The IRS has released new proposed rules related to charitable contributions made to get around the $10,000/$5,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The proposed regulations:

The IRS has released new proposed rules related to charitable contributions made to get around the $10,000/$5,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The proposed regulations:

• incorporate the safe harbor in Notice 2019-12 for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• incorporate the safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12 for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• clarify the 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.

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 have 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.

The IRS issued final regulations in June 2019 that provide that 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. The regulations contain a de minimis exception 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

A safe harbor was provided in Notice 2019-12 for individuals who have a portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Under the safe harbor, 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 new proposed regulations incorporate the safe harbor in Notice 2019-12. 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.

Payments by Business Entities

The IRS also provided a safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12 that business entities may continue to deduct charitable contributions in exchange a SALT credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose.

The new proposed regulations incorporate the safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12. If a C corporation or specified pass-through 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, the new proposal provides that 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.

Benefits Received 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 new proposed regulations clarify 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 under the proposal 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.

Final regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests, for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules. The regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

Final regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests, for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules. The regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

The regulations adopt without change, proposed regulations published on May 20, 2019 ( NPRM REG-125135-15).

Attribution of Ownership

The regulations provide specific rules for applying principles similar to those in the Code Sec. 958(b) constructive ownership rules when determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules. The determination of related person status is relevant for many purposes, including whether certain types of income can be characterized as subpart F foreign base company sales or service income.

A person is a related person with respect to a CFC if the person is:

• an individual who controls the CFC,
• an entity that controls or is controlled by the CFC, or
• an entity that is controlled by the same person that controls the CFC.

Rules similar to those for determining stock ownership in Code Sec. 958 apply for purposes of determining whether a person is a related person. The regulations limit the application of the downward attribution rules in Code Sec. 318(a)(3), which apply by reference to the Code Sec. 958 stock ownership rules, and which attribute ownership downward from the owner of an entity to an entity. The downward attribution rules are applied regardless of the size of the ownership interest in a partnership, estate, or trust, but are applied to corporations based on a 50-percent or more ownership interest.

The regulations address concern that application of the downward attribution rules could inappropriately treat entities (including CFCs) that do not have significant relationships with each other as related persons. Accordingly, the regulations provide that the downward attribution rules of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) and Reg. §1.958-2(d) will not apply for purposes of determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules.

The change does not preclude a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate from being treated as controlled by the same person or persons that control the CFC under other rules that remain applicable for the related person rules.

Additionally, an anti-abuse rule is provided with respect to the option attribution rule in Code Sec. 318(a)(4). The option attribution rule in Code Sec. 318(a)(4) and Reg. §1.958-2(e) will not be applied to treat a person with an option as owning the stock or an equity interest for purposes of the related person rule if the principal purpose of using the option was to cause a person to be treated as a related person.

The regulations also incorporate a similar rule issued in section 7(d) of Notice 2007-9, 2007-1 CB 401. The rule applies if the principal purpose for the use of an option is to qualify dividends, interest, rents or royalties paid by a foreign corporation for the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) CFC look-through exception from foreign personal holding company income. The rule applies to tax years of CFCs beginning after December 31, 2006, and ending before November 19, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Personal Holding Company Income

The regulations modify the foreign personal holding company rules for amounts paid or incurred by a CFC in connection with the CFC’s rental income and the active rents exception. Rents are excluded from foreign personal holding company income if the rents are:

• received from a person other than a related person, and
• from the active conduct of a trade or business.

If rents are from leasing property as a result of marketing activities, there must be a substantial marketing organization in order to meet the active trade or business test. Under a safe harbor, an organization is substantial if active leasing expenses equal or exceed 25 percent of adjusted leasing profit. If the CFC receives rents from property it does not own, the substantiality of the organization is determined net of those rent payments.

The regulations extend the rule to apply to royalties in addition to rents. As a result, the substantiality of the organization is determined under the safe harbor net of the rents or royalties paid or incurred by the lessor CFC, for the right to use the property (or a component part of the property) that generated the rental income.

Applicability Date

The regulations generally apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after November 19, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end. The regulations on the downward attribution rule, and the option anti-abuse rule for use of the option to treat a person as a related person with respect to a CFC, apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after May 17, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end, with respect to amounts received or accrued by a CFC on or after May 17, 2019, to the extent the amounts are received or accrued in advance of the period to which such amounts are attributable with a principal purpose of avoiding application of the rules.

The IRS has issued final and proposed regulations implementing the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A. The BEAT is a minimum tax that certain large corporations must pay on certain payments made to foreign related parties, and was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS has issued final and proposed regulations implementing the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A. The BEAT is a minimum tax that certain large corporations must pay on certain payments made to foreign related parties, and was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

The final regulations adopt proposed rules ( REG-104259-18) published on December 21, 2018 (2018 proposed regulations), with certain modifications. The proposed regulations ( REG-112607-19) (2019 proposed regulations) provide rules under Code Secs. 59A and 6031 regarding certain aspects of the BEAT.

Final Regulations

The 2018 proposed regulations provided guidance related to the mechanics of determining a taxpayer’s BEAT liability, and addressed application of the BEAT to partnerships, banks, registered security dealers, and consolidated groups. The final BEAT regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations, with certain revisions.

The final regulations continue to be exclude from the denominator of the base erosion percentage Code Sec. 988 losses with respect to transactions with foreign related parties that are excluded from the numerator of the percentage. The final regulations also retain the add-back method for computing modified taxable income and the computation of base erosion minimum tax amount (BEMTA) on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis.

Among some of the more significant changes to the proposed rules, the final regulations:

• adopt the "with-or-within" method to determine the gross receipts and the base erosion percentage of an aggregate group;
• disregard transactions between parties if both parties were members of the aggregate group at the time of the transaction;
• exclude the base erosion tax benefits and deductions attributable to the tax year of a member of an aggregate group that begins before January 1, 2018;
• clarify that payments resulting in a reduction to determine gross income are not treated as base erosion payments;
• require that the determination of whether a payment or accrual is a base erosion payment be made under general U.S. federal income tax law;
• clarify the definition of a "base erosion payment," and generally exclude amounts transferred to, or exchanged with, a foreign related party in certain corporate nonrecognition transactions from that definition;
• clarify the rules for determining the portion of U.S. branch interest paid to foreign related parties;
• provide rules for the treatment of an interest expense determined under a U.S. tax treaty;
  include additional detail on the documentation required to satisfy the service cost method (SCM) exception;
• modify the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) exception;
• provide that the additional one percent add-on to the BEAT rate will not apply to a taxpayer that is part of an affiliated group with de minimis banking and securities dealer activities;
• provide that Code Sec. 15 applies only to the change in tax rate set forth in Code Sec. 59A(b)(2) and should not apply to the change in tax rate included in Code Sec. 59A(b)(1)(A) for tax years beginning in calendar year 2018;
• change the Qualified Derivative Payments (QDP) exception;
• clarify the rules regarding how partnerships and their partners are treated for purposes of the BEAT; and
• clarify the anti-abuse rule and certain rules applicable to insurance companies and consolidated groups.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations (other than the reporting requirements for QDPs) apply to tax years ending on or after December 17, 2018. However, taxpayers may apply these final regulations in their entirety for tax years ending before December 17, 2018. Taxpayers may also apply provisions matching Reg. §§1.59A-1 through 1.59A-9 in their entirety for all tax years ending on or before December 6, 2019. Taxpayers choosing to apply the proposed regulations must apply them consistently and cannot selectively choose which particular provisions to apply.

The related Code Sec. 6038A regulations apply to tax years beginning Monday, June 7, 2021. The related consolidated return regulations generally apply to tax years for which the original consolidated return is due (without extensions) after December 6, 2019.

2019 Proposed Regulations

The 2019 proposed regulations provide rules regarding relating to (1) how a taxpayer determines its aggregate group for purposes of determining gross receipts and the base erosion percentage; (2) an election to waive deductions; and (3) application of the BEAT to partnerships.

The 2019 proposed regulations generally apply to tax years beginning on or after the date that the final regulations are filed with the Federal Register. Certain rules, however, have specific applicability dates. In addition, taxpayers may rely on the rules in the proposed regulations in their entirety for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before the final regulations are applicable.

Practitioner’s Observations

Arlene Fitzpatrick, a Principal in the National Tax Department of Ernst & Young LLP, told Wolters Kluwer that "there are changes and new proposed rules in the package of final and proposed regulations that are helpful, though not all changes requested through the comment process were made. For example, the rules in the final regulations to exclude, in certain circumstances, from the definition of a base erosion payment amounts transferred to, or exchanged with, a foreign related party pursuant to a specified nonrecognition transaction are welcome. Furthermore, clarifying that a built-in loss recognized on a sale or transfer of property to a foreign related party is not in itself a deduction that causes the payment to be treated as a base erosion payment is helpful. The final regulations however, retain the internal dealings rule whereby a notional payment for purposes of attribution of profits under certain tax treaties may be taken into account for purposes of determining BEAT. Thus, although deductions from internal dealings would not be allowed under the Code or regulations, and only relevant under certain treaties (the regulations do not specify the treaties), the regulations provide such amounts are relevant for purposes of determining BEAT."

The IRS has issued highly anticipated final regulations on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The final regulations also eliminate deadwood, reflect statutory amendments made prior to TCJA, and update expense allocation rules not updated since 1988.

The IRS has issued highly anticipated final regulations on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The final regulations also eliminate deadwood, reflect statutory amendments made prior to TCJA, and update expense allocation rules not updated since 1988.

Also adopted are proposed regulations on overall foreign losses, published on June 25, 2012 ( NPRM REG-134935-11), and a U.S. taxpayer’s obligation to notify the IRS of a foreign tax redetermination, published on November 7, 2007 ( NPRM REG-209020-86).

A separate set of 2019 proposed regulations were also issued ( NPRM REG-105495-19).

Final Regulations

The final regulations make extensive changes to the rules on the determination of the foreign tax credit. Many of these changes were required to implement the TCJA, including the items discussed, below.

The final regulations provide details on how income is assigned and expenses are apportioned to the Code Sec. 951A global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and foreign branch foreign tax credit separate limitation categories added by TCJA.

The regulations provide that, for purposes of applying the expense allocation and apportionment rules, the portion of gross income related to foreign derived intangible income (FDII) or a GILTI inclusion that is offset by a Code Sec. 250 deduction is treated as exempt income. This means that fewer expenses will be allocated to the GILTI category, resulting in a higher foreign source taxable income, a higher foreign tax credit limitation, and a larger foreign tax credit offset with respect to GILTI income.

The regulations also address how the balance of foreign tax credit carryovers prior to the TCJA are allocated across new and existing separate categories. Under a default rule, foreign tax credit carryovers remain in the general category going forward. A taxpayer can elect to reconstruct the carryover regarding a foreign branch. The final regulations provide a simplified rule under which taxpayers can assign foreign tax credits to the foreign branch category proportionately, according to the ratio of foreign taxes paid or accrued by the taxpayer’s branches to total foreign taxes paid or accrued by the taxpayer in that year.

The regulations modify the proposed rule for determining foreign branch income based on the U.S. tax-adjusted books and records of the foreign branch. The proposed regulations disregarded transfers of intellectual property (IP) between a foreign branch and its owner if the transfer would result in a deemed payment that reallocates income between the foreign branch category and the general branch category. The final regulations limit the rule to transactions that occurred after the date of the proposed regulations and include an exception for transitory ownership.

The regulations provide rules for the treatment of GILTI for purposes of the interest allocation rules. In general, a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) must allocate and apportion its interest expense among groups of income for purposes of determining tested income, subpart F income and other types of net foreign source income. A U.S. taxpayer must characterize the value of its CFC for allocating and apportioning its own interest expense. A CFC allocates and apportions its interest expense using either the modified gross income (MGI) method or the asset method. The U.S. taxpayer uses the same method to characterize the stock of its CFC. The regulations take into account gross tested income from a lower-tier CFC with respect to an upper-tier CFC for allocating the upper-tier CFC’s interest expense when applying the MGI method.

Dividends, interest, rents and royalties (look-through payments) paid to a U.S. shareholder by a CFC were generally allocated to general category income to the extent that they were not treated as passive category income. Because this type of payment made directly by a U.S. shareholder is not included in the GILTI category, the regulations provide that the look-through payments are assigned either to the general category or the foreign branch category. The payments cannot be assigned to the GILTI category.

The final regulations also address certain potentially abusive borrowing arrangements involving loans by U.S. persons to foreign partnerships that artificially increase foreign source income and the foreign tax credit limitation without affecting U.S. taxable income. Under the regulations, the interest income attributable to borrowing through a partnership is allocated across the foreign tax credit separate limitation categories in the same manner as the associated interest expense.

Applicability of Final Regs

The final regulations related to statutory amendments made by the TCJA apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Regulations that contain both rules that relate to the TCJA and rules that do not relate to the TCJA generally apply to tax years that both (1) begin after December 31, 2017, and (2) end on or after December 4, 2018.

The regulations on the deemed paid credit under Code Sec. 960 apply to tax years that both begin after December 31, 2017, and end on or after December 4, 2018. The final OFL regulations apply to tax years on or after the date the regulations are filed in the Federal Register. The final foreign tax redetermination regulations apply to foreign tax redeterminations occurring in tax years ending on or after the date the regulations are filed in the Federal Register.

Proposed Regulations

Proposed foreign tax credit regulations address changes made by the TCJA, and also respond to issues raised in the 2018 proposed regulations on the foreign tax credit ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The proposed regulations address:

• the allocation and apportionment of deductions under Code Sec. 861 through Code Sec. 865;
• the definition of "financial services income" under Code Sec. 904(d)(2)(D);
• the allocation and apportionment of creditable foreign taxes;
• the interaction of branch loss and dual consolidated loss recapture rules under Code Sec. 904(f) and Code Sec. 904(g);
• the effect of Code Sec. 905(c) foreign tax redeterminations of foreign corporations on the high-tax exception in Code Sec. 954(b)(4) and the required notification and penalty provisions;
• the definition of "personal holding company income" under Code Sec. 954; and
• the application of the foreign tax credit limitation rule to consolidated groups.

Allocation and Apportionment

Under the general rule, a taxpayer may allocate research and experimentation (R&E) expenses to the foreign tax credit separate limitation categories under the sales method or the gross income method. The proposed regulations revise the sales method to provide that R&E expenses are only allocated to income that represents return on intellectual property. When applying these rules, gross intangible income does not include dividends or amounts included under subpart F, GILTI or Code Sec. 1293. As a result, none of a U.S. taxpayer’s R&E expenses are allocated to the GILTI category. The proposed regulations eliminate the gross income method for purposes of allocating R&E expenses.

Stewardship expenses are related and allocable to dividends received or to be received from related corporations. The proposed regulations provide that stewardship expenses are allocated to subpart F and GILTI inclusions, to Code Sec. 78 dividends and all amounts included under the passive foreign investment company (PFIC) provisions.

Under the Code Sec. 818(f) allocation rules that apply to life insurance companies, expenses are generally apportioned ratably across all gross income. Under a new rule, the proposed regulations allocate expenses in a life-nonlife consolidated group solely among items of the insurance company that has reserves (separate entity method).

The final foreign tax credit limitations provide a matching rule for a U.S. partner that makes loans to a foreign partnership. Under the rule, the partner’s gross interest income is apportioned between U.S. and foreign sources in each separate foreign tax credit limitation category based on the partner’s interest expense apportionment ratios. The proposed regulations provide the same rule for loans from partnerships to U.S. partners (upstream partnership loans).

Redeterminations

Portions of the 2007 temporary regulations on foreign tax redeterminations ( T.D. 9362) are reproposed so that taxpayers can provide comments on the rules in light of the changes made by the TCJA. The proposed regulations address foreign tax redeterminations that affect the deemed paid credit under Code Sec. 960; procedural notification rules; and penalties for failure to notify the IRS of a foreign tax redetermination.

The proposed regulations require taxpayers to account for foreign tax redeterminations of foreign subsidiaries on an amended return that reflects the revised foreign taxes deemed paid under Code Sec. 960 and any changes to the taxpayer’s U.S. tax liability. This reflects the repeal of the pooling mechanism to account for redeterminations of foreign taxes.

A transition rule provides that post-2017 redeterminations of pre-2018 foreign income taxes must be made by adjusting the foreign corporation’s taxable income and earnings and profits and post-1986 undistributed earnings and income taxes in the pre-2018 year to which the redetermined foreign taxes relate. The proposed regulations also provide that the foreign tax redetermination rules cover situations in which the foreign tax redetermination affects whether or not the CFC qualifies for the high-tax exceptions under GILTI and subpart F.

Additional Rules

Additional provisions in the proposed regulations:

• modify the definition of a "financial services entity" by adopting a definition of "predominately engaged in the active conduct of a banking, insurance, finance, or similar business" and "income derived in the active conduct of a banking, insurance, finance, or similar business" that is generally consistent with Code Secs. 954(h), 1297(b)(2)(B), and 953(e);
• provide more detailed guidance on the allocation and apportionment of foreign income taxes, and generalize the rules to apply to statutory and residual groupings;
• provide a new ordering rule for overall foreign loss recapture that addresses additional income recognition under the branch loss recapture and dual consolidated loss recapture rules: the amounts are not taken into account for purposes of the ordering rules until Code Sec. 904(f)(3) amounts are determined;
• clarify the rules that apply to jurisdictions that do not impose corporate income tax on CFCs until earnings are distributed. or where foreign tax is contingent on a future distributions, for purposes of the high-tax exception in Code Sec. 954(b)(4);
• apply the principles for allocating and apportioning foreign income taxes for purposes of Code Sec. 965(g); and
• update the Code Sec. 1502 regulations relating to the computation of the consolidated foreign tax credit to reflect changes in the law, and add new rules for the determining the source and separate category of the a consolidated NOL, as well as the portion of a consolidated net operating loss (CNOL) that is apportioned to a separate return year of a member.

Applicability of Proposed Regs

The proposed regulations are generally proposed to apply to tax years that end on or after the date the proposed regulations are filed in the Federal Register, with exceptions. For example, the rules for R&E expenses are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2019. However taxpayers on the sales method for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2020, may rely on the proposed regulations if the rules are applied consistently. Thus, a taxpayer on the sales method for its tax year beginning in 2018 may rely on the proposed regulation, but must also apply the sales method (relying on the proposed regulation) for its tax year beginning in 2019.

Practitioner’s Observations

WK: Were you surprised by anything in the final regs?

Martin Milner: The final regulations are generally consistent with the proposed regulations and do not include any major surprises. The changes and clarifications that are in the final regulations are largely helpful. As would be expected, most of the new provisions are in the proposed portion of the package.

WK: With the proposed regs are there areas that you can see may result in pushback? If so why?

Martin Milner: The business community is likely to comment on the proposal to apportion stewardship expenses to dividends, subpart F income and GILTI (including IRC Section 78 gross-ups) because many had hoped that stewardship expenses would not be apportioned to GILTI.

WK: How did you feel about the R&E Expense Apportionment changes?

Martin Milner: The mandatory sales-based apportionment of R&E expenses to all gross intangible income related to the relevant product SIC code will be complicated in practice. However, it is helpful that the proposed rules specifically exclude dividends, subpart F income and GILTI.

The IRS has released guidance that provides that the requirement to report partners’ shares of partnership capital on the tax basis method will not be effective for 2019 partnership tax years, but will first apply to 2020 partnership tax years.

The IRS has released guidance that provides that the requirement to report partners’ shares of partnership capital on the tax basis method will not be effective for 2019 partnership tax years, but will first apply to 2020 partnership tax years.

2019 Reporting

For 2019, partnerships and other persons must report partner capital accounts consistent with the reporting requirements in the 2018 forms and instructions, including the requirement to report negative tax basis capital accounts on a partner-by-partner basis.

Section 704(c) Gain or Loss

As a clarification, the notice also defines the term "partner’s share of net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss," which must be reported by partnerships and other persons in 2019. Further, the notice exempts publicly traded partnerships from the requirement to report their partners’ shares of net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss until further notice. Solely for purposes of completing the 2019 Forms 1065, Schedule K-1, Item N, and 8865, Schedule K-1, Item G, the notice defines a partner’s share of "net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss" as the partner’s share of the net (meaning aggregate or sum) of all unrecognized gains or losses under Code Sec. 704(c) in partnership property, including Code Sec. 704(c) gains and losses arising from revaluations of partnership property.

Section 465 At-Risk Activities

The notice provides that the requirement added by the draft instructions for 2019 for partnerships to report to partners information about separate Code Sec. 465 at-risk activities will not be effective until 2020. The draft of the instructions for the 2019 Form 1065, Schedule K-1, released October 29, 2019, included a new paragraph at page 12, At-Risk Limitations, At-Risk Activity Reporting Requirements, that would expressly require partnerships or other persons that have items of income, loss, or deduction reported on the Schedule K-1 from more than one activity that may be subject to limitation under Code Sec. 465 at the partner level to report certain additional information separately for each activity on an attachment to a partner’s Schedule K-1. The new paragraph would require the partnership to identify the at-risk activity, the items of income, loss, or deduction for the activity, other items of income, loss, or deduction, partnership liabilities, and any other information that relates to the activity, such as distributions and partner loans. This requirement in the draft instructions for the 2019 Form 1065 is in addition to long-standing at-risk reporting requirements included in the instructions to the Form 1065.

Penalty Relief

Taxpayers who follow the provisions of the notice will not be subject to any penalty, including a penalty under Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish correct payee statements, under Code Sec. 6698 for failure to file a partnership return that shows required information, and under Code Sec. 6038 for failure to furnish information required on a Schedule K-1 (Form 8865).

The IRS has released final regulations that present guidance on how certain organizations that provide employee benefits must calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 512(a).

The IRS has released final regulations that present guidance on how certain organizations that provide employee benefits must calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 512(a).

Background

Organizations that are otherwise exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) are subject to tax on their unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 511(a). Code Sec. 512(a) defines UBTI of exempt organizations and provides special rules for calculating UBTI for organizations described in Code Sec. 501(c)(7) (social and recreational clubs), voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (VEBAs) described in Code Sec. 501(c)(9) and supplemental unemployment benefit trusts (SUBs) described in Code Sec. 501(c)(17).

Covered Entity

"Covered entity" describes VEBAs and SUBs subject to the UBTI computation rules under Code Sec. 512(a)(3). A corporation is treated as having exempt function income for a taxable year only if it files a consolidated return with the organization described in Code Sec. 501(c)(7), (9), or (17). These final regulations add a clause to clarify that the term "covered entity" includes a corporation described in Code Sec. 501(c)(2) to the extent provided in Code Sec. 512(a)(3)(C).

Nonrecognition of Gain

If a property used directly in the performance of the exempt function of a covered entity is sold by that covered entity, and other property is subsequently purchased and used by the covered entity directly in the performance of its exempt function—at any point within a four-year period beginning one year before the date of the sale and ending three years after the date of sale—gain, if any, from the sale is recognized only to the extent that the sales price of the old property exceeds the covered entity’s cost of purchasing the other property.

Limitation on Amounts Set Aside for Exempt Purposes

The total amount of investment income earned during the year should be considered when calculating whether an excess exists at the end of the year. Any investment income a covered entity earns during the taxable year is subject to unrelated business income tax (UBIT) to the extent the covered entity’s year-end assets exceed the account limit.

Effective Date

The final regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after December 10, 2019.

The IRS has issued Reg. §20.2010-1(c) to address the effect of the temporary increase in the basic exclusion amount (BEA) used in computing estate and gift taxes. In addition, Reg. §20.2010-1(e)(3) is amended to reflect the increased BEA for years 2018-2025 ($10 million, as adjusted for inflation). Further, the IRS has confirmed that taxpayers taking advantage of the increased BEA in effect from 2018 to 2025 will not be adversely affected after 2025 when the exclusion amount is set to decrease to pre-2018 levels.

The IRS has issued Reg. §20.2010-1(c) to address the effect of the temporary increase in the basic exclusion amount (BEA) used in computing estate and gift taxes. In addition, Reg. §20.2010-1(e)(3) is amended to reflect the increased BEA for years 2018-2025 ($10 million, as adjusted for inflation). Further, the IRS has confirmed that taxpayers taking advantage of the increased BEA in effect from 2018 to 2025 will not be adversely affected after 2025 when the exclusion amount is set to decrease to pre-2018 levels.

The regulations apply to estates of decedents dying on and after November 26, 2019.

Special Rule for Post-2025 Decedents

Reg. §20.2010-1(c) provides a special rule in cases where the portion of the credit against the estate tax that is based on the BEA is less than the sum of the credit amounts attributable to the BEA allowable in computing gift tax payable within the meaning of Code Sec. 2001(b)(2). In that situation, the portion of the credit against the net tentative estate tax that is attributable to the BEA is based upon the greater of those two credit amounts.

Inflation-Adjusted Amounts and DSUE Amount

Because the term "BEA" includes the exclusion amount, as adjusted for inflation, the examples in the regulations reflect hypothetical inflated adjusted BEAs. Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(ii), Example 2, illustrates the application of the special rule based on gifts actually made, and would be inapplicable to a decedent who did not make gifts in excess of the date of death BEA, as adjusted for inflation.

Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), Examples 3 and 4, illustrate that if a spouse dies during the increased BEA period, and the deceased spouse’s executor makes the portability election, the surviving spouse’s applicable exclusion amount includes the full amount of the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount based on the deceased spouse’s increased BEA. The DSUE amount is available to reduce the surviving spouse’s transfer tax liability regardless of when transfers are made.

BEA Calculations

The final rules explain how to determine the extent to which a credit allowable in computing gift tax payable is based solely on the BEA. Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(iv), Example 4, addresses the application of the DSUE ordering rule, as well as the computation of the credit based solely on the BEA in a calendar period in which the transfer exhausts the remaining DSUE amount with the result that the BEA is also allowable.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released a report on suitability checks for participation in IRS programs. TIGTA initiated this audit to assess the effectiveness of IRS processes to ensure the suitability of applicants seeking to participate in IRS programs and to follow up on IRS planned corrective actions to address prior TIGTA recommendations.

TIGTA Final Audit Report

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released a report on suitability checks for participation in IRS programs. TIGTA initiated this audit to assess the effectiveness of IRS processes to ensure the suitability of applicants seeking to participate in IRS programs and to follow up on IRS planned corrective actions to address prior TIGTA recommendations.

Suitability Checks

The IRS’s suitability checks for applicants to the Acceptance Agent, Enrolled Agent, and e-File Provider Programs generally ensured that only reputable individuals were accepted in the programs during fiscal year 2018. Further, the IRS’s continuous suitability checks also ensured that individuals accepted in the programs prior to the initial suitability checks had not engaged in criminal activity warranting removal from the program. TIGTA also identified that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a criminal history for an applicant, the adjudication process was inconsistent depending on the program to which the individual was applying. Finally, the IRS did not take sufficient actions to address the fraudulent submission of fingerprint cards by some applicants to pass their background investigations.

TIGTA Recommendations

TIGTA recommended that the IRS:

• assess the risk to tax administration of performing inconsistent initial and continuous suitability checks on individuals seeking to participate or enrolled in the e-File Provider, Acceptance Agent, and Enrolled Agent Programs;
• assess the risk of the e-File Provider Program’s use of decision matrices to adjudicate an applicant’s criminal history that are inconsistent with the matrices used by the Acceptance Agent and Enrolled Agent Programs; and
• work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify additional individuals who may have submitted fingerprint cards that match the fingerprints of another individual.

The IRS agreed with all the recommendations.

Telecommuting not only offers employees flexibility, but accommodates lives that can often be hectic. While employees love the lifestyle and family/home advantages of telecommuting, the potential improvement to the bottom line is what appeals to employers.

Telecommuting not only offers employees flexibility, but accommodates lives that can often be hectic. While employees love the lifestyle and family/home advantages of telecommuting, the potential improvement to the bottom line is what appeals to employers. For example, turnover may decrease as satisfied employees are less likely to jump ship; absences may decrease since inclement weather and sick children do not prevent a home-bound employee from working; and overhead is reduced as less office space and support staff are required. Employees also enjoy financial benefits as they find their expenses for clothing, lunch and commuting are drastically reduced.

Tax implications of telecommuting

Although it may not be a top consideration as you and your employees contemplate the desirability of telecommuting, the question should nevertheless be addressed: what is the tax effect of such an arrangement?

Employer

If your employees telecommute, you probably won't feel a thing. The employee is paid just as he would be if he were on-site; the collection and payment of employment taxes will still be your responsibility as the employer; supplies and computer that you provide will still be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.

Employee

But what about a telecommuting employee? Can telecommuting lead to an increase or decrease in net income? A change in deductions? An increase in the amount and types of required recordkeeping? The answer is yes... to all of the above.

Home office deduction. A discussion of telecommuting deductions should begin with the telecommuter's home office. A home office offers not only the possibility of a tax deduction in and of itself; it also affects the employee's ability to deduct other items that he may provide in order to do his job, such as computers and peripherals.

Strict requirements are applied by the IRS to home offices: expenses of the office are deductible only if certain conditions are met. The area used for business must be used (1) for the convenience of his employer and (2) regularly and exclusively as a principal place of business (or as a place to meet with clients or customers, but that will not usually be the case for a telecommuting employee).

• Convenience of the employer. When is an employee's home office used for the "convenience of the employer"? Courts, taxpayers and the IRS have struggled with this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is a response to a business necessity. This test is satisfied if it is the employer who wants the arrangement. It is possible, however, that if it is the employee who asks for telecommuting, the IRS will conclude that the arrangement is not for the convenience of the employer. If your employee plans to take a home office deduction, it will be easier for him to meet the test if your records document that you requested the arrangement or that you mutually decided that telecommuting was preferred.

• Principal place of business. If the convenience of the employer test is met, the employee still has to show that his home office is his principal place of business. If he strictly telecommutes, this should not be a problem. If he alternates between his home office and your office location, he will meet this test if (1) he uses his home office for administrative and management activities related to the business and (2) there is no other place where he conducts substantial activities of this type. If this test doesn't produce a clear answer, the determination will have to be made based on (1) which location he spends more time at and (2) the relative importance of the business activities he conducts at both.

If the home office qualifies for deduction, all of the expenses relating to the office and its use may be deductible. These expenses include direct expenses, such as repairs to the room, installation of carpeting, etc. and indirect expenses, which relate to the office as part of the entire house, such as utilities, rent or mortgage interest, real estate taxes, etc. If the employee's income from the business use of his home equals or exceeds total business expenses, all of the expenses can be deducted.

Deducting computers and peripherals. How a telecommuting employee treats computers and related equipment depends on whether these items are the property of the employer or the employee.

• Supplied by employer. If the employer supplies them, he is entitled to deduct the cost. The tax result to the employee is less clear. It is possible, and in fact most likely, that the items will simply be treated as any other untaxed supplies and equipment provided to on-site employees to do their job, like paper and pens and a desk.

Alternatively, although it is difficult to support an argument that an employee's use of a computer in doing business for his employer should be treated as a fringe benefit, this is relatively new territory for the IRS and it has not officially tackled the issue. If employee non-office business use of employer-provided equipment is determined to be covered by the Internal Revenue Code, it seems likely that it would be treated as an excludable working condition fringe benefit. If so, employees will have to substantiate their business use in order to qualify for the exclusion. And what about an employee's personal use of the employer's computer? If the employee who uses an employer-provided computer can substantiate his business use of the computer and if his personal use is minimal, that benefit may be a de minimis fringe benefit he can exclude from taxation.

• Supplied by employee. If the computer is supplied by the employee, he can expense or depreciate the computer if it is both (1) required as a condition of employment and (2) used for the convenience of the employer. Qualifying for the home office deduction operates somewhat as a safe harbor for computer-related deductions. If the employee couldn't satisfy the requirements for a deductible home office, he will have to substantiate his business use in order to depreciate the computer and/or deduct related expenses. Substantiation requires the employee to keep adequate records documenting the time and amount of the business use, the date of expenditure or of use of the computer, the business purpose of the use of the computer, and the amount of each expenditure respecting the computer, such as the acquisition cost. If he met the requirements for taking a home office deduction, however, he does not have to substantiate the business use of the computer. Regardless, if the computer is not acquired or used by the employee as a condition of his employment and for the convenience of his employer, he can't depreciate or expense it. In addition to these requirements, computer expenses, just like all other business expenses, must be ordinary and necessary.

If the employee does use the computer for the employer's convenience and as a condition of his employment but can't meet the requirements for a home office deduction and must substantiate his business use in order to depreciate or deduct his computer, the amount deductible will be that proportion of expenses that correlates to the business use of the computer. The depreciation method available to the telecommuting employee will depend on whether the computer or other related equipment is used more or less than 50% for business. If more than 50%, he can use MACRS 200% declining balance depreciation for the business-use portion of the property plus that portion of the computer he personally used in the production of investment, royalty or rental income. If business use was less than 50%, the employee is limited to the straight-line method of depreciation. If the employee wants to expense the computer, he can only do so if its business use was more than 50%, and then he can expense only that portion of the property that was allocated to business use.

Dealing with reimbursed expenses. What about employer-reimbursed expenses? A telecommuting employee may be reimbursed for utilities, phone expenses or similar charges related to his home office and may be supplied with office materials or other supplies. All of these amounts will be considered either (1) employer owned items used in performing the employer's work and not income to the employee or (2) working condition fringe benefits and tax-free to your employee if he could deduct them as ordinary and necessary business expenses if he had paid them himself. In order to categorize these amounts as working condition fringes, the employee must be able to establish his home office as his principal place of business.

Telecommuting is increasing in acceptance and favor as a work option providing significant benefits to employee and employer alike. As its use expands, employers and employees should be aware that there is more to telecommuting than reduced costs and a more relaxed lifestyle. Careful and creative tax planning will help avoid any surprises or pitfalls.

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

A. In order to accurately calculate the gain or loss realized on assets you sell, it is important that you keep track of the bases of all of your assets, including stock. However, when it comes to stock--especially lots of stock bought and sold at different times-- it may seem a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules related to determining the basis of stock sold make the task more manageable.

In general, the basis of stock sold will be determined under one of the following methods: first-in, first-out (FIFO) or specific identification. However, securities held in mutual funds and received as a result as a corporate reorganization may be handled differently.

First-in, first-out (FIFO)

In general, if you buy identical shares of stock at different prices or on different dates and then you sell only part of the stock, your basis and holding period of the shares sold are determined on a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis, based upon the acquisition date of the securities. However, if specific shares sold are adequately identified by the delivery of certificates, by a broker having custody of them, or by a trustee or executor, the basis will be determined by the specific identification method (see below).

The acquisition date for purpose of applying the FIFO method follows the rules for holding period. For example, the acquisition date of securities received by gift takes into account the donor's holding period, and securities received in an estate distribution includes the holding period of the executor or trustee.

Margin accounts. If your shares are held in a margin account, they are considered sold in the order in which they were purchased, rather than the order in which they were placed in the account.

Stock splits or dividends. If you receive shares as a result of a stock split or tax-free stock dividend, they must be allocated among the original lots to which they relate, with the basis of the original shares allocated between the new shares and the old shares based on their fair market values.

Stock rights. If you acquire additional shares by exercising stock rights, your new shares are treated as a separate lot and your basis in them is equal to the amount paid plus the basis of the stock rights.

Multiple contracts. Shares acquired on the same day under several contracts entered into at different times to purchase stock when issued are deemed acquired for the FIFO rule in the same order as the contracts were entered into.

Specific identification

When you are able to identify the securities to be sold, and do so, FIFO will not apply to your basis allocation. The identity of securities sold or otherwise transferred generally is determined by the certificates actually delivered to the transferee (usually by CUSP number). Thus, if you have records showing the cost and holding period of securities represented by separate certificates, you can often better control the amount of gain or loss realized by selecting the certificates to be transferred. But be careful: delivery of the wrong certificates is binding, despite your intention to transfer securities from a different lot.

Example: You hold 1000 shares of IBM. You purchased 400 shares (actually 100 shares that split twice) in 2000 for $8,000 (net brokerage commissions). You bought 400 more shares in 2005 at $18,000; and 200 more in early 2007 for $16,000. You want to sell 300 shares now when its value is down to $50 per share. If you do not specify to your broker before the trade to sell the 200 shares purchased in 2007 and 100 shares from the 2005 lot, you will realize $9,000 in long term capital gains instead of $500 in long-term capital gain and a $6,000 short-term capital loss.

Mutual funds

If you own shares in a mutual fund, you may elect to determine the basis of stock sold or transferred from your accounts by using one of two average cost methods: either the double-category method or the single-category method. An election to use one of the average basis methods for mutual fund shares must be made on either a timely filed income tax return or the first late return for the first tax year to which the election is to apply. Different methods may be used for accounts in different regulated investment companies.

Securities received in reorganization

An exception to the FIFO rule applies to securities received in reorganization (such as a merger) and not adequately identified. These securities are given an average basis, computed by dividing the aggregate basis of the securities surrendered in the exchange by the number of shares received in the exchange. If securities in the same corporation are received in the exchange, however, they are divided into lots corresponding with those of the securities surrendered and the FIFO principle is applied, in the absence of adequate identification on a later disposition.

As illustrated in an example above, there can be negative tax effects from the misidentification of stock sold. If you are uncertain how to properly identify stock sold, please contact the office for further guidance.

An attractive benefit package is crucial to attract and retain talented workers. However, the expense of such packages can be cost-prohibitive to a small business. Establishing a tax-advantaged cafeteria plan can be an innovative way to provide employees with additional benefits without significantly adding to the cost of your overall benefit program.

An attractive benefit package is crucial to attract and retain talented workers. However, the expense of such packages can be cost-prohibitive to a small business. Establishing a tax-advantaged cafeteria plan can be an innovative way to provide employees with additional benefits without significantly adding to the cost of your overall benefit program.

Rising healthcare costs affect small businesses

If you are like most employers today, you have been dealing with the sting of rising prices for health benefits for some time. As a matter of economic survival, many small businesses have had to pass on at least some of the cost of providing health, dental and prescription benefits to their employees. As the prices continue to rise to fund these benefits, employees have been required to pay an increasing share of these costs. Establishing a cafeteria plan can be a way to make this problem more palatable for your employees at relatively little cost to your business.

Cafeteria plans defined

Technically, a cafeteria plan is a program through which you can offer your employees a choice between two or more "qualified benefits" and cash. The plan must be set forth in a written document and it can only be offered to employees. Depending on what you want to accomplish through a cafeteria plan, the plan can vary from being extremely simple (e.g., premium conversion plans) to being somewhat more complex as more features are added (e.g. flexible spending accounts).

Premium conversion plans: Popular and simple

A very simple type of cafeteria plan that is very popular among small to mid-size employers is sometimes referred to as a "premium conversion" plan. Establishment of a premium conversion plan would not require you to provide any significant additional funding for benefits other than what you are currently spending.

Here's how it works: through the structure of a cafeteria plan, you can offer your employees the ability to use pre-tax dollars to pay the portion of premiums you require them to contribute for their health, dental, and prescription benefits (including the cost of dependent benefits). Using pre-tax dollars to pay for their portion of health care premiums saves your employees money and will result in more net dollars in their paychecks. It may seem surprising, but your employees will appreciate even this small dollar-saving benefit.

With a premium conversion plan, the only costs to you as an employer is the expense of hiring an attorney or other benefits professional to draft a cafeteria plan document for you and the expense of making the small adjustment to your system of payroll deductions so that the employees' portion of the health benefit premiums is deducted from their gross pay rather than their after-tax pay.

Flexible spending accounts

Another benefit that can be made available under a cafeteria plan is a flexible spending account option. These accounts permit employees to have a specific amount withheld from each paycheck and set aside to be used for reimbursement of medical expenses not covered by the group health insurance plan or to be used to cover dependent care expenses. Keep in mind, however, that if you want to establish flexible spending accounts through a cafeteria plan, it will involve more ongoing administrative expense on your part than a simple premium conversion cafeteria plan.

Additional options

You also may want to offer your employees a cafeteria plan which provides them a set dollar value that each employee can take either as additional salary or choose to spend on a variety of benefits, e.g., health insurance, dental coverage, dependent care, or retirement plan contributions. With this type of plan, all benefits other than additional salary are not taxable to the employee. This type of plan can provide desirable flexibility to your employees, but will also cost more to establish and administer.

As you make the determination regarding what type of benefit program you would like to offer your employees, there are many other options that should be taken into consideration. If you require additional guidance, please contact the office for a consultation.

An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a retirement plan option that offers even greater tax advantages than many other retirement plans. However, for the small business owner, ESOPs have another significant advantage: in the right situation, an ESOP can be an extraordinarily useful estate and business succession planning tool.

An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a retirement plan option that offers even greater tax advantages than many other retirement plans. However, for the small business owner, ESOPs have another significant advantage: in the right situation, an ESOP can be an extraordinarily useful estate and business succession planning tool.

The Internal Revenue Code offers great benefits for tax-qualified retirement plans such as ESOPs. Employers can get a tax deduction for contributions made on employee's behalf to the plan, while employees do not have to pay immediate income tax on these contributions. An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a very specialized type of qualified retirement plan that offers even greater tax advantages than many other retirement plans. However, for the small business owner, ESOPs have another significant advantage: in the right situation, an ESOP can be an extraordinarily useful estate and business succession planning tool.

Unfortunately, it is all too common for owners of closely held businesses to approach retirement age without having an adequate business succession plan in place that will allow them to comfortably retire and enjoy the fruits of their labor. In many cases, these businesses may be very successful but not readily marketable due to heavy dependence on the input from the business owners on an ongoing basis. In these situations, the owner may find it very difficult to sell the business for its full value and due to inadequate planning, may have to sell the business for a fraction of its worth at retirement.

If you are a business owner considering selling your business at retirement and are concerned about getting the full fair market value for your business, the answer may be right in front of you. In many cases, the most logical buyers for your business may be your key employees. These key employees are familiar with your business including customers, vendors, and processes as well as your long-term vision for the business. They have an excellent chance to continue fostering the success of your business after your departure.

However, in many circumstances, your employees will not have the cash to buy your business outright and therefore, the business must, in one way or another, provide them with the means to pay the purchase price. This is a situation when an ESOP can be used as an effective planning tool to "save the day" by providing a financially effective way to help fund the sale of your business to your key employees at full market value.

There are numerous tax benefits that are available to you as an owner to sell your business to your employees through the use of an ESOP. These benefits allow you t

• Sell your shares of stock tax-free to the ESOP;

• Utilize an ESOP loan (for which the bank and your company get special tax treatment); and

• Have your employees pay for the stock while the business pays back the ESOP loan using (a) deductible and enhanced contributions to the ESOP, and (b) tax deductible dividends.

These benefits mean that by using an ESOP, you can sell your business tax-free and at full value (as determined by an appraiser) to your employees who are more able to pay because they can deduct the purchase price. These tax benefits provide a mechanism for you to receive maximum value for your business in cases where there may not be any other way to accomplish this.

Providing business succession to key employees through an ESOP may not only give you adequate funds on which to retire, but also can leave your family with a portfolio of liquid investments in the form of the proceeds from the tax-free stock sale of your stock back to the ESOP, instead of a business that your family may have not know-how to run nor have any desire to run. Further, an ESOP can also help if you have one or more children that want to remain active in the business, while others want to receive an equal share of the your estate and do not want to be required to remain involved in the operation of the business.

Subchapter S corporations have been permitted to establish an ESOP for the last couple of years. If you are operating as an S corporation and are interested in establishing an ESOP, it is important to be aware of the differences between ESOPs that can be established for standard corporations and S corporations.

An ESOP is an extremely specialized type of profit sharing or stock bonus plan and must comply with all of the requirements for any other tax-qualified retirement plan that are imposed under the Internal Revenue Code and the supporting Treasury regulations. However, an ESOP is only slightly more complicated to establish than a profit sharing or 401(k) plan. For more information about how an ESOP can be used in your business succession plans, please contact the office to schedule a consultation.

Incentive stock options (ISOs) give employees a "piece of the action" while allowing employers to attract workers at relatively inexpensive costs. However, before you accept that job offer, there are some intricate rules regarding the taxation of ISOs that you should understand.

ISOs give employees a "piece of the action" while allowing employers to attract workers at relatively inexpensive costs. However, before you accept that job offer, there are some intricate rules regarding the taxation of ISOs that you should understand.

How are ISOs taxed?

An incentive stock option is an option granted to you as an employee which gives you the right to purchase the stock of your employer without realizing income either when the option is granted or when it is exercised. You are first taxed when you sell or otherwise dispose of the option stock. You then have capital gain equal to the sale proceeds minus the option price, provided that the holding period requirement is met.

Note. The IRS has temporarily suspended collection of ISO alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities through September 30, 2008.

How long do I need to hold ISOs to get capital gain treatment?

To obtain favorable tax treatment, the stock acquired under an incentive stock option qualifies for favorable long-term capital gain tax treatment only if it is not disposed of before the later of two years from the date of the grant of the option, or one year from the date of the exercise of the option. If this holding period is not satisfied, the portion of the gain equal to the difference between the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise and the option price is taxed as compensation income rather than capital gain. In this case, you may be subject to the higher rate of income imposed on ordinary income.

For example, your employer granted you an incentive stock option on April 1, 2006, and you exercised the option on October 1, 2006, you must not sell the stock until April 1, 2008, to obtain favorable tax treatment (the later of two years from the date of the grant or one year from the date of exercise).

What key dates should I remember?

Because of the importance of receiving capital gain treatment, it is important that you keep in mind key dates such as the date of grant of the ISO and its date of exercise. These periods are measured from the date on which all acts necessary to grant the option or exercise the option have been completed. Therefore, the date of grant is treated as the date on which the board of directors or the stock option committee completes the corporate action which constitutes an offer of stock, rather than the date on which the option agreement is prepared. The date of exercise is the date on which the corporation receives notice of the exercise of the option and payment for the stock, rather than the date the shares of stock are actually transferred.

Will I be subject to alternative minimum tax?

The effect of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on ISOs can amount to a potential trap for the unwary. This is because under the regular tax there is no tax until the stock is sold or otherwise disposed of. Under the AMT, however, the trap takes place when the ISO is exercised, since alternative minimum taxable income includes the difference between the FMV of the stock on the date the ISO is exercised and the price paid for the stock (the "ISO spread").

If you pay AMT, you are given a credit against regular income tax for the portion of the AMT attributable to ISOs and other tax preference items that result in deferral of income tax. The credit is taken in later years when no AMT is due, and may be taken to the extent that regular tax liability exceeds tentative minimum tax liability. The effect of this is that the AMT is a prepayment of tax, rather than an additional tax.

Since the AMT only applies if it is higher than your regular income tax, one strategy is to time the exercise of ISOs each year to come under the AMT exemption levels. Purely from a tax standpoint, the ideal situation is to exercise ISOs each year that would result in AMT equal to your regular tax. Of course, other factors, such as market conditions, financial needs, etc. may play a greater role in deciding when to exercise an option. If you pay high property tax or state income tax, you may find it more challenging to calculate the optimum exercise of ISOs in relation to the AMT, since both of these deductions are counted against their annual AMT exemption.

ISOs can be a nice additional employee benefit when considering a job offer. However, because the tax implications surrounding certain key trigger events related to ISOs can have a significant impact on your tax liability, we suggest that you contact the office for additional guidance.