Education Tax Incentives

In general: Tax benefits that may defray the cost of education come in a variety of forms: Scholarships, Awards, Work-Study ……………………………….Page 2 Employer exclusions or tax-free fringe benefits (no comments included herein) ………………………………..NA Education credits and a Limited education deduction …………..Page 3 Student loan interest deductions ………………………………….Page 6 Tax-favored education savings plans …………………………Page 7

Visit our web site at www.pellinigold.com for calculators and links pertaining to: Education Retirement Savings The economy Borrowing Taxes …. And see “Tax Bites” on our home page for an extensive summary of tax topics and general rules.

Awards, Scholarships, Work-Study

(NT) Awards of financial aid based on academic achievement as well as financial need qualify for an exclusion from gross income if the taxpayer is a candidate for a degree and the financial aid is used for "qualified tuition and related expenses." Tuition and fees necessary for enrollment/attendance and courses (books, supplies, etc.) constitute "qualified tuition and related expenses." Incidental expenses, room, and board are not included.

(NT) Scholarship programs and research grants that are given in exchange for services that the recipient must perform constitute wages that have gross income inclusion. However, such grants and programs that are designed to help participants gain skills and that do not represent payment for the recipient's service performance may be qualified for gross income exclusion.

(T) Work-study. This is the type of financial aid where jobs are given to students to help pay their college education costs. Students usually work for the schools they are attending or for other employers. Such awards for work-study are part of the student's taxable gross income. Thanks to the new 10-percent rate bracket, however, a student's earnings, even if the student is limited in taking the standard deduction because of being a dependent of another taxpayer, are rarely taxed at a high rate. FICA social security taxes frequently become the higher tax with which to contend.

Education Credits

HOPE scholarship credit – $1,500 maximum credit per student for each of the first two years of college Enrolled at least half-time 100 percent of the first $1,000 paid and 50 percent of the next $1,000 Lifetime Learning credit – 20 percent of costs, up to a maximum credit of $1,000 per taxpayer (family); $2,000 starting in 2003. The credit is available for 20 percent of the first $5,000 of qualified tuition and fees. Available to students who have completed their first two years (for any college year in which the HOPE credit is not claimed) and are either in the second half of their undergraduate studies or are in graduate school There is no requirement that attendance be at least part-time, and the credit includes any course of instruction, even those taken to acquire or improve job skills. Both credits Are available to the student or the student's parents. If the parents claim the student as a dependent, the parents are entitled to the credits. Generally, a child who is eligible to be claimed as a dependent by parents must be claimed as a dependant even if the result is no deduction for the parents because of limits imposed on high-income taxpayers. Parents who receive no (or minimal) dependency deduction from claiming a child as a dependent may, however, choose to not claim the student as a dependent for the purpose of allowing a student to claim the appropriate education credit.

Education Credits (cont’d)

Income limitations apply (These amounts are adjusted for inflation): The deduction is phased out for single filers having modified adjusted gross income between $41,000 and $50,000. For joint filers, the deduction is phased out for those with modified adjusted gross income between $82,000 and $100,000. Credits are also restricted to "qualified tuition and fees," which excludes payment for courses not related to a degree program, involving sports, games or hobbies, as well as many other expenses associated with college, including room and board, books, equipment, transportation and personal expenses.

Gifts and inheritances are treated as being paid by the taxpayer. This means that a student who is not claimed as a dependent by his or her parents may be eligible to take the credit, even if the student's parents pay his or her tuition, and vice versa

Taxpayers must claim the credits on Form 8863 – see our web site

Education deduction (Created by tax legislation passed in 2001) An “above-the-line deduction” (available whether or not the taxpayer itemizes other deductions) is only scheduled so far by Congress to be available for higher education costs that are paid during 2002 through 2005. The types of expenses that are deductible are the same as those eligible for the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits, generally qualified tuition and fees. The maximum size of the deduction depends on adjusted gross income for the years: 2002 and 2003: $3,000

2004 and 2005: $4,000 or $2,000 depending on income

Income limitations apply: The deduction is eliminated for single filers having modified adjusted gross income over $65,000. For joint filers, the deduction is eliminated for those with modified adjusted gross income over $130,000. In 2004, the $4,000 is reduced to $2,000 for those who’s modified adjusted gross income in greater than the above amounts but less than $80,000 and $160,000, respectively.

Comment

If the taxpayer takes a HOPE credit or Lifetime Learning credit for a student, the qualified tuition and related expenses of that student for the year are not deductible. Some parents who are above the adjusted gross income limit of $100,000 for joint returns ($50,000 for singles) for education credits will qualify for the education deduction because of the $130,000/$65,000 limit. Funds used from an Education IRA or 529 plans do not qualify for the credits or deductions.

Student Loan Interest Deduction

An “above-the-line deduction” for up to $2,500 is allowed annually for interest paid on education loans. Starting in 2002, all the interest paid up to the maximum is deductible (the old rule limited interest to the first 60 months of the loan). Enrolled at least half-time The costs of attendance are generally the costs of tuition, fees, room and board, and related expenses, such as books and supplies. As with the credits, the deduction may be available to the student, his spouse, or his parents--generally, whoever claims the student as a dependent. Income limitations apply: For 2002, the deduction is phased out for single filers having modified adjusted gross income between $50,000 and $65,000 (in 2001, the limits were $40,000 to $55,000). For joint filers, for 2002, the deduction is phased out for those with modified adjusted gross income from $100,000 to $130,000 (in 2001, the limits were $60,000 to $75,000 for married taxpayers filing joint tax returns). Comment

If it is a student loan taken out under the student's name, the parent cannot take the deduction, even if the student is not actually making the payments. A mortgage interest deduction is allowed for tuition paid using a home-equity line of credit.

Savings for Education

Tax Rates For Children … Page 8

Considerations prior to education funding … Page 9

Where to save for college after considering the above

Education Savings Account (ESA) -(Formerly known as the Education IRA) …Page 10

Code Sec. 529 accounts - Qualified Tuition Plan (QTP) … Page 13

UGMA/UTMA accounts … Page 17

Interest on Series EE Savings Bonds … Page 18

Traditional and Roth IRA’s … Page 19

Tax Rates For Children

Tax Rates For Children Under Age 14 Wages are non taxable up to 4,700 Interest, Dividends and Other Non-earned income First$750 Not Taxed Next$750 10% Thereafter at Parent's Rate Over age 13 until age 19 (if not in full time education), age 24 if in full time educational curriculum five (5) months of the year. Wages are non taxable up to $4,700 Interest, Dividends and Other Non-earned income $250Non Taxed All income in excess of the above is taxed: Next$6,00010% Next$27,95015% Next$46,75027%

Considerations prior to education funding

Current Living Needs --- Get a focus on: Essential needs Discretionary spending Set priorities among the above, retirement, special needs and education funding. Retirement Estimate your realistic retirement needs and amount of funding to accomplish such. Funds used for college ultimately have an impact on such Take advantage of employer sponsored 401k plans The benefits of current tax savings, tax deferred growth and employer matching usually insure this investment will outperform the cost of tuition increases resulting in a more sound overall financial plan Note that the allocation of funding among the above will be different for all but … The minimum personal retirement funding most should consider should be the full amount that the employer will match because even if one needs to take an "early" (pre age 59 1/2) withdraw, which will be subject to both taxation and a 10% early withdraw penalty, the penalty will rarely exceed the employer matching contribution.

Education Savings Account (ESA) (Formerly known as the Education IRA) Tax help is not limited to taxpayers who are already paying tuition--it is also provided for those who expect to one day be in that position. The amount that an individual is permitted to contribute to an ESA is limited if modified AGI exceeds certain amounts. For joint filers, the maximum contribution is phased out between an AGI of $190,000 and $220,000. For single filers, the phase out range is $95,000 to $110,000 If parent’s income precludes the use of an ESA, consider having Grandparent’s fund such. Contributions Up to $2,000, (only in the form of cash) per year may be made for each student under 18 (regardless of the number of contributors). Although, after 2001, the age limit is waived for children with special needs. Contributors can be anyone Aren't tax deductible ... but distributions of contributions and earnings are tax-free for eligible expenses, which include tuition, room and board, books, supplies and fees. Must be made to an ESA by the return due date (not including extensions) for the tax year of the contribution Investment Any type of marketable security or savings the contributor chooses. Distributions Are excludable from the beneficiary's gross income to the extent that the distributions do not exceed the qualified higher education expenses incurred during the year in which the distribution is made ESA accounts may now be used not only for college and postgraduate studies, but also for elementary and secondary (K through 12) education tuition and expenses. After 2001, proceeds from an ESA may also be used to pay the tuition for public, private and religious elementary and secondary schools. Covered expenses at these elementary schools include tutoring, computer equipment, room and board, uniforms and extended day program costs.

Education Savings Account (cont’d) Penalty provision A 10% penalty will apply if the beneficiary is required to include a payment or distribution in gross income. (if withdraws are withdrawn for other than qualified education costs). The penalty will not apply (but taxation of earnings will) to distributions: (1) Made to a beneficiary or to the estate of the designated beneficiary after the death of the designated beneficiary;

(2) Attributable to the designated beneficiary being disabled;

(3) Made on account of a scholarship or allowance received by the account holder to the extent the amount of the distribution does not exceed the amount of the scholarship or allowance; or

(4) That constitute the return of excess contributions and earnings thereon (although such earnings must be included in income).

An exception from the 10% penalty also applies to taxpayers who receive taxable distributions from an ESA solely because they claim the education credits under the Hope of Lifetime Learning Credit. Under this exception, the 10% penalty will not apply to the portion of the distribution that is used to pay qualified higher education expenses, but for which the taxpayer elects to claim the education credits under. Form 8606 is used to calculate and report the penalty (see our web site). Amounts not distributed Amounts held in the account may be placed into an ESA for a member of the beneficiary's family. These distributions will not be included in the distributee's gross income provided the rollover occurs within 60 days of the distribution. Similarly, any change in the beneficiary will not constitute a distribution for gross income purposes if the new beneficiary is a member of the family of the original beneficiary

Education Savings Account (cont’d) Termination When the beneficiary reaches age 30, any balance remaining in the account must be distributed and the earnings portion of the distribution is to be included in the beneficiary's gross income. However, prior to reaching age 30, the beneficiary may transfer or rollover the balance to another beneficiary who is a member of the original beneficiary's family.

An ESA is a tax-exempt trust created in the United States exclusively for purposes of paying the qualified higher education expenses of the trust's designated beneficiary Upon the death of the designated beneficiary, any balance remaining to the credit of the beneficiary must be distributed within 30 days to the beneficiary's estate.

Code Sec. 529 accounts Qualified Tuition Plan (QTP) Two types of Code Sec. 529 accounts exist to cover tuition, fees, room and board expenses: Tuition credit plans allow taxpayers to prepay tuition and fees, usually while locking in current rates. Savings plans let taxpayers contribute to accounts set up to fund the educational expenses of a designated individual. These plans allow investment in predetermined pools of stock and bond investments. These accounts used to be restricted to state-run programs, Congress extended eligible prepaid tuition programs to include those established by eligible private educational institutions. Qualifying education expenses include College and Post Graduate Studies Books and Supplies (computer) Room and Board *** NOT K through 12 like ESA Contributions Contributors' can be anyone. Lifetime and single year maximum > $235,000 ... (per Mike Karwic at Merrill Lynch’s 529 plan) However -- Gift and Estate tax considerations create the following practical limits: An individual may make up to an $11,000 annual gift ($22,000 for joint gifts) to any person without being subject to the gift tax or having the amount of the gift apply against the lifetime exclusion ... however A special provision allows up to $55,000 per contributor may be contributed if no contributions are made during the following four years.

Code Sec. 529 accounts - Cont’d Investments Unlike an ESA, the parent or other contributor has little or no control over the manner in which the contributions are invested. Funds are “pooled” with other 529 participants. Pools are actuarially based (more conservative for older students). One can pick a more conservative "Pool" than required. See “distributions” below for ability to “rollover” once per year … as being an avenue to change investment styles and plans. Income Limits: There are no income limits on who can be contributors (like an ESA). Distributions: After 2001, distributions from state-run Code Sec. 529 plans used for a qualifying expense are excluded from gross income; this exclusion is extended to distributions from private plans after 2003. These rules governing nontaxable distributions are, like the rest of the 2001 Act, scheduled to sunset after December 31, 2010, and the Internal Revenue Code would thereafter be applied as if those changes had not been made. If distributions do exceed the beneficiary's qualified higher education expenses, the amount included in income is reduced by the same ratio that expenses bear to the distributions. The exclusion does not preclude taxpayers from claiming education credits with respect to the same beneficiary, as long as the distribution is not used for the same expenses for which the credit is claimed. These rules governing the coordination between QTPs and education credits are, like the rest of the 2001 Act, scheduled to sunset after December 31, 2010, and the Internal Revenue Code would thereafter be applied as if those changes had not been made. After 2001, a transfer of amounts from one QTP to another for the benefit of the same beneficiary is not considered a distribution. Only one transfer may be rolled over within any 12-month period with respect to the same beneficiary. These rules governing transfers are, like the rest of the 2001 Act, scheduled to sunset after December 31, 2010, and the Internal Revenue Code would thereafter be applied as if those changes had not been made

Code Sec. 529 accounts - Distributions/ Distributions: (cont’d)

Changes in beneficiary are not distributions if the old and the new beneficiary are members of the same family. The amount paid or distributed must be transferred to the new QTP account not later than the 60th day after the payment or distribution is made. Members of the same family for this purpose include the following and their spouses: the spouse of the beneficiary; the beneficiary's son or daughter, or a descendent of either; the beneficiary's stepson or stepdaughter; the beneficiary's brother, sister, stepbrother or stepsister; the beneficiary's father or mother, or an ancestor of either; the beneficiary's stepfather or stepmother; a son or daughter of the beneficiary's brother or sister; brother or sister of the beneficiary's father or mother;

the beneficiary's son-in-law, daughter-in law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law; and

in tax years beginning after 2001, the beneficiary's first cousin. The addition of the first cousin, like the rest of the 2001 Act, is scheduled to sunset after December 31, 2010, and the Internal Revenue Code would thereafter be applied as if those changes had not been made A rollover to a beneficiary that is of a generation lower than the original beneficiary under the generation-skipping transfer tax rules may have gift and generation-skipping tax consequences. A transfer from the designated beneficiary to himself or herself, regardless of whether the transfer is to an account within the same qualified state tuition program or another qualified state tuition program in the same or another state, is not a rollover distribution and is taxable under the general annuity rules.

Code Sec. 529 accounts – (cont’d) Comments: Use of pre-paid tuition plans may reduce a student 's eligibility for subsidized loans, grants or work-study programs. If a QTP withdrawal is not used to pay qualified higher education expenses for a reason other than the death or disability of the designated beneficiary or to the extent that the distribution exceeds amounts not covered by scholarships, a 10-percent penalty shall apply. The account must be a qualified trust is defined as a trust created or organized in the United States for the exclusive benefit of designated beneficiaries Beginning in 2002, taxpayers may claim a Hope scholarship credit in the same year in which they receive a distribution from either an education savings account (ESA) or a qualified tuition program (QTP). However, expenses paid from either a ESA or a QTP cannot be used as the basis for a Hope credit. Estate Plan Comment: If the $55,000 contribution is made, death before the 5th year from the date of contribution will be partially included in estate

UGMA/UTMA accounts. UGMA - Tax-free gifts to minors can be made under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA). In 2002, transfers of up to $11,000 per taxpayer ($22,000 per married couples) can be made to a custodial account. At least some of the earnings will be tax-exempt, and some or all will be taxed at the minor's tax rate. The downsides to UGMA accounts – The gifts are irrevocable May reduce a student 's eligibility for subsidized loans, grants or work-study programs. UMTA - Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) operate much the same as UGMA accounts, but permit taxpayers to make tax-free gifts of property to their children. Comments Use Child's Name and social security number on Account … to avoid taxation to parent Child attains full control at age 18 No Investment Restrictions No Use Restrictions Estate Tax Plan - Amount in UGMA account(s) can be included in parent's estate if parent is the custodian or spends on items other than legal obligations of support (as defined by state law). Child Taxation:

Child under age 14:

$20,000 earning a return of 7% = $1,400

As a child reaches the age of 14, he/she may want to have approximately $20,000 in his/her savings … The taxes on the earnings of such amounts will be so low ($75) that one should consider an UGMA … unless their a concern about loosing control of the funds as the child reaches age 18. The tax on $1,400 is $65

Child age 14 or older:

$89,000 earning a return of 7% = $6,250

The tax on $6,250 is $600.

Interest on Series EE Savings Bonds Tax Free Interest Income (subject to income limits) Interest on Series EE U.S. savings bonds that are redeemed by the taxpayer (other than by a married taxpayer filing separately) is excluded from income. The aggregate redemption proceeds (principal and interest) cannot exceed the qualified higher education expenses incurred by the taxpayer, his spouse, and his dependents (for whom the taxpayer is entitled to take a personal exemption) during the same tax year. The exclusion is available only for an individual who (1) has purchased the redeemed bonds after attaining age 24 and (2) is the sole owner of those bonds or the joint owner with his or her spouse. The exclusion is not available to an owner who was not the original purchaser of the bonds from the U.S. unless the original purchaser was the owner's spouse. Bonds purchased by grandparents or others are ineligible unless the child is a dependent of the bond owner at the time of the redemption. Income limitations apply: The tax exemption for accrued interest is subject to a phase-out when the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the year of redemption exceeds a specified level. These figures are adjusted for inflation annually. For married taxpayers filing jointly, the phase-out range $86,450 to $116,400 in 2002. The phase-out range for single taxpayers (including heads of households) is $57,600-$72,600 in 2002 Deferring Interest Income E and EE bonds are purchased at discount and redeemed for a fixed amount at a future date. The increase from purchase price to redemption amount is Interest income that, at the choice of the holder, can be taxed as it accrues or upon redemption. ... So... If child under 14 and is expected to have less than $1,500 of income. Income should be recognized as it accrues since the tax will be $75. If child under 14 and is expected to have more than $1,500 of income. Income should be recognized at maturity since the child is likely to be in low tax brackets. (See child tax rates in this material)

Traditional and Roth IRA’s

Taxpayers may also tap their retirement IRAs for college expenses--

Generally, distributions from retirement plans (as a hardship distribution) and IRAs are exempt from the 10-percent penalty for early withdrawals if used to pay higher education expenses, such as tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment. Although the penalty is waived, distributions are, nevertheless, subject to regular income tax and permanently reduce the size of the taxpayer's qualified retirement nest egg.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

• Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
• Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

• Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
• Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
• Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
• Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
• Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
• Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
• Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
• Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
• Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
• Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
• Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

• a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
• a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

• intangible property;
• sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
• the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

• a specific document;
• information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
• a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

• evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
• provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
• define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
• provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

• a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
• a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

• a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
• the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
• the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
• elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
• clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
• removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

IRS Chief Counsel, in generic legal advice (AM-2017-003), recently described when a qualified employer may take into account the payroll tax credit for increasing research activities. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) created the payroll credit aimed at start-ups with little or no income tax liabilities. This tax break allows taxpayers to get the cash benefit of the payroll tax credit sooner as they reduce their payroll tax liability as payroll payments are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter to receive the credit.

Background

A qualified business during a tax year may elect to apply a portion of its research credit against the 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on the employer’s wage payments to employees. This payroll credit for research expenditures is limited to the lesser of: (a) the research credit for the tax year; (b) $250,000; or (c) the amount of the business credit for the tax year, including the research credit that may be carried forward to the tax year immediately after the election year.

Schedule B. Chief Counsel explained that if an employer is a semiweekly schedule depositor, it must complete Schedule B (Form 941), Report of Tax Liability for Semiweekly Schedule Depositors, and attach it to Form 941. Schedule B is also referred to as Record of Federal Tax Liability (ROFTL) for semiweekly schedule depositors. The IRS uses this information to determine if the employer made its federal employment tax deposits on time. Current Instructions for Schedule B describe the payroll tax credit.

Payroll credit

Employers, Chief Counsel explained, know the maximum amount of payroll tax credit potentially available for a quarter at the beginning of the quarter. This is because the return reflecting the payroll tax credit election on Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, must have been filed before the quarter begins in which the employer can claim credit. However, the amount of the credit that is allowed for the quarter is limited to the employer Social Security tax on wages paid to the employer's employees during the quarter.

Therefore, as the employer makes payments of wages from the beginning of the quarter for which the payroll tax credit is taken, the employer can take the payroll tax credit into account for purposes of the Schedule B and for purposes of deposit liability on the Form 941 or other employment tax return, provided the employer later files Form 8974, "Qualified Small Business Payroll Tax Credit for Increasing Research Activities," Chief Counsel explained.

Further, the payroll tax credit should be taken against deposit liabilities and reflected on Schedule B as the employer incurs liability for employer Social Security tax on wages paid in the quarter to which it applies, beginning with the first payment of wages in the quarter. "It would be counter to the purpose of the payroll tax credit to allow it as a credit only when the employer files its Form 941 for the quarter claiming the credit and not as the employer is paying wages during the quarter subject to employer Social Security tax," Chief Counsel stated.

Deadline opportunity: The IRS also recently announced that it would allow start-up companies to make the payroll tax credit election on an amended return for the 2016 tax year, but as long as the amended return is filed by December 31, 2017.

Parents incur a variety of expenses associated with children. As a general rule, personal expenditures are not deductible. However, there are several deductions and credits that help defray some of the costs associated with raising children, including some costs related to education. Some of the most common deductions and credits related to minors are the dependency exemption, the child tax credit, and the dependent care credit. Also not to be overlooked are tax-sheltered savings plans used for education, such as the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

Parents incur a variety of expenses associated with children. As a general rule, personal expenditures are not deductible. However, there are several deductions and credits that help defray some of the costs associated with raising children, including some costs related to education. Some of the most common deductions and credits related to minors are the dependency exemption, the child tax credit, and the dependent care credit. Also not to be overlooked are tax-sheltered savings plans used for education, such as the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

Dependency exemption. The dependency exemption is a type of deduction that is available for children and other qualifying dependents, subject to phase out if the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds prescribed threshold amounts. The amount of the personal exemption, adjusted for inflation, is $4,050 for tax years beginning in 2016 and 2017. The dependency exemption is available for each qualifying child under the age of 19 (under the age of 24 if a full-time student) and with no age restriction for a qualifying individual who is permanently and totally disabled. For 2017, the personal exemption begins to phase out for joint filers starting at $313,800 AGI and completely phasing out at $436,300 AGI ($261,500 and $384,000, respectively for single filers).

Child credit. The child tax credit is available for parents of qualifying children under the age of 17. The credit amount is $1,000 per qualifying child, but once again is subject to phase out if the taxpayer's AGI exceeds prescribed threshold amounts. The phaseout of the child tax credit starts at $110,000 of modified AGI (for unmarried taxpayers, it starts at $75,000). These thresholds are not adjusted for inflation.

Dependent care credit. The dependent care credit may be available to working parents for qualifying children under the age of 13, or for dependents who are physically or mentally incapable of self care. This credit is available not only for direct employment-related expenses that take place at home, but also child-care expenses for tuition paid for pre-K programs, as well as fees paid for after-school activities that double as child care. The dependent care credit is a percentage of eligible work-related expenses. The percentage goes down as adjusted gross income (AGI) goes up. The maximum amount of eligible expenses is $3,000 for taxpayers with one qualifying individual, and $6,000 for taxpayers with two or more qualifying individuals.

The amount of the credit is further determined by multiplying work-related expenses by the “applicable percentage,” which is 35 percent reduced by one percentage point for each $2,000 by which AGI for the tax year exceeds $15,000. However, the applicable percentage cannot go below 20 percent (for those with AGI over $43,000). Thus, the maximum dependent care credit amount overall is $1,050 for one qualifying dependent and $2,100 for two or more qualifying dependents. For those with income above $43,000, the maximum credit for $3,000 of qualifying expenses is $600. Finally, the amount of the employment-related expenses taken into account in calculating the credit may not exceed the lesser of the taxpayer's earned income or the earned income of his spouse if the taxpayer is married at the end of the tax year.

Coverdell education savings accounts. Two education savings entities let individuals pay for education on a tax-favored basis: a Coverdell Education Savings Account (Coverdell ESA or ESA) and a qualified tuition program (QTP, also referred to as a Code Sec. 529 plan). In contrast to Sec. 529 plans, which can only be used to cover college expenses, ESAs can cover expenses from kindergarten through college.

Individuals may open a Coverdell ESA to help pay for the qualified education expenses of a designated beneficiary. Contributions to a Coverdell ESA must be made in cash and are not deductible. In addition, the maximum annual contribution that can be made is limited to $2,000 a year. The annual contribution is phased out for joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) at or above $190,000 and less than $220,000 (at or above $95,000 and less than $110,000 for single filers).

Distributions from Coverdell ESAs are not included in the income of the donor or the beneficiary, as long as payouts do not exceed the beneficiary's adjusted qualified education expenses. For purposes of excludable distributions from an ESA, qualified elementary and secondary school expenses (kindergarten through grade 12), include the following costs:

• expenses for tuition, fees, academic tutoring, services for beneficiaries with special needs, books, supplies, and other equipment that are incurred in connection with the designated beneficiary's enrollment or attendance at a public, private or religious school;
• expenses for room and board, uniforms, transportation, and supplementary items and services (including extended day programs) that are required or provided by the school in connection with enrollment or attendance; and
• expenses for the purchase of computer technology or equipment or internet access and related services that will be used by the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s family during any of the years the beneficiary is in school. This category does not include software designed for sports, games or hobbies unless it is predominantly educational in nature.

Medical expense deduction. For parents who itemize deductions, medical and dental costs paid for their children may be deductible.

If you have any questions regarding tax breaks associated with child care or education expenses, please contact our office.

The Affordable Care Act—enacted nearly five years ago—phased in many new requirements affecting individuals and employers. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual mandate, took effect this year and will be reported on 2014 income tax returns filed in 2015. The IRS is bracing for an avalanche of questions about taxpayer reporting on 2014 returns and, if liable, any shared responsibility payment. For many taxpayers, the best approach is to be familiar with the basics before beginning to prepare and file their returns.

The Affordable Care Act—enacted nearly five years ago—phased in many new requirements affecting individuals and employers. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual mandate, took effect this year and will be reported on 2014 income tax returns filed in 2015. The IRS is bracing for an avalanche of questions about taxpayer reporting on 2014 returns and, if liable, any shared responsibility payment. For many taxpayers, the best approach is to be familiar with the basics before beginning to prepare and file their returns.

Individual mandate

Beginning January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires individuals (and their dependents) to have minimum essential health care coverage or make a shared responsibility payment, unless exempt. This is commonly called the "individual mandate."

Employer reporting

Nearly all employer-provided health coverage is treated as minimum essential coverage. This includes self-insured plans, COBRA coverage, and retiree coverage. Large employers will provide employees with new Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage and Offer, which will report the type of coverage provided. The IRS has encouraged employers to voluntarily report starting in 2015 for the 2014 plan year. Mandatory reporting begins in 2016 for the 2015 plan year.

Marketplace coverage

Coverage obtained through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace is also treated as minimum essential coverage. Marketplace enrollees should expect to receive new Form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, from the Marketplace. Individuals with Marketplace coverage will indicate on their returns that they have minimum essential coverage. Because so many individuals with Marketplace coverage also qualify for a special tax credit, they will also likely need to complete new Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit (discussed below).

Medicare, Medicaid and other government coverage

Medicare, TRICARE, CHIP, Medicaid, and other government health programs are treated as minimum essential coverage. There are some very narrow exceptions but overall, most government-sponsored coverage is minimum essential coverage.

Exemptions

Some individuals are expressly exempt under the Affordable Care Act from making a shared responsibility payment. There are multiple categories of exemptions. They include:

• Short coverage gap
• Religious conscience
• Federally-recognized Native American nation
• Income below income tax return filing requirement

The short coverage gap applies to individuals who lacked minimum essential coverage for less than three consecutive months during 2014. They will not be responsible for making a shared responsibility payment. Individuals who are members of a religious organization recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting insurance benefits also are exempt from the individual mandate. Similarly, members of a federally-recognized Native American nation are exempt. If a taxpayer’s income is below the minimum threshold for filing a return, he or she is exempt from making a shared responsibility payment.

The IRS has developed new Form 8965, Health Coverage Exemptions. Taxpayers exempt from the individual mandate will file Form 8965 with their federal income tax return.

Shared responsibility payment

All other individuals - individuals without minimum essential coverage and who are not exempt - must make a shared responsibility payment when they file their 2014 return. For 2014, the payment amount is the greater of: One percent of the person’s household income that is above the tax return threshold for their filing status; or a flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285. The individual shared responsibility payment is capped at the cost of the national average premium for the bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace in 2014. Taxpayers will report the amount of their individual shared responsibility payment on their 2014 Form 1040.

The IRS has cautioned that it will offset a taxpayer’s refund if he or she fails to make a shared responsibility payment if required. However, the Affordable Care Act prevents the IRS from using its lien and levy authority to collect an unpaid shared responsibility payment.

Code Sec. 36B credit

Only individuals who obtain coverage through the Marketplace are eligible for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reported that more than two-thirds of Marketplace enrollees are eligible for the credit and many enrollees have received advance payment of the credit.

All advance payments of the credit must be reconciled on new Form 8962, which will be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax return. Taxpayers will calculate the actual credit they qualified for based on their actual 2014 income. If the actual premium tax credit is larger than the sum of advance payments made during the year, the individual will be entitled to an additional credit amount. If the actual credit is smaller than the sum of the advance payments, the individual’s refund will be reduced or the amount of tax owed will be increased, subject to a sliding scale of income-based repayment caps.

A change in circumstance, such as marriage or the birth/adoption of a child, could increase or decrease the amount of the credit. Individuals who are receiving an advance payment of the credit should notify the Marketplace of any life changes so the amount of the advance payment can be adjusted if necessary. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the Code Sec. 36B credit.

IRS officials have told Congress that the agency is ready for the new filings and reporting requirements. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

As January 1, 2015 draws closer, many employers are gearing up for the “employer mandate” under the Affordable Care Act. For 2015, there is special transition relief for mid-size employers. Small employers (employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) are always exempt from the employer mandate and related employer reporting.

As January 1, 2015 draws closer, many employers are gearing up for the “employer mandate” under the Affordable Care Act. For 2015, there is special transition relief for mid-size employers. Small employers (employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) are always exempt from the employer mandate and related employer reporting.

Employer mandate

Under Code Sec. 4980H, an applicable large employer must make a shared responsibility payment if either:

• The employer does not offer or offers coverage to less than 95 percent (70 percent in 2015) of its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage and one or more full-time employee is certified to the employer as having received a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (“Section 4980H(a) liability”); or
• The employer offers to all or at least 95 percent of its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and one or more full-time employees is certified to the employer as having received a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (“Section 4980H(b) liability”).

For purposes of the employer mandate shared responsibility provisions, an employee is a full-time employee for a calendar month if he or she averages at least 30 hours of service per week. Under final regulations issued by the IRS earlier this year, for purposes of determining full-time employee status, 130 hours of service in a calendar month is treated as the monthly equivalent of at least 30 hours of service per week.

The IRS has provided two methods for determining whether a worker is a full-time employee: the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method. The monthly measurement method allows an employer to determine each employee’s status by counting the employee’s hours of service for each month. The look-back measurement method allows employers to determine the status of an employee as a full-time employee during a future period, based upon the hours of service of the employee in a prior period.

In September 2014, the IRS clarified the look-back method in certain circumstances. The IRS described application of the look-back method where an employee moves from one measurement period to another (for example, an employee moves from an hourly position to which a 12-month measurement period applies to a salaried position to which a 6-month measurement period applies). The IRS also described situations where an employer changes the measurement method applicable to employees within a permissible category (for example, an employer changes the measurement period for all hourly employees for the next calendar year from a 6-month to a 12-month measurement period).

Transition relief for mid-size employers

Mid-size employers are exempt from the Code Sec. 4980H employer mandate for 2015 under special transition relief. Employers qualify as mid-size if they employ on average at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, but fewer than 100 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents.

The IRS has placed some restrictions on this transition relief for mid-size employers. During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer that reduces the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition is ineligible for the transition relief. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition, the IRS explained.

Information reporting

Code Sec. 6056 requires certain employers to report to the IRS information about the health insurance, if any, they offer to employees. The IRS has posted draft forms and instructions about Code Sec. 6056 reporting on its website: Form 1094-C, Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns, and Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage.

Information reporting encompasses (among other things):

• The employer’s name, address, and employer identification number;
• The calendar year for which information is being reported;
• A certification as to whether the employer offered to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan;
• The number, address and Social Security/taxpayer identification number of all full-time employees;
• The number of full-time employees eligible for coverage under the employer’s plan; and
• The employee’s share of the lowest cost monthly premium for self-only coverage providing minimum value offered to that full-time employee.

Code Sec. 6056 reporting for 2015 is mandatory. Although mid-size employers may be exempt from the employer mandate, they are not exempt from Code Sec. 6056 reporting for 2015. The IRS is requiring all Code Sec. 6056 information returns to be filed no later than February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year immediately following the calendar year to which the return relates.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about preparing for the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Every year the IRS publishes a list of projects that are currently on its agenda. For example, the IRS may indicate through this list that it is working on a new set of procedures relating to claiming business expenses. The new 2014–2015 IRS Priority Guidance Plan, just released this September, has indicated that IRS is working on guidance relating to whether employer-provided meals offered on company premises are taxable as income to the employee. In the Priority Guidance Plan’s Employee Benefits Section B.3, the IRS listed: "Guidance under §§119 and 132 regarding employer-provided meals" in its list of projects for the upcoming year.

Every year the IRS publishes a list of projects that are currently on its agenda. For example, the IRS may indicate through this list that it is working on a new set of procedures relating to claiming business expenses. The new 2014–2015 IRS Priority Guidance Plan, just released this September, has indicated that IRS is working on guidance relating to whether employer-provided meals offered on company premises are taxable as income to the employee. In the Priority Guidance Plan’s Employee Benefits Section B.3, the IRS listed: "Guidance under §§119 and 132 regarding employer-provided meals" in its list of projects for the upcoming year.

This could be significant for many employees who could potentially have to report as taxable income what they formerly thought were free meals provided by their employer. Currently, an employer may offer meals to employees on the work premises as a tax-free perk, if the meals are provided for the employer’s convenience. The question of whether the meals are provided for the convenience of the employer is determined, however, on the basis of all the facts and circumstances. Clearer guidance from the IRS may signal that in the future, examiners will pay closer attention to meals provided by employers.

Background

A growing trend among employers is to provide free gourmet meals to their employees. Employers argue this is for their convenience, which if true would make the meals non-taxable. But in some instances the IRS and others have posited that such meals more closely resemble income.

The Tax Code currently sets forth some basic guidelines for how to determine whether meals are being provided “for the convenience of the employer.” First of all, an employment contract or state statute are not determinative of whether the meals are intended as compensation. Secondly, the meals must be provided for a substantial noncompensatory business reason.

Factors indicating that meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer include:

• A short time available for lunch due to legitimate business reasons and not just to shorten the work day;
• The need for availability of employees for emergencies;
• Insufficient other eating facilities nearby; and
• A standard charge for meals regardless of whether they are eaten.

The IRS has also noted in its existing regulations that meals provided simply to promote morale or goodwill of employees, to attract new employees or as a means of providing additional compensation are not considered to be furnished for the convenience of the employer.

Examples

The IRS’s current regulations contain examples of meals that the IRS has considered to be legitimately provided to employees, tax-free, because they are provided for the employer’s conveniences. These include:

• Meals provided by a bank to its bank tellers to retain them on the premises during the lunch hour because the bank's peak workload occurs during the normal lunch period; and
• Meals provided to casino workers, who are required to eat their meals on the premises in order to minimize the security searches they undergo as they come and go, and to ensure that staff does not succumb to the temptations of nearby casinos rather than promptly returning to work.

Conversely, meals provided by a restaurant to a waitress on her days off are not tax-free because they are perks and not for the employer’s convenience.

Under the modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) (which is more commonly known as depreciation), a half-year timing (i.e., averaging) convention generally applies to the depreciation deduction for most assets during anytime within the year in which they are purchased. That is, whether you purchase a business asset in January or in December, it’s treated for depreciation purposes as being purchased on July 1st. However, a taxpayer who places more than 40 percent of its depreciable property (excluding residential rental property and nonresidential real property) into service during the last three months of the tax year must use a mid-quarter convention – decidedly less advantageous. Because of the 40 percent rule, the purchase of a vehicle or other equipment in the last month of the tax year might, in itself, trigger imposition of the mid-quarter convention. Businesses should keep in mind the 40 percent rule especially for year-end tax planning purposes.

Under the modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) (which is more commonly known as depreciation), a half-year timing (i.e., averaging) convention generally applies to the depreciation deduction for most assets during anytime within the year in which they are purchased. That is, whether you purchase a business asset in January or in December, it’s treated for depreciation purposes as being purchased on July 1st. However, a taxpayer who places more than 40 percent of its depreciable property (excluding residential rental property and nonresidential real property) into service during the last three months of the tax year must use a mid-quarter convention – decidedly less advantageous. Because of the 40 percent rule, the purchase of a vehicle or other equipment in the last month of the tax year might, in itself, trigger imposition of the mid-quarter convention. Businesses should keep in mind the 40 percent rule especially for year-end tax planning purposes.

The applicable averaging convention is not elective. Rather, one of three conventions (half-year, mid-month, and mid-quarter) must apply.

Half-year convention. Under this convention, property is treated as placed in service, or disposed, on the midpoint of the tax year. Thus, one-half of the depreciation for the first year of the recovery period is allowed in the tax year in which the property is placed in service, regardless of when the property is placed in service during the tax year. The half-year convention applies to property other than residential rental property, nonresidential real property, and railroad grading and tunnel bores unless the mid-quarter convention applies

Mid-month convention. Under this convention, property is treated as placed in service, or disposed of, on the midpoint of the month. The MACRS deduction is based on the number of months that the property was in service. Thus, one-half month of depreciation is allowed for the month that property is placed in service and for the month of disposition if there is a disposition of property before the end of the recovery period. The mid-month convention applies to residential rental property (including low-income housing), nonresidential real property, and railroad grading and tunnel bores.

Mid-quarter convention. Under this convention, all property (other than the property otherwise excluded) placed in service, or disposed, during any quarter of a tax year is treated as placed in service, or disposed, on the midpoint of the quarter. A quarter is a period of three months. The mid-quarter convention applies to all property (other than residential rental property, nonresidential real property, and railroad grading and tunnel bores) if more than 40 percent of the aggregate bases of such property is placed in service during the last three months of the tax year.

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, several key requirements for employers have been delayed, including reporting of health coverage offered to employees, known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting. As 2015 nears, and the prospects of further delay appear unlikely, employers and the IRS are preparing for the filing of these new information returns.

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, several key requirements for employers have been delayed, including reporting of health coverage offered to employees, known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting. As 2015 nears, and the prospects of further delay appear unlikely, employers and the IRS are preparing for the filing of these new information returns.

Three related provisions

Three provisions of the Affordable Care Act are closely related: the employer mandate for applicable large employers (ALEs), the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. To administer the employer mandate and the Code Sec. 36 credit, the IRS must receive information from ALEs, such as the type of health coverage offered, if any, by the ALE, the number of employees, and the cost of coverage.

Who must report?

Not all employers must report under Code Sec. 6056. The most important exception is for employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees. These smaller employers are exempt—at all times—from Code Sec. 6056 reporting and the employer mandate.

For 2015, there is also a temporary exemption for some ALEs from the employer mandate only. ALEs are employers that employ on average at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents but fewer than 100 full-time employees including full-time equivalents. However, mid-size employers must file Code Sec. 6056 information returns for 2015. All other ALEs are subject to the employer mandate for 2015 as well as Code Sec. 6056.

What must be reported?

The IRS has posted draft forms for Code Sec. 6056 reporting on its website: Form 1094-C Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns and Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage. Draft Instructions for these forms are expected to be released in the near future.

ALEs generally must report:

• The employer's name, address, and employer identification number;
• The calendar year for which information is being reported;
• A certification as to whether the employer offered to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan;
• The number, address and Social Security/taxpayer identification number of all full-time employees;
• The number of full-time employees eligible for coverage under the employer's plan; and
• The employee's share of the lowest cost monthly premium for self-only coverage providing minimum value offered to that full-time employee.

Under IRS regulations, Code Sec. 6056 reporting is optional for 2014. Reporting for 2015 is required. Information returns must be filed no later than March 1, 2016 (February 28, 2016, being a Sunday), or March 31, 2016, if filed electronically.

Simplified method

The IRS has provided ALEs with simplified methods of reporting. Employers that provide a "qualifying offer" to any of their full-time employees may be eligible as are employers that offer coverage to a certain percentage of employees. For more details about the simplified method, please contact our office.

Employers that self-insure

The Affordable Care Act also requires every health insurance issuer, sponsor of a self-insured health plan, government agency that administers government-sponsored health insurance programs, and other entities that provide minimum essential coverage to file information returns. This is known as "Code Sec. 6055 reporting." The IRS has posted draft versions of Form 1094-B, Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns, and Form 1095-B, Health Coverage on its website.

Employers that self-insure have a streamlined way to report for purposes of Code Sec. 6055 reporting and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The top half of Form 1095-C includes information needed for Code Sec. 6056 reporting; the bottom half includes information needed for Code Sec. 6055 reporting.

If you have any questions about Code Sec. 6056 reporting, please contact our office.

The answer is no for 2010, but yes, in practical terms, for 2014 and beyond. The health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) does not require individuals to carry health insurance in 2010. However, after 2013, individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for a penalty unless otherwise exempt.

Shared responsibility

The health care reform package describes health insurance coverage as "shared responsibility." Individuals, employers, the federal government, and the states all have roles to play in guaranteeing that individuals do not lack minimum essential health insurance coverage.

The health care reform package assumes that employer-provided health insurance will continue to be the primary means of delivering coverage after 2013. The health care reform package includes measures that lawmakers hope will keep premium costs down along with tax incentives, so employers continue to offer health insurance. For larger employers (those with 50 or more employees), that "encouragement" is also combined with penalties if alternate health insurance is not offered.

Millions of Americans are also currently covered by Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs. They will continue to be covered by these programs after 2013. Indeed, some of these government programs will be expanded between now and 2013, covering more individuals.

Individual responsibility

Beginning in 2014, the health care reform package imposes a penalty on individuals for each month they fail to have minimum essential health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents. Another name for the penalty is "shared responsibility payment."

As a baseline, all individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for the penalty. However, the health care reform package expressly excludes certain individuals from liability for the penalty. They include:

• Individuals whose household income is below their income thresholds for filing a federal income tax return;
  
• Individuals who are exempt on religious conscience grounds;
  
• Individuals whose contribution to employer-provided coverage exceeds a threshold percentage;
  
• Hardship cases;
  
• Native Americans;
  
• Undocumented aliens;
  
• Incarcerated individuals;
  
• Individuals with short lapses of minimum essential coverage;
  
• Individuals covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs; and
  
• Certain individuals outside the U.S.

Amount of penalty

The monthly penalty after 2013 is 1/12 of the flat dollar amount or a percentage of income, whichever is greater. For 2014, the flat dollar amount is $95 and the percentage of income is one percent. The flat dollar amount rises to $695 in 2016 (indexed for inflation thereafter) and the percentage of income increases to 2.5 percent.

For individuals under age 18, the flat dollar amount is 50 percent of the amount for adults. Generally, a family's total penalty cannot exceed $285 for 2014 (rising to $2,085 by 2016) or the national average annual premium for the "bronze" level of coverage through a state insurance exchange. By 2014, each state must establish an insurance exchange where individuals can shop for health insurance coverage. The exchanges will have four levels of coverage: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Example. Ana, age 38, is self-employed with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $68,500 for 2014. Ana does not have minimum essential coverage for all 12 months of 2014 and is not exempt from carrying minimum essential coverage because of income or other qualifying reasons. Ana will be liable for a penalty of the greater of $95 or one percent of her modified AGI.

Example. Ana's mother, Barbara, is enrolled in Medicare. Barbara has minimum essential coverage because she is enrolled in Medicare and is not liable for a penalty.

Health insurance tax credits

At the same time the individual responsibility requirement kicks in, the health care reform package provides a refundable health insurance premium assistance tax credit to qualified persons. The premium assistance credit will operate on a sliding scale based on an individual's relationship to the federal poverty level (between 100 and 400 percent).

The healthcare reform package makes the premium assistance tax credit refundable and also provides for advance payment of the credit. Advance payment will be made to the health plan in which the individual is enrolled.

Adult children

There is one important change regarding individual coverage for 2010. Effective September 23, 2010, the health care reform package enables more young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Generally, employer-sponsored group health plans will be required to provide coverage for adult children up to age 26 if the adult child is ineligible to enroll in another employer-sponsored plan. The health care reform package also extends the employer-provided health coverage gross income exclusion to coverage for adult children under age 27 as of the end of the tax year.

Guidance

The IRS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies are expected to issue extensive guidance on the individual responsibility mandate. Our office will keep you posted on developments.