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

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

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

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

House Vote Expected on Secure Bill

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

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

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

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

Retirement Savings 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

$2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

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

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

“Pay-Fors”

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

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

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

White House: Meeting Excellent, Productive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting, Withholding and Paying Tax

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

The proposed regulations also:

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

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

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

General Rule and Exceptions

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

There are six exceptions to withholding under the proposed regulations:

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

Publicly Traded Partnership Interests

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

Notice Requirements

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

Proposed regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules.

Proposed regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules.

The proposed regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

Ownership Attribution

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

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

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

Under current Reg. §1.954-1(f), the Code Sec. 318(a)(3) downward attribution rules, which attribute ownership downward from the owner of an entity to an entity, apply by reference to the Code Sec. 958stock ownership rules. These rules are applied regardless of the size of the ownership interest in a partnership, estate or trust, but are applied to corporations based on a 50-percent or more ownership interest.

Based on concern that the downward attribution rules could produce inappropriate results, the proposed regulations provide that the downward attribution rule of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) and Reg. §1.958-2(d) will not apply for purposes of determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules.

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

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

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

Foreign Personal Holding Company Rules

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

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

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

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

Applicability Date

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

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

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

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

Applicability Dates

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

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

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

IRS Excludes Medicaid Waiver Payments From Gross Income

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

Gross Income Vs. Earned Income

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

No Deference For Notice 2014-7

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

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

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

IRS, Not Congress, Provided Double Benefit

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

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

The upcoming filing season is expected to be challenging for taxpayers and the IRS as new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act kick-in. Taxpayers, for the first time, must make a shared responsibility payment if they fail to carry minimum essential health care coverage or qualify for an exemption. At the same time, there is growing uncertainty over one of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act: the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit as litigation makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The upcoming filing season is expected to be challenging for taxpayers and the IRS as new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act kick-in. Taxpayers, for the first time, must make a shared responsibility payment if they fail to carry minimum essential health care coverage or qualify for an exemption. At the same time, there is growing uncertainty over one of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act: the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit as litigation makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Individual shared responsibility payment

Individuals who are not exempt from the individual mandate and who do not carry minimum essential coverage in 2014 must make a shared responsibility payment. The payment is due when the individual files his or her 2014 tax return in 2015. In November, the IRS’s national ACA coordinator said that the agency will work with individuals who owe a shared responsibility payment and may not have the resources to make the payment when they file their return. Keep in mind that the IRS will apply any refund to a taxpayer’s unpaid shared responsibility payment. The IRS cannot, however, use its lien and levy power to collect an unpaid shared responsibility payment.

Note. For 2014, the shared responsibility payment amount generally 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, however, does not stay at this level after 2014. By 2016, the payment grows significantly.

In November, the IRS clarified when Medicaid coverage qualifies as minimum essential coverage and when it may not. The IRS also clarified how employer contributions to a cafeteria plan impact minimum essential coverage. Final regulations exclude employer contributions to a cafeteria plan from an employee’s household income for purposes of determining minimum essential coverage,

Exemptions

The IRS reminded individuals in November that they may be exempt from the requirement to carry minimum essential coverage. There are nine main exemptions: religious conscience; health care sharing ministries; members of federally recognized Native American nations; individuals whose income is below the minimum return filing threshold; individuals with a short coverage gap; hardship cases; affordability cases; incarcerated individuals; and individuals not lawfully present in the U.S.

Some exemptions are obtained through the Marketplaces, some through the filing process, and some either way. The exemptions for members of federally recognized Native American nations, members of health care sharing ministries and individuals who are incarcerated are available either from the Marketplace or claiming the exemption as part of filing a federal income tax return. The exemptions for lack of affordable coverage, a short coverage gap, and household income below the filing threshold and individuals who are not lawfully present in the U.S. may be claimed only as part of filing a federal income tax return. In November, the IRS removed references to specific hardships and streamlined the process for obtaining an exemption because of a hardship.

Code Sec. 36B litigation

The Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit helps offset the cost of health insurance obtained through the ACA Marketplace. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), more than two-thirds of enrollees in Marketplace coverage were eligible for the credit in 2014. IRS regulations for the credit, however, have come under fire for being contrary to the ACA. The regulations allow enrollees in state-run Marketplaces and federal-facilitated Marketplaces to claim the credit. 

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the IRS regulations in Halbig, 2014-2 USTC ¶50,366. The D.C. Circuit found that the plain language of the Affordable Care Act limits the credit to enrollees in state-run Marketplaces. In contrast, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the regulations in King, 2014-2 USTC ¶50,367. The Fourth Circuit found that it could not say definitively that Congress intended to limit the Code Sec. 36B credit to individuals who obtain insurance through state-run Marketplaces.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced in November that it will hear an appeal of King. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments about the IRS regulations in early 2015. A decision will likely be announced in June 2015. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Open enrollment

The ACA Marketplace opened for enrollment for 2015 coverage on November 15 and runs through February 15, 2015. HHS explained that it has streamlined application procedures for individuals who are renewing coverage and who are applying for coverage for the first time. The Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) also opened on November 15. Small employers (employers with 50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees) may enroll qualified employees in health coverage through SHOP.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the Affordable Care Act and the new requirements.

As most people know, a taxpayer can take a distribution from an IRA without being taxed if the taxpayer rolls over (contributes) the amount received into an IRA within 60 days. This tax-free treatment does not apply if the individual rolled over another distribution from an IRA within the one-year period ending on the day of the second distribution.

As most people know, a taxpayer can take a distribution from an IRA without being taxed if the taxpayer rolls over (contributes) the amount received into an IRA within 60 days. This tax-free treatment does not apply if the individual rolled over another distribution from an IRA within the one-year period ending on the day of the second distribution.

Taxpayers and the IRS both believed that this one-rollover-per-year limit was applied separately to each IRA owned by the individual. If an individual owned two IRAs, for example, the taxpayer could do two rollovers in the appropriate period - one from each IRA. The IRS applied this interpretation in proposed regulations and in Publication 590, IRAs.

One rollover per taxpayer

In Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, CCH Dec. 59,823(M), issued in January 2014, the Tax Court concluded that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover between IRAs within a one-year period, regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer maintained. Thus, the one-per-year limit applied to the taxpayer, not to each separate IRA owned by the taxpayer.

In Notice 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32, the IRS indicated that it would follow the Bobrow interpretation. It withdrew the proposed regulations, and will issue a new Publication 590-A, Contributions to IRAs, that applies the Bobrow interpretation.

Transition rule

In the notice and the announcement, the IRS provided a transition rule that it will not apply the new interpretation of the limit on permissible IRA rollovers until January 1, 2015. A distribution from an IRA in 2014 that is rolled over to another IRA will be disregarded in applying the new rule to 2015 distributions, provided that the 2015 distribution is from a different IRA that was included in the 2014 rollover.

Exceptions

The IRS noted that there are several types of rollovers that that are not subject to the Bobrow rule: a rollover from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA; a rollover to or from a qualified plan; and trustee-to-trustee transfers. The IRS stated that trustees can accomplish a trustee-to-trustee transfer by transferring amounts directly between IRAs, or by providing the IRA owner with a check made payable to the trustee of the receiving IRA.

However, a rollover between Roth IRAs would preclude a separate rollover within the one-year period between the individual's traditional IRAs; similarly, a rollover between traditional IRAs would preclude a rollover between Roth IRAs with the one-year period.

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.

Businesses generally want to write off costs more quickly, to reduce their taxable income and their tax burden. One mechanism for accomplishing this is to deduct the costs of depreciable property rather than capitalizing them. Under Code Sec. 179, taxpayers can expense a prescribed amount of their costs for tangible depreciable property, even if the ordinary accounting treatment would be to capitalize the costs.

Businesses generally want to write off costs more quickly, to reduce their taxable income and their tax burden. One mechanism for accomplishing this is to deduct the costs of depreciable property rather than capitalizing them. Under Code Sec. 179, taxpayers can expense a prescribed amount of their costs for tangible depreciable property, even if the ordinary accounting treatment would be to capitalize the costs.

Code Sec. 179 applies primarily to personal property, but can apply to some real property. In recent years (through 2013), the expensing limit has been as high as $500,000 a year. However, for 2014, the expensing deduction limit is $25,000. (Congress could raise the limit for 2014 but has not done so.)

Because of the dramatic reduction in the Code Sec. 179 expensing limits, taxpayers may want to consider using the de minimis safe harbor in the final "repair" regulations as an alternative means of deducting costs that they would otherwise have to capitalize. The IRS issued final repair regulations in 2013 on the treatment of costs incurred with respect to depreciable property. The regulations are effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014 and provide guidance on whether to expense or capitalize relevant costs.

The safe harbor

The de minimis safe harbor applies to smaller priced items used in the business. The safe harbor can apply in the following situation: a taxpayer with a $500 per item expensing policy buys 1,000 calculators for $100 each. If the taxpayer elects the safe harbor, the taxpayer can deduct the entire cost of the calculators in the year paid or incurred. The total deduction is $100,000, much greater than the $25,000 limit under Code Sec. 179 for 2014.

The safe harbor is an election, not an accounting method. It can be applied for any year (or not) as determined by the taxpayer. The taxpayer can make an election for 2014, for example. The deadline is the extended due date of the taxpayer’s original income tax return. An election statement must be attached to the return. The election is irrevocable.

Two alternatives

There are two alternative de minimis safe harbors. The primary safe harbor, for use by any taxpayer but primarily for larger entities, allows taxpayers to deduct items that cost $5,000 or less (per item or invoice). The items must be deductible under the taxpayer’s financial accounting procedures and in accordance with the company’s applicable financial statement (AFS). An AFS is a financial statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or another government agency, or a certified audited financial statement. The taxpayer must also have a written accounting policy, put into effect at the beginning of the year, to treat the cost of the items as an expense.

Similar requirements apply to smaller business taxpayers who do not have an AFS, with the following two differences: the accounting policy does not have to be in writing; and the amount paid for the property may not exceed $500 per invoice or per item. If the cost of the items exceeds $500 per item, the taxpayer must capitalize the cost. The taxpayer cannot avoid the $500 (or $5,000) threshold by breaking an item into components whose separate cost is below the limit. For example, the taxpayer could not split the cost of a truck into separate components such as the engine, cab, and chassis.