Congress needs to do more to protect taxpayers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service v. Zuch, National Taxpayer Advocate stated in a recent blog post.

Congress needs to do more to protect taxpayers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service v. Zuch, National Taxpayer Advocate stated in a recent blog post.

NTA Erin Collins noted in the post that Congress in 1998 created the collection due process (CDP) “to give taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to contest proposed levies and Notices of Federal Tax Lien,” allowing them to request a hearing with appeals and possibly petition the tax court.

The Supreme Court decision, according to Collins, “adopted a narrow view of the Tax Court’s review in a CDP case, holding that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction under IRC Sec. 6330(d)(1) terminates once the lien or levy is no longer at issue.” She cited Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent noting that “under this approach, the IRS can cut off Tax Court review by choosing when and how to collect. He also noted that telling taxpayers to file a refund suit instead is often unrealistic, especially when strict refund claim deadlines have expired while CDP and Tax Court proceedings are still pending.”

Collins noted that the Supreme Court decision and an earlier Tax Court order “reveal serious gaps in the protections Congress intended CDP to provide. They make CDP and Tax Court an unreliable path to a merits-based solution. A taxpayer can do everything right: request a CDO hearing, raise issues with Appeals, and timely petition the Tax Court yet still never receive a final determination on what they owe if, for example, the IRS fully collects through offsets or accepts an OIC and then declares that a levy is no longer warranted.”

She added that “the fallback remedy of refund litigation may not grant a taxpayer full relief … which is an unrealistic option for many small businesses and individuals. … Zuch raises due process concerns when collection action is withdrawn. A taxpayer typically receives only one CDP hearing for a given tax period and type of collection action. If the IRS abandons collection after that hearing and later restarts collection on the same liabilities, the taxpayer may not get a second CDP hearing with Tax Court review, but only an IRS ‘equivalent hearing,’ which does not provide a right to Tax Court review.”

Collins noted that Congress has begun to take steps to remedy this with the House of Representatives’ introduction of the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act (H.R. 6506), including clarifying and expanding Tax Court jurisdiction in CDP cases, ensuring that jurisdiction over a properly underlying liability challenges whether the collection is abandoned, protects refund rights, and prohibits the IRS from crediting the overpayment against other liabilities without taxpayer consent.

However, she is calling for more Congressional action to address the “one hearing” limitation.

“Congress should create an exception to the ‘one hearing’ limitation for cases when the IRS withdraws or abandons collection,” Collins stated in the blog. “If the IRS has effectively reset the collection episode by withdrawing or abandoning the prior levy or lien and later initiates the same collection action for the same tax period, taxpayers should be entitled to a new CDP hearing with the full protections of IRC Sec. 6330, including Tax Court review.”

She added that Congress “should also ensure that taxpayers are not permanently barred from CDP when the IRS withdraws and later restarts collection and the Tax Court has clear authority to grant meaningful relief when the IRS has already collected more than the correct amount.”

The IRS has provided interim guidance addressing the special 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). The interim guidance provides the definition of qualified production property, qualified production activities, and other related terms. It also establishes a safe harbor for property placed in service in 2025, provides instructions for the time and manner for electing the 100-percent depreciation allowance, and addresses recapture and certain special rules. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance until the Treasury Department issues proposed regulations.

The IRS has provided interim guidance addressing the special 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). The interim guidance provides the definition of qualified production property, qualified production activities, and other related terms. It also establishes a safe harbor for property placed in service in 2025, provides instructions for the time and manner for electing the 100-percent depreciation allowance, and addresses recapture and certain special rules. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance until the Treasury Department issues proposed regulations.

Background

OBBBA enacted Code Sec. 168(n), which allows taxpayers to elect to take a 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property constructed after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, and placed in service after July 4, 2025, and before January 1, 2031.

Qualified Production Property Defined

Qualified production property is generally defined as new MACRS nonresidential real property that is (or will be once placed in service) as an integral part of a qualified production activity. Qualified production property must be placed in service in the United States, or its territories. Each building, including its structural components, is a single unit of property and any improvement of structural component that the taxpayer later places in service is a separate unit of property. A special rule is available for integrated facilities. For purposes of determining whether used property is acquired after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, a taxpayer applies rules consistent with Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5).

Under the interim guidance satisfies the integral part requirement if the qualified production activity takes place within the physical space of the property. The guidance provides a de minimis rule that permits a taxpayer to elect to treat the entire property as qualified production property if 95 percent or more of the physical space of a property satisfies the integral part requirement.

Although leased property that is owned by the taxpayer and used by a lessee does not qualify, the guidance provides an exception for consolidated groups, commonly controlled pass-through entities, and certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations of which 50 percent or more is owned, directly or by attribution by the lessor.

Under the guidance, a taxpayer may use any reasonable method to allocate a property’s unadjusted depreciable basis between eligible property and ineligible property. Each allocation method must be applied consistently and reflect the property’s facts and circumstances. In the case of property that contains infrastructure that serves both eligible property and ineligible property, a taxpayer may allocate the basis of such property between eligible property and ineligible property using any reasonable method.

Qualified Production Activity Defined

Generally, a qualified production activity means the manufacturing, production, or refining of a qualified product. The guidance provides specific definitions of production, qualified product, manufacturing, refining, agricultural production, chemical production, and substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Under the guidance, a related business activity will not fail to be a qualified production activity if the related activity occurs within the same property. Such activities include: oversight and management of activities, material selection of vendors or materials related to the qualified product, developing product design and other intellectual property used in conducting a manufacturing, production, or refining activity that results in a substantial transformation of the property comprising the qualified product.

Safe Harbor for Qualified Production Property Placed in Service in 2025

For property placed in service after July 4, 2025, and on or before December 31, 2025, a taxpayer’s trade or business activity will be treated as a qualified production activity if the principal business activity code that the taxpayer, or the relevant trade or business of the taxpayer, used on its most recently filed Federal income tax return filed before February 19, 2026, is listed under sectors 31, 32, or 33, or under subsectors 111 or 112, that appear in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), United States, 2022, published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President. In addition, the activity must result in, or is otherwise essential to, the substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Recapture

Recapture of the 100-percent bonus depreciation taken on qualified production property if a change in use occurs within 10 years after qualified production property is placed in service. Under the guidance a change in use occurs if the qualified production property ceases to satisfy the integral part requirement. A change in use has not occurred if a taxpayer begins to use qualified production property in a different qualified production activity. Property that has been placed in service but is temporarily idle does not cease to satisfy the integral part requirement.

Making the Election

A taxpayer may elect to treat property as qualified production property by attaching a statement to its Federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the eligible property is placed in service. The statement must include the following information: the name and taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer making the election; the street address, city, state, zip code, and a description of the property; the unadjusted depreciable basis of the property; the dollar amount of the unadjusted depreciable basis of eligible property the taxpayer is designating as qualified production property. Separate instructions are available for taxpayers applying the de minimis rule. A election may be revoked only by filing a request for a private letter ruling and obtaining the written consent of the IRS.

Request for Comments

The IRS requests comments on the interim guidance provided in Notice 2026-16. Comments must be submitted by the date, and in the form and manner, specified in Section 10.02 of Notice 2026-16.

Notice 2026-16

IR 2026-25

The Treasury Department and the IRS have extended the deadline for amending individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), SEP arrangements, and SIMPLE IRA plans to comply with the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. The new deadline is December 31, 2027. The extension does not apply to qualified plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have extended the deadline for amending individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), SEP arrangements, and SIMPLE IRA plans to comply with the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. The new deadline is December 31, 2027. The extension does not apply to qualified plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Under section 501 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328), retirement plans and contracts had until the end of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, or by a later date prescribed by the Secretary, to adopt plan amendments reflecting changes made by the SECURE Act, the SECURE 2.0 Act, the CARES Act, and the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020. In the absence of model language from the IRS, IRA custodians have requested more time to ensure proper amendments. Notice 2026-9 gives stakeholders until the end of 2027 to complete the necessary changes.

The extension applies to governing instruments of IRAs under Code Sec. 408(a) and (h), annuity contracts under Code Sec. 408(b), SEP arrangements under Code Sec. 408(k), and SIMPLE IRA plans under Code Sec. 408(p). Further, the IRS is developing model language to be used by IRA trustees, custodians, and issuers to amend an IRA for compliance with the legislation.

Notice 2026-9

The IRS issued answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the implementation of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments to and from America’s Bank Account. The order described advancing the transition to fully electronic federal payments both to and from the IRS. The purposes of said order were to (1) defend against financial fraud and improper payments; (2) increase efficiency; (3) reduce costs; and (4) enhance the security of federal transactions.

The IRS issued answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the implementation of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments to and from America’s Bank Account. The order described advancing the transition to fully electronic federal payments both to and from the IRS. The purposes of said order were to (1) defend against financial fraud and improper payments; (2) increase efficiency; (3) reduce costs; and (4) enhance the security of federal transactions.

The FAQs discussed included:

Tax Refunds and Tax Filing

The IRS stopped issuing paper refund checks for individual taxpayers after September 30, 2025. The Service would publish all guidance for filing 2025 tax returns before opening the 2026 tax filing season.

Further, direct deposit into a bank account would remain the primary method for issuing refunds. Alternative electronic payment methods, mobile apps and prepaid debit cards, would also be available. Limited exceptions to the paper check phase-out would also be established.

Alternative to Providing Direct Deposit Information

It is not mandatory for taxpayers to provide electronic payment information. However, if no exception applies, their refunds could take longer to process.

Sunset of Enrollment to EFTPS

Effective October 17, 2025, individual taxpayers are no longer able to create new enrollments via EFTPS.gov. Individual taxpayers not enrolled in the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).gov by October 17, 2025 can instead create an IRS Online Account for Individual taxpayers or use the IRS Direct Pay guest path.

FS-2026-2

IR 2026-13

The IRS has encouraged all taxpayers to create an IRS Individual Online Account to access tax account information securely and help protect against identity theft. It emphasized that this digital resource is available to anyone who can verify their identity. Thus, the IRS highlighted how taxpayers have used the account with the same convenience as online banking to view adjusted gross income, check refund statuses, and request identity protection PINs.

The IRS has encouraged all taxpayers to create an IRS Individual Online Account to access tax account information securely and help protect against identity theft. It emphasized that this digital resource is available to anyone who can verify their identity. Thus, the IRS highlighted how taxpayers have used the account with the same convenience as online banking to view adjusted gross income, check refund statuses, and request identity protection PINs.

Further, the IRS supported collaboration between taxpayers and tax professionals through the use of digital authorizations. When taxpayers utilize Individual Online Accounts, they are able to approve power of attorney and tax information authorization requests entirely online. This digital process has allowed tax professionals to use their own Tax Pro Accounts to complete authorized actions on their clients’ behalf more efficiently. Tax professionals have supported this effort by encouraging clients to receive and view over 200 digital notices.

Additionally, the IRS expanded the account’s capabilities in early 2025 to allow taxpayers to view and download certain tax documents. It has made forms such as the W-2, 1095-A, and various 1099s available for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 tax years. These documents provide essential information return data reported by employers and financial institutions to help taxpayers file their returns. Consequently, the IRS advised individuals to visit IRS.gov to learn more about accessing records and managing payment plans.

IR 2026-21

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has urged the IRS and Treasury in an August 12 letter to issue guidance on President Trump’s payroll tax deferral memorandum. The executive action signed by the president on August 8 instructs Treasury to defer the collection and payment of payroll taxes from September 1 through years-end for eligible employees.

The presidential memorandum to defer payroll taxes has "caused confusion and concern among accountants and businesses," according to the AICPA. Thus, in its letter released on August 13, the AICPA asks IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig and Assistant Treasury Secretary David Kautter to issue guidance on a number of related issues, including the following items:

• Guidance stating that the deferral is voluntary and that an "eligible employee" is responsible for making an affirmative election to defer the payroll taxes;
• Guidance stating that an "eligible employee" is an employee whose wages are less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period;
• Guidance stating that the $4,000 limit should apply separately to each employer of an employee; and
• Guidance stating a payment due date(s) for the deferred taxes and a mechanism for employees to pay the deferred taxes.

Payroll Tax Forgiveness

Notably, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated earlier this week that participation in the deferral of payroll taxes is not mandatory. "We cannot force people to participate," Mnuchin said in a televised interview. "But I think many small businesses will do this and pass on the benefits." Additionally, Mnuchin alluded that Trump intends to make the deferral a cut if reelected, essentially forgiving the deferred taxes.

To that end, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow attempted to clarify Trump’s position that the payroll tax deferral should be forgiven rather than delayed. And when Trump talks about "terminating the payroll tax", he is only referring to those taxes specified within the presidential memorandum, not the entire payroll tax as a whole, according to Kudlow.

"I just want to be clear that the president is saying that he will provide forgiveness; he will terminate the deferral on a forgiveness basis," Kudlow told reporters at the White House on August 13. "That is what he is saying just to be clear…there was some confusion about that."

Additionally, Kudlow told reporters that the payroll tax deferral would apply to the self-employed. Although the applicable presidential memorandum is not currently written as such, Kudlow added that the administration "will make a technical change to it."

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The IRS has released final regulations that address the interaction of the $10,000/$5,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and charitable contributions. The regulations include:

• a safe harbor for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• a safe harbor for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

The final rules generally adopt the proposed regulations issued in December 2019 ( NPRM REG-107431-19) with minor clarifications.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes.

Under previously issued regulations, the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). Thus, the taxpayer must reduce any contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit received or expected to receive in return. A de minimis exception is available if the SALT credit does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment.

A taxpayer is not required to reduce the charitable contribution deduction because of the receipt of SALT deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce the charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive SALT deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

Payments by Individuals

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor for individuals whose have a portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Any disallowed portion of the charitable contribution deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164. The safe harbor is allowed in the tax year the charitable payment is made, but only to the extent that the SALT credit is applied as provided under state or local law to offset the individual’s SALT liability for the current or preceding tax year. Any unused credit may be carried forward as provided under state and local law.

The final regulations are not intended to permit a taxpayer to avoid the SALT deduction cap. Thus, any payment treated as a state or local tax under Code Sec. 164 is subject to the limit. Also, a taxpayer is not permitted to deduct the same under more than one rule, so a taxpayer who relies on this safe harbor to deduction payments as SALT taxes may also not deduct the same payment under any other Code provision.

Payments by Business Entities

The final regulations adopt the safe harbor that business entities may continue to deduct charitable contributions in exchange a SALT credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as an ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose.

If a C corporation or specified passthrough entity makes the charitable payment in exchange for a SALT credit, it may deduct the payment as a business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to be received. In addition, if the charitable payment bears a direct relationship to the taxpayer’s business, then it may be deducted as a business expense rather than a charitable contribution regardless of whether the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a SALT credit.

The safe harbor for C corporations and specified passthrough entities applies only to payments of cash and cash equivalents. The safe harbor for specified passthrough entities does not apply if the credit received or expected to be received reduces a state or local income tax.

Benefits from Third Party

If a taxpayer receives any goods, services, or other benefits from a charitable organization in consideration for a contribution, then the charitable deduction must be reduced by the value of those benefits. If the contribution exceeds the fair market value of the benefits received, then only the excess is a deductible as a charitable contribution.

The final regulations continue to provide that this quid pro quo principal applies regardless of whether the party providing the goods, services, or other benefits is the charitable organization or not. A taxpayer will be treated as receiving goods and services in consideration for the taxpayer’s charitable contribution if, at the time the taxpayer makes the payment or transfer, the taxpayer receives or expects to receive goods or services in return. The final rules clarify that the quid pro quo principle applies regardless of whether the party providing the quid pro quo is the donee or a third party.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

The IRS has issued final regulations regarding the limitation for the business interest expense deduction under Code Sec. 163(j), including recent legislative amendments made for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. Also, a safe harbor has been proposed allowing taxpayers managing or operating residential living facilities to qualify as a real property trade or business for purposes of the limitation. In addition, new proposed regulations are provided for a number of different areas.

Section 163(j) Limitation

A taxpayer’s deduction of business interest expenses paid or incurred for the tax year is generally limited to the sum of:

• the taxpayer’s business interest income for the tax year for which the taxpayer is claiming the deduction (not including investment income);
• 30 percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI), but not less than zero; and
• the taxpayer’s floor plan financing interest.

The percentage limit is generally increased to 50 percent of ATI for 2019 and 2020. For a partnership, however, the 50 percent limit applies for 2020 only, and a special allocation of excess business interest expense (EBIE) to a partner may apply for the 2019 tax year. A taxpayer may elect not to use the 50 percent ATI limit, and any taxpayer other than a partnership may elect for 2020 to use its ATI from the 2019 tax year to calculate its limitation.

The 163(j) limitation does not apply to certain small businesses whose gross receipts are less than a threshold amount ($26 million for 2020). It also does not apply to electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, and certain regulated public utilities.

Final Regulations

The final regulations generally adopt proposed rules that were issued in December 2018, with some modifications. Taxpayer may continue to rely on some of the rules in the proposed regulations. One significant change is that the final regulations provide any that any depreciation, amortization, or depletion that is capitalized into inventory under Code Sec. 263A before 2022 will be added back to tentative taxable income in calculating ATI.

This is change from the proposed rules which effectively resulted in taxpayers with inventory to effectively use earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) instead of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) before 2022 in calculating ATI. Also, the final rules eliminate the “lesser of” standard with respect to sales and disposition of stock, and require taxpayers to back out depreciation deductions that were allowed or allowable during the EBITDA period.

The IRS had adopted the broad definition of business interest in the proposed rules, including the definition of substitute interest and the embedded loan rule with some modifications. However, the final regs exclude commitment fees, debt issuance costs, guaranteed payments (except used as capital), and hedging rules. The IRS has also modified the anti-avoidance rule for time value of money.

Qualified Residential Living Facilities

The IRS has proposed a safe harbor for a trade or business that manages or operates a qualified residential living facility to be treated as a real property trade or business solely for purposes of qualifying as an electing real property trade or business. A facility is qualified if it:

• consists of multiple rental dwelling units within one or more structures that generally serve as primary residences on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to individual customers or patients;
• provides supplemental assistive, nursing, or other routine medical services; and
• has an average period of customer or patient use of the individual rental dwelling units that is 90 days or more.

The safe harbor is proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Proposed Regulations

In addition to the final regulations, the IRS has issued new proposed regulations that provide rules regarding:

• different computational methods a taxpayer can choose in determining certain adjustments to tentative taxable income;
• the treatment of EBIE allocated to a partner in 2019, and the election to use ATI from 2019 for the 2020 tax year under Code Sec. 163(j)(10);
• interest expense associated with debt proceeds of partnerships and S corporations (passthrough entities);
• application of the limitation for a partnership’s self-charged lending transactions, partnerships engaged in trades or businesses that are not passive activities, publicly traded partnerships, certain section 734(b) adjustments, and tiered partnership structures;
• application to U.S. shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) and to foreign persons with effectively connected income in the United States; and
• application to corporate look-through provisions.

Finally, the IRS has also released FAQs that provide a general overview of the aggregation rules that apply for purposes of the gross receipts test, and that apply to determine whether a taxpayer is a small business that is exempt from the business interest expense deduction limitation.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that implement the "carried interest" rules under Code Sec. 1061 adopted by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-97). Some key aspects of the lengthy proposed regulations include the definition of important terms, how the rules work in the context of tiered passthrough structures, the definition of "substantial" services provided by the carried interest holder, and the level of activity required for a business to meet the definition of an "applicable trade or business."

In general, a "carried interest" is an interest in a partnership in the investment management business that consists of the right to receive future partnership profits. Carried interests are given to a partner in exchange for performing asset management services for businesses such as private equity funds, venture capital funds, and hedge funds.

Prior to Code Sec. 1061, taxpayers tended to treat carried interests as interests in partnership profits subject to long-term capital gain rates. Code Sec. 1061, however, reflects that a carried interest may in fact be compensation for services and therefore properly subject to ordinary income rates. As a result, Code Sec. 1061 applies a longer, three-year holding period to certain net long-term capital gain with respect to any "applicable partnership interest" (API)—essentially, any carried interest. The effect of this is to recharacterize as short-term capital gain certain net long-term capital gain of a partner who holds one or more APIs.

The proposed regulations define the amount of otherwise long-term capital gain that fails to meet the three-year holding period as the "recharacterization amount," and refers to the person who is subject to income tax on the recharacterization amount as the "owner taxpayer." In addition, the proposed regulations provide a framework for determining the recharacterization amount when an API is held though one or more tiers of passthrough entities.

A partnership interest is an API if it is transferred in connection with the performance of "substantial" services. Under the proposed regulations, services are presumed to be substantial with respect to a partnership interest transferred in connection with those services. Basically, this means that the partnership is presumed to get good value for the partnership interest it transfers in exchange for services.

Generally, an API is any interest in a partnership that is transferred to or held by the taxpayer in connection with the performance of services by the taxpayer in any "applicable trade or business" (ATB). Under Code Sec. 1061(c)(2), to qualify as an ATB, an activity must be "conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis." Under the proposed regulations, an activity is conducted on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis if it meets the "ATB activity test." Under this test, the total level of activity conducted in one or more entities must meet the level of activity to establish a trade or business for purposes of trade or business expenses under Code Sec. 162.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The Treasury and the IRS have issued temporary and proposed regulations to:

• reconcile advance payments of refundable employment tax credits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), and
• recapture the benefit of the credits when necessary.

The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations.

Background

Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework due to specific reasons related to COVID-19. The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for certain reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. The credits are allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a) (the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance tax (social security tax)), first reduced by any credits claimed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f), and Code Sec. 3221(a) (the Railroad Retirement Tax Act Tier 1 tax), on all wages and compensation paid to all employees. The credits are increased by the amount of the employer’s share of Medicare tax on qualified leave wages.

The paid leave credits have per-day and maximum dollar limits for each employee, and apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

The CARES Act provides an employee retention credit for certain employers experiencing economic hardship related to COVID-19 but who pay qualified wages to their employees. Employers eligible for the employee retention credit are those that carry on a trade or business during calendar year 2020 and tax-exempt organizations that either have a full or partial suspension of operations during any calendar quarter in 2020 due to an order from an appropriate governmental authority limiting commerce, travel, or group meetings (for commercial, social, religious, or other purposes) due to COVID-19, or experience a significant decline in gross receipts during the calendar quarter.

Qualified wages are those paid by an employer to some or all employees after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and include the employer’s qualified health plan expenses that are properly allocable to such wages or compensation. Qualified wages differ depending on whether the employer averaged more than 100 full-time employees during 2019, or 100 full-time employees or fewer during 2019.

The employee retention credit is a fully refundable tax credit for employers equal to 50 percent of qualified wages; the maximum for an eligible employer for qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000. The credit is allowed against the taxes imposed on employers by Code Sec. 3111(a), first reduced by:

• any credits allowed under Code Sec. 3111(e) and (f),
• the paid leave credits described above, and
• the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3221(a) that are attributable to the Code Sec. 3111(a) rate in effect, first reduced by any paid leave credits allowed, on all wages and compensation paid to all employees.

The same wages or compensation cannot be counted for both the Families First Act leave credits and the CARES Act employee retention credit.

Refundability of Credits

If the amount of the paid sick and family leave credits is more than the taxes imposed by Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a) for any calendar quarter, the excess is treated as an overpayment that must be refunded under Code Sec. 6402(a) and Code Sec. 6413(b). A similar refund is required for the employee retention credit.

The IRS has revised Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and is revising the other employment tax returns, so that employers can use these returns to claim the paid sick and family leave credits and the employee retention credit. The revised returns will provide for any credits in excess of the employment taxes imposed as described above, to be credited against other employment taxes and then for any remaining balance to be refunded to the employer.

Advance Payment of Credits and Erroneous Refunds

In anticipation of the paid sick and family leave credits, including any refundable portions, these credits may be advanced as provided by IRS forms and instructions, up to the total allowable amount and subject to applicable limits for the calendar quarter.

The IRS has created Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due To COVID-19, which employers can use to request an advance of the paid sick or family leave credits, the employee retention credit, or two or more of them. Employers must reconcile any advance payments claimed on Form 7200 with total credits claimed and total taxes due on their employment tax returns. A refund, a credit, or an advance of any portion of these credits to a taxpayer in excess of the amount to which the taxpayer is entitled is an erroneous refund for which the IRS must seek repayment.

Temporary Regulations

The temporary regulations provide that erroneous refunds of the credits are treated as underpayments of the taxes imposed under Code Sec. 3111(a) or Code Sec. 3221(a), and authorize the IRS to assess any portion of the credits erroneously credited, paid, or refunded in excess of the amount allowed as if those amounts were tax liabilities subject to assessment and administrative collection procedures. This allows the IRS to efficiently recover the amounts, while also preserving administrative protections afforded to taxpayers with respect to contesting their tax liabilities under the Code and avoiding unnecessary costs and burdens associated with litigation. These procedures will apply in the normal course in processing employment tax returns that report advances in excess of claimed credits and in examining returns for excess claimed credits.

The temporary regulations also provide that employers against whom an erroneous refund of credits can be assessed as an underpayment include persons treated as the employer under Code Sec. 3401(d), Code Sec. 3504, and Code Sec. 3511, consistent with their liability for the employment taxes against which the credit applied.

The temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credit refunds advanced or paid on or after April 1, 2020, and all employee retention credit refunds advanced or paid on or after March 13, 2020. Further, the temporary regulations apply to all paid leave credits (including any increases in the credits) refunded on or after April 1, 2020, including advanced refunds, as well as all employee retention credits that are refunded on or after March 13, 2020, including advanced refunds.

Applicability Date

The temporary regulations are effective July 29, 2020, the date they are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register.

Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

The Treasury Department and IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits electronic or written comments. Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by 60 days after the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-111879-20) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The IRS expects to have limited personnel available to process public comments that are submitted on paper through the mail. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered to the extent practicable. The Treasury and IRS will publish for public availability any comment submitted electronically, and to the extent practicable on paper. Send paper submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-111879-20), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

The IRS has provided guidance on the special rules relating to funding of single-employer defined benefit pension plans, and related benefit limitations, under Act Sec. 3608 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116-136). The guidance clarifies application of the extended contribution deadline, and the optional use of the prior year’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP), with examples.

The IRS has provided guidance on the special rules relating to funding of single-employer defined benefit pension plans, and related benefit limitations, under Act Sec. 3608 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116-136). The guidance clarifies application of the extended contribution deadline, and the optional use of the prior year’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP), with examples.

Affected Funding Rules

A single-employer defined benefit plan is subject to minimum required contribution rules under Code Sec. 430. The minimum required contribution for a plan year generally depends on a comparison of the value of plan assets (reduced by any credit balances) with the plan's funding target. If the value of plan assets is less than the funding target of the plan for the year, the minimum required contribution for that plan year is the sum of:

• the target normal cost for the plan year;
• the shortfall amortization installments for the plan year; and
• the waiver amortization installments for the plan year.

The minimum required contribution for a plan year must be paid within 8-1/2 months after the close of the plan year ( Code Sec. 430(j)). Payments made on a date other than the valuation date for the plan year must be adjusted for interest accruing for the period from the valuation date to the payment date, at the effective interest rate for the plan for the year. Employers maintaining plans that had a funding shortfall for the preceding plan year (i.e., the value of plan assets, reduced by credit balances, was less than the funding target for the preceding year) must make quarterly contributions to the plan. If the employer fails to pay the full amount of a required quarterly installment, interest is assessed at the plan's effective interest rate plus five percentage points.

Benefit limits apply to plans that have funded target attainment percentage for the preceding year below designated thresholds are deemed to be in "at-risk" status and are subject to increased target liability. The benefit limits on single-employer defined benefit plans are based on the plan’s AFTAP ( Code Sec. 436(b)). Generally, a plan's funding target attainment percentage is the ratio of the value of plan assets for the plan year (reduced by any funding standard carryover balance and prefunding balance) to the funding target for the plan year (determined without regard to the plan's at-risk status) ( Code Secs. 430(d)(2) and 436(j)(1)).

CARES Act Relief
Minimum required contributions to a single-employer retirement plan otherwise due in calendar year 2020 (including any quarterly contributions) are delayed until January 1, 2021. The amount of each such contribution is increased by any interest accruing for the period between the original due date (without regard to the delay) for the contribution and the payment date. A plan sponsor also may elect to treat the plan’s AFTAP for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, as the AFTAP for plan years that include calendar year 2020 (Act Sec. 3608 of P.L. 116-136.

Extended Deadline and Interest
The extended contribution due date of January 1, 2021, does not apply to a multiemployer plan, a CSEC plan, a fully-insured plan, or a money purchase pension plan. If the contribution deadline for a plan year is during 2020, a contribution in excess of the amount needed to satisfy the minimum required contribution for the plan year that is made by January 1, 2021, may be designated as a contribution for that plan year.

Any payment made after the original due date for the contribution and by the extended due date must be increased for the period between the original due date and the payment date at the effective interest rate for the plan year that includes the payment date. If the contribution is less than the amount that was due on the original due date for the minimum required contribution, as increased with interest pursuant to the CARES Act, then a portion of the minimum required contribution for that plan year would remain unpaid. The unpaid portion of the minimum required contribution, determined as of the valuation date and based on contributions made on or before January 1, 2021, with the contributions discounted for interest to the valuation date, would give rise to an unpaid minimum required contribution that would be subject to an excise tax. Furthermore, a contribution made after January 1, 2021, to satisfy that unpaid minimum required contribution must be adjusted for interest for the period between the date that the contribution is made and the valuation date at the effective interest rate for the plan year for which the contribution is made (with additional interest as required to reflect any late quarterly installments for the plan year).

The CARES Act specifies that to determine the amount of a quarterly installment due by the extended due date, the amount of that installment is increased from the installment’s original due date to the payment date at the effective interest rate for the plan year that includes the date the quarterly installment is paid. If a plan sponsor does not satisfy a quarterly installment originally due during 2020 by the extended due date, then the unpaid portion of that installment is subject to a higher interest rate for the period during which the installment (or a portion thereof) remains unpaid when determining the amount of the minimum required contribution that is satisfied by a contribution.

A contribution made after the original due date for a plan year but on or before the extended due date is taken into account as of a valuation date for a plan year after the plan year for which the contribution was made. For purposes of determining the value of plan assets, if an employer makes a contribution to the plan after the valuation date for the current plan year and the contribution is for an earlier plan year, then the present value of the contribution determined as of that valuation date is taken into account as an asset of the plan as of the valuation date, provided the contribution is made before a specified deadline. The specified deadline is the deadline for contributions for the plan year immediately preceding the current plan year. However, that deadline is extended by the CARES Act. Furthermore, the interest adjustment rules override the discounting rules that apply generally for this purpose. Note, however, that certification of the AFTAP for a plan year must not take into account contributions that are expected to be made after the certification date.

If the plan year is a plan year for which the extended due date for minimum required contributions applies, then the deadline for a plan sponsor’s election to increase a prefunding balance or to use a prefunding balance or a funding standard carryover balance to offset the minimum required contribution for that plan year is extended to January 1, 2021. However, the extended due date does not change the date by which a contribution must be made in order to be deducted for a tax year. A taxpayer is deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding tax year if the payment is on account of that tax year and is made no later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for that tax year (including extensions).

Guidance for AFTAP Election

A plan sponsor may elect to apply the AFTAP for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, for a plan year that includes any portion of calendar year 2020. For example, if a plan sponsor makes an election for a plan year that runs from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020, then the AFTAP that applies is the certified AFTAP from the plan year that ends on June 30, 2019. That plan sponsor may separately elect to use that same AFTAP for the plan year that begins on July 1, 2020.

The AFTAP election must be made using the procedures that apply for elections relating to funding balances. Thus, the plan sponsor must provide written notification of the election to the plan's actuary and the plan administrator. If a plan’s actuary has not certified the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year before the plan sponsor makes the election, then the plan sponsor’s election is treated as a certification of the AFTAP. Thus, beginning with the date of the election, the AFTAP for the last plan year ending on or before December 31, 2019, applies for the plan year for which the election is made, rather than any presumed AFTAP.

A plan’s actuary generally must certify the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year for which the plan sponsor makes the election. However, if the plan sponsor makes the election for a plan year that begins in 2019 and ends in 2020 and also makes an election for the next plan year, then the actuary is not required to certify the plan’s AFTAP for the plan year that begins in 2019. If the plan’s actuary has certified an AFTAP for a plan year, then the Schedule SB of Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, for that plan year should reflect the certified AFTAP.

If a plan’s actuary certified the plan’s AFTAP for a plan year before the plan sponsor makes the election, then the plan sponsor’s election is treated as a subsequent determination of the AFTAP for that plan year. However, the plan sponsor’s election is eligible for deemed immaterial treatment, and the election is treated as the recertification on the part of the actuary that is otherwise required for deemed immaterial treatment. Thus, the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the plan sponsor’s election is applied on a prospective basis beginning with the election date.

If the AFTAP that applies is pursuant to a plan sponsor’s election, then the restriction on plan amendments and unpredictable contingent event benefits is applied, except that the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the election is substituted for the presumed AFTAP. Thus, for example, the AFTAP that applies pursuant to the plan sponsor’s election will be used to calculate a presumed adjusted funding target and an inclusive presumed AFTAP.

The AFTAP that applies pursuant to a plan sponsor’s election for a plan year generally will not apply for purposes of the presumptions used in a subsequent plan year. Instead, the actual AFTAP for the plan year that was certified by the plan’s actuary generally is used for purposes of applying the presumption rules the subsequent plan year.

The IRS has modified two safe harbor explanations in Notice 2018-74, 2018-40 I.R.B. 529, that can be used to satisfy the requirement under Code Sec. 402(f) that certain information be provided to recipients of eligible rollover distributions. The modifications were necessary due to recent changes in law made by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). One safe harbor explanation is for payments not from a designated Roth account, and the other is for payments from a designated Roth account. The Code Sec. 402(f) notice may be provided as many as 180 days before the date on which the distribution is made (or the annuity starting date).

The IRS has modified two safe harbor explanations in Notice 2018-74, 2018-40 I.R.B. 529, that can be used to satisfy the requirement under Code Sec. 402(f) that certain information be provided to recipients of eligible rollover distributions. The modifications were necessary due to recent changes in law made by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). One safe harbor explanation is for payments not from a designated Roth account, and the other is for payments from a designated Roth account. The Code Sec. 402(f) notice may be provided as many as 180 days before the date on which the distribution is made (or the annuity starting date).

Qualified Birth and Adoption Distributions

Code Sec. 72(t)(1) generally provides for a 10-percent additional tax on a distribution from a qualified retirement plan, unless the distribution qualifies for an exception. The SECURE Act permits an individual to receive up to $5,000 for a qualified birth or adoption distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan without being subject to the 10 percent additional tax. A qualified birth or adoption distribution is any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual if made during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the child of the individual is born or on which the legal adoption by the individual of an eligible adoptee is finalized.

Additionally, an individual may recontribute a qualified birth or adoption distribution (not to exceed the amount of the distribution) to an eligible retirement plan in which the taxpayer is a beneficiary and to which a rollover can be made. Although the distributions may be recontributed, a plan administrator is not required to provide a Code Sec. 402(f) notice to a recipient of a qualified birth or adoption distribution.

Required Minimum Distributions

The SECURE Act also amended Code Sec. 401(a)(9) to change the required beginning date for minimum distributions from retirement plans. The new required beginning date for an employee or an IRA owner is April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the individual attains age 72, rather than April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the individual attains age 70-1/2. This is effective for distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019, with respect to individuals who will attain age 70-1/2 after that date. As a result of this change, employees and IRA owners who will attain age 70-1/2 in 2020 will not have a required beginning date of April 1, 2021.

Model Notices

To assist with the implementation of the modified safe harbor explanations, the IRS has released two model safe harbor explanations: one for distributions that are not from a designated Roth account, and the other for distributions from a designated Roth account. Both explanations should be provided to a participant if the participant is eligible to receive eligible rollover distributions from both a designated Roth account and an account other than a designated Roth account. A plan administrator or payor may customize a safe harbor explanation by omitting any information that does not apply to the plan. Alternatively, a plan administrator or payor may provide an explanation that is different from a safe harbor explanation. Any explanation must include the information required by Code Sec. 402(f) and must be written in a manner designed to be easily understood.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) can provide favorable tax treatment for withdrawals from retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Under the CARES Act, individuals eligible for coronavirus-related relief may be able to withdraw up to $100,000 from IRAs or workplace retirement plans before December 31, 2020, if their plans allow. In addition to IRAs, this relief applies to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, profit-sharing plans and others.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) can provide favorable tax treatment for withdrawals from retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Under the CARES Act, individuals eligible for coronavirus-related relief may be able to withdraw up to $100,000 from IRAs or workplace retirement plans before December 31, 2020, if their plans allow. In addition to IRAs, this relief applies to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, profit-sharing plans and others.

Also, until September 22, 2020, individuals eligible to take coronavirus-related withdrawals may be able to borrow as much as $100,000 (up from $50,000) from a workplace retirement plan, if their plan allows. Loans are not available from an IRA. For eligible individuals, plan administrators can suspend, for up to one year, plan loan repayments due on or after March 27, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. A suspended loan is subject to interest during the suspension period, and the term of the loan may be extended to account for the suspension period.

To be eligible for COVID-19 relief, coronavirus-related withdrawals or loans can only be made to an individual if:

• the individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a test approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including a test authorized under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act);
• the individual’s spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19 by such a test; or
• the individual, their spouse, or a member of the individual’s household experiences adverse financial consequences from: (1) being quarantined, furloughed or laid off, having work hours reduced, being unable to work due to lack of childcare, having a reduction in pay (or self-employment income), or having a job offer rescinded or start date for a job delayed, due to COVID-19; or (2) closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual, the individual’s spouse, or a member of the individual’s household, due to COVID-19.

Taxpayers can learn more about these provisions in IRS Notice 2020-50, I.R.B. 2020-28, 35. The IRS has also posted FAQs that provide additional information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 1 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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