Skip to main content Skip to search


Bills and receipts in hands of senior man

Final Regulations on 100 Percent Bonus Depreciation Issued, Along With New Proposals

More information than you ever wanted about Depreciation: Section 179, Bonus Depreciation and Qualified Improvement Property.


Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

FINAL REGULATIONS: Written Binding Contract Rules
Constructed property. The proposed regulations provided that property manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract entered into prior to the manufacture, etc., of the property is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Thus, if the contract was entered into before September 28, 2017, the 100 bonus rate did not apply.

That rule was scrapped in response to negative feedback. Instead the final regulations provide that such property is treated as self-constructed property, and the contract is ignored for purposes of determining when the property is deemed acquired. The acquisition date is now the date that the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property as determined under rules similar to those that apply to 50 percent bonus property.

Acquisition date. The final regulations provide that the acquisition date of property acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the later of:

  • the date on which the contract is entered into;
  • the date on which the contract is enforceable under state law;
  • if the contract has one or more cancellation periods, the date on which all cancellation periods end; or
  • if the contract has one or more contingency clauses, the date on which all conditions subject to such clauses are satisfied.

Liquidated damage clause. When a contract has multiple damage provisions, the final regulations clarify that only the provision with the highest damages is taken into account in determining whether the contract limits damages.

Qualified Improvement Property
The IRS once again declined to make qualified improvement property placed in service after 2017 eligible for bonus depreciation. A legislative change is required to give this property its intended 15-year recovery period. With a 15-year recovery period, qualified improvement property will qualify for bonus depreciation under the general rule that allows bonus depreciation on property with an MACRS recovery period of 20 years or less.

Used Property
Predecessor defined. Property previously used by the taxpayer or a predecessor of a taxpayer does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the taxpayer or predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property. The final regulations define “predecessor” as:

  • a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies;
  • a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction in which the transferee’s basis in the asset is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the asset in the transferor’s hands;
  • a partnership that is considered as continuing under Code Sec. 708(b)(2);
  • the decedent in the case of an asset acquired by an estate; or
  • a transferor of an asset to a trust.

Depreciable interest look back rule. The final regulations do not define a “depreciable interest” because this is a facts and circumstances issue. However, a five-year look back period is provided for determining whether a taxpayer or predecessor held a depreciable interest in property.

Substantially renovated property. If a taxpayer places substantially renovated property in service and the taxpayer or a predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property before it was substantially renovated, the taxpayer’s or predecessor’s prior depreciable interest does not prevent the taxpayer from claiming bonus depreciation. Property is substantially renovated if the cost of the used parts is not more than 20 percent of the total cost of the substantially renovated property, whether acquired or self-constructed.

Syndication transactions. A lessor who reacquires property in a syndication transaction is not treated as having a prior depreciable interest in the property.

The final regulations permit a partnership to claim bonus depreciation on the portion of a Code Sec. 743(b) basis increase that is attributable to built-in gain under Code Sec. 704(c), even if the partnership is using the remedial allocation method. An exception is provided for publicly traded partnerships that need to maintain fungibility for publicly traded partnership units.

If a partnership interest is acquired and disposed of during the same tax year, the bonus deduction is not allowed for any Code Sec. 743(b) adjustment arising from the initial acquisition. However, if a partnership interest is purchased and disposed of in a “step-in-the shoes” Code Sec. 168(i)(7) transaction in the same tax year, bonus on the section 743(b) adjustment is allowed. The section 743(b) adjustment is apportioned between the purchaser/transferor and the transferee.

The final regulations also clarify the treatment of qualified property transferred in a Code Sec. 721(a) transaction to a partnership in the same tax year that the qualified property is acquired by the transferor if the partnership has another partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the qualified property. In this situation, the qualified property is deemed placed in service by the transferor during that tax year, and the bonus deduction is allocated entirely to the transferor and not to the partnership. Thus, the contributing partner has contributed property with a zero basis to the partnership, and the contributed property is Code Sec. 704(c) property in the hands of the partnership.

Film, Television, and Theatrical Productions
The final regulations clarify that a used qualified film, television, or live theatrical production does not qualify for bonus depreciation. Also, the basis of a qualified film, television, or live theatrical production is reduced by the deduction claimed under Code Sec. 181 before computing the bonus deduction.

Using ADS
Using the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to determine the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s qualified business investment (under Code Sec. 250(b)(2)(B) or Code Sec. 951A(d)(3)) or the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s tangible assets for allocating business interests expense between excepted and non-excepted trades or businesses (under Code Sec. 163(j)) does not cause a taxpayer’s tangible property to be ineligible for bonus depreciation.

Public Utility Property
An example is added to clarify that the 100 percent bonus rate does not apply to self-constructed property of a regulated public utility if construction begins after September 27, 2017, and the property is placed in service in a tax year beginning after 2017.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, provided the taxpayer consistently applies all rules in the final regulations. Additionally, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations issued on August 8, 2018, to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, in tax years ending before the date of publication of the final regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Acquired and Self-Constructed Components
A taxpayer may elect to treat components of a larger self-constructed property that are acquired or self constructed after September 27, 2017, as eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate, even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger self-constructed began before September 28, 2017. The larger property must be eligible for bonus depreciation at the 50 percent rate.

Businesses With Floor Plan Financing
Property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the floor plan financing interest related to the indebtedness is taken into account under Code Sec. 163(j)(1)(C) in determining the allowable business interest deduction.

The proposals provide rules for determining whether interest in floor plan financing indebtedness has been taken into account during a tax year. In general, floor plan interest is not considered taken into account for a tax year if the sum of interest business income for the tax year and 30 percent of the adjusted taxable income for the tax year equals or exceeds business interest as defined in Code Sec. 163(j)(5). The proposals clarify that the determination of whether a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness has taken floor plan financing interest into account is made annually.

Leased Property
The proposals clarify that taxpayers leasing property to a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness or a rate-regulated utility may claim bonus depreciation. The taxpayer, however, may not be a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that prevents it from claiming bonus depreciation or a rate-regulated utility.

Used Property
Five-year lookback. A safe harbor provides that a taxpayer who disposes of property within 90 days after placing it in service did not hold a prior depreciable interest in the property. Consequently, the property is eligible for bonus depreciation if subsequently reacquired.

Partnerships. A taxpayer has a prior depreciable interest in a portion of property if the taxpayer was a partner in a partnership at any time the partnership owned the property. The amount of the prior depreciable interest is based on the partner’s total share of depreciation deductions with respect to the property.

Series of related transactions. Special rules in the original proposed regulations governing the treatment of a series of related transactions for purposes of the used property acquisition requirements are modified and expanded.

Consolidated groups. Significant clarifications to the rules governing the used property acquisition requirements for consolidated groups are also made.

Written Binding Contract Rules
Property not acquired pursuant to a contract. The acquisition date of property that is not acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the date on which the taxpayer paid or incurred more than 10 percent of the total cost of the property. The cost of land and preliminary activities are excluded from cost for this purpose.

Purchase of entities. Binding contract rules that apply to the purchase of an entity are proposed. The current binding contract rules only deal with purchases of assets.

A contract to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a trade or business, or to acquire an entity such as a corporation, a partnership, or a limited liability company, is binding if it is enforceable under state law against the parties to the contract. The presence of a condition outside the parties’ control (including, for example, regulatory agency approval) will not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. Further, the fact that insubstantial terms remain to be negotiated by the parties to the contract, or that customary conditions remain to be satisfied, does not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. This proposed rule also applies to a contract for the sale of the stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as a result of a deemed asset acquisition election under Code Sec. 338.

Long Production Property
The proposals provide rules for determining qualifying basis attributable to the manufacture, construction, or production of long production property and certain aircraft eligible for an extended placed in service deadline.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The mid-quarter convention applies to property placed in service during the tax year if 40 percent or more of the basis of the property was placed in service in the last three months of the tax year. The proposals clarify that the basis of property is not reduced by the 100 percent bonus allowance. This rule has always applied to 50 percent bonus property.

Effective Date of Proposals
In general, the proposed regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date the proposals are finalized. A taxpayer may rely on the proposals in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017.

Read more
Small Business Tax Credits Claim Return Deduction Refund Concept

Wolters Kluwer Interview: Q&A Series on the Section 199A Deduction

Is your business considered an SSTB? See a discussion about the new TCJA 20% Qualified Business Income Deduction.


Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the “pass-through” deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.


Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or “pass-through” deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called “cliff” effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between “complex” and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.

Read more
bitcoin cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency Guidance, Virtual Currency FAQs Released

Are you reporting your Cryptocurrency Transactions? IRS views Cryptocurrency as an Investment.


The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency. Under the cryptocurrency guidance:

  • a taxpayer does not have gross income from a “hard fork” of the taxpayer’s cryptocurrency if the taxpayer does not receive units of a new cryptocurrency; and
  • a taxpayer has ordinary income as a result of an “airdrop” of a new cryptocurrency following a hard fork if the taxpayer receives units of the new cryptocurrency.

The IRS has posted the FAQs on its website ( ).

Virtual Currency and Cryptocurrency

Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency.

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality.

Hard Forks and Air Drops

A hard fork occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger.

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. A hard fork followed by an airdrop results in the distribution of units of the new cryptocurrency to addresses containing the legacy cryptocurrency. Note, however, that a hard fork is not always followed by an airdrop.

Cryptocurrency from an airdrop generally is received on the date and at the time it is recorded on the distributed ledger. However, a taxpayer may constructively receive cryptocurrency prior to the airdrop being recorded on the distributed ledger. A taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency.

Gross Income

If the taxpayer did not receive units of new cryptocurrency from a hard fork, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth and does not have gross income as a result of the hard fork.

If the taxpayer receives units of new cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, the taxpayer received a new asset. Therefore, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth and has ordinary income in the year in which the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency. The taxpayer includes in gross income the fair market value of the cryptocurrency received. The taxpayer’s basis in the new cryptocurrency is the amount of income recognized.

Schedule 1, Form 1040 for 2019

A draft of the 2019 Form 1040, Schedule 1, “Additional Income and Adjustments to Income,” includes a question which asks: “At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?” If an individual has engaged in any virtual currency transaction in 2019, he or she must check the “Yes” box next to the question.

If the taxpayer has disposed of any virtual currency that was held as a capital asset, he or she must use Form 8949 to figure the capital gain or loss and report it on Schedule D (Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR). If the taxpayer has received any virtual currency as compensation for services, or disposed of any virtual currency that he or she held for sale to customers in a trade or business, the taxpayer must report the income as he or she would report other income of the same type.

Read more
Calculator with the word tax written in wooden block letters

Individual Taxation Hot Topic – Hopes for Year-End Tax Extenders Package Appear Dwindling

30 key tax deductions are set to expire unless congress acts to pass the Tax Extender Bill. Deductions like Mortgage Insurance Premiums, Qualified College Tuition, Lower Medical Expense Floor and some Renewable Energy Credits are set to expire.


Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.


Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is “no hope” for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. “Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR,” Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered “clean,” for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Read more
judge hammer and legislation book PQTRCVN

Trump Signs Legislation Expanding Religious Exemption for ACA Individual Mandate

Tax-Related Portion of the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act, Enrolled, as Signed by the President on October 24, 2018, P.L. 115-271

President Donald Trump has signed bipartisan legislation, which expands a religious exemption for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) ( P.L. 111-148) individual mandate. The exemption is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Religious Exemption

SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act ( HR 6) amends Code Sec. 5000A(d)(2)(a) to expand the religious conscience exemption for the ACA individual mandate. Individual taxpayers who rely solely on a religious method of healing for whom the acceptance of medical health services would be inconsistent with their religious beliefs are exempt from the ACA mandate to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty.

Tax Reform

Additionally, last year’s tax reform legislation essentially repeals the ACA’s individual mandate. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) repeals the ACA’s shared responsibility payment for individuals failing to maintain minimum essential coverage effective January 1, 2019.

Read more