The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

The gap between taxes owed and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service could be approaching $1 trillion, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Government Operations Subcommittee as he advocated for more funding for the agency.

During an April 21, 2022, hearing of the subcommittee, Rettig noted updated tax gap figures for the three-year period of 2012-2014, along with projections through 2019, will be released this summer. However, those projections do not account for the growth in cryptocurrency, which could be widening the tax gap beyond the current calculations and projections.

"What is not in those estimates is virtual currencies, and there is over a $2 trillion market cap for virtual currencies," Rettig testified before the committee. "Last year, there was over $14 trillion in transactions in virtual currencies and the United States, if you view relative GDP, is somewhere between 35 and 43 percent of that $14 trillion."

He said that knowledge generated from John Doe summons activity in these space reveals "that the compliance issues in the virtual currency space are significantly low."

"The tax gap estimates that the IRS prepares are based on information that the IRS is able to determine, not information that we know is out there but we are not able to determine," Rettig said, adding that the agency is trying to get more information about virtual currencies through adding questions on the Form 1040, first on Schedule L and then moving it to page one of the Form 1040 last year "to try to enhance compliance."

He added that the agency is looking to get more into that area.

The comments on the tax gap and the need to be able to tackle compliance in the cryptocurrency space underscores the agency’s need for more funding as requested in the White House budget request for fiscal year 2023.

In his written testimony submitted to the committee, Rettig noted that the agency "can no longer audit a respectable percentage of large corporations, and we are often limited in the issues reviewed among those we do audit. These corporations can afford to spend large amounts on legal counsel, drag out proceedings and bury the government in paper. We are, quite simply, ‘outgunned’ in our efforts to assure a high degree of compliance for these taxpayers."

He wrote that it is "unacceptable" that corporations and the wealthiest individuals have such an advantage to push back on the nation’s tax administrator.

"We must receive the resources to hire and train more specialists across a wide range of complex areas to assist with audits of entities (taxable, pass-through and tax-exempt) and individuals (financial products; engineering; digital assets; cross-border activities; estate and gift planning; family offices; foundations; and many others)," his written testimony states.

Rettig wrote that the agency current has fewer than 2,000 revenue officers, "the lowest number of field collection personnel since the 1970s," to handle more than 100,000 collection cases in active inventory.

He continued: "In addition to our active inventory, we have over 1.5 million cases (more than 500,000 of which are considered high priority) awaiting assignment to these same 2,000 revenue officers. We have classified roughly 85 percent of those cases as high priority, many of which involve delinquent business employment taxes."

The lack of funding is also hampering criminal investigations.

"Much like other operating divisions in the IRS, CI is close to its lowest staffing level in the past 30 years. With fewer agents, we have fewer cases and fewer successful convictions," he stated in the written testimony.

Much of this also is compounded by the ancient IT infrastructure at the agency, another reason Rettig advocated during the hearing for more funding.

"Limited IT resources preclude us from building adequate solutions for efficiently matching or reconciling data from multiple sources," he wrote. "As a result, we are often left with manual processes to analyze reporting information we receive."

Retting specifically highlighted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which Congress enacted in 2010 but, according to Retting, has yet to appropriate the funding necessary for its implementation.

"This situation is compounded by the fact that when we do detect potential non-compliance or fraudulent behavior through manually generated FATCA reports, we seldom have sufficient funding to pursue the information and ensure proper compliance," he wrote. "We have an acute need for additional personnel with specialized training to follow cross-border money flows. They will help ensure tax compliance by improving our capacity to detect unreported accounts and income generated by those accounts, as well as the sources of assets in offshore accounts."

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig remained positive that the agency will be able to return to a normal backlog of unprocessed returns and other mail correspondence by the end of the year and noted progress on hiring more people to help clear the backlog.

"With respect to our current 2022 filing season, we are off to a healthy start in terms of tax processing and the operation of our IT systems," Rettig told members of the Senate Finance Committee during an April 7 hearing to discuss the White House budget request and update the panel on the current tax filing season. "Through April 1, we have processed more than 89 million returns and issued more than 63 million refunds totaling more than $204 billion."

Getting that backlog cleared has been bolstered in part by a direct hiring authority given to the agency in the recent passage of the fiscal year 2022 omnibus budget, Rettig told the committee.

The effectiveness of that hiring authority was highlighted in his written testimony submitted prior to the hearing, where Rettig stated that in-person and virtual job fairs near processing facilities in Austin, Kansas City, and Ogden, Utah, attracted eligible applicants for more than 5,000 vacancies and "we have been able to make more than 2,500 conditional offers at the conclusion of the interviews."

Rettig said the direct hiring authority is only related to those lower paygrade processing/customer service positions and the agency is going to ask Congress to expand that authority, although he did not specify what types of positions would be hired as part of that expansion.

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

The IRS addressed the following common myths about tax refunds:

• Myth 1: Calling the IRS or visiting an IRS office speeds up a refund. The best way to check the status of a refund is online through the “Where’s My Refund?” tool. Taxpayers can also call the automated refund hotline at 800-829-1954.

• Myth 2: Taxpayers need to wait for their 2020 return to be processed before filing their 2021 return. Taxpayers generally will not need to wait for their 2020 return to be fully processed to file their 2021 tax returns. They should file when they are ready. Individuals with unprocessed 2020 tax returns, should enter zero dollars for last year's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on their 2021 tax return when filing electronically.

• Myth 3: Taxpayers can get a refund date by ordering a tax transcript. Ordering a tax transcript will not inform taxpayers of the timing of their tax refund, nor will it speed up a refund being processed. Taxpayers can use a transcript to validate past income and tax filing status for mortgage, student and small business loan applications and to help with tax preparation.

• Myth 4: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because there is no deposit date yet. While the IRS issues most refunds in less than 21 days, it is possible a refund may take longer for a variety of reasons. Delays can be caused by simple errors including an incomplete return, transposed numbers, or when a tax return is affected by identity theft or fraud.

• Myth 5: "Where’s My Refund?" must be wrong because a refund amount is less than expected. Different factors can cause a tax refund to be larger or smaller than expected. The IRS will mail the taxpayer a letter of explanation if these adjustments are made.

• Myth 6: Calling a tax professional will provide a better refund date. Contacting a tax professional will not speed up a refund. Tax professionals cannot move up a refund date nor do they have access to any special information that will provide a more accurate refund date.

• Myth 7: Getting a refund this year means there is no need to adjust tax withholding for 2022. Taxpayers should continually check their withholding and adjust accordingly. Adjusting tax withholding with an employer is easy and using the Tax Withholding Estimator tool can help taxpayers determine if they are withholding the right amount from their paycheck.

As of the week ending April 1, the IRS has sent out more than 63 million refunds worth over $204 billion. The IRS reminded taxpayers the easiest way to check on a refund is the "Where’s My Refund?" tool. This tool can be used to check the status of a tax return within 24 hours after a taxpayer receives their e-file acceptance notification. Taxpayers should only call the IRS tax help hotline to talk to a representative if it has been more than 21 days since their tax return was e-filed, or more than six weeks since mailing their return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that the agency issues most refunds in less than 21 days for taxpayers who filed electronically and chose direct deposit. However, some refunds may take longer. The IRS listed several factors that can affect the timing of a refund after the agency receives a return. A manual review may be necessary when a return has errors, is incomplete or is affected by identity theft or fraud. Other returns can also take longer to process, including when a return needs a correction to the Child Tax Credit amount or includes a Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, which could take up to 14 weeks to process. The fastest way to get a tax refund is by filing electronically and choosing direct deposit. Taxpayers who don’t have a bank account can find out more on how to open an account at an FDIC-Insured bank or the National Credit Union Locator Tool.

Further, the IRS cautioned taxpayers not to rely on receiving a refund by a certain date, especially when making major purchases or paying bills. Taxpayers should also take into consideration the time it takes for a financial institution to post the refund to an account or to receive it by mail. Before filing, taxpayers should make IRS.gov their first stop to find online tools to help get the information they need to file. To check the status of a refund, taxpayers should use the Where’s My Refund? tool on IRS.gov. The IRS will contact taxpayers by mail when more information is needed to process a return. IRS representatives can only research the status of a refund if it has been: 21 days or more since it was filed electronically; six weeks or more since a return was mailed; or when the Where's My Refund? tool tells the taxpayer to contact the IRS.

Additionally, taxpayers whose tax returns from 2020 have not yet been processed should still file their 2021 tax returns by the April due date or request an extension to file. Those filing electronically in this group need their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from their most recent tax return. Those waiting on their 2020 tax return to be processed should enter zero dollars for last year's AGI on the 2021 tax return. When self-preparing a tax return and filing electronically, taxpayers must sign and validate the electronic tax return by entering their prior-year AGI or prior-year Self-Select PIN (SSP). Those who electronically filed last year may have created a five-digit SSP. Generally, tax software automatically enters the information for returning customers. Taxpayers who are using a software product for the first time may have to enter this information.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002.

The IRS reminded educators that they will be able to deduct up to $300 of out-of-pocket classroom expenses when they file their federal income tax return for tax year 2022. This is the first time the annual limit has increased since 2002. For tax years 2002 through 2021, the limit was $250 per year. The limit will rise in $50 increments in future years based on inflation adjustments. For 2022, if an eligible educator is married and files a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $600 but not more than $300 for each spouse.

Educators can claim this deduction even if they take the standard deduction. Eligible educators include anyone who is a kindergarten through grade 12 teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide in a school for at least 900 hours during the school year. Both public- and private-school educators qualify. Educators can deduct the unreimbursed cost of:

• books, supplies, and other materials used in the classroom;
• equipment, including computer equipment, software, and services;
• COVID-19 protective items to stop the spread of the disease in the classroom; and
• professional development courses related to the curriculum they teach or the students they teach.

Qualified expenses do not include expenses for homeschooling or nonathletic supplies for courses in health or physical education. The IRS also reminded educators that for tax year 2021, the deduction limit is $250. If they are married and file a joint return with another eligible educator, the limit rises to $500 but not more than $250 for each spouse.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

Taxpayers who may need to take additional actions related to Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) should begin receiving letters from the IRS in April. Taxpayers who attached Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund, to their return may receive Letter 6501, Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investment Standard. This letter lets them know that information needed to support the annual certification of investment standard is missing, invalid or the calculation isn’t supported by the amounts reported. If they intend to maintain their certification as a QOF, they may need to take additional action to meet the annual self-certification of the investment standard requirement.

To correct the annual maintenance certification of the investment standard, taxpayers should file an amended return or an administrative adjustment request (AAR). If an entity that receives the letter fails to act, the IRS may refer its tax account for examination. Additionally, taxpayers may receive Letter 6502, Reporting Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments, or Letter 6503, Annual Reporting Of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. These letters notify them that they may not have properly followed the instructions for Form 8997, Initial and Annual Statement of Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) Investments. This may happen if it appears that they may not have properly followed the requirements to maintain their qualifying investment in a QOF with the filing of the form.

Finally, if these taxpayers intend to maintain a qualifying investment in a QOF, they can file an amended return or an AAR with a properly completed Form 8997 attached. Failure to act will mean those who received the letter may not have a qualifying investment in a QOF and the IRS may refer their tax accounts for examination.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022.

The IRS informed taxpayers that it will send Notices CP2100 and CP2100A notices to financial institutions, businesses, or payers who filed certain types of information returns that do not match IRS records, beginning mid-April 2022. These information returns include:

• Form 1099-B, Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions
• Form 1099-DIV, Dividends and Distributions
• Form 1099-G, Certain Government Payments
• Form 1099-INT, Interest Income
• Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third-Party Network Transactions
• Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income
• Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation
• Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount
• Form 1099-PATR, Taxable Distributions Received from Cooperatives
• Form W-2G, Certain Gambling Winnings

These notices inform payers that the information return is missing a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), has an incorrect name or a combination of both. Each notice has a list of payees or the persons receiving certain types of income payments with identified TIN issues. Taxpayers need to compare the accounts listed on the notice with their account records and correct or update their records, if necessary. This can also include correcting backup withholding on payments made to payees. The notices also inform payers that they are responsible for backup withholding. Payments reported on these information returns are subject to backup withholding if:

• The payer does not have the payee’s TIN when making the reportable payments.
• The payee does not certify their TIN as required for reportable interest, dividend, broker and barter exchange accounts.
• The IRS notifies the payer that the payee furnished an incorrect TIN and the payee does not certify its TIN as required.
• The IRS notifies the payer to begin backup withholding because the payee did not report all of its interest and dividends on its tax return.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

The IRS has issued a guidance stating that government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sect. 6103(c), are subject to the disclosure restrictions, like all designees who receive returns or return information pursuant to taxpayer consent. Further, government employees who receive returns or return information pursuant to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) or (e), other than Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) (relating to certain shareholders), are not subject to the disclosure restrictions with regard to the returns or return information received.

Background

Section 2202 of the Taxpayer First Act (TFA), P.L. 116-25, amended Code Sec. 6103(a)(3) and (c) to limit redisclosures and uses of return information received pursuant to the staxpayer consent exception. Code Sec. 6103(c), as amended by the TFA, explicitly prohibits designees from using return information for any reason other than the express purpose for which the taxpayer grants consent and from redisclosing return information without the taxpayer’s express permission or request. Further, Code Sec. 6103(a)(3), as amended by the TFA, imposes disclosure restrictions on all recipients of return information under Code Sec. 6103(c). The TFA did not amend Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6), or Code Sec. 6103(a) with respect to disclosures under Code Sec. 6103(e) or (k)(6).

Disclosure Restrictions

The IRS cited seven situations where disclosure restrictions of Code Sec. 6103(a) would or would not be applicable with regard to returns or return information received as a result of disclosure under:

• Code Sec. 6103(c) with the consent of the taxpayer (taxpayer consent exception),
• Code Sec. 6103(e) as a person having a material interest, but not under Code Sec. 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) relating to disclosures to certain shareholders (material interest exception), or
• Code Sec. 6103(k)(6) for investigative purposes (investigative disclosure exception).

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Rul. 2004-53, I.R.B. 2004-23, has been modified and superseded.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

The IRS has provided a waiver for any individual who failed to meet the foreign earned income or deduction eligibility requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) because adverse conditions in a foreign country precluded the individual from meeting the requirements for the 2021 tax year. Qualified individuals may exempt from taxation their foreign earned income and housing cost amounts.

Relief Provided

The countries for which the eligibility requirements have been waived for 2021 are Iraq, Burma, Chad, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Accordingly, an individual who left the following countries beginning on the specified date will be treated as a qualified individual with respect to the period during which that individual was present in, or was a bona fide resident of the country: (1) Iraq on or after January 19, 2021; (2) Burma on or after March 30, 2021; Chad on or after April 17, 2021; (4) Afghanistan on or after April 27, 2021, and; (5) Ethiopia on or after November 5, 2021. Individuals who left the above mentioned countries must establish a reasonable expectation that he or she would have met the requirements of Code Sec. 911(d)(1) but for those adverse conditions. Further, individuals who established residency, or were first physically present in Iraq, after January 19, 2021, are not eligible for the waiver. Taxpayers who need assistance on how to claim the exclusion, or how to file an amended return, should consult the section under the heading "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion" at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad; consult the section under the heading How to Get Tax Help at the same web address; or contact a local IRS office.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Court of Appeals decision and held that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30-day time limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process (CDP) determination is an ordinary, nonjurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The taxpayer had requested and received a CDP hearing before the IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals pursuant to Code Sec. 6330(b), but the Office sustained the proposed levy. Under Code Sec. 6330(d)(1), the taxpayer had 30 days to petition the Tax Court for review. However, the taxpayer filed its petition one day late. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1)’s 30- day filing deadline is jurisdictional and thus cannot be equitably tolled.

Nonjurisdictional Nature of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court analyzed the text of Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) and stated that the only contention is whether the provision limits the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to petitions filed within the 30-day timeframe. The taxpayer contended that it referred only to the immediately preceding phrase of the provision: a "petition [to] the Tax Court for review of such determination." and so the filing deadline was independent of the jurisdictional grant. The IRS, on the contrary, argued that "such matter" referred to the entire first clause of the sentence, which includes the deadline and granting jurisdiction only over petitions filed within that time. However, the Supreme Court held the nature of the filing deadline to be nonjurisdictional because the IRS failed to satisfy the clear-statement rule of the jurisdictional condition. It also stated that where multiple plausible interpretations exist, it is difficult to make the case that the jurisdictional reading is clear. Moreover, Code Sec. 6330(e)(1)’s clear statement—that "[t]he Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction . . . to enjoin any action or proceeding unless a timely appeal has been filed"—highlighted the lack of such jurisdictional clarity in Code Sec. 6330(d)(1).

Equitable Tolling of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to decide whether the taxpayer was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline. However, the Supreme Court did emphasize that Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) did not expressly prohibit equitable tolling, and its 30-day time limit was directed at the taxpayer, not the court. Further, the deadline mentioned in the provision was not written in an emphatic form or with detailed and technical language, nor was it reiterated multiple times. The IRS’ argument that tolling the Code Sec. 6330(d)(1) deadline would create much more uncertainty, was rejected. The Supreme Court concluded that the possibility of equitable tolling for relatively small number of petitions would not appreciably add to the uncertainty already present in the process.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on IRS’ performance during the 2021 tax filing season. The report assessed IRS’ performance during the 2021 filing season on: (1) processing individual and business income tax returns; and (2) providing customer service to taxpayers. GAO analyzed IRS documents and data on filing season performance, refund interest payments, hiring and employee overtime. GAO also interviewed cognizant officials.

Report Findings

GAO found that the IRS faced multiple challenges and struggled to respond to an unprecedented workload that included delivering COVID-19 relief. The IRS began the 2021 filing season with a backlog of 8 million individual and business returns from the prior year. The IRS reduced the backlog of prior year returns, but in December 2021, had about 10.5 million returns to process from 2021. The IRS suspended and reviewed 35 million returns with errors primarily due to new or modified tax credits. GAO found that some categories of errors occur each year, however, the IRS does not assess the underlying causes of taxpayer errors on returns. Additionally, the IRS paid nearly $14 billion in refund interest in the last 7 fiscal years, with $3.3 billion paid in fiscal year 2021. However, the IRS does not identify, monitor, and mitigate issues contributing to refund interest payments.

Recommendations

GAO made six recommendations, including that the IRS should assess reasons for tax return errors and refund interest payments and take action to reduce them; modernize its “Where's My Refund” application; address its backlog of correspondence; and assess its in-person service model. The IRS agreed with four recommendations and disagreed with two. The IRS said its process for analyzing errors is robust and that the amount of interest paid is not a meaningful business measure.

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.