The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules. The regulations finalize with revisions 2020 proposed regulations ( REG-123652-18).

Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA, P.L. 114-74) replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248) partnership procedures with a centralized partnership audit regime for making partnership adjustments and tax determinations, assessments, and collections at the partnership level. These changes were further amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act, P.L. 114-113) and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018 (TTCA, P.L. 115-141). The centralized audit regime, as amended, generally applies to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. A partnership with no more than 100 partners may generally elect out of the centralized audit regime if all the partners are eligible partners.

Under the post-2017 centralized partnership audit regime, the IRS examines “partnership-related items” of all domestic and foreign partnerships and their partners. A "partnership-related item" is any item relevant to the determination of the income tax liability of any person. However, Code Sec. 6241(11), added by the BBA, authorizes Treasury to except “special enforcement matters” from the centralized partnership audit regime and to issue regulations providing alternative assessment and collection rules for those matters. The 2020 proposed regulations and these final regulations implement Code Sec. 6241(11) and make changes to previously issued final regulations pertaining to the centralized partnership audit regime.

Special Enforcement Matters

Code Sec. 6241(11) sets forth six categories of "special enforcement matters":

• (1) failures to comply with the requirements for a partnership partner or S corporation partner to furnish statements or compute and pay an imputed underpayment;
• (2) assessments relating to termination assessments of income tax or jeopardy assessments of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes;
• (3) criminal investigations;
• (4) indirect methods of proof of income;
• (5) foreign partners or partnerships; and
• (6) other matters identified in IRS regulations.

The final regulations add three new types of special enforcement matters:

• partnership-related items underlying non-partnership-related items;
• relationship of a partner to the partnership under the Code Sec. 267(b) or Code Sec. 707(b) related-party rules and extensions of the partner’s period of limitations; and
• penalties and taxes imposed on the partnership under chapter 1.

The final regulations also require the IRS to provide written notice of most special enforcement matters to taxpayers to whom the adjustments are being made.

In addition, the final regulations clarify that the IRS may adjust partnership-level items for a partner or indirect partner without regard to the centralized audit regime if the adjustment relates to termination and jeopardy assessments, the partner is under criminal investigation, or the adjustment is based on an indirect method of proof of income.

However, the final regulations provide that a determination about partnership-related items made outside of the centralized partnership regime is not binding on any person who is not a party to that proceeding. The final regulations clarify that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by a determination regarding a partnership-related item from a partner-level examination and that neither the partnership nor the other partners need to adjust their returns.

In addition, the special-enforcement-matter rules do not apply to the extent a partner can demonstrate that adjustments to partnership-related items in the deficiency or an adjustment by the IRS were (i) previously taken into account under the centralized audit regime by the person being examined or (ii) included in an imputed underpayment paid by a partnership (or pass-through partner) for any tax year in which the partner was a reviewed-year partner (but only if the amount exceeds the amount reported by the partnership to the partner that was either reported by the partner or included in the deficiency or adjustment).

Imputed Underpayments

The IRS and Treasury believe that a mechanism must exist for including adjustments from a centralized-regime audit in the partnership’s imputed underpayment, even if the partnership elects to “push out” the adjustment to its partners.

Under existing regulations for calculating imputed underpayments, an adjustment to a non-income item (that is, an item that is not an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit) that is related to, or results from, an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is generally treated as zero. The final regulations require a partnership to take into account an adjustment to a non-income item on its adjustment-year return by adjusting the item to be consistent with the adjustment, but only to the extent the item would appear on that return without regard to the adjustment. If the item already appeared on the partnership’s adjustment-year return as a non-income item or the item appeared as a non-income item on any return of the partnership for a tax year between the reviewed year and the adjustment year, the partnership does not create a new item on the partnership’s adjustment-year return.

The final regulations provide that if the partnership is required to adjust its basis in an asset, the partnership does so in the adjustment year; however, the partnership only recognizes income and gain as a result of the basis adjustment in situations in which income or gain would be recognized. The final regulations also demonstrate how adjustments to liabilities are taken into account when they do not result in an imputed underpayment, and how an amended return should reflect adjustments to non-income items.

The final regulations follow the proposed regulations in allowing either the IRS or the partnership to treat an adjustment to a non-income item as zero. The final regulations also permit a partnership to treat such an adjustment as zero if the adjustment is related to, or results from, another adjustment to a non-income item. The partnership may not, however, treat such an adjustment as zero if one adjustment is positive and the other is negative.

Partnership Ceasing to Exist

Code Sec. 6241 states that if a partnership ceases to exist before any partnership adjustments take effect, the former partners of the partnership must take the adjustments into account in the manner prescribed in regulations. The final regulations clarify that even if a partnership has ceased to exist, it may make the election to push out the adjustments, request modification of the imputed underpayment, or pay the imputed underpayment within ten days of notice and demand for payment.

A section of the proposed regulations that would define "former partners" is not included in the final regulations and remains proposed.

Effective and Applicability Dates

The final regulations, which are effective December 8, 2022, apply to tax years ending on or after November 20, 2020 (except that final Reg. § 301.6241-7(b) applies to tax years beginning after December 20, 2018).

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions.

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions. The IRS also anticipates issuing proposed regulations and other guidance with respect to the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

These requirements generally apply if construction of a qualified facility, or installation of qualified property in an energy efficient commercial building, begins on or after the date that is 60 days after the IRS publishes guidance. This notice serves as the guidance that starts the 60-day clock. Thus, these rules apply when a qualified facility begins construction or the installation of qualified property begins on or after January 29, 2023.

The notice also provides guidance for determining the beginning of construction of a facility for certain credits, and the beginning of installation of certain property with respect to the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

The notice includes examples to illustrate these rules.

Prevailing Wage Requirements

For purposes of the credits, a taxpayer must satisfy the prevailing wage requirements with respect to any laborer or mechanic employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of a facility, property, project, or equipment by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s contractors and subcontractors. The taxpayer must also maintain and preserve sufficient records to establish compliance, including books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

The prevailing wage rate is generally the one published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov for the geographic area and type of construction applicable to the facility, including all labor classifications for the construction, alteration, or repair work that will be done on the facility by laborers or mechanics.

If the Secretary has not published a prevailing wage rate for the geographic area or the particular type of work, the taxpayer may request a wage determination or wage rate from the Wage and Hour Division. The taxpayer must follow prescribed procedures in order to rely on the provided wage or rate.

Similarly, for purposes of the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings, the prevailing wage rate for installation of energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan, is determined with respect to the prevailing wage rate for construction, alteration, or repair of a similar character in the locality in which the property is located, as most recently determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Apprenticeship Requirements

A taxpayer satisfies the apprenticeship requirements if:

1. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Labor Hour Requirements, subject to any applicable Apprenticeship Ratio Requirements;
2. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Participation Requirements; and
3. The taxpayer maintains sufficient records.

Under the Good Faith Effort Exception, the taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort in requesting qualified apprentices if the taxpayer requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry.

Beginning of Construction or Installation

The beginning of construction is determined under the Physical Work Test and the Five-Percent Safe Harbor established in Notice 2013-29. The Continuity Safe Harbor established by Notice 2016-31 also applies.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires. The Service also reminded taxpayers that they must meet the deadlines to avoid penalties and that such RMDs may not be rolled over to another IRA or retirement plan. The Service also informed taxpayers that not taking a required distribution, or not withdrawing enough, could mean a 50% excise tax on the amount not distributed.

The deadlines for the different RMDs are as follows:

• Taxpayers holding traditional IRAs , and SEP, SARSEP, and SIMPLE IRA should take their first RMD, even if they’re still working, by April 1, 2023, and the second RMD by Dec. 31, 2023, and each year thereafter.
• For taxpayers with retirement plans, the first RMD is due by April 1 of the later of the year they reach age 72, or the participant is no longer employed. A 5% owner of the employer must begin taking RMDs at age 72.
• An IRA trustee, or plan administrator, must either report the amount of the RMD to the IRA owner or offer to calculate it. They may be able to withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. However, RMDs from workplace retirement plans must be taken separately from each plan.

An RMD may be required for an IRA, retirement plan account or Roth IRA inherited from the original owner. A 2020 RMD that qualified as a coronavirus-related distribution may be repaid over a 3-year period or the taxes due on the distribution may be spread over three years. A 2020 withdrawal from an inherited IRA could not be repaid to the inherited IRA but may be spread over three years for income inclusion.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information. The proposed regulations address the circumstances under which beneficial ownership information may be disclosed to certain governmental authorities and financial institutions, and how that information must be protected.

The proposed regulations would—

• specify how government officials would access beneficial ownership information in support of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence activities;
• describe how certain financial institutions and their regulators would access that information to fulfill customer due diligence requirements and conduct supervision; and
• set high standards for protecting this sensitive information, consistent with CTA goals and requirements.

The NPRM also proposes amendments to the final reporting rule issued on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024, to specify when reporting companies may report FinCEN identifiers associated with entities.

Limiting Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

The NPRM follows the final reporting rule which requires most corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States, to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Per CTA requirements, the proposed regulations limit access to beneficial ownership information to—

• federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities;
• state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements, and federal regulators supervising them for compliance with those requirements;
• foreign law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, central authorities, and other agencies that meet specific criteria, and whose requests are made under an international treaty, agreement, or convention, or via law enforcement, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities in a trusted foreign country; and
• U.S. Treasury officers and employees whose official duties require beneficial ownership information inspection or disclosure, or for tax administration.

The proposed regulation would subject each authorized recipient category to unique security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

FinCEN is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2024, to align with the date when the final beneficial ownership information reporting rule becomes effective.

Request for Comments

Interested parties can submit written comments on the NPRM by or before February 14, 2023 (60 days following publication in the Federal Register). Comments may be submitted by the Federal E-rulemaking Portal ( regulations.gov), or by mail to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49/AB59.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The final regulations provide that the term "minimum essential coverage" does not include Medicaid coverage limited to COVID-19 testing and diagnostic services provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127). If an individual qualifies solely for this coverage, then it does not prevent them from claiming the premium tax credit under Code Sec. 36B. This amendment to Reg.§ 1.5000A-2 applies for months beginning after September 28, 2020.

The final regulations also provide:

• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6056 for "applicable large employers" (generally employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) to furnish statements relating to health insurance that the applicable large employers offer to their full-time employees; ·
• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6055 for providers of minimum essential coverage (such as health insurance issuers) that would provide an automatic extension of time for furnishing statements to responsible individuals; and
• An alternative method for reporting entities to furnish statements to their insured members when their shared responsibility payment is zero. The regulations under Reg.§1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) provide sample language for furnishing these statements.

The regulations under Reg. §§1.6055-1 and 301.6056-1 apply for years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The final regulations affect some taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit; health insurance issuers, self-insured employers, government agencies, and other persons that provide minimum essential coverage to individuals; and applicable large employers.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

"It's time, as we leave some of those pandemic issues behind us, to focus more on our core mission in appeals, which is the quality resolution of taxpayer cases," Independent Office of Appeals Chief Andy Keyso said in a recent interview with Federal Tax Daily. "I think that's the theme you see throughout the focus guide," which was issued November 4, 2022.

To that end, Keyso highlighted two key areas that will enable the office to meet that core mission – staffing and technology upgrades.

Rebuilding Staff

On the staffing side, Keyso noted that 10 years ago, the Appeals staff was at 2,100 employees, but in that window dropped to a low of about 1,100.

"We have made a big push to restack, using any kind of approval we could get here internally, and we currently are sitting at about 1,500 employees," he said, adding that the office currently has about 1,500 employees, with a goal in 2023 to get up to 1,725.

Keyso noted that the office is different from other parts of the IRS that have an exam or a collections function.

"If you don’t have the number of people you’d like to have, you just do fewer collection actions or you do fewer audits," Keyso said. "In Appeals, we have unique challenges. We’ve got to work every case that comes in the door. We can’t say, ‘We don’t have enough people, so we are not going to work your case.’ So for us, hiring is particularly an acute issue and recruiting and hiring will be one of our focus areas for this year."

He added that the staffing targets are based on the IRS’ set budget for 2023 and do not include potential increases that could come with the additional funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Improving Technology

Like the rest of the agency, the Office of Appeals is working through its own technology issues and is in need of upgrades.

In particular, Keyso highlighted the need to get away from paper.

"I think we learned during the pandemic a few things about technology and how paper can really be our Achilles heel when you have to move paper case files," he said. "That was a particular issue during the pandemic when you didn’t have all of your people in the office to ship case files around."

Moving to a more paperless environment is a "continuing challenge," Keyso said, not only for communicating between Appeals employees, but between staff and taxpayers. "Should we really be mailing things back and forth through the U.S. Postal Service? Or is there a better way to communicate with taxpayers that’s faster and maybe preferable to taxpayers?"

As part of the technology challenges, the Independent Office of Appeals also is looking to continue to use video conferencing, something that gained traction during the pandemic.

"With the service wide return to the office, we are again offering in person conferences, which is something Appeals is very excited about," Amy Giuliano, senior advisor to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the Office of Appeal, said. "But we want video conferences to remain a permanent option to alongside in person. We requested comments in August … for people to submit input on experiences they had with video conferences with appeals that should inform our longer term guidelines. And we've received a lot of positive feedback that video conferences, when they're managed effectively, are a great way for a taxpayer to present their case to appeals."

She applauded the fact that video conferences have the benefits of a face-to-face conference in that one can see the IRS agent they are dealing with, but they avoid the logistical issues with traveling to an IRS office to conduct the meeting. It makes things more accessible, especially if the taxpayer has medical or other mobility issues.

"That's why it's so important that it remain an option going forward alongside in person and alongside telephone," she said.

Improving Overall Access

Keyso also noted that a key area of focus going forward is improving the overall access to the Independent Office of Appeals now that access has been codified into law through the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Treasury is currently working on regulations that will implement the law.

"Our position in the Appeals Office is, you know, we want the broadest access to appeals possible for us to hear controversies or disputes between IRS and taxpayer," Keyso said. "So we will continue to push for broad access to taxpayers to appeals."

Giuliano added that "enhancing the taxpayer experience is really what sort of animates and informs everything else that we're doing."

Keyso also mentioned that Appeals is planning on continuing convening practitioner panels, during which the office invites practitioners to talk about issues they are facing as they deal with the appeals process. He noted that it was through these panels that the office made changes to letters that went out to taxpayers and their representatives that included more contact information on managers so taxpayers and their representatives have it handy if they need to escalate a situation.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The report, dated November 29, 2022, but released December 1, found that "key decisions and information related to the tax return selection process for Tax Years 2017 and 2019 were determined prior to the start of each year’s respective filing season and prior to the selection of any returns," the Treasury watchdog said in a statement. "TIGTA also confirmed that the computer program used to select tax returns worked as designed and di not included any malicious code that would force the selection of specific taxpayers for an NRP [National Research Program] audit."

TIGTA conducted the analysis of the audit selection process following a July 2022 media report that suggested the selection for those tax years may not have been random. To answer the allegations, TIGTA hired a contractor that, according to the report, "replicated the process. Specifically, the contractor replicated each week’s original sample selection file through April 2018 and July 2020 for TYs 2017 and 2019, respectively."

Once replicated, a return-by-return comparison of the replicated files and the original sample selection was conducted to verify the files matched.

"They concluded that the tax returns in the original samples were the same tax returns selected when the process was replicated using the respective seed numbers," the report states. "TIGTA also compared the contractor’s replicated weekly output files to the original weekly output files, and same as the IRS, TIGTA determined they matched."

The report noted that a line-by-line review of the original source code was conducted "to determine whether information (i.e., TIN) was improperly coded in the program that would result in a specific taxpayer being selected for an NRP audit. The contractor concluded that no specific taxpayer information was included in the original source code."

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 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 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.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final and proposed regulations under the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and subpart F provisions for the treatment of high-taxed income. The final regulations provide guidance on determining the type of high-taxed income that is eligible for the exclusion (the "GILTI high-tax exclusion" or GILTI HTE).

The Treasury and IRS have issued final and proposed regulations under the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and subpart F provisions for the treatment of high-taxed income. The final regulations provide guidance on determining the type of high-taxed income that is eligible for the exclusion (the "GILTI high-tax exclusion" or GILTI HTE).

Proposed regulations generally conform the rules for the subpart F high-tax exception to the rules for the GILTI high-tax exclusion. A single election is provided under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of subpart F and tested income.

Under the Code Sec. 954(b)(4) high tax exception, income received by a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is excluded under subpart F, if the income is subject to an effective rate of foreign tax that is greater than 90 percent of the maximum U.S. corporate tax rate.

Final Regulations on the GILTI HTE

The final regulations:

• provide that the GILTI HTE applies, on an elective basis, to high-taxed income of a CFC that is excluded from foreign base company (FBCI) ( Code Sec. 954) or insurance income ( Code Sec. 953) under Code Sec. 954(b)(4), regardless if the income would otherwise be FBCI or insurance income;
• provide that the effective foreign tax rate is determined on a tested unit basis;
• provide rules to determine the net amount of income (i.e., tentative tested income) and the foreign taxes paid or accrued with respect to such net amount of income that are used to compute the effective rate of tax;
• indicate how to make a GILTI HTE election; and
• do not provide rules that account for the use of foreign tax NOL carryforwards.

An exception under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of the GILTI HTE applies to any item of income that is subject to an effective rate of tax greater than the maximum U.S. corporate tax rate, which is 18.9 percent based on a 21 percent tax. Controlling domestic shareholders of CFCs can elect to apply the exception to items of income that would not otherwise be FBCI or insurance income. An item of gross income is subject to a high-rate of foreign tax, if after taking into account properly allocable expenses, the net item of income is subject to an effective rate of tax above the statutory threshold.

The high-tax exception is applied on the basis of the items of gross income of a tested unit of a CFC, rather than the CFC as a whole. All tested units of a CFC in the same country are generally grouped together to determine the effective foreign tax rate for the purpose of applying the high-tax exclusion. The approach minimizes the blending of tax rates within a CFC and is thought to provide a more accurate idea of the income subject to a high-rate of foreign tax.

The election to exclude high-taxed income from gross tested income is generally made or revoked for a one-year period.

Proposed Regulations Single Election

The proposed regulations provide for a single election under Code Sec. 954(b)(4) for purposes of both subpart F and GILTI, based on the final GILTI high-tax exclusion regulations.

Under the proposed regulations:

• the election is made with respect to all members of a CFC group (rather than on a CFC-by-CFC basis);
• the determination of whether income is high taxed is made on a tested unit-by-unit basis;
• the determination of high tax income is simplified by grouping certain income that would otherwise qualify as subpart F income with income that would otherwise qualify as tested income for purposes of determining the effective foreign tax rate, and for purposes of the high-tax exception; and
• the method for allocating and apportioning deductions to items of gross income is modified for purposes of the high-tax exception.