With section 199 repealed for tax years beginning after 12/31/17, now is the time for a final review of domestic production activity deductions (“DPAD”). A properly conducted review will optimize 2017 DPAD and identify refund opportunities in prior tax years.
With internal resources likely committed to 2017 compliance and implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, chief tax officers should consider success-based-fee DPAD reviews for years prior to 2017. Read More
Continuing with my list of ten news items and activities from 2015 that I think have particular tax policy relevance. Today, for my fourth item is an odd and unfortunate way that the IRS is telling us they disagree with a 2013 court decision. In August 2015, the IRS issued proposed regulations under Section 199, Income attributable to domestic production activities – REG–136459–09 (8/27/15). This provision was added in 2004 and provides a “bonus” deduction for taxpayers engaged in domestic manufacturing which is broadly defined to include some construction, film production, and software development. It is a fairly complex provision that involves numerous definitions and allocations to identify the specified income that then generally produces a 9% deduction for the taxpayer.
The issue helps show the complexity that is involved when special rules exist. Special rules require precise definitions to know what qualifies and what does not. The particular issue I’m referring to what constitutes minor assembly (no 199 deduction) versus production (generates a 199 deduction).
In Industry Director Directive on Domestic Production Deduction #3 (3/4/2009) (the “IDD”), the IRS addressed the treatment of post-2004 compensation deductions (e.g., pension expense and medical-related costs) that relate to services rendered prior to 2005. The IDD held that the treatment of such deductions requires an analysis under the “section 861 method”. In lieu of detailed support regarding the lack of a factual relationship between a deduction and domestic production gross receipts (“DPGR”), the IDD allowed taxpayers to treat such deductions as not properly allocable to DPGR, subject to a 10% haircut. The haircut relates to the — sometimes real, sometimes theoretical – possibility that some of the services rendered prior to 2005 may relate to the production of (post-2004) DPGR. The scope of the IDD was limited to expenses not subject to §263A. Read More