Tag: TCJA

How Big is the Permanent Tax Benefit in the Pending Tax Bill for Research Credit?

Congress perhaps made an unintended drafting error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [1] (TCJA) when it required a taxpayer to decrease its deduction for research and experimental expenditures. The apparent drafting error is in IRC §280C(c)(1), which provides that if a taxpayer’s research credit for a taxable year exceeds the amount allowable as a deduction for research expenditures for the taxable year, the amount of research expenses chargeable to capital account must be reduced by the excess and not by the full amount of the credit.

H.B. 7024 (1-17-24) [2] proposes to correct the drafting error for tax year 2023 and expressly states that the amendment made for taxable year 2023 should not be construed to create an inference with respect to the proper application of the drafting error for taxable year 2022. [3] The “no inference” congressional language could be interpreted as inviting the IRS to attempt an administrative fix of the drafting error.

Background of Research Expenditure Deduction and Credit for Increasing Research Activities: Beginning with the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, a taxpayer engaging in research activities in the experimental or laboratory sense in connection with its trade or business could elect to deduct the cost of its research currently rather than capitalizing the cost to the project for which the research was conducted. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 added a credit for the cost of research incurred in carrying on a trade or business. The manner in which the deduction and credit operated permitted a taxpayer both to deduct and credit the same research dollar.

Pre-TCJA (2017) law: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 ended the possibility deducting and crediting the same research dollar. If a taxpayer currently deducted its research expenditures, the taxpayer had to decrease its deduction by the amount of the research credit that it claimed for the taxable year.[4] The policy reason for the decrease was that a taxpayer should not be entitled to a deduction and a credit for the same dollar expended for research. Put another way, if the government “pays” for research by allowing a credit, the taxpayer did not really pay for the research and should not be entitled to deduct the amount for which the government paid.

TCJA Amendment: The TCJA now requires a taxpayer to capitalize research expenditures paid or incurred in the taxable year and claim an amortization deduction for the expenditures ratably over a five-year period.[5] The TCJA also amended IRC §280C(c)(1), the provision that prevents a taxpayer from receiving a credit and a deduction for the same dollar of research expenditure. The amendment provides that if the research credit amount for the taxable year exceeds the amount allowable as a deduction for the taxable year for qualified research expenses, the research expenses chargeable to capital account for the taxable year must be reduced by the excess.[6] This might have been a drafting error. The research credit for the taxable year might not exceed an amortization deduction for the year.[7] If for a taxable year the credit does not exceed the amortization deduction, a taxpayer could reasonably conclude that no reduction in the amount of capitalized research expenditures is required. The taxpayer would be interpreting the deduction for qualified research expenses as meaning the amount of the amortization of the capitalized expenses.

The IRS might have an opposing interpretation. The phrase, “the amount allowable as a deduction for such taxable year for qualified research expenses” in IRC §280C(c)(1) could be interpreted as always equaling zero because the TCJA amendment requiring amortization of research expenditures for the taxable year nullifies the “deduction … for qualified research expenses.” In other words, there were no “deductible” qualified research expenses for the year after enactment of the TCJA for purposes of IRC §280C(c)(1). [8] The result would be that the capitalized research expenses are decreased by the amount of the credit.

H.B. 7024: On January 31, 2024, the House passed 353 to 70 H.B. 7024, “Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024.” Action on the bill is pending in the Senate. The bill restores the current deduction for research expenditures (but only for research performed in the United States), beginning with taxable year 2022,[9] and defers the requirement to amortize research expenditures until taxable year 2026. For taxable years beginning in 2023, the bill requires a taxpayer to decrease the research expenditure deduction for domestic research by the amount of the research credit for the year, thus reinstating, for domestic research, IRC §280C(c)(1) as it had read prior to its amendment by the TCJA. [10]

But for taxable year 2022, the bill does not expressly require a taxpayer to reduce its deduction for research expenditures by the amount of the research credit even though the bill permits the taxpayer to deduct it research expenditures currently for taxable year 2022. Thus, for taxable year 2022, a taxpayer may deduct its research expenditures but must decrease the deduction only by the amount, if any, that its 2022 research credit exceeds its 2022 deduction for qualified research expenditures, which amount may be zero. Moreover, the bill provides that the amendment requiring a decreased deduction for research expenditures for taxable years beginning in 2023 should not be construed to create “any inference” with respect to the proper application of IRC §280C(c) to taxable year 2022.

IRS Notice: In Notice 2023-63 – obviously published before H.R. 7024 – the IRS asks for comments about to interpret the current version of IRC §280C(c)(1). If H.R. 7024 is enacted, the IRS request for comments would appear irrelevant.

Taxpayer Actions: If H.R. 7024 is enacted, taxpayers must consider whether to change their accounting method for research expenditures from amortizing them to currently deducting them. A change would affect many tax calculations, and obviously the only means by which to be certain of the effect is to run the change using various scenarios through the taxpayer’s tax software.

One of the effects to consider if the bill passes is the item discussed in the alert in which the taxpayer reads IRC §280C(c)(1) advantageously for taxable year 2022 and reduces its research expenditure deduction by the amount that the research credit exceeds the deduction for research expenditures for the year, which reduction amount may well be zero. The taxpayer would have a substantial permanent tax benefit by not decreasing its credit and not decreasing it deduction.

If H.B. 7024 is not enacted, a taxpayer might moderate the risk that the IRS will prevail on the interpretation of IRC §280C(c)(1) by electing to decease its credit under IRC §280C(c)(2).[11] But the taxpayer could be more aggressive by taking the position that it is applying IRC §280C(c)(1) and rarely, if ever, does it have to reduce its deduction for research expenditures. That means that the taxpayer that had historically decreased its credit in order to take the full deduction might not have to do so. That might be a very substantial permanent tax benefit.

[1] P.L. 115-97 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (12-22-17).

[2] 118th Cong., 2d Sess.

[3] H.B. 7024, Sec. 201(e)(4).

[4] Instead of decreasing the deduction, the taxpayer could elect to decrease its research credit by multiplying the credit amount by the corporate tax rate. IRC §280C(c)(2). Regardless of whether the taxpayer reduced its deduction or its credit, the federal income tax cost was the same. Many taxpayers elect to reduce the credit so that the full amount of the deduction flows into taxable income of states that conform state taxable income to federal taxable income.

[5] IRC §174(a)(2)(B). The deduction is spread over six taxable years because the taxpayer may deduct for the first amortization year only half of a full year’s amortization. If the research is performed outside the United States, the amortization period is fifteen years.

[6] IRC §280C(c)(1).

[7] For example, assume qualified research expenses for the taxable year 2022 of $1,000 and minimum base amount of $500. The research credit is $100 (20% times $500). The credit does not exceed the amortized deduction – $100 for the first taxable year.

[8] Of course, there were qualified research expenses identified for the research credit.

[9] Proposed IRC §174A(a). A taxpayer that had capitalized and amortized its research expenditures as required by the TCJA may file an amended return for tax year 2022 and deduct research expenditures paid or incurred for that year. Alternatively, the taxpayer may elect to adjust its taxable income under IRC § 481 by taking a favorable adjustment into account in taxable year 2023. Alternatively, it may elect to make the adjustment over taxable years 2023 and 2024. H.B. 7024, sec. 201(f)(2).

[10] The taxpayer could still elect to decrease its credit in lieu of reducing its deduction.

[11] See supra note 4.

© 2024 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC
For more on the Research Credit Tax Bill, visit the NLR Tax section.

Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024

On January 17, 2024, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) released a bill, the “Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024” (“TRAFA” or the “bill”). All of the provisions in the bill are taxpayer favorable, except those that apply to the “employee retention tax credit”.

In short, the bill, if enacted as introduced, would:
• Allow taxpayers to deduct rather than amortize domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. Under current law, domestic research and experimental expenditures incurred after December 31, 2021 must be amortized over a 5-year period. Starting in 2026, taxpayers would once again be required to amortize those costs (as under current law) over five years (rather than deducting them immediately).
• Allow taxpayers to calculate their section 163(j) limitation on interest deductions without regard to any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (i.e., as a percentage of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) rather than earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)) for tax years 2024-2026. This provision would generally increase the limitation and allow greater interest deductions for taxpayers subject to section 163(j).
• Retroactively extend the 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property placed in service after December 31, 2022 until January 1, 2026 (January 1, 2027, for longer production period property and certain aircraft). 100% bonus depreciation, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), expired for most property placed into service after December 31, 2022. Under existing law, bonus depreciation is generally limited to 80% for property placed into service during 2023, 60% for 2024, and 40% for 2025.
• Increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense of the cost of depreciable business assets under section 179 from $1.16 million in 2023 for qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year, to $1.29 million. The $1.16 million amount is reduced by the amount by which the cost of the property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.89 million. Under the bill, the $2.89 amount is increased to $3.22 million. The provision applies to property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
• Effectively grant certain tax treaty benefits to residents of Taiwan, including (i) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source interest and royalties from 30% to 10%, (ii) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source dividends from to 15% or 10% (if the recipient owns at least 10% of the shares of stock in the payor corporation), and (iii) applying the “permanent establishment” threshold (rather than the lower “trade or business” threshold) for U.S. federal income taxation.
• Extend the qualified disaster area rules enacted in 2020 for 60 days after the date of enactment of the bill; exempt from tax certain “qualified wildfire relief payments” for tax years beginning in 2020 through 2025; exempt certain “East Palestine train derailment payments” from tax.
• Enhance the low income housing tax credit and tax-exempt bond financing rules.
• Increase the threshold for information reporting on IRS forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC from $600 to $1,000 for payments made on or after January 1, 2024 and increase the threshold for future years based on inflation.
• End the period for filing employee retention tax credit claims for tax years 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024, and increase the penalties for aiding and abetting the understatement of a tax liability by a “COVID–ERTC promoter”.
• Increase the maximum refundable portion of the child tax credit from $1,600 in 2023 (out of the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit under current law) to $1,800 in 2023, $1,900 in 2024, and $2,000 in 2025; modify the calculation of the maximum refundable credit amount by providing that taxpayers first multiply their earned income (in excess of $2,500) by 15 percent, and then multiply that amount by the number of qualifying children (so that a taxpayer with two children would be entitled to double the amount of refundable credit); adjust the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit for inflation in 2024 and 2025; and allow taxpayers in 2024 and 2025 to use earned income from the prior taxable year to calculate their credit. These provisions would be effective for tax years 2023-2025, after which the maximum per child credit would revert to $1,000.

The bill does not increase the $10,000 limit on state and local tax deductions, or increase the $600 reporting threshold for IRS Form 1099-K (gift cards, payment apps, and online marketplaces).
The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 40 to 3 and awaits a vote by the full House (which is not expected to occur before January 29). Although the bill appears to have broad partisan support so far, the timing of final passage and enactment is uncertain.
The remainder of this blog post provides a summary of the key business provisions included in TRAFA.

Summary of Key Business Provisions
1. Retroactive extension for current deduction of domestic research or experimental costs that are paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and before January 1, 2026 under Section 174.
Under current Section 174, specified research or experimental expenditures incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 may not be currently deducted. Instead, the expenditures must be capitalized and amortized ratably over a 5-year period (or, in the case of expenditures that are attributable to research that is conducted outside of the United States, over a 15-year period). Before the TCJA, enacted in 2021, research or experimental expenditures were generally deductible in the year in which they were incurred.
The bill proposes to allow taxpayers to deduct domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. However, foreign research or experimental expenditures would continue to be amortizable over 15 years (as under current law).
Generally, a taxpayer who had already amortized the appropriate portion of its domestic research or experimental costs incurred in the 2022 tax year but wanted to switch to deducting these costs would be able to do so by electing to treat the application of the TRAFA provision as a Section 481(a) adjustment for the 2023 tax year and the adjustment would be taken into account ratably in the 2023 and 2024 federal income tax returns.
2. Retroactive extension to allow depreciation, amortization, or depletion in determining the limitation on business interest expense deduction under Section 163(j) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026.
Under current section 163(j), a deduction for business interest expense is disallowed to the extent it exceeds the sum of (i) business interest income, (ii) 30% of adjusted taxable income (“ATI”), and (iii) floor plan financing interest expense in the current taxable year. Any disallowed business interest expense may be carried forward indefinitely to subsequent tax years. The interest limitation generally applies at the taxpayer level (although special rules apply in the case of partnerships and S-corporations). Furthermore, in the case of a group of affiliated corporations that file a consolidated return, the limitation applies at the consolidated tax return filing level.
For tax years beginning before January 1, 2022, the ATI of a taxpayer was computed without regard to (i) any item of income, gain, deduction, or loss that is not properly allocable to a trade or business, (ii) business interest expense and income, (iii) net operating loss deductions under section 172, (iv) deductions for qualified business income under section 199A, and (v) deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBITDA computation”). However, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, ATI is computed taking into account deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBIT computation”). The EBIT computation generally allows less interest deductions than the EBITDA computation.
The bill proposes to apply the EBITDA computation (instead of the EBIT computation) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026. the bill provides that this proposal generally is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023, but includes an elective transition rule, details to be provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, to allow a taxpayer to elect to apply the EBITDA computation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.
3. Extension of 100% bonus depreciation deduction for certain business property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 under Section 168(k).
A taxpayer generally must capitalize the cost of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income and recover the cost over time through annual deductions for depreciation or amortization. Changes to section 168(k), under the TCJA, allowed an additional first-year depreciation deduction, known as bonus depreciation, of 100% of the cost of MACRS property with a depreciable life of 20 years or less, water utility property, qualified improvement property and computer software placed into service after September 27, 2017 and before January 1, 2023. Under current law, property placed in service from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026 qualifies for partial bonus depreciation – 80% bonus depreciation for 2023, 60% bonus depreciation for 2024, 40% bonus depreciation for 2025 and 20% bonus depreciation for 2026.
The bill proposes to extend the 100% bonus depreciation for property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 and to retain the 20% bonus depreciation for property placed in service in 2026.
4. Increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets under Section 179 to $1.29 million and increase the phaseout threshold amount to $3.22 million.
Generally, under Section 179, a taxpayer may elect to immediately deduct the cost of qualifying property, rather than to claim depreciation deductions over time, subject to limitations discussed below. Qualifying property is generally defined as depreciable tangible personal property, off-the-shelf computer software, and qualified real property (including certain improvements (e.g., roofs, heating, and alarms systems) made to nonresidential real property after the property is first placed in service) that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade or business. Under current law, the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense is $1 million of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year and the $1 million is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.5 million. The $1 million and $2.5 million amounts are indexed for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2018. For taxable years beginning in 2023, the total amount that may be expensed under current law is $1.16 million, and the phaseout threshold amount is $2.89 million.
The bill proposes to increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense to $1.29 million, reduced by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property exceeds $3.22 million, each in connection with property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023. The $1.29 million and $3.22 million amounts would be adjusted for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2024.
5. Adoption of the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, “treaty-like” relief for Taiwan residents and the United States-Taiwan Tax Agreement Authorization Act, a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan.
The United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and therefore negotiating a tax treaty with Taiwan raises significant difficulties.
Under the bill, new section 894A would grant certain tax treaty-like benefits to qualified residents of Taiwan. A reduced rate of withholding tax would apply to interest, dividends, royalties, and certain other comparable payments from U.S. sources received by qualified residents of Taiwan. Instead of the 30% withholding tax rate generally imposed on U.S.-source income received by nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, interest and royalties would be subject to a 10% withholding tax rate and dividends would be subject to a 15% withholding tax rate (or a 10% withholding tax rate if paid to a recipient that owns at least ten percent of the shares of stock in the corporation and certain other conditions are met).
Additionally, under new section 894A, income of a qualified resident of Taiwan that is effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business would be subject to U.S. income tax only if such resident has a permanent establishment in the U.S., which is a higher threshold than the U.S. trade or business standard generally applied to non-U.S. persons under the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, only the taxable income effectively connected to the United States permanent establishment of a qualified resident of Taiwan would be subject to U.S. income tax.
No U.S. Tax would be imposed under section 894A on wages of qualified residents of Taiwan in connection with personal services performed in the United States and paid by a non-U.S. person.
Also, the proposal would impose general anti-abuse standards similar to those in section 894(c) to deny benefits when payments are made through hybrid entities. The proposed rules are applicable only if, and when, the Secretary of Treasury determines that reciprocal provisions apply to U.S. persons with respect to income sourced in Taiwan.
The bill also provides a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan. Specifically, the bill would authorize the President to negotiate and enter into one or more non-self-executing tax agreements to provide for bilateral tax relief with Taiwan beyond that provided for in proposed section 894A. Any such negotiation would only be permitted after a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury that Taiwan has provided benefits to U.S. persons that are reciprocal to the benefits provided to qualified residents of Taiwan under proposed section 894A. Furthermore, the bill would require that any provisions in such a tax agreement must conform with provisions customarily contained in U.S. bilateral income tax conventions, as exemplified by the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention, and any such tax agreement may not include elements outside the scope of the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention.
6. Changes in threshold for reporting on Forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC for payments by a business for services performed by an independent contractor or subcontractor and for payments of remuneration for services from $600 to $1,000 and for payments of direct sales from $5,000 to $1,000.
Under current law, a person engaged in a trade or business who makes certain payments aggregating $600 or more in any taxable year to a single recipient in the course of the trade or business is required to report those payments to the IRS. This requirement applies to fixed or determinable payments of income as well as nonemployee compensation, generally reported on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Information, or Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation. In addition, any service recipient engaged in a trade or business and paying for services is required to file a return with the IRS when aggregate payments to a service provider equal $600 or more in a calendar year. Additionally, a seller who sells at least $5,000 in the aggregate of consumer products to a buyer for resale anywhere other than a permanent retail establishment is required to report the sale to the IRS.
The bill proposes to set the reporting threshold for the payments described in the preceding paragraph at $1,000 for a calendar year (indexed for inflation for calendar years after 2024), effective for payments made after December 31, 2023.
7. New Enforcement Provisions with Respect to COVID-Related Employee Retention Tax Credit
Under current law, an eligible employer can claim a refundable Employee-Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) against applicable employment taxes for calendar quarters in 2020 and 2021 in an amount equal to a percentage of the qualified wages with respect to each employee of such employer for such calendar quarter. The percentage is 50% of qualified wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and 70% of qualified wages for calendar quarters beginning after December 31, 2020, and before January 1, 2022, subject to a maximum amount of wages per employee. An eligible employer may claim the ERTC on an amended employment tax return (Form 941-X) if the employer did not claim (or seeks to correct) the credit on its original employment tax return. For tax year 2020, an amended employment tax return must be filed by April 15, 2024, and for tax year 2021, by April 15, 2025.
The bill proposes to end the period for filing ERTC claims for both 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024. Additionally, the bill would impose large penalties on any “COVID–ERTC promoter” who aids or abets the understatement of a tax liability or who fails to comply with certain due diligence requirements relating to the filing status and amount of certain credits. A COVID–ERTC promoter is defined as any person that provides aid, assistance or advice with respect to an affidavit, refund, claim or other document relating to an ERTC or to eligibility or to the calculation of the amount of the credit, if the person (x) charges or receives a fee based on the amount of the ERTC refund or credit, or (y) meets a gross receipts test. The proposed penalties for an ERTC promoter that aids and abets understatement of a tax liability is the greater of $200,000 ($10,000 in the case of an ERTC promoter that is a natural person) or 75% of the gross income of the ERTC promoter from providing aid, assistance, or advice with respect to a return or claim for ERTC refund or a document relating to the return or claim.
Furthermore, the bill would extend the statute of limitations period on assessment for all quarters of the ERTC to six years from the later of (1) the date on which the original return for the relevant calendar quarter is filed, (2) the date on which the return is treated as filed under present-law statute of limitations rules, or (3) the date on which the credit or refund with respect to the ERTC is made.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on Taxes, visit the NLR Tax section.

Did You Send Notice to the Partners?

The implementation of the centralized partnership audit regime (CPAR) has finally arrived. Enacted by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, CPAR wasn’t effective until tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Many taxpayers and tax practitioners placed it behind the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on their list of priorities. Now 2019 brings the first filing season under CPAR as 2018 tax returns are filed.

Most partnerships and LLCs that qualify will choose to elect out of CPAR’s application. The election out is available if (1) each partner is an individual, a C corporation, a foreign entity that would be treated as a C corporation were it domestic, an S corporation, or an estate of a deceased partner, and (2) the partnership is required to furnish 100 or fewer Form K-1s for the year. To elect out, a partnership must make an affirmative election each year on its timely filed tax return and file a Schedule B-2 that sets forth the name and taxpayer identification number of every partner and every shareholder of an S corporation that is a partner. The schedule also requires that the type of partner (e.g., individual, C corporation, etc.) be identified.

Electing out of CPAR is straightforward for qualifying partnerships. The partnership tax return Form 1065 specifically asks whether the partnership is electing out and instructs taxpayers to complete a Schedule B-2. However, there is one more requirement. Did you notify all the partners of the election? The Internal Revenue Code requires that a partnership notify each of its partners that it has elected out of CPAR, and the final regulations require that the notice be delivered to the partners within 30 days of the election being made.

There is no prescribed form or manner for the notice, nor is requirement of the notice addressed on Form 1065 or Schedule B-2. The preliminary comments to the proposed regulations say it may be in writing, electronic or other form chosen by the partnership. The IRS has said that it intends to “carefully review” a partnership’s decision to elect out of CPAR to determine whether the election is valid. Partnerships and tax return preparers using tax-preparation software should make sure the partner notification is on the Form K-1s, and if it is not, notice should be sent by whatever manner within 30 days of the tax return’s filing.

 

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP
This post was written by Robert E. Box, Jr. of Jones Walker LLP.

Following Repeal of the Individual Mandate, Twenty States Challenge the Affordable Care Act

On February 26, 2018, twenty states (the “Plaintiffs”) jointly filed a lawsuit[1] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas requesting that the court strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”), as unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs’ suit gained support from the White House last week, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan on June 7, 2018 (the “Letter”), indicating that the Attorney General’s Office, with approval from President Trump, will not defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate – 26 U.S.C. 5000(A)(a) – and will argue that “certain provisions” of the ACA are inseverable from that provision.[2]The Letter indicates that this is “a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense” of the individual mandate, reasoning that the Justice Department has declined to defend statutes in the past when the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional and clearly indicated that it should not be defended.

Acknowledging that such a position breaks from a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted legislation, the Letter offers support for both of the Plaintiffs’ main arguments: first, the Plaintiffs claim that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional, because individuals will no longer pay a penalty for being uninsured after December 31, 2018; second, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the ACA is also unconstitutional, because the ACA cannot continue to function without the individual mandate. These arguments are discussed in further detail below.

The Individual Mandate

The Plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate, which requires individuals to be insured under the ACA or pay a tax if uninsured, is no longer constitutional following passage of the TCJA. When the United States Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012, the Court determined that Congress could not direct people to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause, but requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a fee was a constitutional use of Congress’s taxing powers.[3]

The Plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate can no longer be considered a valid use of Congress’s taxing power, because the TCJA reduces the fee for being uninsured to $0 beginning January 1, 2019. Although the TCJA effectively eliminated the individual mandate’s tax provisions, the requirement for individuals to buy insurance remains unaffected. The Plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate cannot be interpreted as a tax, because it lacks the central feature of any tax – the ability to generate revenue for the government. The individual mandate, therefore, cannot be upheld as a use of Congress’s taxation powers, and the Supreme Court also determined that it could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Absent a constitutional basis, the Plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate can no longer be upheld.

The ACA Without the Individual Mandate

The Plaintiffs go on to argue that, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, so too is the entire ACA. Citing the ACA and the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs claim that the individual mandate is essential to creating effective health insurance markets and, because it is so “closely intertwined” with the rest of the ACA, severing the individual mandate would cause the rest of the ACA to cease functioning.[4] The Plaintiffs assert several arguments in furtherance of the charge that the “unconstitutional individual mandate” and ACA significantly harm and impact State sovereignty:

  • The ACA imposes a “burdensome and unsustainable panoply of regulations” on markets that each State has sovereign responsibility to regulate, including requirements for States to offer health insurance exchanges and minimum coverage standards for health insurance products.[5] Forcing the Plaintiffs to comply with ACA rules and regulations harms the States in their sovereign capacity, because the States lose the ability to enact or enforce their own laws or policies that conflict with the ACA.

  • States are significantly harmed by ACA rules and regulations compelling them to take costly corrective actions to stabilize insurance markets. The Plaintiffs argue that ACA regulations of the individual insurance market caused insurers to pull out of State marketplaces due to unsustainable rising costs. This, in turn, leads to costs rising further, as less competition exists in the healthcare markets. To escape the cycle of rising costs, the Plaintiffs argue that the States have to expend significant sums of money to stabilize healthcare markets.

  • States are significantly harmed as Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) providers. The Plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate and the ACA caused millions of individuals to enroll in Medicaid and CHIP, either because the ACA expanded program eligibility or the individual mandate forced individuals to enroll in one of the programs if they could not afford to purchase insurance in the marketplace. The influx of new Medicaid and CHIP enrollees caused states to incur “significant monetary injuries,” because the States are obligated to “share the expenses of coverage with the federal government.”[6]

  • States are harmed in their capacity as large employers. The ACA requires States, as large employers, to offer health insurance plans to eligible employees. The plans must contain minimum essential benefits defined under the ACA. Additionally, the ACA imposes a 40% excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.[7]To comply with these, and other, ACA requirements, States must expend significant amounts of money to provide health coverage to employees. Some states, including Wisconsin, restructured their employer-sponsored health insurance plans to avoid the ACA excise tax. Other states, including Missouri and South Dakota, have cut other parts of their budgets to account for increased employer-provided healthcare costs.

Based on the allegations discussed above, the Plaintiffs request that the District Court declare the ACA, as amended by the TCJA, to be unconstitutional either in part or in whole, declare unlawful all rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the ACA, and enjoin the defendants from enforcing the ACA. A ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs could not only eliminate the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance, but could disrupt or eliminate some or all of the healthcare programs and mandates established under the ACA.

While the litigation aims high, numerous legal scholars and stakeholders have blasted the merits of the DOJ’s latest intervention (or lack thereof). Republican Senator Lamar Alexander released a statement remarking that “[t]he Justice Department argument in the Texas case is as far-fetched as any I’ve ever heard.” Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who helped develop the arguments against the ACA in prior litigation (most notably, King vs. Burwell), described the Department of Justice argument as “just absurd,” arguing that there “is no legal basis for applying severability doctrine in this way, and no precedent for the Justice Department to accept such an argument.” While the merits of the litigation appear to be dubious, it nonetheless represents a mortal threat to the ACA and its popular protections for pre-existing conditions. Over the coming months, we will observe how this plays out legally and politically.

[1] Complaint, Texas & Wisconsin, et al v. United States et al, (N.D. Tex. 2018) (No. 4:18-cv-00167-O).

[2] Jefferson Sessions, Re: Texas v. United States, NO. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), United States Office of the Attorney General, (June 7, 2018).

[3] Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 558, 574 (2012).

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I); King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2487 (2015).

[5] Complaint at 16-17.

[6] Complaint at 22-23.

[7] 26 U.S.C. § 4980I.

Copyright © 2018, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Reduction in U.S. Corporate Tax Rates Will Significantly Impact Outbound Tax Planning by U.S. Individuals

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) represents the most significant tax reform package enacted since 1986. Included in this reform are a number of crucial changes to existing international tax provisions.  While many of these international changes relate directly to U.S. corporations doing business outside the United States, they nevertheless will have a substantial impact on U.S. individuals with the same overseas activities or assets.

One notable change under the new law was the reduction of the maximum U.S. corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. Not surprisingly, this change will have a corresponding impact on the ability of U.S. shareholders (both corporations and individuals) of controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs”) to qualify for the Section 954(b)(4) “high-tax exception” from Subpart F income.  This is because the effective foreign tax rate imposed on a CFC that is needed to qualify for this purpose must be greater than 90% of the U.S. corporate tax rate.  Therefore, this exception now will be available when the effective rate of foreign tax is greater than 18.9% (as opposed to 31.5% under prior law).

In addition to the reduction in corporate tax rates, the TCJA includes a partial shift from a worldwide system of taxing such U.S. corporate taxpayers to a semi-territorial system of taxation.  This “territorial” taxation is achieved through the creation of a dividends received deduction (“DRD”) for such domestic corporate taxpayers under Section 245A.[1]  This provision will allow a U.S. C corporation to deduct the “foreign-source portion” of any dividends it receives from a 10%-or-more-owned foreign corporation (other than a PFIC), as long as the recipient has owned the stock of the payor for more than one year during the prior two year period.  Assuming the foreign payor has no income that is effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business (“ECI”) and no dividend income from an 80%-owned U.S. subsidiary, the entire dividend generally will be exempt from U.S. federal income tax under this provision.[2]  In a corresponding change to Section 1248, when the relevant stock of a CFC is sold or exchanged, any amount of gain that is recharacterized as a dividend to a corporate U.S. shareholder under Section 1248 also is eligible for this DRD assuming the stock has been held for at least one year.

Despite these shifts toward partial territoriality, the new law retains the Subpart F rules that apply to tax currently certain income earned by CFCs (i.e., foreign corporations that are more than 50% owned by 10% U.S. shareholders (under the new law, both the 10% and 50% standards are measured by reference to either vote or value), as well as introducing a new category of income puzzlingly called “global intangible low-taxed income” (GILTI), though it has almost nothing to do with income from intangibles.[3]  GILTI will include nearly all income of a CFC other than ECI, Subpart F income (including Subpart F income that is excludible under the Section 954 (b)(4) high-tax exception), or income of taxpayers with very significant tangible depreciable property used in a trade or business.

The GILTI tax, imposed under Section 951A, applies to U.S. shareholders (both corporate and individual) of CFCs at ordinary income tax rates. Accordingly, U.S. individual shareholders of CFC typically will be subject to tax on GILTI inclusions at a 37% rate (the new maximum individual U.S. federal income tax rate).   U.S. C corporations that are shareholders of CFCs, on the other hand, are entitled under new Section 250 to deduct 50% of the GILTI inclusion, resulting in a 10.5% effective tax rate on such income.  Additionally, such corporate shareholders are permitted to claim foreign tax credits for 80% of the foreign taxes paid by the CFC that are attributable to the relevant GILTI inclusion.  Accounting for the 50% deduction and foreign tax credits, if any, a corporate U.S. shareholder’s GILTI inclusion that is subject to a rate of foreign income tax of at least 13.125% should result in no further U.S. federal income tax being due.[4]

In addition to the above GILTI provisions, Section 250 also permits U.S. corporations to deduct 37.5% of “foreign-derived intangible income” (FDII), resulting in an effective U.S. federal income tax rate of 13.125% on such income. FDII is the portion of the U.S. corporation’s net income (other than GILTI and certain other income) that exceeds a 10% rate of return on the U.S. corporation’s tangible depreciable business assets and is attributable to certain sales of property (including leases and licenses) to foreign persons or to the provision of certain services to any person located outside the United States.

Impact on Individual U.S. Taxpayers

While the TCJA substantially reduced the top U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, individual U.S. income tax rates were not materially altered (i.e., the maximum individual U.S. federal income tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 37%).  Nevertheless, the reductions in corporate tax rates and other relevant entity-level changes should be expected to have a dramatic impact on outbound U.S. tax planning for individual shareholders of CFCs.

Planning Using Section 962

Section 962, which has been a part of the Code since 1962, allows an individual (or trust or estate) U.S. shareholder of a CFC to elect to be subject to corporate income tax rates on amounts which are included in income under Section 951(a) (i.e., subpart F inclusions and amounts included under Section 956). The purpose behind this provision is

…to avoid what might otherwise be a hardship in taxing a U.S. individual at high bracket rates with respect to earnings in a foreign corporation which he does not receive. This provision gives such individuals assurance that their tax burdens, with respect to these undistributed foreign earnings, will be no heavier than they would have been had they invested in an American corporation doing business abroad.[5] (emphasis added).

The U.S. federal income tax consequences of a U.S. individual making a Section 962 election are as follows. First, the individual is taxed on amounts included in his gross income under Section 951(a) at corporate tax rates. Second, the individual is entitled to a deemed-paid foreign tax credit under Section 960 as if the individual were a domestic corporation. Third, when an actual distribution of earnings is made of amounts that have already been included in the gross income of a U.S. shareholder under Section 951(a), the earnings are included in gross income again to the extent they exceed the amount of U.S. income tax paid at the time of the Section 962 election.[6]

Historically, elections under Section 962 were made infrequently. Under the new law, however, this is likely to change as such elections will have much more significance to many more U.S. individual shareholders of CFCs.  As noted above, the new GILTI provisions will cause U.S. individual shareholders of CFCs to be subject to U.S. federal income tax at a 37% rate on a new category of income, which will be taxed in the same manner as Subpart F income (including with respect to eligibility to make a Section 962 election as to such income).[7]

The lower 21% corporate income tax rate under the new law coupled with the inability of individual shareholders to claim indirect foreign tax credits under Section 960 mean that, in some cases, U.S. individuals investing in CFCs through U.S. corporations will be better off from a tax perspective under the TCJA than U.S. individual shareholders making such investments in CFCs directly. For this reason, individual U.S. shareholders should consider whether it is beneficial to make Section 962 elections going forward, which would allow them to claim indirect foreign tax credits on any amounts included under subpart F, as well as under the GILTI provisions.[8]

Some of the unanswered questions facing taxpayers in this context are, first, whether individuals owning their CFC interests through S corporations or partnerships may make a Section 962 election at all. The IRS previously refused to issue a requested private letter ruling confirming the availability of the election in such cases,[9] though it appears based on informal discussions with Treasury and IRS officials as well as a footnote in the legislative history to Section 965 that the IRS may have since adopted a different view.[10]

Another issue that is not clear is whether an individual U.S. shareholder who makes a Section 962 election is eligible to claim the 50% GILTI deduction under Section 250 (which would have the effect of reducing the effective U.S. tax rate on such income to 10.5%). Based on the clear intent behind Section 962, which is to ensure that an individual U.S. shareholder who has an inclusion under Subpart F (including for this purpose, inclusions under Section 951(A) is subject to tax under Section 11 as if the shareholder invested abroad through a U.S. C corporation, such deduction should be allowed.  The IRS seems to have agreed with this logic in FSA 200247033, when it cited to the legislative history behind Section 962 and calculated the tax on a U.S. individual shareholder who made a Section 962 election as if the taxpayer actually invested through a separate U.S. C corporation doing business abroad.  The IRS noted that “…section 962 was enacted to relieve a U.S. individual shareholder of a CFC from a hardship that might otherwise result from a section 951(a) inclusion by ensuring that the tax burden for such individual would be ‘no heavier’ than it would be if the individual had instead invested in a U.S. corporation doing business abroad. If the amount included in income under Section 951(a) were derived by a taxpayer’s domestic corporation, such amount would have been subject to tax at the applicable corporate rates.” It also should be pointed out that while the regulations under Section 962 specifically state that the hypothetical corporate taxpayer may not reduce its taxable income by any deductions of the U.S. shareholder[11] the regulations make no mention of any prohibition against corporate level deductions, such as the 50% GILTI deduction allowable under Section 250 (emphasis added).

Finally, a third potential issue that may arise in this context is the tax characterization of an actual distribution of earnings and profits that were previously included in the U.S. shareholder’s gross income under Section 951(a). This issue arises whenever the CFC is located in a non-treaty jurisdiction, such that dividends paid by such a CFC could not qualify for the reduced “qualified dividend” rate under Section 1(h)(11).  When an actual distribution is made from such a company, the question is whether the distribution should be treated as coming from the CFC (and therefore be classified as ordinary income), or instead as coming from the deemed C corporation created by the Section 962 election (and thus be classified as qualified dividends). As explained above, the objective behind Section 962 is to tax the individual U.S. shareholder in the same amount that she would have been taxed had the investment in the CFC been made through a domestic C corporation. To achieve this objective and avoid exposing the shareholder to a significantly higher rate of tax in the United States, where962 election is in place, any distribution of earnings and profits by the CFC must be treated as coming from a domestic C corporation.  This issue is currently pending in the United States Tax Court.

Impact Under Section 1248(b)

Another outbound provision that should become more relevant to U.S. individual shareholders of CFCs is the limitation imposed under Section 1248(b) when a U.S. shareholder, directly or indirectly, sells the shares of a CFC. Under Section 1248(a), gain recognized on a U.S. shareholders’ disposition of stock in a CFC is treated as dividend income to the extent of the relevant earnings and profits accumulated while such person held the stock.  Significantly, where the U.S. seller is a C corporation, under the new quasi-territorial system, this conversion of gain into a dividend triggers an exemption from tax pursuant to the Section 245A dividends received deduction.

With respect to individual U.S. shareholders who sell stock in a CFC, recharacterization under Section 1248(a) also remains significant due to the rate differential between the taxation of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains (which are subject to a maximum federal income tax rate of 23.8% under Section 1(h)(11)), and non-qualified dividends (which are subject to a maximum federal income tax rate of 40.8%).

Section 1248(b), however, provides for a ceiling on the tax liability that may be imposed on the shareholder receiving a Section 1248(a) dividend if the taxpayer is an individual and the stock disposed of has been held for more than one year. The Section 1248(b) ceiling consists of the sum of two amounts.  The first amount is the U.S. income tax that the CFC would have paid if the CFC had been taxed as a domestic corporation, after permitting a credit for all foreign and U.S. tax actually paid by the CFC on the same income (the “hypothetical corporate tax”).  For example, assume a Cayman Islands CFC has $100 of income and pays $0 of foreign taxes.  Also assume the Cayman CFC would be in the 21% income tax bracket for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 11 based on its taxable income levels if it were a domestic corporation.  In this case, the hypothetical corporate tax would be $21 ($21 U.S. tax minus $0 of foreign tax credits).

The second amount is the addition to the taxpayer’s U.S. federal income tax for the year that results from including in gross income as long-term capital gain an amount equal to the excess of the Section 1248(a) amount over the hypothetical corporate tax (the “hypothetical shareholder tax”). Continuing with the same example and assuming the shareholder’s gain on the sale is $100, this hypothetical shareholder tax would be 23.8% of $79 ($100 Section 1248(a) amount less the hypothetical corporate tax of $21), or $18.80.

Adding together the hypothetical corporate tax and the hypothetical shareholder tax in this example thus yields $39.80 in U.S. tax on the $100 gain, for an effective tax rate of 39.8%. Given that the CFC in this example is not resident in a treaty country (i.e., the United States does not have an income tax treaty with the Cayman Islands), the amount of gain that is recharacterized as a dividend under Section 1248(a) (i.e., $100) would be taxable at a maximum federal rate of 40.80%, resulting in $40.80 of tax. Because this is greater than the Section 1248(b) ceiling of $39.80, the ceiling will apply, and the U.S. shareholder will pay U.S. tax of $39.80.  As a consequence of the significant reduction in U.S. corporate tax rates, it appears that the Section 1248(b) limitation will now always yield a lower effective tax than the tax that would be imposed under Section 1248(a).  While this may seem somewhat odd, it makes sense given that the U.S. corporate tax rate (which the hypothetical corporate tax rate is based on) was reduced from 35% to just 21%.

As illustrated in the above example, going forward, even where no foreign corporate income taxes are paid, the Section 1248(b) limitation will result in a lower tax liability than the tax that would be imposed under Section 1248(a). As the foreign tax burden increases, the Section 1248(b) limitation becomes more significant.  In fact, as long as the foreign corporate tax rate is at least 21%, the Section 1248(b) limitation will yield an effective tax rate of 23.8%, which is equal to the maximum individual U.S. federal income tax rate on qualified dividends.  Therefore, if a U.S. individual shareholder sells shares of stock in a CFC that is tax resident, for example, in Ecuador (a non-treaty country which currently has a corporate tax rate of 22%), the effective tax rate imposed on such shareholder based on the Section 1248(b) limitation will be the same as if the CFC were resident in a treaty country.

Even more interesting is the fact that it would appear to be possible to qualify for the reduced qualified dividend rates caused by the Section 1248(b) limitation even in situations where the foreign tax rate is less than 21%. This is due to the ability of such shareholders to take deductions for purposes of the hypothetical U.S. tax computations that may not be available under relevant foreign law. At least one federal court has confronted this issue. In Hoover v. the United States,[12] for purposes of determining the amount of corporate taxes that would have been paid if the CFC had been a domestic corporation, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California allowed the hypothetical corporation to claim the former deduction available under Section 922 for Western Hemisphere Trade Corporations. This special deduction is available only to domestic corporations all of the business of which was conducted in North, Central, or South America, or in the West Indies, if, among other items, at least 95 percent of the company’s gross income was derived from foreign sources during a three-year testing period.  Clearly this deduction is not available for U.S. federal income tax purposes when computing the earnings and profits of a CFC, so it is noteworthy that the court allowed the taxpayer in Hoover to claim this special deduction in calculating the hypothetical corporate tax under Section 1248(b).

While the Section 922 deduction for Western Hemisphere Trade Corporations no longer exists, other relevant provisions are available that may provide a benefit to U.S. taxpayers in calculating the hypothetical corporate tax under Section 1248(b). For example, as noted above, Section 250 now provides a 37.5% deduction on FDII. This provision could provide a major income tax benefit to a U.S. taxpayer that owns a CFC that sells goods or provides services to non-U.S. persons when calculating the hypothetical corporate income tax under Section 1248(b).  This results from the fact that FDII is subject to an effective corporate tax rate of only 13.125% (which is much lower than the current 21% corporate tax rate).

Conclusion

As illustrated above, despite the negligible reduction of maximum U.S. individual tax rates from 39.6% to 37%, individual shareholders of CFCs nevertheless will benefit greatly from the more significant reduction in U.S. corporate tax rates. While there are a number of unanswered questions relating to the interaction between Section 962, GILTI, and qualified dividends, direct or indirect U.S. individual shareholders of CFCs now, more than ever, should seriously consider the impact of making a Section 962 election, especially where the CFC is tax resident in a treaty country and/or is subject to a relatively high rate of tax.

[1] All Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated under the Code.

[2] No foreign tax credits are permitted as to such dividends for which a foreign-source DRD is allowed.

[3] Unlike subpart F inclusions, there is no high-tax exception to GILTI inclusions under Section 951A. Instead subpart F income that is excluded from a U.S. shareholder’s gross income under the Section 954(b)(4) high-tax exception also is excluded from the GILTI provisions.  Query whether it makes sense to cause certain non-subpart F income that is otherwise subject to an effective foreign tax rate greater than 18.9% to be recharacterized as subpart F income in order to avoid GILTI (e.g., by creating a related party transaction).

[4] For tax years after 2025, the deduction is scheduled to decrease from 50% to 37.5%, resulting in an effective tax rate of 13.125% rather than 10.5% assuming corporate rates remain capped at 21%.

[5] S. Rep. No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), reprinted at 1962-3 C.B. at 798.

[6] Section 962(d); Treas. Reg. Section 1.962-3. The most obvious reason why a taxpayer would choose to make a Section 962 election is the ability to defer the U.S. federal income tax on the actual distribution from the CFC, as well as the possibility of obtaining “qualified” dividends under Section 1(h)(11) on the subsequent distribution.

[7] Section 951A(f)(1)(A).

[8] Section 951A(f)(1)(A). See also TCJA Conference report at p. 517

[9] See Rubinger and LePree, “IRS Takes Flawed Approach to Inclusion under Subpart F,” Tax Notes, v.123, no.7, 2009 May 18, p.903-910.

[10] Section 965(a) imposes a one-time deemed repatriation tax on any deferred earnings of certain “specified foreign corporations.” This tax applies to C corporations as well as U.S. individual shareholders of these corporations.  A Section 962 election also may be useful when calculating the tax due under Section 965 for an individual.

[11] Treas. Reg. Section 1.962-1(b)(1)(i).

[12] Hoover v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 502, 504 (CD Cal. 1972).

© 2018 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

Overview of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

On December 27th, 2017 President Trump signed into law what is the most consequential tax reform in thirty years, by signing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”). Most business changes took effect after December 31, 2017, some changes were effective immediately and others, like expensing of capital expenditures, had specialized retroactive effective dates. The following is an overview of the Act:

Individual Income and Transfer Taxes

For individuals, the new law reduces tax brackets, curbs the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax, alters some tax credits, simplifies many returns by increasing the standard deduction, and increases the amount of property that can pass free of the estate, gift and generation skipping transfer tax. One area untouched by the new law is the adjustment to tax basis for capital assets upon death, allowing for “step-up” or “step-down” depending upon the cost basis vs. the value at date of death. Please see the following summary explanations:

  • Rates. Beginning in 2018, the highest individual income tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 37%. Other rate adjustments are illustrated in this table:

Rate

Unmarried Individuals, Taxable Income Over

Married Individuals Filing Jointly, Taxable Income Over

Heads of Households, Taxable Income Over

10%

$0

$0

$0

12%

$9,525

$19,050

$13,600

22%

$38,700

$77,400

$51,800

24%

$82,500

$165,000

$82,500

32%

$157,500

$315,000

$157,500

35%

$200,000

$400,000

$200,000

37%

$500,000

$600,000

$500,000

  • Standard Deduction and Personal Exemptions. Beginning in 2018, the doubling of the standard deduction and curtailment of state and local taxes and mortgage interest deductions have the effect of simplifying many returns by eliminating the complexity associated with the preparation of Schedule A. Elimination of personal exemptions and limits on deductions for those who itemize will dramatically change the benefit to individuals of the deductions for mortgage interest, state income and property taxes and charitable contributions.

  • Credits. The new legislation creates a patch-work quilt of how many tax credits are treated. For example, the American Opportunities Tax Credit for education remained untouched, but other credits were modified.

  • Alternative Minimum Tax. Fewer individual taxpayers will be subject to this tax as a result of the increase of the exemption to just over $109,000 (indexed).

  • Estate, Gift and Generation Skipping Tax Exemptions. Beginning in 2018 and through 2025, these exemptions have been doubled to $11.2 million per person, and indexed to inflation.

Basis Adjustment at Death. This adjustment, often mistakenly referred to as “step-up basis”, remains unchanged. Property owned at death will be afforded a new basis equal to the value of such property at date of death. Adjusting the basis at date of death may mean the basis is increased, but can also result in a decrease in basis as happened for some deaths occurring during our last recession.

Provisions of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Affecting Businesses

In addition to the changes impacting individual taxpayers, the Act included a substantial revision to the tax laws governing businesses. These changes begin with a reduction of the corporate tax rate to a flat 21% (down from a maximum of 35%) and permit unlimited expensing of capital expenditures, repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax and change the deductions available to businesses. A substantial difference between the individual and business tax law changes is that some of the business changes are permanent (i.e. corporate tax rate), while others are temporary (immediate expense treatment for capital expenditures).

  • Tax Rate. The new law creates a flat 21% income tax rate for C Corporations to replace the marginal rate bracket system which had imposed tax rates between 15% and 35%.

  • Corporate Dividends. The dividends received deduction which allowed a C corporation to deduct 70 or 80 percent of dividends received from another C corporation has been reduced to a deduction of either 50 or 65 percent (the higher rate is available where the stock of the dividend paying corporation is owned at least 20% by the corporation receiving the dividend).

  • AMT. The corporate Alternative Minimum Tax has been repealed for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

  • Section 179 Expensing Business Capital Assets. Internal Revenue Code Section 179 allows a business to deduct the cost of certain “qualifying property” in the year of purchase in lieu of depreciating the expense over time. The Act allows a year of purchase deduction of up to an inflation indexed $1 million (increased from $500,000) with a total capital investment limitation of $2.5 million. While these changes provide businesses with increased deductions, they have little meaning given the new 100% year of purchase deduction for capital expenditures available under amended Code Section 168(k).

  • Section 168(k) Accelerated Depreciation. The Act allows a 100% deduction of the basis of “qualifying property” acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017 and before January 1, 2023. Qualifying property generally includes depreciable tangible property with a cost recovery period of 20 years or less, computer software not acquired upon purchase of a business and nonresidential leasehold improvements.

    The bonus depreciation deduction is then reduced to 80% in 2023 and drops by an additional 20% after each subsequent two year period until disappearing entirely for periods beginning January 1, 2027. The allowed deduction percentages are applied on a slightly extended time frame for certain property with longer production periods. In addition to increasing the available deduction, the Act also allows used property to qualify for the deduction. After a phase-out beginning in 2023, this provision lapses after December 31, 2026.

  • Business Interest. Net business interest will not be deductible in excess of 30% of the “adjusted taxable income” of a business. For 2018 through 2021, adjusted taxable income will be determined without consideration of depreciation, amortization, depletion or the 20% qualified business income deductions. In 2022 and thereafter, the 30% limit will be applied to taxable income after deductions for depreciation and amortization. An exemption from the 30% limitation exists for taxpayers with annual gross receipts (determined by reference to the three preceding years) of $25 million or less. Disallowed business interest can be carried forward indefinitely. If a taxpayer’s full 30% adjusted taxable income limit is not met with respect to one business, the unused limitation amount can be applied to another business of the taxpayer which otherwise would have excess interest that is nondeductible after application of the 30% adjusted taxable income limit to that business.

  • Net Operating Losses. Generally, the two year NOL carryback has been repealed. While the losses can be carried forward indefinitely, the deduction will generally be limited to 80% of taxable income.

  • Other.

    • Domestic Production Activities Deduction has been repealed.

    • Like Kind Exchanges are limited to real property.

    • Fringe Benefits. Entertainment expenses and transportation fringe benefits (including parking) are no longer deductible. The 50% meals expense deduction is expanded to include on premises cafeterias of employers.

    • Penalties and Fines. Certain specifically identified restitution payments may be deductible.

    • Sexual Harassment Payments. No deduction will be allowed for amounts paid for or in connection with settlement of sexual harassment or abuse claims if such payments are subject to nondisclosure agreements.

Provisions of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Affecting Pass-Through Entities and Sole Proprietorships

Before the Act passed, the pass-through of business income from a partnership or S corporation meant a lower overall tax rate would be paid on company income (compared to C corporations) as such income was not subject to double taxation and a lower overall income tax rate generally applied. However, with the reduction of the corporate income tax rate to a flat 21%, and individual rates that reach up to 37%, pass-through entities and sole proprietorships could face a higher tax burden than their C corporation counterparts.

To address the disparate effects of the flat 21% C corporation income tax rate, the Act allows owners of pass-through entities and sole proprietorships a deduction equal to 20% of their “qualified business income” subject to certain limitations. The calculation of what constitutes the qualified business income deduction amount is complex as are the applicable limitations. For example, upon sale of substantially all of the assets of a business, it is likely the 20% qualified business deduction will be significantly limited. Going forward, an analysis of the comparative tax savings as a C corporation or a pass-through entity will be appropriate for all businesses looking to maximize tax savings.

One further complication of the 20% qualified business deduction is that it is currently not applicable in calculating the state tax liability of most businesses. For example, the 20% deduction is currently inapplicable to the state income tax liabilities of Wisconsin businesses.

Family Owned Businesses

With the higher estate and gift tax exemptions and retention of the basis adjustment at death provisions of the tax law, the transfer of family owned businesses will need to re-focus, as follows:

  • Entrepreneurial families may prioritize family governance issues over estate tax issues for many businesses in transition. The changes to the valuation rules from August of 2016 have now been neutralized, and higher exemptions allow more effective estate tax freeze types of transactions.

  • Changes to how pass-through entities are taxed will re-position family businesses to place more emphasis on leasing entities, intellectual property licensing and real estate rental arrangements.

  • With corporate income tax rates reduced, the resurgence of a “management company” or “family office” may take center stage to house key employees who desire different classes of equity and debt ownership, unique compensation arrangements and generous employee benefits. However, IRS rules regarding how management agreements are negotiated and operate will need to be addressed before venturing into this area.

Buying and Selling Businesses

For those clients engaged in buying or selling businesses, the most powerful aspects of the bill have to do with changes to how capital expenditures are taxed, the loss of state and local tax deductions (individuals) and the lower corporate tax rates. We are making the following general observations on the effect of the new law on business sale transactions:

  • Even after the so-called “double tax” stigma associated with the regular corporate tax regime, when all aspects are considered, pass through entities are less attractive for many buyers and sellers. For example, a C corporation can deduct state and local taxes, while shareholders of S corporations, non-corporate owners of LLCs and individual sole proprietors cannot. This negative consequence is amplified by the fact that the 20% qualified business income deduction will not be available for state income tax purposes in most states, including Wisconsin.

  • Because many business valuations are based on income streams that do not consider taxes, those valuations do not reflect the effect of the now lower income tax rates for those businesses. However, lower tax rates should result in more cash flow to the buyers of those businesses, thereby increasing their internal rate of return on invested capital. The result will be that higher valuations will apply in the future because of the tax benefits of the new tax law.

  • Under the new law, buyers of tangible business assets, certain software and leasehold improvements can deduct their cost, in full, in the year of purchase. This means capital intensive businesses will enjoy significantly reduced effective tax rates and, therefore, higher values than previously applicable. More important, however, is that the buyer of a business can fully deduct the cost of all tangible assets in the year of purchase. The result will be that buyers of substantially all of the assets of a business will likely have little taxable income (and therefore less tax liability) for several years after the purchase of the business.

  • As a result of the 100% deduction of tangible assets purchased on the sale of a business and the lack of any changes to the capital gain and qualifying dividend tax rates, we believe that asset purchases will become more beneficial than stock purchases to buyers who seek to minimize transactional taxes, while stock sales will be more beneficial to sellers.

  • The new tax law limits the deductibility of business interest to 30% of adjusted taxable income. This means buyers using debt financing may not be able to fully deduct interest on the debt used to purchase a business. As a rule of thumb, the interest limitation will become applicable whenever the debt to cash flow ratio is higher than the ratio of the effective interest rate to 30%. Note that starting in 2022, the 30% limitation is applied to adjusted taxable income after deducting depreciation and amortization. Therefore, if you are going to buy a business, the time to do it is before the 30% limit becomes more stringent in 2022.

Compensation and Benefits Changes in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

  • Section 162(m). Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) imposes a $1 million cap on the deduction for compensation paid to certain officers of public companies. Before the Act, there was an exception to the deduction limit for compensation that was “performance-based” if certain conditions were met. The Act eliminates the exception for performance-based compensation. Performance-based compensation paid pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017 will continue to be outside of the $1 million deductibility cap, if the contract is not materially modified on or after that date.

  • Excise Tax on Excess Compensation for Executives of Tax-Exempt Organizations. The Act imposes a new excise tax on “excessive” compensation paid to certain employees of certain tax-exempt organizations. The excise tax is 21% of the sum of:

    • any excess parachute payment paid to a covered employee; and

    • remuneration (other than an excess parachute payment) in excess of $1 million paid to a covered employee for a taxable year (remuneration is treated as paid when there is no longer a substantial risk of forfeiture).

Covered employees are the five highest compensated employees for the year, and any other person who was a covered employee for any prior tax year beginning after 2016. Certain payments to licensed nurses, doctors and veterinarians are excluded.

A “parachute payment” is a payment that is contingent on the employee’s separation from service, the present value of which is at least three times the “base amount” (i.e., average annual compensation includible in the employee’s gross income for five years ending before the employee’s separation from employment). If a parachute payment is paid, the excise tax applies to the amount of the payment that exceeds the base amount.

  • Extended Rollover Deadline for “Qualified Plan Loan Offsets.” Prior to the Act, a participant in a qualified retirement plan who wanted to roll over a “plan loan offset” (an offset to his or her plan account due to a default on a loan taken from the account) to another plan or IRA had only 60 days to do so. The Act gives a longer period of time to roll over a “qualified plan loan offset,” which is a plan loan offset that occurs solely because of the termination of the plan or failure to make payments due to severance from employment. Participants will have until the due date of the tax return for the year in which the qualified plan loan offset occurs.

  • Reduction of Individual Mandate Penalty. The Affordable Care Act generally imposes a penalty (the “individual shared responsibility payment”) on all individuals who can afford health insurance but who do not have coverage. The Act reduces the amount of the individual shared responsibility payment to $0, effective January 1, 2019.

  • Section 83(i) – Taxation of Qualified Stock. The Act adds a new Section 83(i) to allow certain employees of non-publicly traded companies to defer the tax that would otherwise apply with respect to “qualified stock.” Qualified stock is stock issued in connection with the exercise of an option or in settlement of a Restricted Stock Unit (“RSU”), if the options or RSUs were granted during a calendar year in which the corporation was an “eligible corporation.” An eligible corporation is a non-publicly traded company with a written plan under which at least 80% of its U.S. employees are granted options or RSUs with the same rights and privileges. Certain employees, including any current or former CEO or CFO, and anyone who is (or was in the prior 10 years) a 1% owner or one of the four highest paid officers of the company, are excluded from the ability to elect a Section 83(i) deferral.

©2018 von Briesen & Roper, s.c.

Impact of final Tax Reform Legislation on the Historic Tax Credit, New Markets Tax Credit, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Renewable Energy Tax Credits

On Dec. 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed into law “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018” – widely referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or simply, the Tax Reform Legislation. As has been widely reported, the Tax Reform Legislation makes sweeping and extensive changes to federal tax law on a scale not seen since 1986. Here, we will focus on the impact of the Tax Reform Legislation on certain federal project-based income tax credits, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC), the Historic Tax Credit (HTC), and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy projects.

Unlike the tax reform bill passed by the House of Representatives, which would have significantly altered many of these project-based tax credits, the final Tax Reform Legislation generally leaves the credits in place, although with some modifications.

The HTC endured the most adjustment under the Tax Reform Legislation. Prior to the enactment of that legislation, the HTC provided a taxpayer who rehabilitated a historic structure with a tax credit equal to 20% of the taxpayer’s “qualified rehabilitation expenditures” if the structure was listed on the National Register or was otherwise certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being historically significant, or 10% of the taxpayer’s qualified rehabilitation expenditures if the structure did not meet those criteria but was originally placed in service prior to 1936; the tax credit was claimed in its entirety in the year the building was placed in service, subject to a five-year recapture period. The newly revised law eliminates the 10% credit for pre-1936 buildings not listed on the National Register or otherwise certified by the Secretary of the Interior and restructures the 20% credit so that it is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the year the building is placed in service. (A transition rule allows taxpayers who own historic buildings as of Dec. 31, 2017, to take advantage of the pre-amendment version of the HTC for a period of time.)

While the other project-based tax credits were left in place unchanged, the shift, under the Tax Reform Legislation, in how multi-national corporations are taxed will likely impact their relative value. These credits are rarely of value to the developers of the projects to which they apply, as those developers typically do not have sufficient tax liability to fully utilize the credits. Instead, developers will typically shift the benefit of these tax credits to investors, in exchange for cash infusions into the underlying projects. Historically, these investors have been banks and other large corporations with significant tax liability; in many cases, these investors have significant overseas operations. One of the more significant changes the Tax Reform Legislation makes to the taxation of corporations is the imposition of a Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), which is designed to counteract efforts by multi-national corporations to shift income from the United States to lower-tax jurisdictions. In calculating their BEAT liability, corporations may claim none of their HTCs and NMTCs, and only 80% of their LIHTCs and PTCs and ITCs for renewable energy projects, reducing the value of those credits to those corporations and presumably reducing the amount investors will be willing to contribute to projects in exchange for them (either due to investors’ BEAT liability, or due to the decreased demand for the credits among investors). Moreover, beginning in 2026, LIHTCs and PTCs and ITCs for renewable energy projects will be treated like HTCs and NMTCs, and corporations will not be able to use any portion of these credits against their BEAT liability, effectively eliminating the value of those credits to investors subject to the BEAT.

Similarly, the change to the HTC – which is also generally shifted from developers of historic projects to investors in them – from a credit claimed all at once to a credit claimed ratably over five years will likely reduce the value of that credit to investors and/or impact the timing of investors’ cash infusions into the underlying projects, potentially amplifying the need for bridge financing and increasing developers’ borrowing costs.

Further, the reduction, under the Tax Reform Legislation, in the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% will reduce the value of depreciation deductions that are sometimes allocated to investors in low-income, historic and renewable energy projects, further reducing the tax benefits available to investors in those projects and likely further reducing the amount that investors are willing to deploy into those projects in exchange for those tax benefits.

While the actual impact of the Tax Reform Legislation on the market for these project-based tax credits will only become clear over time, it is safe to assume that the Tax Reform Legislation will negatively impact the sources of funds available to developers of low-income housing, historic rehabilitation and renewable energy projects, and projects located in disadvantaged areas eligible for the NMTC.

 

Copyright © 2018 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
This post was written by Jed A. Roher of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
Read more Tax News on the National Law Review.