Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 9 MIN READ

Section 199A, one month in: a 20% deduction with the fine print still missing

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act wrote a pass-through break into the Code on December 22, 2017, and then left Treasury to explain what half of it means

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
9 min read Updated
Contents 6 sections
  1. What §199A says, mechanically
  2. The threshold, and why it matters
  3. What Treasury has not yet said
  4. Second-order effects
  5. What a taxpayer should actually do right now
  6. Sources

he Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed on December 22, 2017, and §11011 of that bill added a new §199A to the Internal Revenue Code. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the owner of a qualifying pass-through business can deduct up to 20 percent of qualified business income. That is the headline. The fine print is not written.

No proposed regulations have been issued. The IRS has not answered the first-order operational questions every tax department in the country is now asking. Returns for the first affected year are due in roughly fifteen months, and the statute, as drafted, requires guidance to function.

What §199A says, mechanically

The deduction is a below-the-line, non-itemized subtraction that reduces taxable income. It does not reduce adjusted gross income, which matters for anything that phases off AGI (the medical expense floor, IRA contribution limits, Social Security taxability). It does not reduce self-employment tax, which is computed on net earnings before §199A runs. It does not affect the alternative minimum tax calculation for noncorporate taxpayers, which §199A(f)(2) is explicit about.

The deduction is 20 percent of "qualified business income" from a "qualified trade or business" carried on inside the United States, subject to a wage-and-capital limitation that binds above an income threshold. It is also 20 percent of qualified REIT dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership income, which are treated separately and are not subject to the same limitation. The combined deduction cannot exceed 20 percent of the taxpayer's taxable income minus net capital gain, per §199A(a)(1)(B).

Qualified business income is defined at §199A(c) as the net amount of items of income, gain, deduction, and loss connected with a qualified trade or business. Three categories are carved out by the statute itself: reasonable compensation paid by an S-corporation to a shareholder is not QBI; guaranteed payments to a partner for services are not QBI; and payments to a partner acting other than in a partner capacity, under §707(a), are not QBI. Investment items (capital gain, dividends, interest not allocable to a trade or business) are excluded as well. The effect is that the deduction runs against operating profit, not portfolio return and not the owner's wage.

C-corporation income does not qualify. §199A is a pass-through provision, full stop. The parallel compensation to C-corp shareholders for the statute is the new 21 percent flat corporate rate at §11(b), which is permanent in the bill while §199A sunsets at the end of 2025.

The threshold, and why it matters

§199A(e)(2) sets a threshold amount of $157,500 for single filers and $315,000 for joint filers, indexed for inflation in later years. The threshold is not a cliff and is not exactly a phase-in. It is a switch that turns two other parts of the statute on.

Below the threshold, the calculation is simple. Twenty percent of QBI, subject only to the overall 20-percent-of-taxable-income cap. The W-2 wage limit does not apply. The specified service trade or business exclusion does not apply. A sole proprietor netting $120,000 on a Schedule C gets a $24,000 deduction, subject to the taxable-income cap, and does not need to ask whether the business has employees or what NAICS code describes it.

Above the threshold, two limits phase in over the next $50,000 of income for single filers ($100,000 for joint). At the top of the phase-in range, $207,500 single or $415,000 joint, both limits apply in full.

The first limit is the wage-and-capital test at §199A(b)(2). The deduction for a qualified trade or business is capped at the greater of (A) 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid with respect to that trade or business, or (B) 25 percent of W-2 wages plus 2.5 percent of the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property. The second formula was written in conference specifically to preserve the deduction for real-estate owners who hold depreciable property and pay few wages. A rental operator with $10 million in recent building basis and no employees gets a $250,000 wage-limit ceiling under the alternative calculation, which will usually exceed 20 percent of QBI.

The second limit is the specified service trade or business exclusion at §199A(d)(2). A SSTB is defined by reference to §1202(e)(3)(A), plus "investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities, partnership interests, or commodities," plus "any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of 1 or more of its employees or owners." The §1202 list includes health, law, accounting, actuarial science, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services, and the performing arts. Engineering and architecture, which were historically caught by §1202(e)(3)(A), are explicitly carved out of the SSTB definition here, which is one of the more conspicuous legislative choices in the bill.

For a taxpayer above the top of the phase-in range whose business is an SSTB, the deduction is zero. For a taxpayer below the threshold whose business is an SSTB, the deduction is the full 20 percent. In between, the SSTB treatment phases in, which means the deduction is partially allowed.

What Treasury has not yet said

The statute was finalized in about two weeks in December. The result is a set of terms the Code now uses without defining, and a set of constructions that do not resolve from the statutory text alone.

Start with "trade or business." §199A uses the phrase repeatedly and defines it at §199A(d)(1) only as "any trade or business other than" an SSTB and other than performing services as an employee. The term "trade or business" has meaning elsewhere in the Code, most notably at §162, and courts have worked on it for decades without producing a clean rule. A rental activity may or may not be a trade or business depending on scope, continuity, and the level of the owner's involvement. Self-rental situations, where an operating business leases property from a related entity, sit in a particularly unresolved place. Every tax adviser reading §199A in January 2018 is asking whether the single-property landlord qualifies at all, and the statute does not answer.

Aggregation is the second open problem. Many real-world pass-through structures run multiple legal entities that a single owner treats operationally as one business. §199A calculates the wage-and-capital limit at the level of a "qualified trade or business," and the statute does not say whether a taxpayer can or must combine related entities. Forced disaggregation would be bad for many real estate structures; forced aggregation would be bad for many service operators with mixed SSTB and non-SSTB lines. The statute invites regulations under §199A(f)(4), which gives Treasury broad authority, and practitioners are waiting to see how the agency reads it.

The SSTB definition itself is the third. "The principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of 1 or more of its employees or owners" is a catch-all that could be read to cover almost any professional service business, or could be narrowed to endorsement deals and personal-brand arrangements. There is no legislative history that cleanly resolves the question. The drafting looks like an attempt to import a concept from §1202, which uses nearly identical language, but §1202 case law on this phrase is thin. A doctor's practice is clearly SSTB by the explicit list. A software consultancy that is not "consulting" as traditionally understood, but looks like consulting from the outside, is not.

Reasonable compensation is the fourth. S-corporation shareholder-employees have always had an incentive to understate their W-2 wage to reduce payroll tax on the distribution portion of their take. The IRS has litigated this doctrine for years, with Watson v. Commissioner (2012) as the modern anchor. §199A changes the incentive. W-2 wages are not QBI and do not get the 20 percent deduction, but they are the numerator of the wage-limit calculation. Above the threshold, paying too little wage drops the ceiling; paying too much shrinks the QBI base. The optimum is a point, not a floor, and where that point sits depends on facts the statute does not speak to. Guaranteed payments from partnerships behave the same way and are also excluded from QBI.

Second-order effects

The deduction does not cross entity lines cleanly. A partner's QBI is determined at the partnership level for income items and at the partner level for the threshold and limit calculations, per §199A(f)(1)(A). A Schedule K-1 issued for 2018 will need to carry new line items the form does not yet have: QBI, W-2 wages, UBIA, SSTB flag, and the characterization breakdowns. The 2017 form, already in use for partnership returns filed on extension, does not have these boxes. The 2018 K-1 will.

For an S-corporation that has historically minimized shareholder wages, the math now runs in two directions at once. Lowering wages increases QBI (more 20 percent deduction) but decreases the wage limit ceiling (less protection above the threshold). Above the phase-in range and inside a wage-limited business, the crossover is mechanical and can be solved with a spreadsheet once the regulations clarify how W-2 wages are traced to a specific trade or business.

For a high-earning professional whose business is an SSTB, the deduction disappears at $207,500 single or $415,000 joint. Entity restructuring will not help in the obvious direction. A lawyer cannot spin the book of business into a non-SSTB entity and pay herself a small wage, because the statute collapses those arrangements. §199A(d)(3)'s phase-in rule is designed to prevent the simplest version of the workaround, and Treasury will have latitude under §199A(f)(4) to attack more complex ones.

For a real-estate owner with depreciable property and few employees, the 2.5 percent UBIA alternative is a significant planning tool. The question is whether the rental itself is a §162 trade or business, which is the threshold every §199A calculation for a landlord currently turns on.

What a taxpayer should actually do right now

Extension returns for 2017 are not affected; §199A applies to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. For calendar-year taxpayers, the first affected return is the 2018 Form 1040, due April 15, 2019, or on extension to October 15. Estimated-tax calculations for 2018 begin with the April 15, 2018 first-quarter payment, and a taxpayer relying on the deduction to avoid an underpayment penalty is relying on a statute whose operation Treasury has not yet explained.

The defensible posture in January 2018 is to compute estimated tax at the statutory rate without the deduction, overpay the first quarter, and revisit once guidance lands. For pass-through operators whose compensation structure was already under review, the §199A incentives argue for slowing down any shareholder-wage or guaranteed-payment restructuring until the wage-limit math is clearer. For new formations, the C-corp-versus-pass-through conversation has been reopened in every advisor's office in the country, and the answer will depend on facts §199A has not yet defined.

Reading the new §199A alongside the older S-corp election literature and the LLC-versus-S-corp payroll math from earlier in this publication is a reasonable starting place, with the understanding that the payroll-tax argument for S-corp election has changed shape and not disappeared.

The statute is on the books. The mechanics are mostly not. Treasury's first public signal on §199A is expected in the coming months, and the practice of tax law in 2018 is going to be an exercise in waiting for it while filing around it.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.