TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Uncategorized
Subscribe to Uncategorized's Posts

Tax Reform Insights: IRS Proposes Section 163(j) Regulations – New Business Interest Expenses Deduction Limit

by and | Dec 26, 2018 | , ,

On November 26, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations (Proposed Regulations) pursuant to section 163(j). Public Law 115-97, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), amended Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 163 by modifying paragraph (j) to limit the amount of business interest a taxpayer may deduct for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. The amendment generally limits the deduction for business interest to the sum of a taxpayer’s business interest income and thirty percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (ATI) for the taxable year.

The Code Section 163(j) limit is also increased by a taxpayer’s “floor plan financing interest,” which is certain interest used to finance the acquisition of motor vehicles held for sale or lease. Code Section 163(j)(8) defines ATI as a taxpayer’s taxable income computed without regard to: any item of income, gain, deduction, or loss which is not properly allocable to a trade or business; any business interest or business interest income; any net operating loss deduction under Code Section 172; the amount of any deduction for qualified business income under Code Section 199A; and in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion.

The Proposed Regulations address a variety of issues, including the following:

  • Trade or Business. New Code Section 163(j) defines business interest income and expense as amounts that are “properly allocable to a trade or business,” but it does not define trade or business.” The Proposed Regulations define a “trade or business” by reference to Code Section 162 because Code Section 162(a) provides the “most established and developed definition of trade or business.”
  • Interest. The Proposed Regulations define “interest” broadly to include other ordinary income items similar to interest, such as substitute interest payments in securities lending transactions, loan commitment fees, debt issuance costs, Code Section 707(c) guaranteed payments for the use of capital, and factoring income. Proposed Regulation § 1.163(j)-3 introduces rules, including ordering rules, for the relationship between Code Section 163(j) and other provisions affecting interest.
  • S Corporations. Proposed Regulation § 1.163(j)-6 provides guidance regarding the application of the Code Section 163(j) deduction to partnerships and S corporations.
  • CFCs. The Proposed Regulations provide that Code Section 163(j) may apply to limit the deductibility of a controlled foreign corporation’s (CFC’s) business interest expense, thereby potentially limiting a CFC’s deduction of business interest for purposes of computing subpart F income and tested income under Code Section 951A(c)(2)(A).
  • ECI. The Proposed Regulations also provide that Code Section 163(j) applies to foreign corporations and other foreign persons for purposes of computing income effectively connected with a US trade or business.

The Proposed Regulations provide a variety of other rules. Some of the notable provisions include rules applicable to REITs, RICs, tax-exempt entities and consolidated group members. They also provide rules regarding the disallowed business interest expense carryforwards of C corporations and rules regarding elections for excepted trades or businesses and rules for allocating expenses and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup December 17 – 21, 2018

by | Dec 26, 2018 | ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of December 17 – 21, 2018:

December 18, 2018: The IRS issued a news release providing guidance on excess business loss limitations and net operating losses following changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 19, 2018: The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2019-03, providing various prescribed rates for federal income tax purposes for January 2019.

December 19, 2018: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2019-06, prescribing discount factors used in computing unpaid losses under section 846 of the Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 19, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-04, extending temporary dyed fuel relief, initially provided in Notice 2017-30, through December 31, 2019.

December 20, 2018: The IRS issued proposed regulations implementing anti-hybrid provisions under sections 245A(e) and 267A of the Code, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 20, 2018: The IRS issued proposed regulations dealing with the treatment of the sale of US trade or business partnership interests by foreign partners under section 864(c)(8) of the Code, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 20, 2018: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2019-09, updating guidance on when a taxpayer has provided adequate disclosure of tax positions for the purpose of avoiding penalties.

December 20, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-06, informing taxpayers of its intent to issue proposed regulations addressing special enforcement matters under section 6241(11) of the Code, with regard to the centralized partnership audit regime.

December 21, 2018: The IRS issued final regulations implementing the centralized partnership audit regime under sections 6221 through 6241 of the Code.

December 21, 2018: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2019-08, providing guidance on deducting expenses under section 179(a) of the Code and deducting depreciation under section 168(g), as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 21, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-05, expanding the list of hardship exemptions from the individual shared responsibility payment under section 5000A of the Code.

December 21, 2018: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Le Chen in our DC office for this week’s roundup.



read more

Congress Allows Transfer of Improperly Filed Cases to Tax Court

by | Dec 21, 2018 | , , , ,

Taxes and tax litigation can be complex and confusing. Taxpayers have the option of filing a petition in the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) prior to payment of any asserted deficiency. Alternatively, taxpayers can pay the deficiency, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service and, if that claim is denied or more than six months have elapsed, file a complaint in local District Court or the Court of Federal Claims requesting a refund. These forum rules sometimes trip up taxpayers and can lead to the filing of a suit in the wrong court.

In the Protecting Access to the Courts for Taxpayers Act (H.R. 3996), Congress has provided relief for taxpayers in this type of situation through an amendment to 28 USC section 1631:

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court (or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court) in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.

Practice Point: Allowing improperly filed cases to be transferred to the Tax Court is a welcome development for taxpayers. The amendment to 28 USC section 1631 protects taxpayers in situations where a complaint is filed within 90 days of receipt of a Notice of Deficiency in a refund jurisdiction when it should have been filed in the Tax Court.



read more

Proposed BEAT Regulations | Tax-Free Transactions May Give Rise to a Liability

by , and | Dec 20, 2018 | , ,

On December 13, 2018, US Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations for the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (the BEAT), which was added to the Code as part of the 2017 Tax Act. The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on a range of important topics and generally go a long way toward a reasonable implementation of a very challenging statute. There is one aspect of the proposed regulations, however, that may be an unwelcome surprise for many taxpayers; the proposed regulations treat stock consideration in non-cash transactions as BEAT “payments,” thereby creating the potential for BEAT liability in situations involving certain liquidations, tax-free reorganizations and other non-cash transactions.

Located in section 59A, the BEAT imposes a minimum tax on US corporations (and certain foreign corporations, which are not the focus of this Insight) that consistently have annual gross receipts of $500 million or more and claim more than a de minimis amount of “base erosion tax benefits” for a taxable year. In general, as base erosion tax benefits increase, a corporate taxpayer’s BEAT liability increases.

The proposed regulations, which are generally proposed to be effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, include guidance for determining the base erosion payments that will give rise to annual base erosion tax benefits. Prop. Reg. § 1.59A-3(b) applies the same four categories of base erosion payments found in section 59A(d) for amounts paid or accrued to a related foreign party. The two categories that should affect the most taxpayers are the general category for currently deductible items and the special category for the acquisition of depreciable or amortizable property. With respect to this latter category, the acquisition price of the property will constitute the base erosion payment, but only the amount of any depreciation or amortization deductions claimed in a tax year will produce a base erosion tax benefit for purposes of computing the BEAT.

(more…)



read more

Tax Reform Insight: Congress Offers a Glimmer of Hope for Taxpayers with Section 965 Transition Tax Overpayment

by | Dec 19, 2018 | , ,

Recently proposed legislation would provide taxpayers who made an election under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 965(h) to pay the transition tax over eight years through installment payments the ability to claim a refund or credit of any overpayment with respect to such amounts.

If enacted, taxpayers would be able to claim a refund or credit on an overpayment with respect to their first installment payment under Code Section 965(h).

On November 26, 2018, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Texas, introduced the Retirement, Savings and Other Tax Relief Act of 2018 and the Taxpayer First Act of 2018 (H.R. 88), which was subsequently revised on December 17, 2018 (the Bill). The Bill is a broad tax package that includes certain tax extenders, retirement savings proposals, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) improvement legislation and several technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97).

(more…)



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup December 10 – 14, 2018

by | Dec 17, 2018 | , ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of December 10 –14, 2018:

December 10, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-99, providing interim guidance on sections 274 and 512 of the Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, dealing with nondeductibile expenses for employer-provided parking.

December 10, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-100, providing relief to tax-exempt organizations from penalties for underpayments related to nondeductible expenses for employer-provided parking under section 512 of the Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 12, 2018: The IRS posted a set of FAQs to its website, answering questions regarding return filing and payment obligations under the transition tax of section 965 of the Code.

December 13, 2018: The IRS issued proposed regulations revising withholding requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

December 13, 2018: The IRS issued proposed regulations providing guidance on the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) of section 59A of the Code, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 13, 2018: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2019-10, providing procedures for an insurance company to obtain automatic consent to change its accounting method to comply with section 807(f) of the Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

December 14, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-96, providing a phase-out schedule for the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit on vehicles sold by Tesla, Inc.

December 14, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-01, providing initial guidance on issues, arising from the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, related to previously taxed earnings and profits under section 959 of the Code.

December 14, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-02, providing the 2019 optional standard mileage rates for use in computing deductible expenses in operating an automobile, plus related information.

December 14, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2019-03, providing the monthly update to interest rates used for pension plan funding and distribution purposes.

December 14, 2018: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Le Chen in our DC office for this week’s roundup.



read more

In-Person IRS Appeals Conferences Are Here to Stay

by and | Dec 14, 2018 | , ,

On November 28, 2018, the IRS issued a memorandum to its Appeals division employees, providing guidance on how and where to conduct Appeals conferences with taxpayers. As we have previously reported, the IRS Appeals division has been in flux for the last several years constrained by limited resources, retiring Appeals Officers, and an ever-growing case load. Because taxpayers have a right to seek redress before an independent Appeals Officer, the IRS has been exploring different ways to use technology to hold virtual taxpayer conferences. Numerous taxpayers, however, continue to believe that an in-person conference is the most efficient and beneficial way to resolve their differences with the IRS. Apparently, the IRS recognizes this as well.

In a memorandum to Appeals employees, the IRS provides “interim” guidance for in-person conferences. The memo includes revisions to the Internal Revenue Manual. Of particular note is the ability of IRS Appeals to send cases to offices that can accommodate in-person conferences. Additionally, there is a clear mandate to hold Appeals conferences (upon approval of a manager) in “other federal buildings, when feasible and necessary to provide a conference opportunity.”

Practice Point: We are big fans of in-person Appeals Conferences. Although holding a conference over the phone or through some internet portal may save travel time and expense, it is typically a poor substitution for face-to-face negotiations. Consider how much easier it is to tell your daughter that she cannot go to the mall with her friends on the phone versus to an in-person plea! An Appeals Officer measures the settlement possibilities by a “hazards of litigation” standard. Part of that analysis may include sizing up the taxpayer and representative, their case, and willingness to “go all of the way.”



read more

The (Potential) Demise of Auer Deference?

by | Dec 12, 2018 | , ,

On December 10, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of James L. Kisor v. Peter O’Rourke, Acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs, S.Ct. Dkt. No. 18-15. Although this is not a tax case, it has significant implications for taxpayers and tax practitioners. The reason: the Court will finally squarely address the issue of whether it should overrule its controversial opinions in Auer v. Robbins, 519 US 452 (1997) and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 US 410 (1945). Those opinions held that an agency is uniquely positioned to interpret any ambiguity in its own regulations and, therefore, such interpretations should be afforded controlling deference so long as reasonable. The Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Kisor is significant because the sole question to be considered is “[w]hether the Court should overrule Auer and Seminole Rock” and not how to apply that doctrine.

In the tax context, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division have both argued that interpretations taken in unpublished guidance are eligible for Auer deference, even if such positions are articulated for the first time on brief in a pending case in which the agency is a party. Courts have not been uniform in their application of Auer. For example, the Tax Court has indicated that to receive deference the IRS’s position should be in published guidance while some courts have given deference to statements made on brief.

The death of Justice Scalia, who ironically wrote Auer but later advocated for its demise, seemed to strike a blow to those seeking to overrule it. However, with the recent additions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it appears that the Supreme Court many now have a majority of Justices in the anti-Auer camp given that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito have all expressed doubts about the doctrine in the past. Additionally, the continuing role of Chevron deference has been questioned and, if Auer is overruled, Chevron could be the next deference battleground.

We will continue to follow this case closely and provide updates in the future. In the meantime, the links below contain prior discussions on Auer and other forms of deference in the tax context.



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup December 3 – 7, 2018

by | Dec 10, 2018 | , ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of December 3 – 7, 2018:

December 4, 2018: The IRS issued a news release granting taxpayers an extra day, until Thursday, December 6, 2018, to file any return or pay any tax originally due on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, in light of the Executive Order closing all federal agencies on December 5, 2018, as a mark of respect for President George H.W. Bush.

December 4, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-95, providing transition relief from the “once-in-always-in” condition for excluding part-time employees under Treas. Reg. § 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(iii)(B).

December 6, 2018: The IRS in Revenue Ruling 2018-32 released the interest rates for underpayments and overpayments applicable for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2019.

December 7, 2018: The IRS issued Notice 2018-97, providing initial guidance on the application of section 83(i) of the Code, enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which allows qualified employees of privately held corporations to defer paying income tax—for up to five years—on the value of qualified stock options and restricted stock units granted to them by their employers.

December 7, 2018: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Le Chen in our DC office for this week’s roundup.



read more

Tax Court Announces Adoption of Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure

by and | Dec 4, 2018 | , ,

Back in April, we discussed possible changes to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure based on comments made at the Tax Court Judicial Conference in Chicago. On November 30, 2018, the Tax Court announced the adoption of amendments to its Rules in several areas. Certain amendments are discussed below.

Payments to the Tax Court

Payments to court, which previously were required to be made by cash, check or money order, may now be made electronically through Pay.gov.

Filing

A paper may be filed electronically either during or outside of business hours, unless the paper relates to an ongoing trial session, in which case it generally must be filed at the session. A document electronically filed is considered timely if filed at or before 11:59 pm, Eastern Time, on the last day of the applicable period for filing. This amendment comports with the practice in other federal courts, e.g., US District Courts.

Signature

A signature on an electronic filing does not have to be handwritten if the filing meets the standards required by the court. An email address must be provided immediately beneath the signature.

Electronic Filing of Petitions

The court is in the process of implementing procedures to allow the electronic filing of a petition to commence a case. Additional information will be furnished to taxpayers on the Tax Court’s website in its electronic filings guidelines.

Evidence

In accordance with recent legislation, the Rules were updated to require that the court to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence instead of the rules of evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Passport Actions

In accordance with recent legislation, new Rules are provided regarding the court’s jurisdiction and review of determinations to certain passport revocation actions.

Interest Abatement

Certain changes were made to the interest abatement rules and a corresponding change was made to the sample form of petition contained on the Tax Court’s website.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge