News, insight and advice to keep you informed.
Trump Signs Bipartisan Year-End Government Spending, Tax Package
On December 20, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan, year-end government spending and tax package, just hours before federal funding was set to expire. Trump’s signature on the over 2,000-page spending package avoided a government shutdown.
Year-End Tax Package
The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, (HR 1865), logs just over 700 pages and serves as only half of the government spending package for fiscal year 2020, which runs through September 30. Most notably, HR 1865 serves as the legislative vehicle for a year-end tax package, which carries a costly $426 billion price tag over a 10-year budget window, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), JCX-54R-19.
Some of the tax-related provisions in the year-end package include, among other items:
- Retroactive and current renewal of over two dozen temporary tax breaks known as tax extenders, which have expired or would soon be expired, spanning from 2017 to 2019. Generally, the renewed tax breaks are extended through 2020, and the biodiesel and short-line railroad maintenance tax credits are extended until 2022;
- The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (SECURE Act) (HR 1994), which makes sweeping changes to retirement savings and employer retirement contributions provisions;
- Certain fixes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
- Full repeal of three tax-related provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148), two of which include the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and the 40 percent excise “Cadillac” tax on high-dollar employer-sponsored health insurance plans.
The House approved HR 1865 on December 17 by a 297-to-120 vote. The Senate cleared the measure on December 19 by a 71-to-23 vote.
“So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget.”
“There were numerous fits and starts, but this result is a reminder that Congressional muscle memory on extenders is very strong, so ultimately the members did what they always do – extend them,” John Gimigliano, principal-in-charge of the federal legislative and regulatory services group in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP told Wolters Kluwer. “Some might be surprised to see the ACA taxes rolled back, but it has always felt like those items were on borrowed time; it was really just a question of when and how they were repealed, not whether. So in the end, with more than $400 billion in tax cuts, there were lots of winners and the usual loser – the budget.”
SECURE ACT
The bipartisan SECURE Act, which cleared the House in May but remained stalled in the Senate most of the year, makes a number of major as well as administrative changes for retirement savings affecting both individuals and employers.
Some of those changes are noted as follows:
IRA Changes
- Moving the start date for requirement required minimum distributions (RMDs) to the year the owner turns 72;
- Ending the 70 1/2 age limit for contribute contributions to an IRA; and
- Shortening the distribution period for nonspouse inherited IRAs to a 10-year maximum.
The 10-year window for distributions to a nonspouse beneficiary applies regardless of when the IRA owner dies. Thus, the change will severely limit the use of “stretch IRAs” as an effective planning tool. Limited exceptions are available.
401(k) Changes
- Requiring plans to offer participation to long-term, part-time employees;
- Encouraging auto-enrollment by increasing the cap; and
- Streamlining the safe harbor for non-elective contributions.
Employers with 401(k) plans must offer employees who work between 500 and 1000 hours year an additional means to participate in the plan. The rule change would only affect 401(k) cash or deferral arrangements, and no other qualified plans.
Retirement Plans for Small Employers
Several changes are made to encourage more small employers to offer retirement benefits to their employees, such as:
- Adding a new tax credit for small employers using auto-enrollment plans;
- Increasing the credit for small employer pension plan start-up costs; and
- Allow small employers of two or more to band together to participate in a new class of pooled multiple employer plans (MEPs)
National Taxpayer Advocate Releases Annual Report to Congress
Bridget Roberts, the Acting National Taxpayer Advocate, released her 2019 Annual Report to Congress. The report discusses the key challenges facing the IRS regarding the implementation of the Taxpayer First Act, inadequate taxpayer service and limited funding of the agency. Further, Roberts released the third edition of the National Taxpayer Advocate’s “Purple Book,” which presents 58 legislative recommendations designed to strengthen taxpayer rights and improve tax administration.
Taxpayer First Act
The report highlighted that the Taxpayer First Act ( P.L. 116-25) had made the most comprehensive revisions to IRS procedures since the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, including some 23 provisions previously recommended by the National Taxpayer Advocate. Further, the Taxpayer First Act also required the IRS to develop four strategic plans:
- a comprehensive taxpayer service strategy (due to Congress by July 1, 2020);
- a comprehensive plan to redesign the IRS’s organizational structure (due to Congress by Sept. 30, 2020);
- a comprehensive employee training strategy that includes taxpayer rights training (due to Congress by July 1, 2020); and
- a multi-year plan to meet IRS information technology (IT) needs.
Key IRS Challenges
The biggest challenge facing the IRS is its struggle to complete its mission. The IRS aims to “provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.” The report emphasizes that the IRS is struggling to meet both of those goals, and attributes the IRS’s shortcomings mostly to budget constraints but also to a culture in which the agency focuses on its own priorities without adequately factoring in the needs of taxpayers.
The report states that the IRS is among the lowest-performing federal agencies in providing a positive customer experience. During fiscal year (FY) 2019, the report said that the IRS received approximately 100 million telephone calls, and customer service representatives answered only 29 percent. The report further states that the IRS has also struggled to enforce the law with “fairness to all”. The report urges the IRS to prioritize phone service for taxpayers against whom it takes collection action.
Low Budget
Since 2010, the IRS budget has been reduced by about 20 percent after adjusting for inflation, and the number of full-time equivalent employees has declined by about 22 percent. The report points out that answering 100 million telephone calls, conducting audits, and taking enforcement actions require adequate staffing, and the IRS cannot substantially improve its performance without additional resources. The report urges Congress to increase IRS funding and particularly for taxpayer service and IT modernization, and to change the budget rules to account for the revenue additional IRS appropriations are likely to generate.
Identifying Taxpayer Needs and Preferences
Despite the IRS’s significant funding limitations, the report urges the IRS to utilize the Taxpayer First Act requirements – to develop plans to revamp its taxpayer service strategy, organizational structure, employee training strategy, and technology priorities – as a roadmap for a once-in-a-generation reassessment of its objectives and operations.
While noting that the IRS has developed strategies in a vacuum without soliciting taxpayer feedback and taking into account taxpayer needs and preferences, the report suggests a full-scale cultural shift. The report also expressed concern that the IRS has declined to include the National Taxpayer Advocate or a Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) representative as part of a core team created to coordinate its Taxpayer First Act implementation activities.
The report also makes numerous recommendations to improve the customer experience, including that the IRS take the following actions:
- Conduct multi-disciplined, comprehensive research into taxpayer needs and preferences.
- Require that all IRS business units, including those charged primarily with enforcement, develop a detailed customer service strategy.
- Appoint a Chief Customer Experience Officer to coordinate service initiatives across IRS business units.
- Ensure that taxpayers who cannot work with the IRS digitally, or whose issues are not resolved online, can reach and work with an IRS employee.
- Address the needs of practitioners who interact with the IRS on behalf of large numbers of taxpayers.
- For each proposal included in its customer service strategy, include cost estimates, milestones, and taxpayer-focused performance measures so the effectiveness of the strategy in improving customer service can be measured over time.
Other Matters
The report also:
- identified 10 “most serious problems”;
- provided status updates on two problems identified in previous reports;
- made dozens of recommendations for administrative change;
- made 58 recommendations for legislative change;
- analyzed the 10 tax issues most frequently litigated in the federal courts; and
- presented four research studies.
SALT Cap Not Unconstitutionally Coercive
A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.
In 2018, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit against the IRS and Treasury alleging that the SALT cap violates the federalism principles that undergird the U.S. Constitution. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on September 30 that the SALT cap is not an unconstitutional infringement of state power.
The states’ primary concern stemmed from the claim that the introduction of the SALT cap could impair each of the states’ ability to pursue its own preferred tax policies. However, the court noted that Congress lawfully enacted the SALT cap pursuant to its broad tax powers under Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that the cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others. However, the cap, like every other feature of the federal tax code, is a part of the landscape of federal law with which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers, according to Oetken. Because the states failed to plausibly allege that the cap, more so than any other major federal initiative, meaningfully constrains this decision-making process, the district court had no basis for concluding that the SALT cap is unconstitutionally coercive.
Background
In 2017, President Trump signed into law sweeping tax reform legislation informally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which made several substantial amendments to the federal tax code. Among other things, the TCJA placed an upper limit of $10,000 on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from their federal tax income to offset those sums they have paid toward certain state and local taxes (the “SALT cap”). As enacted, the SALT cap is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.
Democrats on Capitol Hill Prepare to Move SALT Cap Repeal Bill
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to move a SALT cap repeal bill when Congress returns from its two-week recess. Specifically, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. has proposed repealing the SALT cap and raising the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, where it previously sat. Additionally, Pascrell recently told reporters that House Democrats will likely propose a temporary repeal of the SALT cap as a “compromise.”
At this time, however, any Democratic-backed measure to repeal or scale back the SALT cap is expected to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.