Tax Extenders: Limited Benefits and Limited Certainty for Limited Taxpayers
On Dec. 20, 2019, President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 1865, the "Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020," an omnibus spending package that included a division titled the "Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2019" (the Tax Act).
January 07, 2020 at 09:55 AM
6 minute read
On Dec. 20, 2019, President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 1865, the "Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020," an omnibus spending package that included a division titled the "Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2019" (the Tax Act). Title I of the Tax Act provides for the extension of certain expiring tax provisions. Such extenders are generally broken into four categories: tax relief and support for families and individuals (families and individuals); incentives for employment, economic growth, and community development (economic development); incentives for energy production, efficiency and green economy jobs (energy); and certain other provisions expiring at the end of 2019 (other provisions). But don't be fooled by the title of the Tax Act, it provides little certainty to taxpayers, and what little certainty it does provide benefits a limited number of taxpayers in limited ways.
The average South Florida business owner reading this article may be thinking, "fine, the Tax Act may only benefit a limited number of taxpayers, but does it affect me?" The business-related tax extenders are generally found in the economic development, energy and other provisions categories, all are geared toward specific industries.
Do you employ people who work on or have property used in a trade or business located within an Indian reservation? Do you maintain railroad tracks? Do you own a motorsports entertainment complex? Are you a film or television producer? Is your corporation located in American Samoa? Do you deal with biodiesel, biofuels or produce renewable energy? Are you in the beer, wine and distilled spirits industry? If so, then congratulations!
The Tax Act just extended certain business deductions and tax credits available to you and, if your business is taxed as a "C" corporation, the extension of these deductions and credits are in addition to the reduced 21% corporate income tax rate that went into effect in 2018 (down from 35% in 2017). However, chances are that most South Florida business owners do not operate in any of these niche industries, hence, none of the foregoing applies. But fear not!
There are other extenders in these business categories that have more general application. The employer tax credit for paid family and medical leave was extended through 2020. The work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives employers a tax credit for hiring individuals from certain targeted groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment (i.e., ex-felons, certain veterans, etc.), was extended through 2020. With respect to the New Markets Tax Credit (which provides individuals and corporations with a tax credit for capital invested in a qualified community development area), the Tax Act allocates $5 billion for 2020.
For those taxpayers who do not fall into one of the niches described above, or who are otherwise wage-earners and not business owners, the families and individuals category of tax extenders may provide some benefit. The exclusion from gross income of cancellation of debt income attributable to a qualified principal residence was extended to exclude all discharges before Jan. 1, 2021. The Tax Act extends the treatment of mortgage premium insurance on a qualified principal residence as qualified residence interest through 2020. For medical expenses, the Tax Act extends the floor of 7.5% of adjusted gross income for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2018, and before Jan. 1, 2021. The Tax Act also extends the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses for higher education through 2020. Note, however, for 2018 through 2025, the standard deduction for an individual is increased to $12,000 ($24,000 for married filing jointly). As such, these extensions for deductions attributable mortgage premium insurance, medical expenses and higher education will only provide a tax benefit to those taxpayers who, when added to their other itemized deductions, exceed the applicable standard deduction (and are not otherwise phased out).
In sum, there were a limited number of winners who benefited from the tax extenders passed by Congress and signed by Trump. But those taxpayers shouldn't pop the champagne bottles just yet because the Tax Act is just a Band-Aid that pushes the expiration of these tax benefits a few years down the road. As the term "extender" implies, the Tax Act merely extends the deadline of certain tax provisions that are set to expire and kicks the can down the road, leaving the issue of whether to let such provisions expire to another Congress. For these taxpayers and the tax practitioners who represent them and assist in their tax planning, the short-term nature of these tax extenders and the uncertainty as to whether they will remain in effect makes it difficult to effectively plan and create accurate financial forecasts.
In addition to the short-term and "kick the can down the road" nature of these tax extenders, critics of the Tax Act point to the special-interest nature of the extenders and how Congress missed the opportunity to pass broader tax legislation to assist low-income taxpayers and to fix errors in the sweeping tax overhaul that was rushed through Congress at the end of 2017. Other critics question the need to extend these tax benefits, in light of the already reduced 21% corporate income tax rate (which the Trump administration said would reduce the need for businesses to rely on special-interest tax breaks), and note the further additions to the federal deficit these extenders create (estimated to be more than $427 billion over the next decade). The manner that these tax extenders were passed has also received criticism—they were tacked on to legislation that had to be passed to keep the federal government funded and operating.
Bryan Appel is an associate and Mitchell Goldberg is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Berger Singerman.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Commuted by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250