Senate tax writers on Capitol Hill continue to discuss bipartisan retirement savings bills as the House gears up for a vote on a related tax measure.

Senate tax writers on Capitol Hill continue to discuss bipartisan retirement savings bills as the House gears up for a vote on a related tax measure.

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) held a May 14 hearing during which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle highlighted the importance of moving forward with retirement savings-related legislative efforts. While a number of related tax proposals have been introduced recently, SFC lawmakers paid particular focus to the bipartisan Retirement Enhancement Savings Bill, more commonly referred to as “RESA.”

“[T]his committee worked on a bipartisan basis to put together the [RESA],” SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said during opening statements. “Our bill is all about making it easier for employers -- particularly small businesses -- to offer retirement plans to their employees,” Wyden added. “Giving those small businesses an opportunity to band together and offer a common retirement plan is a simpler and more cost-effective way of helping more people save.”

House Vote Expected on Secure Bill

Notably, the Senate’s RESA bill has many similarities to the House’s Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Bill of 2019 (HR 1994). The bipartisan SECURE Bill is expected to reach the House floor for a full chamber vote in the coming days.

“We’re on track to go to the House floor this month,” Kara Getz, chief tax counsel for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, DMass., has said. Getz, while speaking on May 10 at the American Bar Association (ABA) May Tax Meeting in Washington, D.C., said that the House bill is derived from a true “partnership” between Democrats and Republicans.

To that end, SFC Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, alluded during the May 14 hearing that the Senate and House measures could soon be reconciled and enacted. “I’m hoping that the House will send its version of RESA over to us at some point this month,” Grassley said. “And, I’ll continue to work closely with Senator Wyden and other Committee members to reconcile the differences and get this important bill to the President.”

Additionally, Drew Crouch, senior tax counsel for the SFC minority, while speaking on May 10 at the ABA May Meeting, stated that there is a “high probability” the retirement bill(s) will be enacted this year. Crouch further emphasized this position by adding that that there is a “high chance retirement legislation will make it across the finish line,” in this Congress.

Retirement Savings 2.0

Meanwhile, House and Senate lawmakers are already working toward Retirement Savings “2.0,” Getz stated at the ABA May Meeting. House tax writers are “actively working on 2.0,” Getz said, adding that, “we would really like to markup a second retirement bill.”

Likewise, Grassley alluded to the Retirement Savings 2.0 initiative on May 14, noting in his
opening statement that the SFC hearing “marks the start of our work on the next round of retirement savings reforms.”

To that end, SFC members Rob Portman, R Ohio, and Ben Cardin, D-Md., on March 14 introduced
a 132-page bipartisan retirement savings tax bill. The Retirement Savings & Security Bill would
make several sweeping reforms to retirement savings.

President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to develop a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to develop a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

$2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

"There was goodwill in this meeting…which is a very good thing," Schumer told reporters at the White House on April 30 after meeting with Trump. "We agreed on a number – $2 trillion for infrastructure,"Schumer said. Further, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Schumer both praised Trump after the meeting for his bipartisan cooperation.

The president and Democratic leaders were to meet again to discuss how to pay for the infrastructure plan, Schumer said. At that time, Trump is expected to convey his ideas on funding, Schumer added. "This was a very, very good start…and we hope it will go to a constructive conclusion."

“Pay-Fors”

Additionally, Schumer told reporters at the White House that the infrastructure plan’s "pay-fors"remained undetermined. Notably, Schumer suggested from the Senate floor on April 29 rolling back part of Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law to fund infrastructure costs.

Generally, infrastructure is considered a bipartisan priority among lawmakers. However, reaching an agreement on how to pay for the reportedly $2 trillion infrastructure plan that is still in development is expected on Capitol Hill to be an arduous task. Namely, Democrats are expected to propose scaling back certain tax cuts under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) to foot the infrastructure bill, which is not likely to receive GOP support.

"That’s a non-starter" Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters at the U.S. Capitol on April 30. "This tax bill [TCJA] is what has generated this robust economy; the last thing we want to do is step on all of this growth…by repealing in effect what has generated all of this prosperity and low unemployment," McConnell said.

White House: Meeting Excellent, Productive

Meanwhile, the White House praised the April 30 infrastructure meeting between Trump and top congressional Democrats, calling it "excellent and productive," as noted in a statement released by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shortly after the meeting. Notably, however, the statement did not mention the $2 trillion figure allegedly agreed upon by Trump and Democratic congressional leadership.

"We will have another meeting in three weeks to discuss specific proposals and financing methods,"Sanders added. "The president looks forward to working together in a bipartisan way and getting things done for the American people."

Highly anticipated proposed regulations have been issued on the withholding required with respect to the disposition of certain partnership interests. The proposed regulations affect certain foreign persons that recognize gain or loss on the disposition of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and persons that acquire those interests. Also affected are partnerships that directly or indirectly have foreign partners.

Highly anticipated proposed regulations have been issued on the withholding required with respect to the disposition of certain partnership interests. The proposed regulations affect certain foreign persons that recognize gain or loss on the disposition of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and persons that acquire those interests. Also affected are partnerships that directly or indirectly have foreign partners.

Gain or loss from the disposition of a partnership interest is treated as income effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business, to the extent that there would have been effectively connected income to the foreign partner, if the partnership assets were sold under Code sec. 864(c)(8). The withholding rules of Code Sec. 1446(f) require 10 percent withholding on the amount realized on the disposition, absent certification that the transferor is not a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.

The proposed regulations are a companion to Proposed Reg. 1.864(c)(8)-1 issued in December 2018, on gain or loss by foreign persons on the disposition of a partnership interest.

Reporting, Withholding and Paying Tax

The proposed regulations provide rules for withholding, reporting and paying tax upon the disposition of a partnership interest in a partnership described in Code Sec. 864(c)(8) and Proposed Reg. 1.864(c)(8)-1. The proposed regulations adopt much of the temporary guidance issued in Notice 2018-29, I.R.B. 2018-16, 495, which looked to the rules for withholding on dispositions of U.S. real property interests by foreign persons in Code Sec. 1445.

The proposed regulations also:

• clarify the reporting rules for transfers of partnership interests under Code Sec. 6050(k),
• provide rules for implementing withholding by brokers on transfers of certain interests in publicly traded partnerships,
• make changes to withholding rules for distributions by publicly traded partnerships,
• make changes to reporting rules and procedures for adjusting withholding; and
• provide coordination rules to prevent overwithholding.

A transferee is required to report and pay any tax withheld by the 20th day after the date of the transfer. Form 8288, U.S. Withholding Tax Return for Dispositions by Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests, and Form 8288-A, Statement of Withholding on Dispositions by Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests.

The proposed regulations also provide rules that address a partnership’s requirement to withhold if the transferee fails to withhold.

General Rule and Exceptions

A transferee of a partnership interest must withhold a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount realized on any transfer of a partnership interest (other than certain publicly traded partnership interests), if the gain is treated as effectively connected income.

There are six exceptions to withholding under the proposed regulations:

• certification by transferor of non-foreign status,
• certification by transferor that no gain is realized on transfer by transferor,
• certification by partnership that effectively connected gain from the disposition would be less than 10 percent,
• certification by transferor that for prior three tax years its effectively connected taxable income for each year was less than 10 percent of its total distributive share of net partnership income for the year;
• certification by transferor that a nonrecognition provision applies, and
• certification by transferor that a treaty provision applies.

Publicly Traded Partnership Interests

The proposed regulations provide rules for withholding and reporting on the transfer of an interest in a publicly traded partnership (a PTP interest). The withholding obligation is generally limited to brokers that receive proceeds from the sale and act on behalf of the transferor. Once the proposed regulations are final, the suspension on withholding on a PTP interest in Notice 2018-08, I.R.B. 2018-7, 352, will end.

Notice Requirements

A foreign partner that transfers its partnership interest will need information from the partnership to compute its tax liability based on the deemed sale. Rules are provided that will facilitate the transfer of information between a foreign partner and partnership for purposes of Code Sec. 864(c)(8).

Proposed 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.

Proposed 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 proposed 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.

Ownership Attribution

The proposed 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 rules. Determining 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.

Under current Reg. §1.954-1(f), the Code Sec. 318(a)(3) downward attribution rules, which attribute ownership downward from the owner of an entity to an entity, apply by reference to the Code Sec. 958stock ownership rules. These 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.

Based on concern that the downward attribution rules could produce inappropriate results, the proposed regulations provide that the downward attribution rule 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.

This 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 will not be applied to treat a person with an option as owning the stock or 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 proposed regulations also incorporate a similar rule issued in 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 is proposed to apply for tax years of CFCs beginning after December 31, 2006, and ending before the date that final regulation are published in the Federal Register, and for tax year of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Foreign Personal Holding Company Rules

The proposed regulations modify the foreign personal holding company rules on 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 they 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 propose 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 proposed regulations are generally proposed to apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register, and for tax year of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Final regulations have been issued on transactions of U.S. taxpayers that have qualified business units (QBUs) with functional currency other than the U.S. dollar.

Final regulations have been issued on transactions of U.S. taxpayers that have qualified business units (QBUs) with functional currency other than the U.S. dollar. Specifically, the final regulations:

• cover combinations and separations of QBUs subject to Code Sec. 987 (Reg. 1.987-2 and Reg. 1. 987-4),
• cover recognition and deferral of foreign currency gain or loss with respect to a QBU subject to Code Sec. 987 in connection with certain QBU terminations and other transactions involving partnerships (Reg. 1. 987-12), and 
• withdraw Temporary regulations that determine a partner’s share of assets and liabilities of a Code Sec. 987 aggregate partnership (Temporary Reg. 1.987-7T). In general, the regulations prevent the selective recognition of Code Sec. 987 gain or loss.

Applicability Dates

The IRS declined to extend the applicability of these provisions. The final regulations retain the applicability dates of the temporary regulations, as extended by IRS guidance. The final regulations under Reg. 1.987-2 and Reg. 1. 987-4 generally apply to tax years beginning on or after the day that is three years after the first day of the first tax year following December 7, 2016. The final regulations under Reg. 1. 987-12 generally apply to any deferral event or outbound loss event that occurs on or after January 6, 2017.

Medicaid waiver payments were earned income, even though IRS Notice 2014-7 treated them as “difficulty of care” foster care payments that were excluded from gross income. The Tax Court held that excluding the payments from earned income would improperly deny the taxpayers’ earned income credit and the additional child tax credit.

Medicaid waiver payments were earned income, even though IRS Notice 2014-7 treated them as “difficulty of care” foster care payments that were excluded from gross income. The Tax Court held that excluding the payments from earned income would improperly deny the taxpayers’ earned income credit and the additional child tax credit.

IRS Excludes Medicaid Waiver Payments From Gross Income

The taxpayers received payments under a state Medicaid waiver program for proving care to their adult disabled children in the family home. IRC §131 excludes foster care payments from gross income, but it applies only when the foster individuals are placed in the caregiver’s home by the state. Despite the statutory language, however, Notice 2014-7 treats Medicaid waiver payments as excludable “difficulty of care” foster payments. Thus, the taxpayers excluded the payments from their gross income.

Gross Income Vs. Earned Income

However, the taxpayers included the payments in their earned income, which allowed them to claim the earned income credit and the additional child tax credit. The IRS denied the credits, arguing that only gross income can be earned income. The Tax Court sided with the taxpayers.

No Deference For Notice 2014-7

The court concluded that Notice 2014-7 was entitled to little if any deference for two reasons:

1. The taxpayers’ payments did not satisfy the plain statutory definition of excludable foster care payments.
2. The notice reversed the IRS’s long-held position that payments like these were not foster care payments

Although the Medicaid waiver payments were not covered by §131, they absolutely fell within the statutory definition of “earned income.” The IRS could not rely on Notice 2014-7 to deny credits that Congress clearly intended to provide for earned income.

IRS, Not Congress, Provided Double Benefit

Finally, the court recognized that the taxpayers were receiving an unintended double benefit, because they were getting tax credits that were based on tax-free income. However, this was only because the IRS:

1. unilaterally decided to exclude Medicaid waiver
   payments from gross income, and
2. failed to argue that if the Tax Court included the payments in earned income, they should also be included in gross income.

In a case that provides a lesson to anyone donating property to charity for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed – get proof in writing and get it at the time you donate the property. After-the-fact substantiation, no matter how convincing, is not acceptable under the tax law to support a deduction.

In a case that provides a lesson to anyone donating property to charity for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed – get proof in writing and get it at the time you donate the property. After-the-fact substantiation, no matter how convincing, is not acceptable under the tax law to support a deduction.

Case in point: The Tax Court, in Izen, Jr. v. Commissioner, 148 TC No. 5, found that a failure to follow the substantiation rules for donation of an aircraft precluded a taxpayer from claiming a deductions. The taxpayer’s evidence of donation did not satisfy the substantiation requirements, which are heightened for donations of vehicles, including aircrafts.

The taxpayer was assessed a deficiency on his federal income tax return for the year at issue. He then filed an amended return on which he claimed that he had donated a 50 percent interest in an aircraft to a tax-exempt historical society. His interest in the plane was appraised at $340,000, and he claimed a charitable contribution deduction in that amount.

The Tax Court observed that under Code Sec. 170(f)(12), contributions of used vehicles, including airplanes, whose claimed value exceeds $500, must satisfy special substantiation requirements. A taxpayer must obtain a contemporaneous written acknowledgment and include the acknowledgment with his or her return. Further, if the donee has not sold the vehicle or aircraft, the donee must certify the intended use or improvement to the property, among other requirements. Additionally, the donee must provide the IRS with a copy of the acknowledgment. The IRS developed Form 1098-C for this purpose.

The court found that the taxpayer did not include the requisite copy of Form 1098-C with his amended return, nor did the IRS receive the form from the historical society related to the taxpayer’s donation of the aircraft.

Although the taxpayer did include a copy of a letter to the IRS that was from the historical society thanking him for the donation, the court found that the letter failed to satisfy the contemporaneous written acknowledgement requirements. The letter failed to include the name and taxpayer identification number of the donor, among other items.

The court also rejected the taxpayer’s purported deed of a gift as satisfying the contemporaneous written acknowledgment requirement. The “aircraft donation agreement” did not meet the statutory requirements for a contemporaneous written acknowledgment. Like the letter, the deed failed to include the taxpayer identification number of the donor. The deed also did not include a certification of intended use.