Questions and Answers on the Qualified Business Income Deduction
Tax Tips columnist Sidney Kess writes: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) introduced a new write-off for owners of pass-through entities that runs from 2018 through 2025. There is much confusion about this new deduction and some clarification will need IRS guidance. Here is what is clear so far, how it impacts attorneys, and what needs IRS and/or Congress to explain further.
February 16, 2018 at 02:45 PM
7 minute read
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) introduced a new write-off for owners of pass-through entities that runs from 2018 through 2025. This deduction doesn't require any cash outlay or special action to be eligible for it, but using it reduces the effective tax rate on business income. There is much confusion about this new deduction and some clarification will need IRS guidance. Here is what is clear so far, how it impacts attorneys, and what needs IRS and/or Congress to explain further.
|Overview
Q: What is the new deduction?
A: Under new Code §199A, there is a 20 percent deduction for qualified business income from a sole proprietorship or a pass-through entity.
Q: Where is the deduction taken?
A: The deduction is not a business deduction used to reduce profits subject to tax; it does not reduce net earnings for self-employment tax purposes. It is not a reduction to gross income taken in the Adjusted Gross Income section of Form 1040. It is a deduction from adjusted gross income much like the standard deduction or itemized deductions used to reduce taxable income.
|Terminology
Q: What is a pass-through entity for purposes of Code §199A?
A: Many business owners may be eligible to take the deduction on their personal returns, including:
• Schedule C filers: Sole proprietors, independent contractors, and single-member limited liability companies (LLCs)
• Schedule E filers: S corporation shareholders, partners, members in multi-member LLCs, real estate investors, beneficiaries of trusts and estates, owners of REITs, and those with interests in qualified cooperatives
• Schedule F filers: farmers and ranchers
Q: What is qualified business income?
A: The deduction applies to this income, but it isn't merely the owner's share of net income from the business. It is the net amount of income, gain, deduction, and loss from a qualified U.S. trade or business (including Puerto Rico). It does not include investment items, such as short-term and long-term capital gains and losses, dividends, and interest other than what's allocable to the business. And it doesn't include reasonable compensation or guaranteed payments to owners. But it does include most REIT dividends and income from publicly traded partnerships.
Q: What is a specified service trade or business?
A: This is a business where the owner must reduce the amount of qualified business income on which the deduction is taken (explained below). It includes any trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, or brokerage services, as well the performance of services that consist of investing and investment management, trading or dealing in securities, partnership interests or commodities. It also includes any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees.
The TCJA deleted engineering and architecture, but the IRS could still view such businesses as a qualified service business based on the “reputation or skill” clause.
|Deduction Amount
Q: What is the deduction amount?
A: Technically the deduction is the sum of:
• The lesser of (1) the individual's combined qualified business income or (2) 20 percent of the excess of taxable income over net capital gain plus qualified cooperative dividends
• The lesser of (1) 20 percent of cooperative dividends or (2) taxable income reduced by net capital gains.
Essentially, the deduction is 20 percent of qualified business income. But due to the technical definition of the deduction, it means that the 20 percent deduction is based on taxable income if it is less than qualified business income.
Q: Who can claim the full 20 percent-of-qualified business-income deduction?
A: An individual who has taxable income below set levels can apply the 20 percent deduction against qualified business income. This is so whether or not the taxpayer is in a qualified service business. For 2018, the taxable income limit is $315,000 for a married couple filing a joint return and $157,500 for any other filer. These taxable income thresholds are where the 24 percent tax brackets end and the 32 percent tax brackets begin for 2018. The taxable income limit will be adjusted for inflation after 2018. Thus, an attorney or accountant with taxable income below the applicable threshold amount for his or her filing status would be able to claim the deduction with respect to income from a practice.
|Limitations
Q: What is the W-2 limitation?
A: If the owner's taxable income is above the threshold, then a limitation comes into play. The deduction is the lesser of:
• 20 percent of qualified business income, or
• The greater of (1) 50 percent of W-2 wages for the qualified business, or (2) 25 percent of the W-2 wages with respect to the business plus 2.5 percent of the unadjusted basis (immediately before acquisition) of qualified property.
If the amount of qualified business income is greater than the taxpayer's taxable income, then the 20 percent applies only to the extent of taxable income as explained earlier.
W-2 wages are amounts reported as such to the Social Security Administration for owners and other employees. Payments to independent contractors do not factor in. For partners, LLC members, and S corporation owners, the allocations of W-2 wages and the unadjusted basis of property are made in the same way as the allocation of qualified business income, and likely will have to be reported on Schedule K-1.
Q: What is the limitation for a qualified service business?
A: For purposes of figuring the W-2 limitation, the owner of a qualified service business with taxable income above the threshold reduces the amount of qualified business income to which the deduction applies. The reduction is a percentage derived from the ratio of taxable income for the year in excess of the threshold over $100,000 on a joint return or $50,000 for all other filers. In effect, if taxable income for the owner of a qualified service business who files jointly is $415,000 or over in 2018 (or $207,500 for other filers), then no deduction can be claimed because there is no qualified business income on which to apply the deduction. Thus, attorneys with taxable income over $415,000, or $207,500, depending on filing status, cannot claim any deduction.
If an individual above the taxable income threshold owns a qualified service business as well as a nonqualified service business, it is not yet clear whether the deduction can be taken with respect the nonqualified service business even though he or she phases out for the deduction on the qualified service business income.
Q: What is a §199A loss and how does it impact the deduction?
A: If the net amount of income, gain, deduction, and loss is less than zero, the net amount is treated as a loss in the succeeding year.
It is not clear whether the loss is carried forward only to the following year or continues to be carried forward indefinitely until used up. And it's not clear whether the loss is used to offset only income in the subsequent year from the business that generated it or must be used to offset income from all of a taxpayer's businesses.
|Conclusion
As is clear from the questions and answers above, much is not clear. Additional guidance from the IRS may not be immediately forthcoming in this tax filing season. Once this is done, then business owners can decide on what to do, including changing their form of entity, deciding whether to add independent contractors to the payroll, or taking other actions.
Sidney Kess, CPA-attorney, is of counsel at Kostelanetz & Fink and senior consultant to Citrin Cooperman & Company.
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
© 2024 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 AllPost-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
7 minute readAre Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 13 New Judges: Here's Who Kemp Just Appointed to the Bench
- 2Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
- 3Texas Supreme Court to Review "Implied" Performance Controversy in Oil-Gas Leases
- 4Collections Are Critical for Texas Law Firms Through Year's End
- 5US Judge Rejects Investor Claim That Target Hid Pandemic Inventory Issues
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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