• Beginning in 2025, domestic R&D expenses under Section 174 will once again be immediately deductible, offering potential cash flow benefits.

• Companies that previously amortized R&D costs may be able to file Form 3115 and adjust past filings to recapture deductions.

• With IRS scrutiny rising and state tax rules varying, proactive planning and clear documentation are critical to maximizing benefits and minimizing risk.

—

The return of immediate research and development (R&D) expenses under Section 174 is one of the most consequential shifts in the 2025 tax landscape — yet many mid-market companies have not updated their plans to reflect the change. From documentation of risk to transition-year amendments, these are the most common questions we’re hearing from finance and tax leaders:

What exactly is changing with Section 174 in 2025?

Beginning in tax year 2025, domestic R&D expenditures will once again be immediately deductible in the year incurred. This change reverses the five-year amortization requirement introduced under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). However, current IRS guidance shows that amortization will still apply to certain foreign R&D expenses unless more legislative or regulatory relief is provided. Businesses should evaluate both domestic and international R&D classifications in preparation for the shift.

Will this improve our 2025 cash flow position?

It may — provided the new expensing rules are properly integrated into your financial and tax forecasting. Immediate expensing of domestic R&D reduces taxable income in the same year the costs are incurred, lowering overall tax liability. Companies that have not yet adjusted their estimated tax payments or quarterly modeling may be overstating liabilities and missing near-term cash flow efficiencies.

Can we amend our 2022–2024 returns based on this update?

In some cases, yes. Companies that previously amortized Section 174 expenses may be eligible to file Form 3115 to change their accounting method and apply a Section 481(a) adjustment. This could allow for partial or full deduction of deferred R&D costs in 2025. However, the benefits and eligibility vary depending on your current method, the types of R&D involved (domestic versus foreign), and whether returns were previously extended, filed, or audited. A review of your filing history and applicable IRS guidance is necessary before proceeding.

Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether Form 3115 will be required to change the method from capitalization to expensing of these costs. The IRS needs to provide guidance in this area and whether or not small businesses that have average annual gross receipts of under $31 million that have not filed their 2024 tax return yet will need to capitalize their R&D costs on the 2024 tax return and then file an amended return to expense these costs.

Should we still separate costs that qualify for the R&D tax credit?

Yes — and this distinction is critical. While Section 174 requires capitalization (or expensing, beginning in 2025) of all R&D costs, the R&D tax credit under Section 41 applies to a narrower subset of those costs. Documentation should clearly delineate which expenditures qualify for credit versus which are deducted under Section 174. Maintaining separate records supports credit claims and mitigates examination risk.

Will this affect our state tax filings?

It may. Some states conform to federal Section 174 treatment automatically, while others decouple and apply their own rules. This can create differences in how R&D is deducted at the state level. For companies working in multiple states, it’s important to review each jurisdiction’s treatment of R&D expenses and track how decoupling may affect apportionment, deductions, and compliance requirements.

What are CFOs and tax leads overlooking most frequently?

In our recent tax reform webinar polling, we asked CFOs and tax leaders how Section 174 has impacted their company’s R&D and tax planning. Their responses:

• 17% said Section 174 changes had a significant impact

• 24% said they made some adjustments

• Over 50% indicated the impact was minimal or unclear

This suggests a gap between policy changes and planning execution. Many companies have not yet updated forecasts or examined whether transition-year filings could improve cash position. As a result, opportunities to unlock deductions or perfect quarterly payments may be unrealized.

What actions should we be taking now? 

Section 174 expensing should be addressed proactively during 2024 planning and Q3-Q4 reviews. Start by reviewing how R&D is treated in your current financial models and incorporate the updated expense rules into your 2025–2026 forecasts. If you amortized expenses in prior years, evaluate whether filing a method change (Form 3115) could allow you to recapture deductions, depending on what guidance is issued by the IRS from a procedural standpoint.

It’s also essential to keep clear and contemporaneous documentation — especially if you’re claiming R&D credit or have international R&D exposure. The IRS has increased scrutiny around improper claims and substantiation. Additionally, continue checking IRS guidance related to foreign R&D and coordinate any tax position changes with your broader strategy and compliance obligations.

Strategic Considerations

Section 174 expensing brings welcome relief for businesses investing in innovation, but it also introduces complexity — especially for companies with multi-year R&D planning or global footprints. By updating forecasts, assessing historical filings, and aligning documentation now, CFOs and tax leaders can better prepare for the 2025 transition and minimize risk. Early action supports stronger compliance, cash management, and credit positioning in an evolving regulatory environment.

How MGO Can Help

Our tax professionals have deep experience navigating the complexities of Section 174 and R&D credits. Whether you need help modeling the impact of immediate expensing, evaluating a method change, or separating costs for credit eligibility, we can guide you through every step. Contact us today to align your R&D strategy with the latest tax reforms and uncover potential savings.

The post Answers to Your FAQs About Section 174 R&D Expensing appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.

• Companies can reduce BEAT liability by reclassifying payments, capitalizing costs into COGS, or restructuring contracts to limit related-party payments.

• Tax teams should use year-end insights to refine transfer pricing, improving compliance, reducing risks, and adapting to changing rules.

• The IRS may adjust intercompany loan rates if implicit support impacts third-party terms, requiring group affiliation to be considered.

—

The base erosion anti-abuse tax, known as “BEAT,” introduced as part of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, was intended to prevent taxpayers from reducing their U.S. tax liability by shifting profits through payments to related parties in low-tax jurisdictions outside the U.S. 

Beat Tax Threshold Requirements 

To be subject to the BEAT, U.S. taxpayers must meet the following two requirements: 

• A three-year average of gross receipts greater than $500 million (excludes regulated investment companies, REITs, or S-Corps). 

• A base erosion percentage for the taxable year of 3.0% or more (2.0% for banks and special entities), where “base erosion” percentage is defined to be the sum of all base erosion payments (defined below) divided by the total amount of deductions for the year. 

For U.S. taxpayers who meet requirements, the following BEAT tax rate applies to its modified taxable income, adjusted for BEAT payments: 

• Before calendar year 2026: 10.0% 

• After calendar year 2025: 12.5% 

The BEAT is an additional tax imposed on applicable taxpayers with base erosion payments including interest, royalties, and service payments to foreign related parties. A taxpayer would need to pay an additional amount by which the BEAT exceeds regular income tax if the income tax liability is lower than the BEAT liability. 

Transfer Pricing and BEAT Mitigation

While BEAT, under Internal Revenue Code Section 59A, has a broad definition of base erosion payments, including services, interest, certain property/assets, and royalties, it also provides types of foreign related-party payments that are exempt from BEAT considerations.  

One way to mitigate BEAT exposure is to rely on the services cost method (SCM) for outbound payments for certain intercompany services provided by non-U.S. related parties. The SCM, defined in Reg. §1.482-9(b), permits certain routine back-office and other low-value services to be charged at cost, rather than at the usual arm’s length charge. If service payments meet the SCM requirements, the amounts paid or accrued can be excluded from base erosion payments.

To utilize the SCM exemption under the BEAT, taxpayers should explore opportunities to classify services as SCM eligible, even if SCM was not previously selected as the transfer pricing method. For example, it is likely beneficial to separate back-office and administrative-type services, which could qualify for the SCM, from marketing services, which would not qualify for the SCM. Given that SCM eligibility does not require the business judgment test, treating certain services as low-margin services, when appropriate, can potentially reduce a BEAT liability.  

Another way to mitigate BEAT exposure is to utilize Section 263A and treat certain base erosion payments as part of cost of goods sold (COGS) — i.e., inventoriable costs. For U.S. taxpayers with inventories, amounts paid or accrued to a foreign affiliate through COGS are not treated as a base erosion payment. Section 263A outlines the uniform capitalization rules in which direct and allocable indirect costs of property produced or purchased for resale must be capitalized into inventory. 

For example, sales-based royalties and management fees are costs that can be capitalized under Section 263A:  

• Sales-based royalties can be considered capitalized costs and included in COGS as long as the underlying intangible property is connected to purchasing, production, storage, or handling of inventory. As such, sales-based royalties paid to a foreign affiliate can be excluded from base erosion payments if the costs are properly capitalized and included in COGS under Section 263A. Sales-based royalties associated with trademarks and trade names are expensed and likely not eligible for COGS inclusion.  

• Management fees may also be capitalized under Section 263A when the services are directly or indirectly related to purchasing, production, storage, or handling of inventory. For example, management fees that are related to the provision of sourcing or procurement services are likely capitalizable under Section 263A.  

Furthermore, there are structural/contractual changes that taxpayers can consider to reduce BEAT liability. Those changes include, for example, restructuring of financing, creation of a regional headquarters office, and modification of customer/supplier contracts, which would eliminate or decrease the payments from a U.S. entity to a foreign affiliate. 

Tax Planning Considerations 

While BEAT can have a significant impact on tax liability, BEAT planning using transfer pricing has not been a priority for many taxpayers. The strategies discussed above, and other BEAT planning using transfer pricing can be an effective approach for mitigating BEAT liability. 

Adopting a Proactive Approach to Transfer Pricing  

Adopting a proactive approach to tax process improvements can be an aspirational goal for many tax departments. Resource constraints, business pressures, new technical developments, and other factors can cause even the most meticulously planned schedules to go awry, and before anyone realizes it, year-end is upon them once again.  

Rather than feeling discouraged, companies can leverage their experience to understand what is achievable and then prioritize improvement projects that are appropriately sized for their business. 

Common Year-End Transfer Pricing Challenges 

1. Large Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Many companies use transfer pricing adjustments to determine they meet their desired transfer pricing policy. However, significant year-end adjustments can have both tax and indirect tax implications, leading to further issues and risks. 

2. Lack of Transparency in Calculations: Transfer pricing calculations are often built in Excel and amended over the course of the years, perhaps to address one-time issues or changing situations. This can result in workbooks that lack a sufficient audit trail and contain hard-coded data, both of which undermine a reviewer’s ability to validate the calculations. Additionally, without documentation, the process becomes dependent on the few people working directly on the process, which can create significant knowledge gaps if one or more of the key people leave the company. 

3. Data Constraints: While the mechanics of most transfer pricing calculations are not complex, difficulties arise because of the variety of data needed (revenues, segmented legal entity P&Ls, headcount, R&D spend) and the challenges in accessing that data. This can lead to shortcuts and unvalidated assumptions. 

Tax Planning Considerations 

• Develop a multiperiod monitoring process: Implement a process that tracks profitability throughout the year to help reduce significant year-end transfer pricing adjustments. This monitoring can also provide insights into whether underlying intercompany pricing policy changes are needed, allowing for a proactive approach to limit the number and magnitude of year-end adjustments. 
• Identify and review material transactions: Conduct a detailed review of calculation workbooks to pinpoint deficiencies, such as lack of version control, hard-coded amounts with no audit trail, limited or undocumented key assumptions, and an incoherent calculation process. Companies can address one or more of these issues based on timing and resources. Small changes can have a significant impact. 
• Define a data-focused project: Consider the data needed for transfer pricing calculations, investigate the form and availability of data, identify new data sources, and help data providers understand their importance in the overall process. This can be done on a pilot basis with a material transaction or group of transactions to keep the project manageable. Companies often discover new data sources and form valuable connections with data providers through these projects. 

Learning from the year-end process provides clarity on areas that need improvement. These observations can be captured and converted into small improvement projects as soon as possible after year-end. While companies can’t tackle everything at once, prioritizing key projects, developing a timeline with identified resources, and obtaining stakeholder buy-in quickly can significantly improve the next year-end experience. 

Implicit Support in Intercompany Loans  

The IRS recently released a generic legal advice memorandum that explains the agency’s position on the effect of group membership in determining the arm’s length interest rate of intragroup loans.  

The legal advice memorandum — AM 2023-008 — concludes that if an unrelated lender would consider group membership in establishing financing terms available to a borrower, and third-party financing is realistically available, the IRS may adjust the interest rate in a controlled lending transaction to reflect group membership.  

Generic legal advice memoranda constitute legal advice, signed by executives in the National Office of the Office of Chief Counsel, and are issued to IRS personnel to provide authoritative legal opinions on certain matters, such as industry-wide issues. This memorandum provides non-taxpayer-specific legal advice on the application of IRC Section 482, and it states that the advice should not be used or cited as precedent. However, the memorandum provides insight into the Office of Chief Counsel’s position on the role of implicit support in establishing an arm’s length interest rate in intragroup loans.  

Example

The memorandum provides an example to anchor its analysis of the topic. In the example, a non-U.S. parent company directly owns 100% of the equity of a U.S. subsidiary. The U.S. subsidiary owns operating assets and operates businesses essential to the group’s financial performance. The assumption in the example is that if the U.S. subsidiary’s financial condition were to deteriorate, the non-U.S. parent would likely provide financial support to it to prevent a potential default.  

The example states that the U.S. subsidiary plans to obtain capital through an intragroup loan from its non-U.S. parent. An independent rating agency has determined that the non-U.S. parent has a credit rating of A, whereas the U.S. subsidiary has a BBB rating when the implicit support of the corporate group is taken into account. As an independent entity — that is, without considering the group credit profile and the non-U.S. parent’s implicit support — the U.S. subsidiary would have a credit rating of B. In the example, the A credit rating corresponds to an interest rate of 7%, the BBB credit rating corresponds to an 8% interest rate, and a B rating would result in a 10% interest rate. The non-U.S. parent lends to the U.S. subsidiary at an interest rate of 10%, and the loan is not supported by an explicit guarantee from the parent.  

Analysis   

The starting point of the analysis is Section 482 and the regulations thereunder, which grant the IRS broad authority to adjust the results of a transaction between controlled taxpayers to comply with the arm’s length standard. In the context of intercompany lending, this means that the IRS may adjust the interest rate charged so that it is an arm’s length rate, which is generally the rate that would be charged in independent transactions between unrelated parties. The regulations specify that to determine an arm’s length interest rate, “[a]ll relevant factors shall be considered, including … the credit standing of the borrower.” 

The memorandum concludes that the IRS may adjust the interest rate of the foreign parent’s loan to the U.S. subsidiary to 8%, the arm’s length interest rate the U.S. subsidiary would pay to an unrelated lender based on its BBB rating (if the implicit support by the foreign parent is taken into account). This rate reflects the amount the U.S. subsidiary would be willing to pay at arm’s length considering the alternatives available to it. In other words, “the controlled borrower should never accept an interest rate greater than the 8% [at which] it could borrow from the market. In short, the lender may not charge a higher interest rate based on a controlled relationship with the borrower, because an uncontrolled borrower would not accept a higher interest rate than what it could obtain from an uncontrolled lender.” 

Tax Planning Considerations 

The guidance provided in the IRS memorandum is largely consistent with Chapter X of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines, released February 11, 2020, which provides guidance on the transfer pricing aspects of financial transactions. The IRS memorandum summarizes the agency’s long-held position on its review of intercompany loans, particularly those to U.S. borrowers. 

The IRS position on implicit support is reflected in Eaton Corp v. Commissioner, No. 2608-23, which as of September 2024 was pending in U.S. Tax Court. In that case, although the IRS took the position that interest rates paid by certain U.S. borrowers should be adjusted downwards to consider implicit support, it also disallowed some deductions related to explicit intercompany financial guarantees executed with respect to the related intercompany borrowings. 

Given the above, it will be important for multinational entities, particularly non-U.S.-based groups, to review their intercompany loan agreements and evaluate whether the implicit support derived from group membership is reflected in the interest rates charged to related borrowers. Borrowers should also consider whether any existing intercompany financial guarantees are still warranted, and if so, whether they should be adjusted to first consider implicit support before the application of explicit support. 

How MGO Can Help

Our tax professionals can help your business navigate transfer pricing and BEAT compliance with tailored strategies designed to reduce risk and enhance tax efficiency. Reach out to our International Tax team today to see how MGO can support your transfer pricing strategy.

The post Navigating BEAT and Transfer Pricing: Strategies to Minimize U.S. Tax Liability appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.

While it appears that several of the more disadvantageous provisions targeting businesses won’t make it into the final bill, others may. In addition, some temporary provisions are coming to an end, requiring businesses to take action before year end to capitalize on them. As Congress continues to negotiate the final bill, here are some areas where you could act now to reduce your business’s 2021 tax bill.

Research and Experimentation

Section 174 research and experimental (R&E) expenditures generally refer to research and development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. They include costs related to activities intended to uncover information that would eliminate uncertainty about the development or improvement of a product.
Currently, businesses can deduct R&E expenditures in the year they’re incurred or paid. Alternatively, they can capitalize and amortize the costs over at least five years. Software development costs also can be immediately expensed, amortized over five years from the date of completion or amortized over three years from the date the software is placed in service.

However, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), that tax treatment is scheduled to expire after 2021. Beginning next year, you can’t deduct R&E costs in the year incurred. Instead, you must amortize such expenses incurred in the United States over five years and expenses incurred outside the country over 15 years. In addition, the TCJA requires that software development costs be treated as Sec. 174 expenses.

The BBBA may include a provision that delays the capitalization and amortization requirements to 2026, but it’s far from a sure thing. You might consider accelerating research expenses into 2021 to maximize your deductions and reduce the amount you may need to begin to capitalize starting next year.

Income and Expense Timing

Accelerating expenses into the current tax year and deferring income until the next year is a tried-and-true tax reduction strategy for businesses that use cash-basis accounting. These businesses might, for example, delay billing until later in December than they usually do, stock up on supplies and expedite bonus payments.

But the strategy is advised only for businesses that expect to be in the same or a lower tax bracket the following year — and you may expect greater profits in 2022, as the pandemic hopefully winds down. If that’s the case, your deductions could be worth more next year, so you’d want to delay expenses, while accelerating your collection of income. Moreover, under some proposed provisions in the BBBA, certain businesses may find themselves facing higher tax rates in 2022.

For example, the BBBA may expand the net investment income tax (NIIT) to include active business income from pass-through businesses. The owners of pass-through businesses — who report their business income on their individual income tax returns — also could be subject to a new 5% “surtax” on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) that exceeds $10 million, with an additional 3% on income of more than $25 million.

Capital Assets

The traditional approach of making capital purchases before year-end remains effective for reducing taxes in 2021, bearing in mind the timing issues discussed above. Businesses can deduct 100% of the cost of new and used (subject to certain conditions) qualified property in the year the property is placed in service.
You can take advantage of this bonus depreciation by purchasing computer systems, software, vehicles, machinery, equipment and office furniture, among other items. Bonus depreciation also is available for qualified improvement property (generally, interior improvements to nonresidential real property) placed in service this year. Special rules apply to property with a longer production period.

Of course, if you face higher tax rates going forward, depreciation deductions would be worth more in the future. The good news is that you can purchase qualifying property before year-end but wait until your tax filing deadline, including extensions, to determine the optimal approach.

You can also cut your taxes in 2021 with Sec. 179 expensing (deducting the entire cost). It’s available for several types of improvements to nonresidential real property, including roofs, HVAC, fire protection systems, alarm systems and security systems.

The maximum deduction for 2021 is $1.05 million (the maximum deduction also is limited to the amount of income from business activity). The deduction begins phasing out on a dollar-for-dollar basis when qualifying property placed in service this year exceeds $2.62 million. Again, you needn’t decide whether to take the immediate deduction until filing time.

Business Meals

Not every tax-cutting tactic has to be dry and dull. One temporary tax provision gives you an incentive to enjoy a little fun.

For 2021 and 2022, businesses can generally deduct 100% (compared with the normal 50%) of qualifying business meals. In addition to meals incurred at and provided by restaurants, qualifying expenses include those for company events, such as holiday parties. As many employees and customers return to the workplace for the first time after extended pandemic-related absences, a company celebration could reap you both a tax break and a valuable chance to reconnect and re-engage.

Stay Tuned

The TCJA was signed into law with little more than a week left in 2017. It’s possible the BBBA similarly could come down to the wire, so be prepared to take quick action in the waning days of 2021. Turn to us for the latest information.

The post Navigating Year-End Tax Planning with New Tax Laws appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.

Because of these newly tightened conditions, companies may face challenges when raising capital, forcing them to adopt a more thoughtful approach to seek funding. Likewise, investors will want to ensure their priorities are protected and their returns met. The combination of a given borrower’s need for capital and a financer’s desire to seek favorable returns may lead to the creation of agreements that have characteristics of both debt and equity. As such, it is crucial for all parties involved to understand the resulting tax classification and the treatment of these arrangements, so all expectations are met.

The Taxation of Debt and Equity

For borrowers, the difference between debt and equity can be critical because interest payments are generally tax deductible and subject to certain limitations. Dividends or other payments related to equity would not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Job Act (TCJA) of 2017, one main limit on interest deductibility is the IRC 163(j) limit on the amount of business interest that can be deducted each year. This limit is calculated as 30 percent of adjusted taxable income, which prior to the 2022 tax year closely resembled earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). However, starting with the 2022 tax year adjusted taxable income excludes depreciation and amortization, becoming EBIT. This should result in a lower limit on the amount of interest expense that can be deducted each year. Any interest expense exceeding this annual limit can be carried forward to future years.

Determining if an Arrangement Is Debt or Equity for Federal Income Tax Purposes

Classifying an arrangement as debt or equity is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of a given agreement. While there is currently little guidance in this area beyond case law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued a list of factors to consider when questioning whether something is debt or equity. (Keep in mind, however, that the IRS states not one factor is conclusive.) The factors include whether:

• An agreement contains an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain on demand or at maturity,
• A lender can enforce the payment of principal and interest by the borrower, and
• A borrower is thinly capitalized.

The courts have also established a broader — but similar — list of factors to consider when determining whether an instrument should be treated as debt or equity. Both the IRS and the courts have generally placed more weight on whether an instrument provides for the rights and remedies of a creditor, whether the parties intend to establish a debtor-creditor relationship, and if the intent is economically feasible. Some factors include:

• Participation in management (as a result of advances),
• Identity of interest between creditor and stockholder,
• Thinness of capital structure in relation to debt, and
• Ability of a corporation to obtain credit from outside sources.

For international companies, the characterization of debt or equity when considered in a cross-border funding arrangement is important, as withholding tax rates may apply to interest payments and may differ from tax rates applied to dividends. Further, withholding tax obligations occurs when a cash payment is made. If you have a cross-border arrangement, it is crucial to know if you have debt or equity on your hands.

Special Rules Related to Payment-in-Kind

Once it is determined that an agreement should be classified as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, some borrowers may prefer to set aside interest payments or pay interest with securities, which is often referred to as payment-in-kind (PIK). This is generally done to preserve cash flow for operations and growth of the business. When a borrower chooses this route, U.S. federal income tax rules will impute an interest payment to the lender.

While using a PIK mechanism will not automatically result in the debt being recharacterized as equity for federal income tax purposes, it can support viewing the instrument as equity.

Limits to Deductible Debt Interest

There are limitations that can apply to interest deductibility. As noted above, IRC 163(j) limits deductibility of business interest; for a corporation, this is deemed to be all interest regardless of use. Another provision that can result in interest deductibility limitation is IRC 163(l), which applies to certain convertible notes and similar instruments held by corporations.

For cannabis operators, it is important to consider that IRC 280E disallows interest deductions. Hence, it is highly detrimental for cannabis operators to issue debt from entities that are cannabis plant-touching.

How We Can Help

Due to the nature of the debt versus equity analysis, companies thinking about fundraising should plan on how they intend to perform the raise and whether to have the raise treated as equity or debt. If debt classification is desired, a borrower should take the steps needed to strengthen the facts of the transaction to support the arrangement as a debt instrument.

MGO’s dedicated tax team has extensive experience advising companies across industries on capital-raising, debt refinancing and restructuring, recapitalizations, and other tax transactions. If you are planning to fundraise, or you are currently in the process of conducting a debt versus equity analysis, contact us today.

The post Raising Capital: What You Need to Know About Debt Versus Equity Tax Implications appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.

Also, keep in mind that, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), annual inflation adjustments are calculated using the chained consumer price index (also known as C-CPI-U). This increases tax bracket thresholds, the standard deduction, certain exemptions and other figures at a slower rate than was the case with the consumer price index previously used, potentially pushing taxpayers into higher tax brackets and making various breaks worth less over time. The TCJA adopts the C-CPI-U on a permanent basis.

Individual Income Taxes

Tax-bracket thresholds increase for each filing status but, because they’re based on percentages, they increase more significantly for the higher brackets. For example, the top of the 10% bracket increases by $325 to $650, depending on filing status, but the top of the 35% bracket increases by $16,300 to $19,550, again depending on filing status.

The TCJA suspended personal exemptions through 2025. However, it nearly doubled the standard deduction, indexed annually for inflation through 2025. For 2022, the standard deduction is $25,900 (married couples filing jointly), $19,400 (heads of households), and $12,950 (singles and married couples filing separately). After 2025, standard deduction amounts are scheduled to drop back to the amounts under pre-TCJA law unless Congress extends the current rules or revises them.

Changes to the standard deduction could help some taxpayers make up for the loss of personal exemptions. But it might not help taxpayers who typically used to itemize deductions.

Alternative Minimum Tax

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a separate tax system that limits some deductions, doesn’t permit others and treats certain income items differently. If your AMT liability is greater than your regular tax liability, you must pay the AMT.

Like the regular tax brackets, the AMT brackets are annually indexed for inflation. For 2022, the threshold for the 28% bracket increased by $6,200 for all filing statuses except married filing separately, which increased by half that amount.

The AMT exemptions and exemption phaseouts are also indexed. The exemption amounts for 2022 are $75,900 for singles and heads of households and $118,100 for joint filers, increasing by $2,300 and $3,500, respectively, over 2021 amounts. The inflation-adjusted phaseout ranges for 2022 are $539,900–$843,500 (singles and heads of households) and $1,079,800–$1,552,200 (joint filers). Amounts for separate filers are half of those for joint filers.

Education and Child-Related Breaks

The maximum benefits of certain education and child-related breaks generally remain the same for 2022. But most of these breaks are limited based on a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). Taxpayers whose MAGIs are within an applicable phaseout range are eligible for a partial break — and breaks are eliminated for those whose MAGIs exceed the top of the range.

The MAGI phaseout ranges generally remain the same or increase modestly for 2022, depending on the break. For example:

The American Opportunity Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, the MAGI amount used by joint filers to determine the reduction in the American Opportunity credit isn’t adjusted for inflation. The credit is phased out for taxpayers with MAGI in excess of $80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns). The maximum credit per eligible student is $2,500.

The Lifetime Learning Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, the MAGI amount used by joint filers to determine the reduction in the Lifetime Learning credit isn’t adjusted for inflation. The credit is phased out for taxpayers with MAGI in excess of $80,000 ($160,000 for joint returns). The maximum credit is $2,000 per tax return.

The Adoption Credit

The phaseout ranges for eligible taxpayers adopting a child will also increase for 2022 — by $6,750 to $223,410–$263,410 for joint, head-of-household and single filers. The maximum credit increases by $450, to $14,890 for 2022.

(Note: Married couples filing separately generally aren’t eligible for these credits.)

These are only some of the education and child-related breaks that may benefit you. Keep in mind that, if your MAGI is too high for you to qualify for a break for your child’s education, your child might be eligible to claim one on his or her tax return.

Gift and Estate Taxes

The unified gift and estate tax exemption and the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption are both adjusted annually for inflation. For 2022, the amount is $12.060 million (up from $11.70 million for 2021).

The annual gift tax exclusion increases by $1,000 to $16,000 for 2022.

Retirement Plans

Not all of the retirement-plan-related limits increase for 2022. Thus, depending on the type of plan you have, you may have limited opportunities to increase your retirement savings if you’ve already been contributing the maximum amount allowed.

Your MAGI may reduce or even eliminate your ability to take advantage of IRAs. Fortunately, IRA-related MAGI phaseout range limits all will increase for 2022:

Traditional IRAs

MAGI phaseout ranges apply to the deductibility of contributions if a taxpayer (or his or her spouse) participates in an employer-sponsored retirement plan:

• For married taxpayers filing jointly, the phaseout range is specific to each spouse based on whether he or she is a participant in an employer-sponsored plan:
• For a spouse who participates, the 2022 phaseout range limits increase by $4,000, to $109,000–$129,000.
• For a spouse who doesn’t participate, the 2022 phaseout range limits increase by $6,000, to $204,000–$214,000.
• For single and head-of-household taxpayers participating in an employer-sponsored plan, the 2022 phaseout range limits increase by $2,000, to $68,000–$78,000.

Taxpayers with MAGIs in the applicable range can deduct a partial contribution; those with MAGIs exceeding the applicable range can’t deduct any IRA contribution.

But a taxpayer whose deduction is reduced or eliminated can make nondeductible traditional IRA contributions. The $6,000 contribution limit (plus $1,000 catch-up if applicable and reduced by any Roth IRA contributions) still applies. Nondeductible traditional IRA contributions may be beneficial if your MAGI is also too high for you to contribute (or fully contribute) to a Roth IRA.

Roth IRAs

Whether you participate in an employer-sponsored plan doesn’t affect your ability to contribute to a Roth IRA, but MAGI limits may reduce or eliminate your ability to contribute:

• For married taxpayers filing jointly, the 2022 phaseout range limits increase by $6,000, to $204,000–$214,000.
• For single and head-of-household taxpayers, the 2022 phaseout range limits increase by $4,000, to $129,000–$144,000.

You can make a partial contribution if your MAGI falls within the applicable range, but no contribution if it exceeds the top of the range.

(Note: Married taxpayers filing separately are subject to much lower phaseout ranges for both traditional and Roth IRAs.)

2022 Cost-of-Living Adjustments and Tax Planning

With many of the 2022 cost-of-living adjustment amounts trending higher, you have an opportunity to realize some tax relief next year. In addition, with certain retirement-plan-related limits also increasing, you have the chance to boost your retirement savings. If you have questions on the best tax-saving strategies to implement based on the 2022 numbers, please give us a call. We’d be happy to help.

The post Don’t Forget to Factor Cost-of-Living Adjustments Into Your Year-End Tax Planning appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.

Last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R. 1 (“the Act”) created a federal capital gains tax deferral program through the opportunity zone statute, which is designed to attract private, long-term investments in low-income and economically distressed communities. Over 8,700 communities designated as Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ), located across all 50 states, territories and Washington D.C, were nominated by local governments and confirmed by the Department of Treasury (DoT) in Notice 2018-48 issued in June 2018.

The statutory language of the Act introduced the tax incentive deferring taxable gains but it did not provide important details, including the types of gains eligible for deferral, the timing and specific requirements  of qualified investments, and how investors report deferred gains. On October 19, 2018, the Treasury Department released proposed regulations, a revenue ruling, and tax forms to provide additional guidance on the opportunity zone tax incentive.

How QOZ Tax Incentives Work

Simply stated, the opportunity zone statute allows for the deferral of capital gains if some or all of the amount of the capital gain recognized is invested in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) by an eligible taxpayer. A QOF is any entity that invests in qualified opportunity zone property and is taxed as a partnership or corporation organized in any of the 50 states, US territories, or D.C. The QOF is required to hold at least 90 percent of its assets in qualified opportunity zone property.

To defer a capital gain, a taxpayer has 180 days from the date of sale or exchange of the appreciated property to invest the recognized gain in a QOF. The potential tax benefits of opportunity zone statute include:

• Deferral of tax on capital gains invested in a QOF through 2019: Any recognized capital gain invested in a QOF through December 31, 2019 may be deferred until December 31, 2026 or eliminated when an investment in a QOF is disposed. There is an opportunity for taxpayers to make multiple investments in QOFs through the statute expiration date.
• Potential to eliminate 15% to 100% of taxes for capital gains invested: Capital gains invested in a QOF are deemed to have an initial tax basis of zero. The taxpayer receives a 10% increase in tax basis if the investment is held five years and an additional 5% increase in tax basis after seven years. If an investment in a QOF is held for ten years, the taxpayer can elect to increase their tax basis in the QOF to fair market value upon disposition, which provides for a tax-free investment in the QOF. Tax is realized on the excess of the deferred gain over the basis in the QOF at the time of disposal.
• Ability to rollover gains on disposal of investments in QOF: In general, the original deferred gain must be recognized by the taxpayer upon disposition of the investment in the QOF. If a taxpayer disposes of all of an investment in a QOF, triggering tax on the deferred gain and the qualified opportunity zone property, a taxpayer can make an investment in a new QOF and rollover the deferred gain. The rollover investment must be made before December 31, 2026.

Qualified Opportunity Zone Property

The purpose of the opportunity zone statute is to incentivize investment in low-income areas of the country in need of community development and improvement. IRC Sec. 1400Z-2(d)(2) provides guidance regarding the types of assets that will be considered qualified opportunity zone property if held by a QOF. In general, qualified opportunity zone property includes the following:

• Newly issued stock held in a domestic corporation if such corporation is a qualified opportunity zone business,
• Newly issued partnership interests in a domestic partnership if such partnership is a qualified opportunity zone business, or
• Qualified opportunity zone business property.

Qualified opportunity zone business property is further defined in IRC Sec. 1400Z-2(d)(2)(D) as tangible property used in a business in a qualified opportunity zone that is either:

• Land in a qualified opportunity zone,
• A building in a qualified opportunity zone that is first used by the QOF or the qualified opportunity business,
• A building in a qualified opportunity zone that was previously used but is “substantially improved” by the QOF or qualified opportunity business,
• Equipment that was never previously used in a qualified opportunity zone, or
• Equipment that was previously used in a qualified opportunity zone but it “substantially improved” by the QOF or the qualified opportunity business.

The opportunity zone statute defines “substantial improvement,” as an amount of investment in existing tangible property by a QOF, during any 30-month period, that exceeds the adjusted basis in the property at the beginning of the 30-month period. The Revenue Ruling issued clarifies that improvements made to land are not included in the total improvements for purposes of the “substantial improvement test” and the value of land is excluded from the adjusted basis calculations.

More Details on Qualifying as a QOF

The new guidance also provides details on what qualifies an investment vehicle as a QOF. And a draft of Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund was released alongside the guidance to demonstrate how corporations and partnerships can self-identify as a QOF by including the form with the filing of their tax return. Additional information provided includes guidelines for determining when a QOF begins, how a QOF can meet the requirements to be recognized as a qualified opportunity zone business, and what pre-existing entities may qualify as a QOF. And finally, guidance details the test required of QOFs to determine whether the entity holds the minimum threshold of assets in qualified opportunity zone property.

Considering a QOZ Investment?

While the new guidance helps fill in many details, many questions are left unanswered and the Department of Treasury plans to release further guidance before the end of the year. If you’re planning on creating or investing in a QOF, we recommend consulting with an experienced tax advisor first.

The tax team at MGO is ready to assist you in navigating QOZs, QOFs, and other income tax concerns. For further guidance or to schedule a consultation, please contact us.

The post Quick Answers About Opportunity Zone Incentives appeared first on MGO CPA | Tax, Audit, and Consulting Services.