New Deduction for Pass-Through Income: Good, But Not So Simple
In their Taxation column, Ezra Dyckman and Charles S. Nelson discuss P.L. 115-97, commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and specifically new Section 199A, which, although very favorable to real estate investors, is very complicated and there is uncertainty regarding key questions surrounding it.
February 27, 2018 at 05:21 PM
6 minute read
On Dec. 22, 2017, P.L. 115-97 (commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) was signed into law, enacting the biggest set of changes to the Internal Revenue Code since 1986. One of the most important provisions of the act for real estate owners is new Section 199A, which (subject to certain important limitations) allows individuals, trusts, and estates a deduction equal to up to 20 percent of certain qualified business income. This effectively reduces the top marginal tax rate on qualified business income from 37 percent to approximately 30 percent. Although this is a very favorable provision for the real estate industry, there are several areas of uncertainty.
In general, Section 199A provides that ordinary income from a trade or business is eligible for the deduction, whether it is derived from a partnership, LLC, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. However, income from certain types of businesses generally do not qualify for the deduction. Among these non-qualifying businesses are service businesses such as health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services, or any trade or business “where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill” of one or more of its owners or employees. Also excluded are businesses involving “the performance of services that consist of investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities.”
Hurdles to Overcome to Qualify for Deduction
Certain types of income do not qualify for the deduction, such as capital gain, interest income (if it is not allocable to a trade or business), dividends, royalties, and annuity income. Employee wages, and guaranteed payments made by a partnership to a partner for services rendered to a trade or business, are also excluded. In addition, only income that is effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business may qualify for the deduction.
Even if a taxpayer has the right kind of income from a qualifying trade or business, there is yet another hurdle that must be overcome in order to claim a deduction under Section 199A. The deduction, which cannot exceed 20 percent of business income, is generally capped at the higher of two alternative limitations: (i) a wage limitation and (ii) a wage plus depreciable basis limitation.
The first of these limitations is relatively simple: a taxpayer's deduction for income from a trade or business is capped at 50 percent of the wages paid by that trade or business to its employees as shown on Forms W-2. The alternative limitation is equal to 25 percent of wages paid plus 2.5 percent of the business's “unadjusted basis” in its depreciable property. The business's unadjusted basis in its depreciable property is generally equal to its cost of purchasing depreciable property, without taking into account prior depreciation deductions. However, property that has been fully depreciated for tax purposes is generally not taken into account. Furthermore, because the property must be depreciable in order for its unadjusted basis to count toward this limitation, land and property held for sale (such as residential condominium projects) are not taken into account in calculating the limitation. Note that for businesses conducted through partnerships and S corporations, the limitations are calculated at the partner or shareholder level based on the partner's or shareholder's share of wages and unadjusted basis. A partner's share of a partnership's wages is equal to its share of the deduction for wage expenses, and a partner's share of a partnership's unadjusted basis is equal to its share of the partnership's depreciation deductions.
Taxpayers with taxable incomes below $157,500 (or $315,000 for married couples filing joint returns) are eligible for the full 20 percent deduction on business income, regardless of whether the income is from a qualifying trade or business and regardless of the wage and basis limitations. For taxpayers with incomes between $157,500 and $207,500 (or between $315,000 and $415,000 for married couples filing joint returns), (i) the deduction for income from non-qualifying businesses is phased out and (ii) the wage and basis limitations are phased in.
REIT dividends (other than capital gain dividends) qualify for the deduction without regard to any of these limitations, which may put REITs at an advantage compared to real estate held by partnerships.
Some Clarification Needed
Several crucial questions regarding the application of Section 199A so far remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear what types of businesses qualify for the deduction. The statute excludes businesses involving “the performance of services that consist of investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities.” It is unclear whether “investing, investment management, or trading” relate only to “securities, partnership interests, or commodities.” “Brokerage services” are also excluded, but the intent may only have been to exclude stockbrokers, not real estate brokers.
In addition, the wage and basis limitations apply separately for each trade or business, so if a taxpayer owns multiple trades or business, wages and depreciable basis from one business cannot be used to allow a deduction on income from another business. However, neither the statute nor the legislative history indicates what constitutes a separate trade or business. This question is not necessarily defined by legal entities or even by taxpayer entities. For example, assume a taxpayer owns several pieces of rental real estate, and each property is owned by a separate partnership. Does the taxpayer have a single trade or business, or does each property constitute a separate trade or business (each with its own wage and basis limitations)? If an individual owns real estate through one taxpayer and has a management business in a separate taxpayer, is the management business a separate trade or business from the real estate? At least one government official has indicated that the IRS may define a trade or business using principles similar to those of the activity grouping regulations under the passive loss rules of Section 469. However, until the Treasury Department or the IRS promulgates regulations or other guidance, there will be much uncertainty in this area.
Conclusion
Section 199A has the potential to greatly benefit real estate investors. However, the provision is very complicated and there is uncertainty regarding key questions. In light of these issues, real estate businesses should reconsider their organizational structures to make sure they are maximizing their tax benefits.
Ezra Dyckman is a partner and Charles S. Nelson is an associate at Roberts & Holland.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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