect persons required to file returns for partnerships, corporations, unrelated business income tax, withholding, excise taxes, as well as information returns, disclosure statements, and other documents

The IRS has issued final regulations for filing certain returns and other documents electronically (e-file). The regulations affect persons required to file returns for partnerships, corporations, unrelated business income tax, withholding, excise taxes, as well as information returns, disclosure statements, and other documents. The electronic filing requirements generally apply to applicable returns and documents required to be filed beginning in 2024, except for returns of tax-exempt organizations which apply to tax years beginning after July 1, 2019.

Electronic Filing

The final regulations generally adopt the proposed regulations issued in 2021 for electronic filing under the following Code Section:

• Code Secs. 1474, 6011, 6012, 6033, 6057, 6058, and 6059 for determining whether applicable returns and documents must be filed electronically,
• Code Sec. 6011 for reporting certain excise taxes,
• Code Secs. 1461 and 1474 for withholding income taxes on U.S. source income of foreign persons,
• Code Secs. 6045 and 6050M for certain broker reporting and federal agency contracts, and
• Code Sec. 6050I for reporting financial transactions in cash exceeding $10,000.

Like the 2021 proposals, the final regulations generally require e-filing by taxpayers other than individuals if, during the calendar year, they are required to file 250 or more returns. The final rules also eliminate the e-filing exception for income tax returns of corporations that report total assets under $10 million at the end of their taxable year. Partnerships with more than 100 partners are required to e-file information returns, and they require partnerships required to file at least 10 returns of any type during the calendar year to e-file their partnership return.

Information Returns

Under Code Sec. 6011(e) and related regulations, filers are already required to file information returns and statements electronically if, during a calendar year, they are required to file 250 or more returns. The 2021 proposed regulations would have reduced the applicable threshold to 100 or more returns for returns required to be filed during 2022 and 10 or more returns for returns required to be filed after calendar year 2022.

Because the final regulations are not applicable until calendar year 2024, the proposed electronic-filing thresholds of 100 and 10 returns, respectively are not adopted. Instead, the electronic-filing threshold for information returns required to be filed in calendar years 2022 and 2023 remains at 250. However, the final regulations adopt the electronic-filing threshold of 10 for returns required to be filed on or after January 1, 2024.

In addition, the final regulations adopt the proposed rule without any change that if a person is required to file original information returns electronically, that person must file any corresponding corrected information returns electronically.

Waivers and Exemption

Many of the regulations imposing electronic-filing requirements also provide a waiver from electronic filing to any person who establishes undue hardship. The final regulations adopt several changes in reviewing waiver requests, noting that costs to a taxpayer will only be one factor. The Treasury and IRS anticipate providing additional details on the specific hardship-waiver procedures for each form affected by the final regulations, including exemptions for taxpayers whose religious belief conflict with the electronic filing requirement. The final regulations do not provide for waivers and exemptions in all circumstances or for all tax forms required to be electronically filed.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has published its first set of guidance materials to aid the public, and especially the small business community, in understanding the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements which will take effect on January 1, 2024.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has published its first set of guidance materials to aid the public, and especially the small business community, in understanding the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements which will take effect on January 1, 2024.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) established uniform BOI reporting requirements for certain types of corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States. New FinCEN regulations require these entities to report to FinCEN information about their "beneficial owners"—the persons who ultimately own or control the company.

In an effort to make the process as simple as possible, particularly for small businesses who may have never heard of or interacted with FinCEN before, FinCEN has placed several items on its BOI reporting webpage (https://www.fincen.gov/boi), including:

• answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the reporting requirement;
• a Key Filing Dates document;
• a one-page document covering a few Key Questions on the BOI requirement;
• a link to an introductory video; and
• a link to a more detailed video about the BOI requirement.

In the coming months, FinCEN expects to publish additional guidance on the BOI webpage, including a Small Entity Compliance Guide.

The American Institute of CPAs is suggesting a series of frequently asked questions for the Internal Revenue service to post and answer on its website regarding the new digital asset question that appears on the 2022 Form 1040.

The American Institute of CPAs is suggesting a series of frequently asked questions for the Internal Revenue service to post and answer on its website regarding the new digital asset question that appears on the 2022 Form 1040.

The 2022 Form 1040 asks the following yes/no question: "At any time during 2022, did you (a) receive (as a reward, award, or payment for property or services); or (b) sell, exchange, gift, or otherwise dispose of a digitalasset (or a financial interest in a digitalasset)?"

In a February 17, 2023, letter to the agency, AICPA identified 12 questions and offered recommended responses to those questions that the IRS could include on its website to guide taxpayers on how to answer the digital asset question. Among the questions the organization is recommending the IRS answer are:

• What is a digital representation of value?
• What is a cryptographically secured distribution ledger as used in the Form 1040 question?
• How do I determine if my digital asset is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger?
• What is considered "similar technology" to a cryptographically distributed ledger?
• What are the "characteristics of a digitalasset" as that term is used in the 2022 Form 1040 instructions?
• Does a "yes" answer to the 2022 Form 1040 digital asset question mean that I have tax consequences from digital asset transactions that should be reported on my 2022 Form 1040?

AICPA sent the letter in hopes that "IRS will consider posting these or similar FAQs on the website for this 2022 tax return filing season and that the 2023 Form 1040 instructions will be modified for next year to provide greater certainty to taxpayers and their preparers in confidently and properly complying with the question and overall requirements for digitalasset," the letter states.

A copy of this letter can be found with all of AICPA’s tax policy and comment letters here.

The IRS added widely circulating promoter claims involving Employee Retention Credits (ERC) as a new entry in the annual Dirty Dozen list of tax scams.

The IRS added widely circulating promoter claims involving Employee Retention Credits (ERC) as a new entry in the annual Dirty Dozen list of tax scams. These promotions can be based on inaccurate information related to eligibility for and computation of the credit. Eligible taxpayers can claim the ERC on an original or amended employment tax return for qualified wages paid between March 13, 2020 through December 31, 2021.

"The aggressive marketing of these credits is deeply troubling and a major concern for the IRS," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. "Businesses need to think twice before filing a claim for these credits. While the credit has provided a financial lifeline to millions of businesses, there are promoters misleading people and businesses into thinking they can claim these credits. People should remember the IRS is actively auditing and conducting criminal investigations related to these false claims. We urge honest taxpayers not to be caught up in these schemes," he added.

Further, abusive ERC promotions highlight day one of the IRS annual Dirty Dozen campaign. These are a list of 12 scams and schemes that put taxpayers and the tax professional community at risk of losing money, personal information, data and more. Finally, more information can be found here.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office is offering recommendations to close the tax gap, a move it says could yield large fiscal benefits even if there is only a modest narrowing of the gap between what is paid and what is owed.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office is offering recommendations to close the tax gap, a move it says could yield large fiscal benefits even if there is only a modest narrowing of the gap between what is paid and what is owed.

In a "snapshot" report issued February 27, 2023, the GAO cited Internal Revenue Service-reported figures for the years 2014-2016 that show taxpayers owed $3.3 trillion in taxes but paid only $2.8 trillion. GAO analysis of IRS data attributes the gap to three key factors: underreporting ($398 billion); underpayment ($59 billion); and nonfiling ($39 billion).

GAO reported a number of factors that have contributed to the tax gap, including limited third-party information reporting, declines in audit rates, worsening customer service and the complexities of the tax code. It also noted that abusive tax shelters also play a role in contributing to the tax gap. The report did not quantify how much these factors contributed to the tax gap.

"Our work shows there are no easy ways to reduce the taxgap," the report states. "Multiple approaches are needed to address the many causes of tax noncompliance."

The government watchdog recommends that the IRS re-establish quantitative goals to reduce the tax gap; expand third-party information reporting; digitize taxpayer returns to make them more readily available to enforcement programs; and make it easier for individuals to report preparers and promoters involved in abusive tax schemes.

It also is recommending that Congress give the IRS explicit authority to establish professional requirements for paid preparers; expand third-party reporting requirements related to real estate; expand IRS authority to correct errors and discrepancies between taxpayer reported and other government collected information; and requiring paper returns include a scannable code to allow information to be processed digitally.

The GAO did not quantify how much benefit the federal government could get with even a modest reduction in the tax gap.

Panelists convened to testify before the Senate Finance Committee called for enhancements of the low income housing tax credit as a means of making real estate more available and affordable.

Panelists convened to testify before the Senate Finance Committee called for enhancements of the low income housing tax credit as a means of making real estate more available and affordable.

During a March 7, 2023 hearing, Denise Scott, president of Local Initiatives Support Corporation, testified that the credit "has been responsible for the production of most of the affordable housing, and more than 50 percent of the households in tax credit properties are extremely low income families."

An overview of various tax policies was prepared for the hearing by the Joint Committee on Taxation and can be found here.

She suggested Congress could "spur the creation of over 2 million more rental units over the next decade by restoring the 12.5 percent increase to the formula for the allocated tax credits." That increase was enacted in 2018 but expired in 2021.

Sharon Wilson Geno, president of the National Multifamily Housing Council, recommended that the low income housing tax credit be expanded to capture more middle class families and build "off of the success of the low income housing tax credit."

However, Mark Calabria, senor advisor at the Cato Institute, urged a little restraint when it comes to using tax policy to stimulate the housing market.

"Most indicators suggest that rents would decline over the next 12-to-18 months," he testified before the committee. "So, I would just urge some cautiousness to thinking about adding stimulus to additional construction at a time when we are likely passing the peak of the cycle."

Wilson Geno said that the private market "simply cannot afford to provide housing in the amounts we need it in the lowest income tiers, and also the middle-income tier. So those tax incentives are incredibly useful."

Calabria also cautioned about offering any additional credits that are focused on the demand side of housing equation.

"We need to be cautious about adding demand subsidies that simply run up prices, which is how we’ve gotten the inflationary pressures we face today," he said.

Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was noncommittal on the idea of trading a permanent child tax credit for the elimination of the state and local tax deduction.

Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was noncommittal on the idea of trading a permanent child tax credit for the elimination of the state and local tax deduction.

Yellen was faced with this question during a March 16, 2023, Senate Finance Committee hearing convened to discuss the Biden Administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 and the corresponding so-called "Greenbook," which outlines proposed changes to tax policy that in total reflect how the government plans to pay for changes to the overall budget.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) noted that the White House budget proposal increases the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600 and makes it fully refundable and deliverable on a monthly basis.

"However, I see they didn’t make that change permanent," Sen. Daines said, adding that increase would expire in 2025. "My question is this: does the President believe that the child tax credit should be made permanent for $3,600? And if so, are you willing to eliminate the SALT deduction, which overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, to give working families an expanded child tax credit that, importantly, never ends?"

Yellen explained that the reason for the proposed expanded tax credit expiring in 2025 is due to other provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that will expire in 2025 that affect the child tax credit.

"And then there will need to be consideration of what to do," Yellen said, while offering no explicit comment on the desire to make the child tax credit permanent and not addressing at all the possibility of making the CTC permanent while at the same time eliminating the SALT deduction.

One point Yellen was challenged on was on the promise that there would be no increases in taxes on individuals and corporations making less than $400,000. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) suggested that President Biden would not be able to keep that promise based on provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would sunset in or after 2025.

"Well, there certainly are aspects of the TCJA that, if they sunset, would impact households [with] taxpayers earning under $400,000,”" Yellen testified. "And the President has, as you mentioned, pledged he doesn’t want to see taxes raised by a penny on anyone making under that. He stands ready to work with Congress."

However, when pressed further to provide a list of those sunsetting provisions that could push taxes higher for taxpayers making under $400,000, Yellen said that "I don’t know that I can provide you with that. I think there are a lot of complicated provisions." She declined to commit to providing the information within the two-week time frame that Sen. Young asked for, but pledged to work with the committee to provide the information.

A Mirror Of Previous Testimony

For the questions that covered the budget, the committee touched on many of the same subjects and asked similar questions of Yellen that the House Ways and Means Committee did on March 10, 2023, although conversations about the budget at times took a back seat to discussion on the recent bank failures and the government’s response to it as well as the looming need to address the debt ceiling.

When the budget was discussed, Yellen promoted the improvements to customer service, noting that the Internal Revenue Service has answered "hundreds of thousands" of more call calls this tax season than at the same point last year. She also pushed the Biden Administration’s targeting of the highest earning taxpayers, both individual and corporate, to get them to pay their fair share.

Yellen also reiterated the defense of the United States’ participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s work on building a framework for implementing a global corporate minimum tax structure. She did emphasize that any agreement would not violate existing tax treaties between the United States and other individual countries, although there was pushback on whether that was accurate.

She also promoted the provisions in the Greenbook that will help close the housing supply gap, noting the budget has provisions to make to make rent and ownership more affordable.

Yellen also said the IRS plan to spend the $80 billion that was allocated to agency in the Inflation Reduction Act would be ready in the coming weeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the $10,000 maximum penalty under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. This ruling settles a split in authority between the Ninth Circuit (J. Boyd, CA-9, 2021-1 ustc ¶50,112) and the Fifth Circuit (A. Bittner, CA-5, 2021-2 ustc ¶50,242).

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the $10,000 maximum penalty under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. This ruling settles a split in authority between the Ninth Circuit (J. Boyd, CA-9, 2021-1 ustc ¶50,112) and the Fifth Circuit (A. Bittner, CA-5, 2021-2 ustc ¶50,242).

Background

U.S. citizens and residents must keep records and/or file reports when the person makes a transaction or maintains a relation for any person with a foreign financial agency (31 USC 5314). Each person with a financial interest in a financial account in a foreign country must report the relationship to the IRS for each year the relationship exists by providing specified information on and filing the FBAR. The FBAR generally must be filed by June 30 of each calendar year for foreign financial accounts over $10,000 maintained during the previous calendar year (31 C.F.R. 1010.350, 1010.306). If the person fails to file the FBAR, the IRS can impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for nonwillful violations, unless the violation was due to reasonable cause (31 USC 5321).

Here, the taxpayer nonwillfully failed to report his interests in multiple foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms for several years. The government assessed $2.72 million in civil penalties against the taxpayer: $10,000 for each unreported account each year for five years. The district court found the taxpayer liable and denied his reasonable cause defense, but reduced the assessment to $50,000 because it determined that the $10,000 maximum penalty attached to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each failure to report an account.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that the text, structure, history, and purpose of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions showed that the "violation" of 31 USC 5314 contemplated by the 31 USC 5321 penalty was the failure to report a qualifying account, not the failure to file an FBAR. Therefore, the $10,000 penalty cap applied on a per-account basis, not a per-report basis.

FBAR Penalty Per Report

In the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch, the Court determined that 31 USC 5314, which delineates an individual’s legal duties under the BSA, does not mention accounts or their number, but instead addresses the legal duty to file reports which must include various kinds of information about an individual’s foreign transactions or relationships. Further, 31 USC 5321 authorizes the Treasury Secretary to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for “any violation” of section 5314. The nonwillful penalty provision in section 5321 does not speak in terms of accounts or their number, but instead pegs the quantity of nonwillful penalties to the quantity of violations. While multiple deficient reports may yield multiple $10,000 penalties, and even a simple deficiency in a single report may expose an individual to a $10,000 penalty, the Court ruled that the penalties for nonwillful violations accrue on a per-report basis, not a per-account basis. Also, while section 5321 does tailor penalties to accounts for certain cases that involve willful violations, Congress did not say in section 5321 that the government may impose nonwillful penalties on a per-account basis.

The Court found other contextual clues that cut against the government’s arguments. First, the government's guidance to the public in various warnings, fact sheets, and instructions seemed to tell the public that the failure to file a report represented a single violation exposing a nonwillful violator to one $10,000 penalty. Also, when Congress amended the law in 2004 to authorize penalties for nonwillful violations, it did not apply language from previous amendments to willful penalties to authorize per-account penalties for nonwillful violations.

The Court also observed that other features of the BSA and its regulatory scheme suggested that the law aimed to provide the government with a report sufficient to tip it to the need for further investigation, not to ensure the presentation of every detail or maximize revenue for each mistake. Finally, the Court stated that the government’s per-account penalty reading of the statute invited anomalies, such as subjecting willful violators to lower penalties than nonwillful violators, that are avoided by reading the nonwillful penalty to apply on a per-report basis.

The Court concluded that, best read, the BSA treats the failure to file a legally compliant report as one violation carrying a maximum penalty of $10,000, not a cascade of such penalties calculated on a per-account basis.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Barrett’s dissent (joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan) stated that the most natural reading of the statute establishes that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account constitutes a separate reporting violation, so the government can levy penalties on a per-account basis.

President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

Payroll Tax Cut
Reports on Capitol Hill had begun swirling recently that the Trump administration was considering cutting payroll taxes.

"We’re looking at various tax reductions," Trump told reporters at the White House on August 20. "I have been thinking about payroll taxes for a long time," he added. "A lot of people would like to see that."

However, White House staff swiftly denied that any payroll tax cut was under consideration, according to several reports.

Along those lines, Michael Zona, communications director for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that no such discussions were occurring between the SFC majority and the president. "Chairman Grassley has not discussed a potential payroll tax cut with the Administration," Zona told Wolters Kluwer.

Payroll taxes are used to fund certain social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Generally, payroll taxes are paid primarily through the wages and salaries of employees, as noted by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Amid recent reports that the U.S. economy could be heading toward a recession, cutting payroll taxes could potentially benefit middle-income taxpayers and bolster consumer spending.

On August 20, Trump disputed the notion that a recession could be around the bend. Additionally, Trump told reporters that any consideration of a payroll tax cut is unrelated to mostly Democratic claims of an impending recession. In that vein, Zona told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that "[a]t this point, recession seems more of a political wish by Democrats than an economic reality."

Indexing Capital Gains to Inflation
Further, Trump confirmed to reporters at the White House on August 20 that he is still considering indexing capital gains to inflation. Lately, lawmakers have become increasingly vocal concerning their differing viewpoints on the matter, both as to tax policy and legality.

"We’ve been talking about indexing [capital gains to inflation] for a long time," Trump said. "It can be done directly by me…I can do it directly," he said, referencing a recent uptick in debate between Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the legality of such an executive move.

No Tax Cuts, No Indexing
Then on August 21, Trump told reporters at the White House that "I’m not looking at a tax cut now; we don’t need it. We have a strong economy."

Additionally, Trump followed up his initial assertion of authority to circumvent Congress on the tax policy issue by stating on August 21 that if he wanted to unilaterally index capital gains to inflation, he would need a letter from the Attorney General.

However, the longstanding Republican and Democratic debate as to whether the executive branch has authority to index capital gains to inflation appears to be moot, at least for the time being.

"I’m not looking to do indexing," Trump said on August 21. "I’ve studied indexing for a long time. I want tax [cuts] for middle-class workers. I think indexing is probably better for the upper income groups; I’m not looking to do that."

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

Tax Extenders Task Forces
Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on August 13 released three of six reports detailing the work of bipartisan task forces that were created to examine certain tax breaks, which expired or will expire between December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2019. The three remaining tax extenders task force reports are expected to be released soon.

The reports released by Grassley and Wyden on August 13 were from the following task forces:

• Energy;
• Cost Recovery; and
• Individual, Excise and Other Temporary Tax Policy.

Next Steps
Wyden also highlighted the importance of moving away from the notion of temporary tax provisions in general, which Democrats and Republicans alike largely agree is not good tax policy. "Tax policy should not be set a year or two at a time. We need to find permanent solutions that provide certainty to families and businesses," Wyden said in an August 13 press release.

Grassley and Wyden introduced their bipartisan tax extenders bill earlier this year. However, Grassley reiterated on August 13 that movement of all tax legislation must be initiated in the House. Although House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has also introduced his own tax extenders proposal, the bill is unlikely to garner enough support from Senate Republicans.

"The next step will be to put together a legislative package based on the proposals that the taskforces received, the areas of consensus among the taskforce members and continued bipartisan discussions," Grassley said in an August 13 press release. "Taxpayers deserve predictability and clarity, and they haven’t received either for far too long on temporary tax policy."

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to...

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to:

• elect out of 100 percent bonus depreciation;
• elect 100 percent bonus depreciation on specified plants in the year of planting or grafting; or
• elect the 50 percent rate in place of the 100 percent rate.

The late election or revocation may be made by filing an accounting method change, or in certain cases by filing an amended return. The taxpayer must have timely filed its federal tax return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year. Most taxpayers will prefer the administrative ease of filing an accounting method change with their next return and making a single Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment. This route is easier than filling an amended return and, if necessary, amended returns for any subsequent affected year.

Background
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) increased the bonus depreciation rate from 50 percent to 100 percent, effective for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017. Many taxpayers filed returns for a 2016 or 2017 tax year that included September 27, 2017, before proposed bonus depreciation regulations ( REG-104397-18, August 8, 2018) were issued to explain the related bonus depreciation changes. Consequently, the IRS is granting relief to taxpayers, and disregarding the general rule that advance IRS permission must be obtained in a letter ruling to make a late election or revoke a prior election and that making or revoking an election is not an accounting method change.

Amended Returns
A late election or revocation of an election may be made on an amended return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017. However, according to the guidance, the amended return must be filed before the taxpayer files its federal return for the first tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year, and must include the adjustment directly related to the late election or revocation as well as any collateral adjustments. Thus, for a calendar year taxpayer, an amended return for 2017 may be filed if the 2018 tax year return has not been filed. (e.g., if an October 15, 2019 filing extension was obtained).

Accounting Method Changes
Instead of filing an amended return, a taxpayer may file Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, with a taxpayer’s timely filed federal tax return for the first, second, or third tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017, to make or revoke a covered election.

The automatic consent procedures apply. Accordingly, no fee is required. Multiple Forms 3115 do not need to be filed if more than one election or revocation is made.

Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, which lists all automatic accounting method changes, is modified to include this accounting method change.

Deemed Elections
A taxpayer who filed a timely 2016 or 2017 return that includes September 28, 2017, without following the formal election procedures in Rev. Proc. 2017-33, I.R.B. 2017-19, 1236, may be deemed to have made a valid election. Specifically, with respect to property placed in service after September 27, 2017, in a 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017:

• An election to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on a specified plant in the year of planting or grafting is considered made if the 100 percent rate was actually claimed on the return.
• An election not to claim bonus depreciation for a class of property is considered made if the taxpayer did not claim 100 percent bonus depreciation (or the elective 50 percent rate) for that class of property on the return.
• An election to claim the 50 percent bonus rate in lieu of the 100 percent bonus rate is considered made if the taxpayer claimed bonus depreciation on all qualified property using the 50 percent rate or on all specified plants in the year of planting or grafting.

These deemed elections may be revoked by filing an amended return or an accounting method change under the general rules above.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The relief is available to a partnership that satisfies the following eligibility requirements for the applicable tax year:

• the partnership has not elected the application of Code Sec. 6221(b) (Election Out for Certain Partnerships with 100 or Fewer Partners);
• it has timely filed Form 1065 and
• it has timely furnished all required Schedules K-1 (without regard to the extensions of time provided by the revenue procedure).

The extensions are available only to partnerships that timely filed Form 1065 and timely furnished Schedules K-1 and also file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 on or before the date that is six-months after the non-extended deadline. Further, the filing and furnishing extensions apply only to partnership tax years that ended prior to the issuance of the revenue procedure and for which the extended due date for the partnership tax year is after July 25, 2019.

The IRS is allowing the extensions because certain Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) partnerships timely filed Form 1065 for the 2018 tax year and timely furnished Schedules K-1 to their partners but may have made errors, including not properly reporting all of the required information on the Schedules K-1. The relief is directed at partnerships that, having timely filed, did not request an extension of the deadline to file and, due to the restrictions on amending Schedules K-1 under Code Sec. 6031(a) may not amend the Schedules K-1, including for the 2018 tax year.

Eligible partnerships taking advantage of the extensions should file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 in the same manner as the original return and Schedules K-1 and write on the top of the superseding Form 1065 "SUPERSEDING FORM 1065 PURSUANT TO REVENUE PROCEDURE 2019-32."

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until final regulation amendments are published in the Federal Register.

Depreciation Limits Increased, Inflation Calculation Changed
The Tax Cuts and Job Act ( P.L. 115-97) substantially increased the maximum annual dollar limitations on the depreciation deductions for passenger automobiles. The new dollar limitations are based on the depreciation, over a five-year recovery period, of a passenger automobile with a cost of $50,000. As a result, the IRS issued Notice 2019-8, I.R.B. 2019-3, 354, providing that it intends to amend Reg. §1.61-21(d) and (e) to:

• incorporate a higher base value of $50,000 as the maximum value for use of the vehicle cents-per-mile and fleet-average valuation rules, effective for the 2018 calendar year; and
• adjust the $50,000 base value annually for inflation in 2019 and subsequent years.

Additionally, the Notice provides that the IRS will not publish separate maximum values for trucks and vans for use with the fleet-average and vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rules. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, inflation adjustments for these purposes are calculated using both the consumer price index (CPI) automobile component and the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) automobile component ( Code Sec. 280F(d)(7)(B)). The C-CPI-U automobile component does not currently have separate components for new cars and new trucks.

The IRS later issued Notice 2019-34, I.R.B. 2019-22, 1257, to:

• provide a 2019 inflation increase to $50,400 for these amounts; and
• announce it would revise Reg. §1.61-21(d) to provide a transition rule for certain employers.

Transition Rules
The proposed regulations include the following transition rules.

Fleet-average valuation rule. If an employer did not qualify to use the fleet-average valuation rule prior to January 1, 2018, because the automobile’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted maximum value requirement for the year the automobile was first made available to the employee for personal use, the employer may adopt the fleet-average valuation rule for 2018 or 2019, provided the fair market value of the automobile does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. An employer that did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for a vehicle first made available to an employee for personal use before calendar year 2018 may first adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year for the vehicle if:

• the employer did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the vehicle was first used by the employee for personal use; and
• the vehicle’s fair market value does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Similarly, if the employer first used the commuting valuation rule, the employer may adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year if:

• the employer did not qualify to switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule on the first day on which the commuting valuation rule was not used because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the commuting valuation rule was first not used; and
• the fair market value of the vehicle does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

COMMENT 
An employer that adopts the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule generally must continue to use the rule for all subsequent years in which the vehicle qualifies for it. However, the employer may use the commuting valuation rule for any year during which use of the vehicle qualifies for the commuting valuation rule.
 

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

Closed Defined Benefit Plans
Employers have been moving away from traditional defined benefit plans for rank and file employees. Existing plans are sometimes closed for new employees as of a specified date. These plans are referred to as "closed plans," and the employees who continue to earn pension benefits under the closed plan are often known as a "grandfathered group of employees."

Closed plans must continue to meet the coverage and nondiscrimination tests, but they may eventually find it difficult because the proportion of the grandfathered group of employees who are highly compensated employees compared to the employer’s total workforce increases over time. This occurs because grandfathered employees usually continue to receive pay raises and so may become highly compensated employees, while new employees who are generally nonhighly compensated employees are not covered by the closed plan.

Notice 2014-5 Relief
For plan years beginning before 2016, Notice 2014-5 provides testing relief for defined benefit/defined contribution plans that include a closed defined benefit plan that was closed before December 13, 2013. Under this relief the plan can demonstrate satisfaction of the nondiscrimination in amount requirement on the basis of equivalent benefits, even if the does not meet any of the existing eligibility conditions for testing on that basis.

This relief has been extended several times in anticipation of the IRS issuing final amendments to the Code Sec. 401(a)(4) regulations. Most recently the relief was extended until plan years beginning in 2019, and it is now extended for plan years beginning in 2020. The IRS issued proposed regulations in 2016 to provide a permanent fix ( NPRM REG-125761-14, Jan. 29, 2016). The IRS expects the final regulations will provide that the reliance granted in the preamble to the proposed regulations may be applied for plan years beginning before 2021.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The final regulations—

• clarify the effect of Code Sec. 743(b) adjustments on the determination of net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how deductible allocations (that is, allocations that give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how nondeductible guaranteed payments (that is, guaranteed payments that do not give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category; and
• include a clarification of the rules regarding the treatment of disregarded payments between branches of a partnership for purposes of determining income attributable to an activity included in a CFTE category.

A transition rule applies to partnerships whose agreements were entered into before February 14, 2012.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Digital Content Transactions
Existing Reg. §1.861-18 provides rules for classifying transactions involving computer programs. The proposed regulations broaden the scope of the rules to apply to all transfers of digital content. "Digital content" is defined as any content in digital format that is either protected by copyright law or is no longer protected due solely to the passage of time.

The proposed regulations clarify that a transfer of the mere right to public performance or display of digital content for advertising does not alone constitute a transfer of a copyright.

Additionally, the proposed regulations clarify the title passage rule. When there is a sale of a copyrighted article through an electronic medium, the sale will occur at the location of the download or installation onto the end user’s device, or, in the absence of that information, the location of the customer.

A sale of personal property occurs at the place where the rights, title, and interest of the seller in the property are transferred to the buyer. If bare legal title is retained by the seller, the sale occurs where beneficial ownership passes.

Cloud Computing Transactions
Cloud computing transactions are typically characterized by on-demand network access to computer resources. The proposed regulations classify a "cloud transaction" as either:

• a lease of property (i.e., computer hardware, digital content, or other similar resources); or
• a provision of services.

The proposed regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of factors for determining how a cloud transaction is classified. In general, application of the relevant factors will result in a transaction being treated as a provision of services, rather than a lease of property. The factors include both statutory factors under Code Sec. 7701(e)(1) and factors applied by the courts.

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

U.S. taxpayers that are cost sharing participants must include SBC as intangible development costs (IDCs), under Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) and Reg. §1.482-7(d)(3) if these costs are directly identified with, or reasonably allocable to, the intangible development activity of the CSA. In 2015, the Tax Court invalidated Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) in Altera Corp., 145 TC 91, Dec. 60,354. The IRS appealed Alteraand issued Directive LB&I-04-0118-005 on January 12, 2018, directing examiners to stop opening new examinations for issues related to SBC included in CSA IDCs until the outcome of the Altera appeal was known.

On June 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s opinion (Altera Corp., CA-9, 2019-1 ustc ¶50,231). Based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision, LB&I has formally withdrawn LB&I-04-0118-005.

LB&I has instructed examiners to continue applying Reg. §§1.482-7A(d)(2) and 1.482-7(d)(3), including opening new examinations of CSA SBC issues when appropriate. Because the issues may be factually intensive, LB&I states that transfer pricing teams should develop the facts to support their analyses and conclusions. Finally, LB&I instructs issue teams to consider consulting the Practice Network and Counsel where appropriate, for support in developing the most reliable analyses of this issue.

LB&I will continue to monitor further developments related to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

On July 1, President Trump signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan IRS reform bill called the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25). This legislation aims to broadly redesign the IRS for the first time in over 20 years.

Reworked IRS Reform Bill

The Senate approved the Taxpayer First Act by voice vote on June 13. The measure was unanimously approved in the House on June 10.

The reworked IRS reform bill, originally introduced in the last Congress, was revised in early June after the House passed a prior version in April. However, the original House-approved bill (HR 1957) was quickly doomed in the Senate because of controversy surrounding the IRS’s Free File program.

The provision codifying the IRS’s Free File program was removed from the original bill, and the measure was reintroduced as HR 3151. Congress then quickly sent it to the president’s desk.

Taxpayer First Act Provisions

The Taxpayer First Act aims to reform the IRS into a more taxpayer-friendly agency. It requires the IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy, as well as a plan to redesign the IRS’s structure, modernize its technology, and enhance its cyber security.

The measure also:

• codifies and enhances an independent Office of Appeals within the IRS;
• waives the application fee for an offer in compromise (OIC) by a low-income taxpayer;
• sets new electronic filing requirements;
• clarifies information available about low-income taxpayer clinics (LITCs);
• codifies the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program;
• requires notice regarding the closure of taxpayer assistance centers (TACs);
• improves the IRS whistleblower program;
• modifies the private debt collection program;
• clarifies procedures for equitable relief from joint liability;
• establishes new safeguards on seizing funds believed to be structured to avoid the $10,000 financial reporting requirement; and
• modifies procedures for the issuance of summons and notice of third-party contacts by the IRS.

Hill Reaction

"This signing is the culmination of a lengthy, bipartisan process undertaken by the [House] Ways and Means Committee to implement pro-taxpayer reforms at the IRS for the first time in more than 20 years," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a July 1 statement. "New protections for low-income taxpayers, practical enforcement reforms, and upgraded assistance for taxpayers and small businesses will all now go into place."

Additionally, the House’s top Republican tax writer issued a statement after Trump signed the IRS reform legislation. "I’m proud that after three years of thoughtful bipartisan work, our bold package of reforms to the Internal Revenue Service are the law of the land," Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said on July 1. "Thank you to President Trump for signing this historic legislation, which is the biggest and boldest step in over 20 years to redesign and restructure the IRS into an agency with a singular mission – quality taxpayer service."

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

The House has approved a bipartisan repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called "Cadillac"excise tax on certain high-cost insurance plans.

ACA Cadillac Tax Repeal

The Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Bill (HR 748) cleared the House on the evening of July 17 by a 419-to-6 vote. The bipartisan bill would repeal the 40 percent excise tax under the ACA known as the "Cadillac tax" on certain high-cost employer-sponsored health care plans.

Congress has repeatedly delayed the ACA’s "Cadillac" tax, which is currently set to go into effect in 2022. However, HR 748 would fully repeal the tax.

Although the measure has bipartisan support in the Senate, as for when it will get its legs in the upper chamber remains to be seen. Lately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., has been viewed on Capitol Hill as focusing more on moving nominations than considering tax bills.

HR 748’s Large Price Tag May Signal Hope for Tax Extenders

Notably, HR 748 dodged House Democrats’ "pay as you go" rules for tax legislation, thus carrying with it a large price tag with no offsets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the bill would cost the federal government more than $196 billion over 10 years.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has signaled that Democrats’ support for repealing the ACA’s "Cadillac"tax without pay-fors may signal a newly opened door for tax extenders. Grassley has consistently expressed that he is focused on addressing the previously and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders but has been waiting for the Democratic controlled House to send such a bill, noting that tax legislation must originate in the House.

However, House Democrats’ tax extenders bill, the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Bill of 2019 (HR 3301) would offset its costs by causing the GOP tax law’s increase in estate tax exemption amounts to sunset early at the beginning of 2023. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the estate tax provisions would expire at the start of 2026.

The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee last month but has not yet reached the House floor. Senate Republicans have called any proposal to repeal provisions under the TCJA a "nonstarter."

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The IRS has released final regulations that clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.

The Treasury Department and the IRS had issued the temporary regulations ( T.D. 9766) to clarify that the rule that a disregarded entity is treated as a corporation for employment tax purposes does not apply to the self-employment tax treatment of any individuals who are partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity. The temporary regulations continued to explicitly provide that the owner of a disregarded entity who is treated as a sole proprietor for income tax purposes is subject to self-employment taxes. A notice of proposed rulemaking ( REG-114307-15) cross-referencing T.D. 9766was published on the same day.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations as amended. The corresponding temporary regulations are removed.

Disregarded Entity

These regulations affect partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity, and contain amendments to 26 CFR part 301. Generally, under Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(i) and except as otherwise provided, a business entity that has a single owner and is not a corporation under Reg. §301.7701-2(b)is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner (a disregarded entity). However, Reg. §301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) treats a disregarded entity as a corporation for purposes of employment taxes imposed under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. This exception to the treatment of disregarded entities does not apply to taxes imposed under Subtitle A of the Code, including self-employment taxes.

Effective Date

These regulations are effective on July 2, 2019.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Final regulations allow employers to voluntarily truncate employees’ social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, furnished to employees. The truncated SSNs appear on the forms as IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). The regulations also clarify and provide an example of how the truncation rules apply to Forms W-2.

Why Truncate?

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-113) amended Code Sec. 6051(a)(2) by replacing the requirement that employers include employees’ SSNs on copies of Forms W-2 furnished to employees with a requirement to use an "identifying number for the employee."Because the SSN was no longer required to appear on Forms W-2 furnished to employees, the IRS published proposed regulations in 2017 to allow employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on those Forms W-2 ( REG-105004-16). The amendments were intended to aid employers’ efforts to protect employees from identity theft.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without substantive changes to the content of the rules.

SSN Truncation on Forms W-2

The final regulations permit employers to truncate employees’ SSNs on copies of:

• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid, employment taxes withheld, etc.;
• Forms W-2 furnished to employees to report wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance;
• Forms W-2 furnished to payees to report third-party sick pay; and
• Forms W-2c furnished to correct errors on Forms W-2.

The regulations do not apply to any other forms. Also, truncation is not mandatory; the regulations permit truncation but do not require it.

Under the general truncation rules, a TTIN cannot be used on a statement or document if a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions:

• specifically requires use of an SSN, IRS individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), IRS adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or IRS employer identification number (EIN); and
• does not specifically permit truncation.

For instance, an employer cannot truncate an employee’s SSN on copies of Forms W-2 filed with the Social Security Administration.

The IRS intends to incorporate the revised regulations into forms and instructions.

Effective Date; Applicability Date

The final regulations are effective on July 3, 2019, but when they apply varies. Reg. §31.6051-1, Reg. §31.6051-3, and Reg. §1.6052-2, as amended, apply for statements required to be filed and furnished under Code Sec. 6051 and Code Sec. 6052 after December 31, 2020. Reg. §31.6051-2, as amended, applies on July 3, 2019. Reg. §301.6109-4, as amended, applies to returns, statements, and other documents required to be filed or furnished after December 31, 2020.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

IRS final regulations provide rules that apply when the lessor of investment tax credit property elects to pass the credit through to a lessee. If this election is made, the lessee is generally required to include the credit amount in income (50 percent of the energy investment credit). The income is included in income ratably over the shortest MACRS depreciation period that applies to the investment credit property. No basis reduction is made to the investment credit property.

Partners and S shareholders who receive the credit (i.e., are the ultimate credit claimants) must make income inclusions in proportion to their share of the credit.

No Basis Increase for Partners and S Shareholders

The regulations resolve a contentious issue against taxpayers. They provide that a partner’s income inclusions are not treated as an item of partnership income under subchapter K. A similar rule applies to S corporations. Therefore, basis adjustment rules that would increase a partner’s outside basis or S shareholder’stock basis if the income inclusion amounts were treated as items of income do not apply. The IRS says its interpretation is appropriate because the investment credit and limitations on the investment credit are determined at the partner and S shareholder level.

Coordination With Recapture Rules

If a recapture event occurs an adjustment is made to the lessee’s (or ultimate claimant’s) gross income to account for any difference between the amounts that were included in income and the credit that is allowed after recapture. Special rules are provided when the amount of the unrecaptured credit exceeds the income inclusions and when the income inclusions exceed the unrecaptured credit.

Election to Accelerate Income Inclusion Upon Lease Termination

The lessee (or ultimate claimant) may make an irrevocable election to include in gross income any remaining income inclusion amounts in the tax year in which a lease terminates or is otherwise disposed of. If a partner or S shareholder disposes of its partnership or S corporation interest, the partner or S shareholder may also make an irrevocable election to include remaining inclusion amounts in income in the year of disposition. These elections may only be made if the recapture period has expired and a recapture event had not occurred during the recapture period.

Effective Date

The final regulations are effective on July 17, 2019 and apply to investment credit property placed in service on or after September 19, 2016.

Tax writers in Congress are set to begin debating and writing tax reform legislation. On September 27, the White House and GOP leaders in Congress released a framework for tax reform. The framework sets out broad principles for tax reform, leaving the details to the two tax-writing committees: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. How quickly lawmakers will write and pass tax legislation is unclear. What is clear is that tax reform is definitely one of the top issues on Congress’ Fall agenda.

Tax writers in Congress are set to begin debating and writing tax reform legislation. On September 27, the White House and GOP leaders in Congress released a framework for tax reform. The framework sets out broad principles for tax reform, leaving the details to the two tax-writing committees: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. How quickly lawmakers will write and pass tax legislation is unclear. What is clear is that tax reform is definitely one of the top issues on Congress’ Fall agenda.

Individuals

The GOP framework proposes consolidating the current seven individual tax rates into three: 12, 25 and 35 percent. However, the framework leaves open the possibility of an additional top rate “to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

For individuals, the GOP framework also proposes to:

• Eliminate the alternative minimum tax
• Roughly double the standard deduction
• Repeal the federal estate tax
• Preserve the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions
• Eliminate most other itemized deductions
• Repeal the personal exemption for dependents
• Retain tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security

Family incentives

Family incentives have traditionally garnered bipartisan support in Congress and the GOP framework includes several. The child tax credit, for example, currently phases out when incomes reach certain levels. The GOP framework calls for increasing the income levels for the credit to unspecified amounts.   Another proposal would create a new non-refundable $500 credit for non-child dependents. The details would be left to the tax-writing committees.

Businesses

One pillar of the GOP framework is a corporate tax rate cut. The framework calls for a 20 percent corporate tax rate, down from the current 35 percent rate. Businesses that operate as passthroughs, such as S corporations, would have a maximum tax rate of 25 percent, subject to unspecified limitations to prevent abuses.

Other business proposals include:

• Enhanced expensing
• Limiting the deduction for net interest expenses by C corporations
• Eliminating the Code Sec. 199 deduction
• Preserving the research and development credit and tax preferences for low-income housing
• Reforming certain international taxation rules

Drafting legislation

After the GOP framework was released, the chairs of the tax writing committees said their committees would begin drafting legislation. The Ways and Means Committee is made up of 24 Republicans and 16 Democrats. Republicans also have a majority on the Senate Finance Committee but only by two votes (14 to 12). This narrow vote margin is likely to influence any tax bill out of the Senate Finance Committee. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Extenders

A number of popular but temporary tax incentives have expired. Unless extended, these “extenders” will not be available to taxpayers when they file their 2017 returns in 2018. They include:

• Tax exclusion for canceled mortgage debt
• Mortgage insurance premium deductibility
• Higher education tuition deduction
• Special expensing rules for film, television, and theatrical productions
• Seven-year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes

Other tax bills

Several tax-related bills may be taken up by either the House or Senate, including:

• RESPECT Act, passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate, would limit the IRS’s ability to seize assets related to structured transactions
• FY 2018 IRS budget bill, passed by the House and waiting for a vote in Senate, which would fund the IRS for FY 2018

Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax reform, the extenders or other tax bills.

As millions of Americans recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress is debating disaster tax relief. The relief would enhance the casualty loss rules, relax some retirement savings rules, and make other temporary changes to the tax laws, all intended to help victims of these recent disasters. At press time, a package of temporary disaster tax relief measures is pending in the House. The timeline for Senate action, however, is unclear.

As millions of Americans recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress is debating disaster tax relief. The relief would enhance the casualty loss rules, relax some retirement savings rules, and make other temporary changes to the tax laws, all intended to help victims of these recent disasters. At press time, a package of temporary disaster tax relief measures is pending in the House. The timeline for Senate action, however, is unclear.

Tax relief

In past years, after disasters similar to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Congress passed disaster tax relief measures. After Hurricane Katrina, far-reaching disaster tax relief was passed by Congress, which benefited businesses and individuals. In 2008, lawmakers passed a national disaster tax relief law. However, that law was temporary. After Hurricane Sandy several years ago, disaster tax relief was introduced in Congress but ultimately was not passed. Now, Congress is revisiting disaster tax relief.

Targeted tax relief

The House bill is the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2017. The bill provides targeted tax relief to victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. Unlike national disaster tax relief, discussed below, the measures in the House bill are temporary.

Included in the House bill is language to:

• Enhance the deduction for personal casualty losses
• Allow penalty-free access to retirement funds
• Encourage charitable giving
• Provide a tax credit to qualified employers
• Allow taxpayers to use prior year income for EITC and child tax credit

At press time, a similar disaster tax relief bill has not been introduced in the Senate. Reports have surfaced that the Senate Finance Committee may unveil some proposals in the near future. These proposals could mirror some or all of the ones in the House bill.

National disaster tax relief bill

In September, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Tom Reed, R-New York, introduced the National Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2017. Their bill aims to create disaster tax relief not just for victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, but victims of all disasters. The lawmakers modeled their 2017 bill on previous national disaster tax relief acts, including the legislation passed in 2008.

Like the House-passed temporary disaster tax relief bill, the National Disaster Tax Relief Act would relax the casualty loss rules. The National Disaster Tax Relief Act would also provide a temporary five-year net operating loss (NOL) carryback for qualified natural disaster losses; allow an affected business taxpayer to deduct certain qualified disaster cleanup expenses; and increase temporarily the limits that an affected business taxpayer could expense for qualifying Code Sec. 179 property.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about disaster tax relief.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

IRS Exam staffing in fiscal year (FY) 2016, the latest tax year with statistics available, reached a 20-year low. As a result, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has reported that the IRS undertook fewer audits.

Staffing

"Examination is a vitally important aspect of maintaining a voluntary tax compliance system because 85 percent of the Gross Tax Gap is comprised of underreported tax on timely filed returns," TIGTA reported. Although hiring increased in FY 2016, it did not make up for recent attrition and retirements, TIGTA found. Examination staffing in FY 2016 reached a 20-year low with 8,847 employees, a decrease of four percent from FY 2015 (9,189 employees) and 23 percent lower than FY 2012 (11,432 employees).

Overall, the number of IRS full-time employees has declined by some 14 percent since FY 2012. The decline in the number of employees is likely to continue, TIGTA predicted. Approximately 22 percent of full-time permanent employees in the IRS are eligible to retire, and the IRS expects this number to increase to 34 percent by 2019, TIGTA found. "Should this loss of staffing be realized, the gap created by the loss of knowledge and experience has the potential to materially affect the administration and enforcement of tax laws," TIGTA reported.

Audit coverage

Individuals. TIGTA reported that the IRS examined one of every 143 individual income tax returns in FY 2016. This reflected a 16 percent decline compared to FY 2015 and 30 percent fewer examinations than the five-year high reported in FY 2012. The IRS examined one in 17 returns in FY 2016 with more than $1 million in income, which, according to TIGTA, is a decline of 29 percent compared to FY 2015.

Corporations and S corps. TIGTA found that fewer corporate tax returns were examined during FY 2016 than any year since FY 2004. The number of S corp examinations fell 15 percent from FY 2015 to FY 2016 (one in every 295 S corp returns in FY 2016 compared to one in every 248 S corp returns in FY 2015).

Partnerships. Partnership examinations also declined, TIGTA found. The number of partnership returns examined decreased 24 percent from FY 2015 to 14,645 in FY 2016. "Due to a focus on partnership examinations in FY 2015, one of every 196 returns filed were examined; however, this number decreased to one of every 263 returns being examined in FY 2016," TIGTA reported.

TIGTA Ref. No. 2017-30-072

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

Background

A qualified business during a tax year may elect to apply a portion of its research credit against the 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on the employer’s wage payments to employees. This payroll credit for research expenditures is limited to the lesser of: (a) the research credit for the tax year; (b) $250,000; or (c) the amount of the business credit for the tax year, including the research credit that may be carried forward to the tax year immediately after the election year.

Schedule B. Chief Counsel explained that if an employer is a semiweekly schedule depositor, it must complete Schedule B (Form 941), Report of Tax Liability for Semiweekly Schedule Depositors, and attach it to Form 941. Schedule B is also referred to as Record of Federal Tax Liability (ROFTL) for semiweekly schedule depositors. The IRS uses this information to determine if the employer made its federal employment tax deposits on time. Current Instructions for Schedule B describe the payroll tax credit.

Payroll credit

Employers, Chief Counsel explained, know the maximum amount of payroll tax credit potentially available for a quarter at the beginning of the quarter. This is because the return reflecting the payroll tax credit election on Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, must have been filed before the quarter begins in which the employer can claim credit. However, the amount of the credit that is allowed for the quarter is limited to the employer Social Security tax on wages paid to the employer's employees during the quarter.

Therefore, as the employer makes payments of wages from the beginning of the quarter for which the payroll tax credit is taken, the employer can take the payroll tax credit into account for purposes of the Schedule B and for purposes of deposit liability on the Form 941 or other employment tax return, provided the employer later files Form 8974, "Qualified Small Business Payroll Tax Credit for Increasing Research Activities," Chief Counsel explained.

Further, the payroll tax credit should be taken against deposit liabilities and reflected on Schedule B as the employer incurs liability for employer Social Security tax on wages paid in the quarter to which it applies, beginning with the first payment of wages in the quarter. "It would be counter to the purpose of the payroll tax credit to allow it as a credit only when the employer files its Form 941 for the quarter claiming the credit and not as the employer is paying wages during the quarter subject to employer Social Security tax," Chief Counsel stated.

Deadline opportunity: The IRS also recently announced that it would allow start-up companies to make the payroll tax credit election on an amended return for the 2016 tax year, but as long as the amended return is filed by December 31, 2017.

Every year, millions of post-secondary students access the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). This year, the DRT is unavailable for FAFSA filers because of cybersecurity concerns. The information needed to complete the FAFSA can be found on a previously filed federal income tax return.

Every year, millions of post-secondary students access the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). This year, the DRT is unavailable for FAFSA filers because of cybersecurity concerns. The information needed to complete the FAFSA can be found on a previously filed federal income tax return.

FAFSA

To apply for federal student aid, an individual must complete and submit the FAFSA. He or she will automatically be considered for federal student aid. In addition, the individual's post-secondary institution may use his or her FAFSA information to determine eligibility for nonfederal aid. The DRT provides tax data that automatically fills in information for part of the FAFSA form.

Individuals who plan to attend post-secondary schools from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 must submit the 2017-2018 FAFSA. Individuals will need tax information from 2015 to complete the 2017-2018 FAFSA.

Suspicious activity

Earlier this year, the IRS reported that cybercriminals may have tried to obtain tax information through the DRT. The agency's security filters identified fraudulent returns using information obtained from the DRT. According to the IRS, as many as 100,000 taxpayer accounts may have been compromised through the DRT by cyberthieves. In response, the IRS took the DRT offline.

Work-around

FAFSA filers can manually provide their tax return information, the IRS has instructed. Our office can help you prepare a FAFSA while the DRT is offline.

FAFSA filers can also use the IRS's online Get Transcript Tool. Individuals can obtain a Tax Return Transcript, which reflects most line items including adjusted gross income (AGI) from the original tax return filed, along with any forms and schedules. This transcript is only available for the current tax year and returns processed during the prior three years. Individuals can also obtain a Tax Account Transcript, which reflects basic data such as return type, marital status, adjusted gross income, taxable income and all payment types. This transcript is available for the current tax year and up to 10 prior years. Keep in mind that a transcript is not a photocopy of the return. A transcript can be confusing to read. Again, please contact our office for assistance.

Income-driven repayment plan

The DRT also provides tax data that automatically fills in information for the income-driven repayment (IDR) plan application for federal student loan borrowers. The DRT is online for DRT applications.

As the new administration and Congress get to work, tax reform is high on the agenda. Although legislative language has not been yet released, statements from tax writers in Congress shed some light on various proposals.

As the new administration and Congress get to work, tax reform is high on the agenda. Although legislative language has not been yet released, statements from tax writers in Congress shed some light on various proposals.

Tax reform

House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has predicted that tax reform will lower the tax rates for all businesses. "We are proposing a corporate rate of 20 percent and for small businesses, a top rate of no more than 25 percent," Brady said in February. As for the timeline of tax reform, Brady said that tax reform legislation will be unveiled in the "coming months," but "repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) comes first.”

Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has said that the Senate will work through its own tax reform process. "No one should expect the Senate to simply take up and pass a House tax reform bill," Hatch said in February. Hatch added that Senate tax writers are in the early stages of drafting a tax reform proposal. Hatch did not provide details of the proposal but said that House and Senate Republicans generally agree on basic principles, such as lower tax rates for individuals and businesses.

One area of potential friction is the House GOP’s so-called “border adjustability” proposal. Hatch has questioned if the border adjustment proposal, essentially taxing imports but not U.S. exports, is “in line with international trade obligations” and if “adjustments would need to be made to prevent shifting a tax burden onto specific industries.”

Democrats, although in agreement the tax code is in need of reform, have been critical of Republicans’ proposed solutions as appearing to focus on tax cuts for the wealthy. "They (Republicans) are for trickle-down economics…giving tax breaks to the wealthy, it trickles down and if somebody gets a job, that’s great, if they don’t, so be it,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in February. "You don’t receive economic security by tossing the rich even more tax breaks," she added.

Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a host of tax-related provisions. The ACA created the net investment income (NII) tax, the additional Medicare Tax, an excise tax on certain medical devices, and more. The ACA also imposes shared responsibility requirements on individuals and employers (known as the individual and employer mandates). Although President Trump and Republicans in Congress have called for repeal and replacement of the ACA, it is not clear at this time if repeal includes the ACA’s tax provisions. In February, Hatch said that all of the ACA’s taxes “need to go.”

The timeline for Congressional action on the ACA is expected to be known in March. GOP leaders in Congress have said that they will unveil an ACA repeal and replacement measure in March.

Pelosi said in February that Democrats have still not seen a repeal and replacement plan for the ACA. "They're supposed to have their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We have not seen hide nor hair," Pelosi said. According to Pelosi, the GOP’s chosen route of reforming the healthcare law is a difficult endeavor "You have to know how to legislate," she said.

If you have any questions about tax reform, please contact our office.