When an HSA-First Strategy Makes Sense

Many--perhaps most--articles about health savings accounts suggest that employees with an HSA who participate in a 401(k) plan should first contribute to the 401(k) plan the percentage of their compensation that enables them to obtain the maximum plan sponsor match, such as 3% on the employee's first 6% of compensation. Employees should then max out their HSA account contributions through payroll deductions. Once that's done, they should go back to contributing any additional dollars to their 401(k) plans.

While this strategy is indeed attractive, an even better one would be to change the sequence of the contributions. That is, employees should first max out contributions to their HSAs no matter their tax bracket, and once that's done, contribute to their 401(k) plans.

Break out that trusty old HP 12C and calculate any contribution, time horizon, and interest-rate combination. Then reduce that number by, say, 25% for tax to come up with the 401(k) balance. (An HSA demonstrates even greater superiority over an employer match in a 401(k) plan when withdrawals are made at a tax bracket higher than 28%, thereby illustrating the power of tax-free withdrawals in retirement. That is, the higher an employee's tax bracket, the larger the employer's 401(k) match must be to in order beat contributing to an HSA first.) 

A 401(k) plan will beat an HSA if left to retirement. However, reality intrudes when withdrawals are made from the 401(k) to pay for things like medical expenses and a participant in a 401(k) is slammed with taxes and penalties. This is why it makes the most sense to first max out HSA contributions and thereafter get the maximum company match from the 401(k).

Do the same for an HSA but then factor in a 7.65% (FICA) discount up-front and no tax deduction at the back end. In most calculations, the HSA-first strategy is ahead by one third. Then, add in a typical employer match of 3% on the first 6% in employee compensation and take the balance out at a 35% tax bracket. The result: HSA tax savings even beat the employer's match. And don't forget, 80% of employers that offer an HSA contribute $500-1,500 to an employee's HSA.

Once these two no-brainers are accomplished--max out HSA contributions first and then obtain a full company match for the 401(k) plan--only at that point should employees begin their retirement needs planning for the year and so on into the future.

For those who are uncomfortable with this strategy for whatever reason, perhaps they would prefer contributing simultaneously to both the HSA and the 401(k) account on a regular periodic basis throughout the year.

Apart from the issue of the sequence of contributions to an HSA and a 401(k) plan is the issue of the difference in the amount of contributions. For example, Employee A saves and invests $5,000 (a nice round number used even though it slightly exceeds what an individual 55 or older can currently contribute annually to an HSA) annually for 30 years in an HSA. Employee B also saves and invests $5,000 annually for 30 years in a 401(k) account. Employee A in the HSA will amass $611,729 while Employee B in the 401(k) plan will amass $423,699.

The differential in favor of the HSA of nearly $200,000 is due to avoiding payment of the (up-front) 7.65% FICA tax (or more in certain other states and localities) for 30 years of contributions. (Assumptions for the foregoing terminal amounts include a 25% income tax bracket, an 8% return, an HSA that's in the payroll deduction scenario to avoid paying 7.65% in FICA taxes and HSA assets are used for qualified medical expenses. Also, a 25% income tax bracket was applied for withdrawal of 401(k) money.)

Tax-Deferred Accumulation of Earnings and Interest on Contributions
Any earnings and interest generated on contributions to an HSA accumulate tax-deferred over time. When these accumulations are used to pay for qualified medical expenses or to reimburse an HSA holder for previous qualified medical expenses, they become tax-free distributions.

Tax-Free Distributions to Pay for Qualified Medical Expenses
In essence, HSA assets can be used to pay for anything tax-free. Suppose that HSA holders are able to max out contributions to their HSAs and pay for qualified medical expenses out-of-pocket through some or all of their careers. If the holders have kept their medical expense receipts over time, they can get reimbursed later for those expenses from their HSAs.

There's not even a need to have a current qualified medical expense; the HSA holder merely needs to have a receipt from any time in the past to get reimbursed. Qualified medical expenses, then, can arise from any year--not just the current one. This proactive strategy allows an HSA holder to augment retirement income tax-free rather than first pulling money from, say, its taxable 401(k) plan account. This could be helpful in cases where withdrawals from a 401(k) account could bump the holder into a higher tax bracket which could also result in higher Medicare premiums

Other instances of the versatility and flexibility of the HSA abound. For example, the fact that an HSA holder can contribute to an HSA until April 15 for the previous tax year (like an IRA) allows for a post-calendar year tax avoidance strategy. Suppose that a 56-year old self-employed worker had $4,000 in medical expenses and paid for them with (after-tax) out-of-pocket money because the worker didn't know that he or she was eligible for an HSA. A savvy investment advisor informed the worker about eligibility.

So before tax-time in April, the worker establishes an HSA and contributes $4,000, thereby avoiding payment of federal and state income taxes. (But not FICA taxes because the self-employed cannot establish an IRS section 125 cafeteria plan. However, LLC or LLP members might be able to establish a 125 plan if they have elected to be taxed as a Subchapter C Corporation; competent professional counsel should be consulted in such cases.) The worker then took out $4,000 from his or her HSA to reimburse himself/herself.

The result: a wash that saves a lot in taxes. This post-calendar year tax avoidance strategy demonstrates again that having a receipt for qualified medical expenses that were paid even far in the past allows an HSA holder to get reimbursed--assuming, of course, that the holder has been able to pay for its medical expenses out-of-pocket along the way.

Additional Advantages of HSAs
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congress last year failed to further expand the advantages of HSAs. However, it's thought that there will be a Medicaid/Medicare HSA provision as well as one to increase HSA contribution limits included in the 2018 Budget Reconciliation Act. In the meantime, here are some additional advantages of an HSA.

Full Vesting. Any contributions made to an employee's HSA by either the employee or its employer are immediately vested in the employee.

Portability. An HSA can be opened by a worker anywhere. For example, if employees don't like their employer-sponsored HSAs, say, because it's pricey and/or the investments are suboptimal (which is often the case), they can pull the assets from it and invest them elsewhere in an optimal HSA (within 60 days but without the rigmarole of a rollover). The downside to this non-payroll deduction scenario, of course, is that employees cannot take the 7.65% (or more) deduction for FICA taxes. Even if employees are currently ineligible to make contributions to their HSAs, the HSA always stays with them not their employers.

Flexibility. HSA holders can withdraw HSA assets or change them at any time while letting the HSA accounts accumulate, regardless of their current employer or current eligibility. In addition, there are no required minimum distribution rules or requirements to begin taking withdrawals at a certain age.

Sources of Contributions. Those other than HSA holders can contribute to a holder's HSA including a family member and, as noted, their employers.

Coverage for Family. HSA holders can use assets from their own HSAs to pay for qualified medical expenses incurred by spouses and their tax dependents even if they aren't eligible to establish their own HSAs or even if they have health insurance different than the holder.

At Death. At an employee's death, the HSA can be rolled over to a spouse tax-free, plus that spouse can continue to save and invest in the HSA. But if the HSA is rolled over to a nonspouse, the HSA balance is fully taxable like the balance in a 401(k) plan.

Medicare/Retirement. The Medicare Part B monthly premium (for visits to the doctor) is deducted from a recipient's monthly Social Security check. In such cases, however, an HSA holder can get reimbursed from HSA assets for these premiums as well as Part D monthly premiums (for drug prescriptions).

Source: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=842764

IRS simplifies procedure to request relief for late portability elections

Estate tax rules can be tricky for executors, especially when dealing with provisions they may have to face only once in a lifetime. A case in point is the portability of the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount, which, if elected, allows the estate exclusion amount ($5.49 million in 2017) to pass from a deceased spouse to the survivingspouse.

To make the exclusion portable, the executor must timely file an election. What happens if the executor, unaware of the necessity of the election, misses the filing? Fortunately, there may be relief. The rules for applying for this relief have changed again under Rev. Proc. 2017-34.

A brief history of the estate tax exclusion

Few taxes have caused as much debate as the estate tax. For years it has served as a lightning rod for tax reform, with those objecting to it calling it a form of double taxation, while defenders point to the tax revenue it generates and the oversized fortunes that pass from generation to generation.

In an attempt to lessen the blow of the estate tax, Congress long ago added an exclusion, allowing anything below that exclusion amount to be passed down to the next generation tax-free. This compromise has generally worked as long as both sides of the political spectrum were content with the size of the exclusion amount.

That "just right" exclusion amount has been a moving target. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, P.L. 107-16, put the exemption on a continuing growth chart from 2001 through 2010, when the exclusion amount in effect became unlimited. Then, in 2011, the exclusion was scheduled to drop to $1 million after EGTRRA's sunset.

Neither side of the political spectrum was happy with this cliff, so Congress addressed the issue in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act (Tax Relief Act) of 2010, P.L. 111-312. The exclusion amount was set at $5 million plus annual inflation adjustments (after 2011), with the hope that this would prevent future fighting over the exclusion amount.

To make the $5 million exclusion even more palatable to those opposed to the estate tax, Congress temporarily passed, then later made permanent, a provision allowing any unused exclusion of a decedent to pass to a surviving spouse. This portability of the DSUE amount effectively allows a couple to pass up to $10 million (plus inflation) to their heirs tax-free.

Electing portability

Rules regulating exclusion portability to the surviving spouse are found in Sec. 2010(c)(5)(A), which states:

Election required. A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by the surviving spouse . . . unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which such amount is computed and makes an election on such return.

In other words, for DSUE portability to be claimed, the executor must elect portability on the deceased spouse's estate taxreturn.

The IRS, thankfully, has made electing portability easy. If the executor timely files the decedent's Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return, which generally is due nine months after the decedent's date of death, portability is automatically elected. If a return is timely filed, to decline to make or not be considered to have made a portability election, the executor must make an affirmative statement to that effect on the return or an attachment, which few executors will choose to do.

Extension of the portability election

Executors are most likely to run into problems if Form 706 is not timely filed. Under Regs. Sec. 20.2010-2(a)(1), estates electing portability are considered to be required to file Form 706 under Sec. 6018(a), with a due date of nine months after the decedent's death or the last day of any period covered by an extension obtained under Regs. Secs. 20.6075-1 and 20.6081-1.

The rules for missed elections go down two possible paths. Path A is followed by those who are required to file Form 706 under Sec. 6018(a) without regard to Regs. Sec. 20.2010-2(a)(1). In this situation, no further extension is available under Regs. Sec. 301.9100-3. In other words, if the executor was required to file a Form 706 under Sec. 6018(a) without regard to portability within nine months of the decedent's death (plus any period covered by an extension other than under Regs. Sec. 301.9100-3) but failed to do so, a portability election is not allowed.

Executors who did not timely file a Form 706 and the portability election who were not required to file Form 706 under Sec. 6018(a) may go down Path B, which allows extension relief.

Rev. Proc. 2014-18, issued in February 2014, provided a simplified method for executors on Path B to extend the filing period for portability under Regs. Sec. 301.9100-3 for estates of decedents who died between Dec. 31, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2013, which was available until Dec. 31, 2014. After that, executors seeking relief had to use the letter ruling process. Consequently, the IRS was flooded with private letter ruling requests for portability extension relief, most of which came from executors who did not discover the need to file for the portability election until the surviving spouse passed away. Due to the large influx of letter ruling requests, the IRS again decided to allow a simplified method of extending the election and did so in Rev. Proc. 2017-34, issued in June 2017.

Extensions under the new simplified method

Under Rev. Proc. 2017-34, if an executor missed the original election date and was not required to file Form 706 under Sec. 6018(a) without regard to the portability election, for decedents dying after Dec. 31, 2010, the executor may file a complete and properly prepared Form 706, by Jan. 2, 2018, or the second anniversary of the decedent's death, whichever is later, to obtain an extension of time to elect portability. The return must include a note at the top stating that it is "filed pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2017-34 to elect portability under Sec. 2010(c)(5)(a)." No user fee is required.

Rev. Proc. 2017-34 also notes that this portability extension relief does not extend the period available to the surviving spouse or surviving spouse's estate to claim a credit or refund for the overpayment of taxes under Sec. 6511(a). It also does not extend the time the surviving spouse's estate has to file a Form 706 upon the surviving spouse's death. However, if the claim for credit or refund on the surviving spouse's return is filed within the time required by Sec. 6511(a) in anticipation of the decedent spouse's executor's making a late portability election, it will be considered a protective claim for credit or refund of tax.

If, subsequent to the grant of relief under the simplified method, it is determined that, based on the value of the gross estate and taking into account any taxable gifts, an executor of an estate was required to file an estate tax return for the estate under Sec. 6018(a), the grant of an extension under the simplified method is deemed null and void ab initio.

The takeaway

If the decedent passed away on or after Jan. 1, 2011, and the executor missed electing portability of the DSUE due to not being otherwise required to file a Form 706, extension relief is available under Rev. Proc. 2017-34. However, this relief will soon disappear for estates of decedents who died before Jan. 2, 2016, leaving the private letter ruling process as the only recourse for their executors.

Source: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/

Details of tax reform legislation revealed

The House Ways and Means Committee released draft tax reform legislation on Thursday. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R. 1, incorporates many of the provisions listed in the Republicans’ September tax reform framework while providing new details. Budget legislation passed in October would allow for the tax reform bill to cut federal government revenue by up to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and still be enacted under the Senate’s budget reconciliation rules, which would require only 51 votes in the Senate for passage. The Joint Committee on Taxation issued an estimate of the revenue effects of the bill on Thursday showing a net total revenue loss of $1.487 trillion over 10 years.

The bill features new tax rates, a lower limit on the deductibility of home mortgage interest, the repeal of most deductions for individuals, and full expensing of depreciable assets by businesses, among its many provisions.

Lawmakers had reportedly been discussing lowering the contribution limits for Sec. 401(k) plans, but the bill does not include any changes to those limits.

The Senate Finance Committee is reportedly working on its own version of tax reform legislation, which is expected to be unveiled next week. It is unclear how much that bill will differ from the House bill released on Thursday.

Individuals

Tax rates: The bill would impose four tax rates on individuals: 12%, 25%, 35%, and 39.6%, effective for tax years after 2017. The current rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. The 25% bracket would start at $45,000 of taxable income for single taxpayers and at $90,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.

The 35% bracket would start at $200,000 of taxable income for single taxpayers and at $260,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. And the 39.6% bracket would apply to taxable income over $500,000 for single taxpayers and $1 million for joint filers.

Standard deduction and personal exemption: The standard deduction would increase from $6,350 to $12,200 for single taxpayers and from $12,700 to $24,400 for married couples filing jointly, effective for tax years after 2017. Single filers with at least one qualifying child would get an $18,300 standard deduction. These amounts will be adjusted for inflation after 2019. However, the personal exemption would be eliminated.

Deductions: Most deductions would be repealed, including the medical expense deduction, the alimony deduction, and the casualty loss deduction (except for personal casualty losses associated with special disaster relief legislation). The deduction for tax preparation fees would also be eliminated.

However, the deductions for charitable contributions and for mortgage interest would be retained. The mortgage interest deduction on existing mortgages would remain the same; for newly purchased residences (that is, for debt incurred after Nov. 2, 2017), the limit on deductibility would be reduced to $500,000 of acquisition indebtedness from the current $1.1 million. The overall limitation of itemized deductions would also be repealed.

Some rules for charitable contributions would change for tax years beginning after 2017. Among those changes, the current 50% limitation would be increased to 60%.

The deduction for state and local income or sales taxes would be eliminated, except that income or sales taxes paid in carrying out a trade or business or producing income would still be deductible. State and local real property taxes would continue to be deductible, but only up to $10,000. These provisions would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.

Credits: Various credits would also be repealed by the bill, including the adoption tax credit, the credit for the elderly and the totally and permanently disabled, the credit associated with mortgage credit certificates, and the credit for plug-in electric vehicles.

The child tax credit would be increased from $1,000 to $1,600, and a $300 credit would be allowed for nonchild dependents. A new “family flexibility” credit of $300 would be allowed for other dependents. The $300 credit for nonchild dependents and the family flexibility credit would expire after 2022.

The American opportunity tax credit, the Hope scholarship credit, and the lifetime learning credit would be combined into one credit, providing a 100% tax credit on the first $2,000 of eligible higher education expenses and a 25% credit on the next $2,000, effective for tax years after 2017. Contributions to Coverdell education savings accounts (except rollover contributions) would be prohibited after 2017, but taxpayers would be allowed to roll over money in their Coverdell ESAs into a Sec. 529 plan.

The bill would also repeal the deduction for interest on education loans and the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses, as well as the exclusion for interest on U.S. savings bonds used to pay qualified higher education expenses, the exclusion for qualified tuition reduction programs, and the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance programs.

Other taxes: The bill would repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

The estate tax would be repealed after 2023 (with the step-up in basis for inherited property retained). In the meantime, the estate tax exclusion amount would double (currently it is $5,490,000, indexed for inflation). The top gift tax rate would be lowered to 35%.

Passthrough income: A portion of net income distributions from passthrough entities would be taxed at a maximum rate of 25%, instead of at ordinary individual income tax rates, effective for tax years after 2017. The bill includes provisions to prevent individuals from converting wage income into passthrough distributions. Passive activity income would always be eligible for the 25% rate.

For income from nonpassive business activities (including wages), owners and shareholders generally could elect to treat 30% of the income as eligible for the 25% rate; the other 70% would be taxed at ordinary income rates. Alternatively, owners and shareholders could apply a facts-and-circumstances formula.

However, for specified service activities, the applicable percentage that would be eligible for the 25% rate would be zero. These activities are those defined in Sec. 1202(e)(3)(A) (any trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, engineering, architecture, 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 employees), including investing, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities.

Business provisions

A flat corporate rate: The bill would replace the current four-tier schedule of corporate rates (15%, 25%, 34%, and 35%, with a $75,001 threshold for the 34% rate) with a flat 20% rate (25% for personal services corporations). The corporate AMT is repealed along with the individual AMT.

Higher expensing levels: The bill would provide 100% expensing of qualified property acquired and placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017, and before Jan. 1, 2023 (with an additional year for longer-production-period property). It would also increase tenfold the Sec. 179 expensing limitation ceiling and phaseout threshold to $5 million and $20 million, respectively, both indexed for inflation.

Cash accounting method more widely available: The bill would increase to $25 million the current $5 million average gross receipts ceiling for corporations generally permitted to use the cash method of accounting and extend it to businesses with inventories. Such businesses also would be exempted from the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules. The exemption from the percentage-of-completion method for long-term contracts of $10 million in average gross receipts would also be increased to $25 million.

NOLs, other deductions eliminated or limited: Deductions of net operating losses (NOLs) would be limited to 90% of taxable income. NOLs would have an indefinite carryforward period, but carrybacks would no longer be available for most businesses. Carryforwards for losses arising after 2017 would be increased by an interest factor. Other deductions also would be curtailed or eliminated:

• Instead of the current provisions under Sec. 163(j) limiting a deduction for business interest paid to a related party or basing a limitation on the taxpayer’s debt-equity ratio or a percentage of adjusted taxable income, the bill would impose a limit of 30% of adjusted taxable income for all businesses with more than $25 million in average gross receipts.
• The Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction would be repealed.
• Deductions for entertainment, amusement, or recreation activities as a business expense would be generally eliminated, as would employee fringe benefits for transportation and certain other perks deemed personal in nature rather than directly related to a trade or business, except to the extent that such benefits are treated as taxable compensation to an employee (or includible in gross income of a recipient who is not an employee).

Like-kind exchanges limited to real estate: The bill would limit like-kind exchange treatment to real estate, but a transition rule would allow completion of currently pending Sec. 1031 exchanges of personal property.

Business and energy credits curtailed: Offsetting some of the revenue loss resulting from the lower top corporate tax rate, the bill would repeal a number of business credits, including:

• The work opportunity tax credit (Sec. 51).
• The credit for employer-provided child care (Sec. 45F).
• The credit for rehabilitation of qualified buildings or certified historic structures (Sec. 47).
• The Sec. 45D new markets tax credit. Credits allocated before 2018 could still be used in up to seven subsequent years.
• The credit for providing access to disabled individuals (Sec. 44).
• The credit for enhanced oil recovery (Sec. 43).
• The credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells (Sec. 45I)

Other credits would be modified, including those for a portion of employer Social Security taxes paid with respect to employee tips (Sec. 45B), for electricity produced from certain renewable resources (Sec. 45), for production from advanced nuclear power facilities (Sec. 45J), and the investment tax credit (Sec. 46) for eligible energy property. The Sec. 25D residential energy-efficient property credit, which expired for property placed in service after 2016, would be extended retroactively through 2022 but reduced beginning in 2020.

Bond provisions: Several types of tax-exempt bonds would become taxable:

• Private activity bonds would no longer be tax-exempt. The bill would include in taxpayer income interest on such bonds issued after 2017.
• Interest on bonds issued to finance construction of, or capital expenditures for, a professional sports stadium would be taxable.
• Interest on advance refunding bonds would be taxable.
• Current provisions relating to tax credit bonds would generally be repealed. Holders and issuers would continue receiving tax credits and payments for tax credit bonds already issued, but no new bonds could be issued.

Insurance provisions: The bill would introduce several revenue-raising provisions modifying special rules applicable to the insurance industry. These include bringing life insurers’ NOL carryover rules into conformity with those of other businesses.

Compensation provisions: The bill would impose new limits on the deductibility of certain highly paid employees’ pay, including, for the first time, those of tax-exempt organizations.

• Nonqualified deferred compensation would be subject to tax in the tax year in which it is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. Current law would apply to existing nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements until the last tax year beginning before 2026.
• The exceptions for commissions and performance-based compensation from the Sec. 162(m) $1 million limitation on deductibility of compensation of certain top employees of publicly traded corporations would be repealed. The bill would also include more employees in the definition of “covered employee” subject to the limit.
• The bill would impose similar rules on executives of organizations exempt from tax under Sec. 501(a), with a 20% excise tax on compensation exceeding $1 million paid to any of a tax-exempt organization’s five highest-paid employees, including “excess parachute payments.”

Foreign income and persons

Deduction for foreign-source dividends received by 10% U.S. corporate owners: The bill would add a new section to the Code, Sec. 245A, which replaces the foreign tax credit for dividends received by a U.S. corporation with a dividend-exemption system. This provision would be effective for distributions made after 2017. This provision is designed to eliminate the “lock-out” effect that encourages U.S. companies not to bring earnings back to the United States.

The bill would also repeal Sec. 902, the indirect foreign tax credit provision, and amend Sec. 960 to coordinate with the bill’s dividends-received provision. Thus, no foreign tax credit or deduction would be allowed for any taxes (including withholding taxes) paid or accrued with respect to any dividend to which the dividend exemption of the bill would apply.

Elimination of U.S. tax on reinvestments in U.S. property: Under current law, a foreign subsidiary’s undistributed earnings that are reinvested in U.S. property are subject to current U.S. tax. The bill would amend Sec. 956(a) to eliminate this tax on reinvestments in the United States for tax years of foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 2017. This provision would remove the disincentive from reinvesting foreign earnings in the United States.

Limitation on loss deductions for 10%-owned foreign corporations: In a companion provision to the deduction for foreign-source dividends, the bill would amend Sec. 961 and add new Sec. 91 to require a U.S. parent to reduce the basis of its stock in a foreign subsidiary by the amount of any exempt dividends received by the U.S. parent from its foreign subsidiary, but only for determining loss, not gain. The provision also requires a U.S. corporation that transfers substantially all of the assets of a foreign branch to a foreign subsidiary to include in the U.S. corporation’s income the amount of any post-2017 losses that were incurred by the branch. The provisions would be effective for distributions or transfers made after 2017.

Repatriation provision: The bill would amend Sec. 956 to provide that U.S. shareholders owning at least 10% of a foreign subsidiary will include in income for the subsidiary’s last tax year beginning before 2018 the shareholder’s pro rata share of the net post-1986 historical earnings and profits (E&P) of the foreign subsidiary to the extent that E&P have not been previously subject to U.S. tax, determined as of Nov. 2, 2017, or Dec. 31, 2017 (whichever is higher). The portion of E&P attributable to cash or cash equivalents would be taxed at a 12% rate; the remainder would be taxed at a 5% rate. U.S. shareholders can elect to pay the tax liability over eight years in equal annual installments of 12.5% of the total tax due.

Income from production activities sourced: The bill would amend Sec. 863(b) to provide that income from the sale of inventory property produced within and sold outside the United States (or vice versa) is allocated solely on the basis of the production activities for the inventory.

Changes to Subpart F rules: The bill would repeal the foreign shipping income and foreign base company oil-related income rules. It would also add an inflation adjustment to the de minimis exception to the foreign base company income rules and make permanent the lookthrough rule, under which passive income one foreign subsidiary receives from a related foreign subsidiary generally is not includible in the taxable income of the U.S. parent, provided that income was not subject to current U.S. tax or effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.

Under the bill, a U.S. corporation would be treated as constructively owning stock held by its foreign shareholder for purposes of determining CFC status. The bill would also eliminate the requirements that a U.S. parent corporation must control a foreign subsidiary for 30 days before Subpart F inclusions apply.

Base erosion provisions: Under the bill, a U.S. parent of one or more foreign subsidiaries would be subject to current U.S. tax on 50% of the U.S. parent’s foreign high returns—the excess of the U.S. parent’s foreign subsidiaries’ aggregate net income over a routine return (7% plus the federal short-term rate) on the foreign subsidiaries’ aggregate adjusted bases in depreciable tangible property, adjusted downward for interest expense.

The deductible net interest expense of a U.S. corporation that is a member of an international financial reporting group would be limited to the extent the U.S. corporation’s share of the group’s global net interest expense exceeds 110% of the U.S. corporation’s share of the group’s global earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA).

Payments (other than interest) made by a U.S. corporation to a related foreign corporation that are deductible, includible in costs of goods sold, or includible in the basis of a depreciable or amortizable asset would be subject to a 20% excise tax, unless the related foreign corporation elected to treat the payments as income effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. Consequently, the foreign corporation’s net profits (or gross receipts if no election is made) with respect to those payments would be subject to full U.S. tax, eliminating the potential U.S. tax benefit otherwise achieved.

Exempt organizations

Clarification that state and local entities are subject to unrelated business income tax (UBIT): The bill would amend Sec. 511 to clarify that all state and local entities including pension plans are subject to the Sec. 511 tax on unrelated business income (UBI).

Exclusion from UBIT for research income: The act would amend the Code to provide that income from research is exempt from UBI only if the results are freely made available to the public.

Reduction in excise tax paid by private foundations: The bill would repeal the current rules that apply either a 1% or 2% tax on private foundations’ net investment income with a 1.4% rate for tax years beginning after 2017.

Modification of the Johnson Amendment: Effective on the date of enactment, the bill would amend Sec. 501 to permit statements about political campaigns to be made by religious organizations.

Source: https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/