Sales & use tax: A potential trap for

non-U

.S. entities

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

The Investment Tax Credit and Residential Energy Credit were originally established to promote investment in renewable energies. These credits are available to taxpayers who install solar equipment to generate electricity for either a commercial or residential property. The credits have different origins within the Internal Revenue Code but are very similar with respect to how they are calculated. 

The starting point is to determine what property is eligible, typically by reviewing the equipment, materials, and labor costs. Qualified property is defined within the Code and while there are several years of judicial history further clarifying what is eligible, there is one unsettled question routinely asked: Can we include the entire cost of a roof replacement?

To answer that question, we look to each of the separate Code sections establishing the credits, Section 48–Commercial Energy Credit and Section 25D–Residential Energy Credit. The credits afforded by these sections are available for a variety of renewable energy properties, but for this discussion we will focus specifically on the solar property provisions.

Solar property provisions

The Section 48 definition of qualified property includes “equipment which uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a structure, or to provide solar process heat….” The regulations further define solar energy property as “equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, and includes storage devices, power conditioning equipment, transfer equipment, and parts relating to the functioning of those items.” 

Essentially, all costs to acquire and install the equipment used to generate electricity to the point of either transmitting it or consuming it would be eligible for the credit.

Section 48 Regulations state that building and structural components generally are not qualified property for the credit. An exception was provided by Revenue Ruling 79-183, allowing structural components to the extent that they are specifically engineered to be part of the machinery and equipment. Two significant private letter rulings have also been issued to address whether a roof would be treated as qualified solar property based on these limitations, and to what extent.

In PLR 201121005, issued in May 2011, the IRS ruled that the roof was qualified property but the qualified cost did not include the portion that performs the normal functions of a roof. This follows Regulation Section 1.48-9(k) that only permits the “incremental cost” over what would have been spent if the roof were replaced with no qualified property. The facts in this ruling did not include the type of solar power system and how it was integrated with the roof which left many questions unanswered until PLR 201523014 was issued in June 2015.

The 2015 ruling addressed solar property that included a reflective roof membrane to generate electricity from the underside of the roof mounted solar panels. The reflective roof was clearly integrated to the solar power system and the process of generating electricity. The IRS again ruled that qualified property included only the portion of the reflective roof that exceeded the cost of reroofing the building with a non-reflective roof.

The IRS has consistently held that only the “incremental cost” of the roof installation may qualify as solar energy property if it is integrated with the machinery and equipment. 

The Section 25D definition of qualified expenses includes “property which uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a residence by the taxpayer.” The Section identifies qualified costs for labor and solar panels and specifically states, “no expenditure relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be treated as qualified property solely because it constitutes a structural component…”

Unlike the Section 48 Commercial Energy Credit, the Section 25D Residential Energy Credit has little guidance on whether the entire cost of a roof would be allowed as qualified solar property. If the IRS were consistent in application, they would follow the “incremental cost” regulations that apply to non-residential projects.

Determining qualifying machinery and equipment costs is critical to maximizing the commercial or residential energy credit. 

BerryDunn has the expertise to review the project costs and provide a cost certification for what qualifies. We can identify any portion of the roof that may be eligible. If you have questions or would like to discuss whether there may be an opportunity for your project, please don’t hesitate to call us.
 

Editor's note: Read this if you are a current or future owner of solar or other renewable energy equipment, or a solar investor, developer, or installer.

Maine LD 1430: An opportunity for businesses with solar energy systems

In 2019, Maine passed bill LD 1430, which introduces a solar tax exemption for both business and residential owners enabling renewable energy adopters to save money―while adding real value to their property and assets. As our experience in Massachusetts has shown, eligible businesses should take advantage of these types of laws, as you can reduce your property tax assessment by the value of your solar or wind energy equipment.  

Let’s look at a simple example assuming a $20 mill rate and a business owner who owns land and installs a large commercial solar energy system on it to meet the electrical demand of his business:   

Standardized valuation methodology provides clear guidance for taxpayers

In December, the Maine Revenue Service expanded on the bill by providing standardized solar valuation methodology. It provides much-needed guidance to municipalities on how to assess property tax on solar equipment, helps prevent over taxation of businesses, and streamlines the process for applying for the solar property tax exemption. 

Solar tax exempt laws in other states

Maine was not the first state to enact this type of legislation to help improve renewable energy adoption in the commercial space, nor will it be the last. Massachusetts, among others, has a similar law on the books, which allows for an exemption on solar or wind equipment used to supply the energy needs of a taxable property. Over the past few years, many of our clients in Massachusetts have taken advantage of the exemption, and have saved thousands of dollars doing so. 

Not surprisingly, Massachusetts has seen strong growth in renewable energy in the commercial sector. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Massachusetts went from a few hundred solar energy systems in 2006 to nearly 100,000 in 2018. Other states have also enacted this type of legislation. In fact, all but 12 states have enacted some form of solar tax exemption laws.  

Looking ahead

This law and others like it will continue to help renewable energy projects get off the ground. As the number of solar projects increases, so too does the ability to create more opportunity. 

We’ve been working with Massachusetts providers for many years, helping our clients grow as the market has been maturing. For more information on how we can help you in Maine (or other states) take advantage of these exemptions, please contact the renewable energy team.  

The Maine Revenue Service is planning to release a standard application for the property tax exemption in the coming weeks. Please stay tuned for updates.  

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

After a recent article where we highlighted some of the major points of the ITC safe harbor, we received many calls and e-mails looking for clarification on some of the related issues. In working to answer these questions we teamed up with Klavens Law Group, P.C., a Boston law firm that specializes in clean energy. Together with Brendan Beasley and Jon Klavens we have compiled a list of frequently asked questions that may be helpful as you navigate the last few weeks of the year. 

Q: My project is not ready for construction due to a pending decision on a land use permit. How can I minimize capital expenditure while still qualifying the project for the 5% safe harbor?
A: There are a couple approaches you as a taxpayer can take. First, if this project is among several in your portfolio, you can pay or incur expenses prior to December 31, 2019 for enough safe harbor equipment under a single binding contract to qualify each project in your portfolio and retain flexibility to allocate that equipment. Applying the master contract approach (per Section 7.03(2) of IRS Notice 2018-59), you would then transfer equipment, even after December 31, 2019, to affiliate special purpose entities under a second binding contract. Second, you can enter into a binding contract that is subject to a condition, applying section (ii)(B) of the “binding contract” definition at 26 CFR Section 1.168(k)-1(b)(4). In this case, the condition would be the project receiving the land use permits and clearing any related appeals period. Under this approach you would still need to pay or incur―or have your EPC contractor pay or incur under the look-through rule―at least 5% of the project’s depreciable cost basis by December 31, 2019. A limitation on this approach is that, if the condition is not likely to be satisfied within three-and-a-half months of the date of your binding contract, either you or your EPC contractor (applying the look-through rule) must take delivery of the equipment while the condition―and presumably the viability of the project―is still open and uncertain. 

Q: Can I finance a purchase of safe harbor equipment for my project?
A: Yes; however, you can’t use vendor financing. 

Q: I have a project that will be ready to construct in Q2 2020. The project company will execute a binding EPC agreement by December 31, 2019 that includes a procurement component. It will make an initial milestone payment of 7% upon execution. Does my project qualify for the 5% safe harbor?
A: Maybe. There is not enough information here to confirm. As taxpayer you must pay or incur expenses amounting to at least 5% of the total cost of the energy property prior to December 31, 2019, and must take delivery within three-and-a-half months from the date of payment under your binding contract. So the critical question here is what your EPC contractor is doing with that 7% payment. Here are some possible outcomes:

• The EPC contractor purchases inverters on December 31, 2019 pursuant to a binding contract with a vendor. Applying the look-through rule, the safe harbor is satisfied.
• The EPC contractor self-constructs a specialized racking system in January 2020, per your EPC agreement, and delivers it to you within three-and-a-half months of the binding contract. The safe harbor is satisfied.
• The EPC contractor prepares 10% construction drawings and applies for a building permit, each at nominal cost, and holds your 7% payment while waiting for module prices to come down. The safe harbor is not satisfied.
• The EPC contractor allocates its previously purchased inverters to your project, per your EPC agreement, holding them in its warehouse until May 2020 before delivering them to your site. The safe harbor is likely satisfied. Applying the look-through rule, the EPC contractor’s purchase of the inverters pursuant to a binding contract in 2019 (even if prior to the EPC agreement) will qualify the inverters for safe harbor purposes. The EPC contractor must take steps to identify and segregate the particular inverters within its warehouse.

Q: Can I sell safe-harbored equipment?
A: The buyer of your equipment (unless it is an affiliate) may not utilize the safe harbor unless you are selling the equipment together with the solar project. If, for example, your sale also includes a site lease and a PPA, the purchaser would receive the benefit of the safe harbor. In certain circumstances, you may also be able to become an affiliate of a project LLC by acquiring a membership interest of at least 20% and make an in-kind contribution of the safe-harbored equipment to the project LLC.           

Q: Can I satisfy the physical work test by building roads within my site?
A: Yes; however, the roads must be integral to the energy property. An access road would likely not be interpreted as integral to the property. However, roads used for purposes of operations and maintenance activity―within the area of the facility itself―are considered integral to the energy property.

Q: What constitutes work of a physical nature?
A: This is really open to the facts and circumstances interpretation. The IRS notice instructions referenced previously indicate some specific activities that do not qualify, but there is no quantification of how much of a qualifying activity must be done in order to satisfy the safe harbor requirement. Preliminary planning and site work do not count. But starting construction would, so you could satisfy the requirement with excavation for a foundation, drilling for moorings, pouring concrete, etc. The best bet would be to actually put up a section of panels.

Q: What is the continuing work requirement?
A: There is an additional safe harbor that says if your project is placed in service within four years of the end of the calendar year in which you started it you will have automatically met the continuous work requirement. If your project goes beyond that you will need to show facts and circumstances showing you were taking steps to continue working towards completing the project. For example, if the delay was due to a delay in getting interconnected, be prepared to show documentation that you were continuously working towards resolving that issue.

Unless there are changes to the current tax law, these same provisions will be in effect for each step of the phase-out through the end of 2023. If you have further questions, please contact a member of our renewable energy team. 

Please note that this Q&A, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Klavens Law Group, P.C. or its attorneys. Please seek the services of a competent professional if you need legal or other professional assistance.

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

With December well under way, thoughts turn to year-end and tax filing preparation. While we get many questions this time of year related to changes in the tax law and what taxpayers can do before the end of the year to minimize their tax burden, different this year is the impending phase-out of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Residential Energy Credit (REC) from 30% to 26%. 

Last month, we gave some pointers on the safe harbor provision available for the Investment Tax Credit which would allow qualifying projects to still be eligible for the 30% credit after the end of the year. No such provision exists for the residential credit, however, and any project not complete by 12/31/19 (and completed in 2020) will receive the reduced 26% credit.

The phase-out was designed to coincide with the projected decline in solar costs, and would help smooth the transition to a market where solar competes directly with fossil fuels for energy production. Since then, we have seen component costs increase due to artificially inflated prices resulting from the tariffs imposed on imported goods. This results in a mismatch on the timing of the phase-out to the cost of the materials, a still immature market for solar, and a missed opportunity. Enter a new bill in the House of Representatives.

Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now Act

On November 19, 2019 Chairman Thompson of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee released a discussion draft of a bill titled the Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (“GREEN”) Act. This draft bill is not ready for a vote yet, but does promote an extension and/or expansion of tax incentives for taxpayers investing in cleantech. With the GREEN Act, solar investors, installers, and other related businesses would benefit from:

• Revival and extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) through 2024
• Delay of the ITC and REC phaseout until 2024
• Expansion of the ITC to include additional technologies, most notably energy storage
• A provision allowing the taxpayer to receive the ITC or PTC as a refund in the year it is claimed for 15% reduction in the value of the credit

A delay in the phase-out would allow time for the costs of components to return to pre-tariff levels and help achieve the original intention of the phase-out. The expansion of the ITC to include energy storage would be a huge boon to that emerging market, and provide an additional incentive for consumers to install storage on an existing project―creating a more efficient energy grid. 

Currently, due to accelerated depreciation, many taxpayers are not able to take the ITC or PTC in the first year due to not having a tax to offset. Allowing for the option to treat the ITC or PTC as a tax payment (which can be refunded) instead of a credit (which can’t) would help investors realize their return much faster and free up capital to invest in other projects. 

Some of these provisions are fairly aggressive, and it is unlikely that they will all remain as they are now in any future passed legislation. However, it is promising to see the House of Representatives considering these types of extensions and expansions when it comes to clean energy incentives. As renewable energy is still a relatively new and rapidly changing marketplace, this is a prime time for renewable energy professionals to keep representatives informed of what they need to help the industry continue to grow. 

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

The solar carve out of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been a great incentive for taxpayers to invest in solar assets over the last several years. It established an increased 30% tax credit for solar assets placed in service, up from the normal 10%. 

Starting January 1, 2020, the solar carve out will begin to phase out and will return to 10% by January 1, 2024. 

With the first phase-out of the ITC set to drop the credit from 30% to 26% after December 31, 2019, many taxpayers are evaluating ways to make sure their project still qualifies for the 30% credit. The IRS has issued two safe harbor provisions (IRS Notice 2018-59) to allow for projects placed in service after December 31, 2019 and before January 1, 2024 to still qualify for the 30% credit, but timing is key and certain actions must be taken before midnight on December 31, 2019.

Safe harbor methods

The two safe harbor methods are the Physical Work Test and the Five Percent of Cost Test. If a project satisfies either of these tests it can still qualify for the 30% tax credit as long as it is completed and in service before January 1, 2024.

The Physical Work Test requires that the taxpayer performs, or has performed on their behalf, “work of a significant nature” on the project prior to December 31, 2019. This is a little open to interpretation, but generally involves physical construction of the asset, such as the installation of mounting equipment, rails, racking, inverters, or even the panels themselves. Purchasing of equipment generally held in inventory by either the taxpayer or the vendor does not qualify. However, if the equipment is customized or specially designed for the specific project, it might. Preliminary activities do not qualify, which include planning, designing, surveying, and permitting. 

In general, the purpose of this test is to prove that construction has already begun, and is in place to help projects that have been started but won’t be in service before year end still maintain the 30% tax credit. Projects that are substantially complete and waiting for an interconnection or a permission to operate in order to be considered as in service will most easily qualify for this safe harbor test.

The Five Percent of Cost Test is a little more straightforward, and is likely to be more commonly used to qualify projects for the safe harbor provision as the end of the year deadline approaches. This test requires at least five percent of the total project cost be paid or incurred before December 31, 2019. It is important to note that the denominator in this test is the final total cost of the project when it goes in service. The taxpayer may wish to pay more than the five percent to account for project overruns or unanticipated changes to the project in order to make sure they maintain the qualification for safe harbor. 

Another consideration is if the taxpayer files on the cash or accrual method as to whether the project cost needs to be paid or incurred in order to satisfy the chosen filing method.

In either case, the taxpayer should also evaluate the cost of prepaying for equipment that may decrease in cost in the future, compared to the benefit they will receive in maintaining the additional four percent of the tax credit that can safe harbor from the phase out. 

Additionally, an analysis of total project costs and eligible vs. ineligible ITC costs early on in project development can help identify how best to spend the cash before the end of the year, and ensure that the taxpayer receives the return they require once the project goes into service.

Have questions?

If you have questions on these safe harbors or need more information, please contact the green tax experts on our renewable energy team. 

Editor’s note: read this if you are a Maine business owner or officer.

New state law aligns with federal rules for partnership audits

On June 18, 2019, the State of Maine enacted Legislative Document 1819, House Paper 1296, An Act to Harmonize State Income Tax Law and the Centralized Partnership Audit Rules of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Just like it says, LD 1819 harmonizes Maine with updated federal rules for partnership audits by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself. It also establishes new rules for who can—and can’t—represent a partnership in audit proceedings, and what that representative’s powers are.

Classic tunes—The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

Until recently, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) set federal standards for IRS audits of partnerships and those entities treated as partnerships for income tax purposes (LLCs, etc.). Those rules changed, however, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Changes made by the BBA and PATH Act included:

• Replacing the Tax Matters Partner (TMP) with a Partnership Representative (PR);
• Generally establishing the partnership, and not individual partners, as liable for any imputed underpayment resulting from an audit, meaning current partners can be held responsible for the tax liabilities of past partners; and
• Imputing tax on the net audit adjustments at the highest individual or corporate tax rates.

Unlike TEFRA, the BBA and PATH Act granted Partnership Representatives sole authority to act on behalf of a partnership for a given tax year. Individual partners, who previously held limited notification and participation rights, were now bound by their PR’s actions.

Fresh beats—new tax liability laws under LD 1819

LD 1819 echoes key provisions of the BBA and PATH Act by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself and replacing the Tax Matters Partner with a Partnership Representative.

Eligibility requirements for PRs are also less than those for TMPs. PRs need only demonstrate “substantial presence in the US” and don’t need to be a partner in the partnership, e.g., a CFO or other person involved in the business. Additionally, partnerships may have different PRs at the federal and state level, provided they establish reasonable qualifications and procedures for designating someone other than the partnership’s federal-level PR to be its state-level PR.

LD 1819 applies to Maine partnerships for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Any additional tax, penalties, and/or interest arising from audit are due no later than 180 days after the IRS’ final determination date, though some partnerships may be eligible for a 60-day extension. In addition, LD 1819 requires Maine partnerships to file a completed federal adjustments report.

Partnerships should review their partnership agreements in light of these changes to ensure the goals of the partnership and the individual partners are reflected in the case of an audit. 

Remix―Significant changes coming to the Maine Capital Investment Credit 

Passage of LD 1671 on July 2, 2019 will usher in a significant change to the Maine Capital Investment Credit, a popular credit which allows businesses to claim a tax credit for qualifying depreciable assets placed in service in Maine on which federal bonus depreciation is claimed on the taxpayer's federal income tax return. 

Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, the credit is reduced to a rate of 1.2%. This is a significant reduction in the current credit percentages, which are 9% and 7% for corporate and all other taxpayers, respectively. The change intends to provide fairness to companies conducting business in-state over out-of-state counterparts. Taxpayers continue to have the option to waive the credit and claim depreciation recapture in a future year for the portion of accelerated federal bonus depreciation disallowed by Maine in the year the asset is placed in service. 

As a result of this meaningful reduction in the credit, taxpayers who have historically claimed the credit will want to discuss with their tax advisors whether it makes sense to continue claiming the credit for 2020 and beyond.
 

Proposed House bill brings state income tax standards to the digital age

On June 3, 2019, the US House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3063, also known as the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2019, which seeks to modernize tax laws for the sale of personal property, and clarify physical presence standards for state income tax nexus as it applies to services and intangible goods. But before we can catch up on today, we need to go back in time—great Scott!

Fly your DeLorean back 60 years (you’ve got one, right?) and you’ll arrive at the signing of Public Law 86-272: the Interstate Income Act of 1959. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, P.L. 86-272 allows a business to enter a state, or send representatives, for the purposes of soliciting orders for the sale of tangible personal property without being subject to a net income tax.

But now, in 2019, personal property is increasingly intangible—eBooks, computer software, electronic data and research, digital music, movies, and games, and the list goes on. To catch up, H.R. 3063 seeks to expand on 86-272’s protection and adds “all other forms of property, services, and other transactions” to that exemption. It also redefines business activities of independent contractors to include transactions for all forms of property, as well as events and gathering of information.

Under the proposed bill, taxpayers meet the standards for physical presence in a taxing jurisdiction, if they:

1.  Are an individual physically located in or have employees located in a given state; 
2. Use the services of an agent to establish or maintain a market in a given state, provided such agent does not perform the same services in the same state for any other person or taxpayer during the taxable year; or
3. Lease or own tangible personal property or real property in a given state.

The proposed bill excludes a taxpayer from the above criteria who have presence in a state for less than 15 days, or whose presence is established in order to conduct “limited or transient business activity.”

In addition, H.R. 3063 also expands the definition of “net income tax” to include “other business activity taxes”. This would provide protection from tax in states such as Texas, Ohio and others that impose an alternate method of taxing the profits of businesses.

H.R. 3063, a measure that would only apply to state income and business activity tax, is in direct contrast to the recent overturn of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a sales and use tax standard. Quill required a physical presence but was overturned by the decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Since the Wayfair decision, dozens of states have passed legislation to impose their sales tax regime on out of state taxpayers without a physical presence in the state.

If enacted, the changes made via H.R. 3063 would apply to taxable periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020. For more information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3063/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3063%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
 

It’s that time of year. Kids have gone back to school, the leaves are changing color, the air is getting crisp and… year-end tax planning strategies are front of mind! It’s time to revisit or start tax planning for the coming year-end, and year-end purchase of capital equipment and the associated depreciation expense are often an integral part of that planning.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expanded two prevailing types of accelerated expensing of capital improvements: bonus depreciation and section 179 depreciation. They each have different applications and require planning to determine which is most advantageous for each business situation.

100% expensing of selected capital improvements—bonus depreciation

Originating in 2001, bonus depreciation rules allowed for immediate expensing at varying percentages in addition to the “regular” accelerated depreciation expensed over the useful life of a capital improvement. The TCJA allows for 100% expensing of certain capital improvements during 2018. Starting in 2023, the percentage drops to 80% and continues to decrease after 2023. In addition to the increased percentage, used property now qualifies for bonus depreciation. Most new and used construction equipment, office and warehouse equipment, fixtures, and vehicles qualify for 100% bonus depreciation along with certain other longer lived capital improvement assets. Now is the time to take advantage of immediate write-offs on crucial business assets. 

TCJA did not change the no dollar limitations or thresholds, so there isn’t a dollar limitation or threshold on taking bonus depreciation. Additionally, you can use bonus depreciation to create taxable losses. Bonus depreciation is automatic, and a taxpayer may elect out of the bonus depreciation rules.

However, a taxpayer can’t pick and choose bonus depreciation on an asset-by-asset basis because the election out is made by useful life. Another potential drawback is that many states do not allow bonus depreciation. This will generally result in higher state taxable income in the early years that reverses in subsequent years.

Section 179 expensing

Similar to bonus depreciation, section 179 depreciation allows for immediate expensing of certain capital improvements. The TCJA doubled the allowable section 179 deduction from $500,000 to $1,000,000. The overall capital improvement limits also increased from $2,000,000 to $2,500,000. These higher thresholds allow for even higher tax deductions for business that tend to put a lot of money in a given year on capital improvements.

In addition to these limits, section 179 cannot create a loss. Because of these constraints, section 179 is not as flexible as bonus depreciation but can be very useful if the timing purchases are planned to maximize the deduction. Many states allow section 179 expense, which may be an advantage over bonus depreciation.

Both section 179 and bonus depreciation are crucial tools for all businesses. They can reduce taxable income and defer tax expense by accelerating depreciation deductions. Please contact your tax advisor to determine if your business qualifies for bonus depreciation or section 179 and how to maximize each deduction for 2018.

Section 179 and bonus depreciation: where to go from here

Both section 179 and bonus depreciation are crucial tools for all businesses. They can reduce taxable income and defer tax expense by accelerating depreciation deductions. Please contact your tax advisor to determine if your business qualifies for bonus depreciation or section 179 and how to maximize each deduction for 2018.

IRS Notice 2018-67 Hits the Charts
Last week, in addition to The Eagles Greatest Hits (1971-1975) album becoming the highest selling album of all time, overtaking Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the IRS issued Notice 2018-67—its first formal guidance on Internal Revenue Code Section 512(a)(6), one of two major code sections added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directly impacts tax-exempt organizations. Will it too, be a big hit? It remains to be seen.

Section 512(a)(6) specifically deals with the reporting requirements for not-for-profit organizations carrying on multiple unrelated business income (UBI) activities. Here, we will summarize the notice and help you to gain an understanding of the IRS’s thoughts and anticipated approaches to implementing §512(a)(6).

While there have been some (not so quiet) grumblings from the not-for-profit sector about guidance on Code Section 512(a)(7) (aka the parking lot tax), unfortunately we still have not seen anything yet. With Notice 2018-67’s release last week, we’re optimistic that guidance may be on the way and will let you know as soon as we see anything from the IRS.

Before we dive in, it’s important to note last week’s notice is just that—a notice, not a Revenue Procedure or some other substantive legislation. While the notice can, and should be relied upon until we receive further guidance, everything in the notice is open to public comment and/or subject to change. With that, here are some highlights:

No More Netting
512(a)(6) requires the organization to calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI), including for purposes of determining any net operating loss (NOL) deduction, separately with respect to each such trade or business. The notice requires this separate reporting (or silo-ing) of activities in order to determine activities with net income from those with net losses.

Under the old rules, if an organization had two UBI activities in a given year, (e.g., one with $1,000 of net income and another with $1,000 net loss, you could simply net the two together on Form 990-T and report $0 UBTI for the year. That is no longer the case. From now on, you can effectively ignore activities with a current year loss, prompting the organization to report $1,000 as taxable UBI, and pay associated federal and state income taxes, while the activity with the $1,000 loss will get “hung-up” as an NOL specific to that activity and carried forward until said activity generates a net income.

Separate Trade or Business
So, how does one distinguish (or silo) a separate trade or business from another? The Treasury Department and IRS intend to propose some regulations in the near future, but for now recommend that organizations use a “reasonable good-faith interpretation”, which for now includes using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in order to determine different UBI activities.

For those not familiar, the NAICS categorizes different lines of business with a six-digit code. For example, the NAICS code for renting* out a residential building or dwelling is 531110, while the code for operating a potato farm is 111211. While distinguishing residential rental activities from potato farming activities might be rather straight forward, the waters become muddier if an organization rents both a residential property and a nonresidential property (NAICS code 531120). Does this mean the organization has two separate UBI rental activities, or can both be grouped together as rental activities? The notice does not provide anything definitive, but rather is requesting public comments?we expect to see something more concrete once the public comment period is over.

*In the above example, we’re assuming the rental properties are debt-financed, prompting a portion of the rental activity to be treated as UBI.

UBI from Partnership Investments (Schedule K-1)
Notice 2018-67 does address how to categorize/group unrelated business income for organizations that receive more than one partnership K-1 with UBI reported. In short, if the Schedule K-1s the organization receives can meet either of the tests below, the organization may treat the partnership investments as a single activity/silo for UBI reporting purposes. The notice offers the following:

De Minimis Test
You can aggregate UBI from multiple K-1s together as long as the exempt organization holds directly no more than 2% of the profits interest and no more that 2% of the capital interest. These percentages can be found on the face of the Schedule K-1 from the Partnership and the notice states those percentages as shown can be used for this determination. Additionally, the notice allows organizations to use an average of beginning of year and end of year percentages for this determination.

Ex: If an organization receives a K-1 with UBI reported, and the beginning of year profit & capital percentages are 3%, and the end of year percentages are 1%, the average for the year is 2% (3% + 1% = 4%/2 = 2%). In this example, the K-1 meets the de minimis test.

There is a bit of a caveat here—when determining an exempt organization's partnership interest, the interest of a disqualified person (i.e. officers, directors, trustees, substantial contributors, and family members of any of those listed here), a supporting organization, or a controlled entity in the same partnership will be taken into account. Organizations need to review all K-1s received and inquire with the appropriate person(s) to determine if they meet the terms of the de minimis test.

Control Test
If an organization is not able to pass the de minimis test, you may instead use the control test. An organization meets the requirements of the control test if the exempt organization (i) directly holds no more than 20 percent of the capital interest; and (ii) does not have control or influence over the partnership.

When determining control or influence over the partnership, you need to apply all relevant facts and circumstances. The notice states:

“An exempt organization has control or influence if the exempt organization may require the partnership to perform, or may prevent the partnership from performing, any act that significantly affects the operations of the partnership. An exempt organization also has control or influence over a partnership if any of the exempt organization's officers, directors, trustees, or employees have rights to participate in the management of the partnership or conduct the partnership's business at any time, or if the exempt organization has the power to appoint or remove any of the partnership's officers, directors, trustees, or employees.”

As noted above, we recommend your organization review any K-1s you currently receive. It’s important to take a look at Line I1 and make sure your organization is listed here as “Exempt Organization”. All too often we see not-for-profit organizations listed as “Corporations”, which while usually technically correct, this designation is really for a for-profit corporation and could result in the organization not receiving the necessary information in order to determine what portion, if any, of income/loss is attributable to UBI.

Net Operating Losses
The notice also provides some guidance regarding the use of NOLs. The good news is that any pre-2018 NOLs are grandfathered under the old rules and can be used to offset total UBTI on Form 990-T.

Conversely, any NOLs generated post-2018 are going to be considered silo-specific, with the intent being that the NOL will only be applicable to the activity which gave rise to the loss. There is also a limitation on post-2018 NOLs, allowing you to use only 80% of the NOL for a given activity. Said another way, an activity that has net UBTI in a given year, even with post-2017 NOLs, will still potentially have an associated tax liability for the year.

Obviously, Notice 2018-67 provides a good baseline for general information, but the details will be forthcoming, and we will know then if they have a hit. Hopefully the IRS will not Take It To The Limit in terms of issuing formal guidance in regards to 512(a)(6) & (7). Until they receive further IRS guidance,  folks in the not-for-profit sector will not be able to Take It Easy or have any semblance of a Peaceful Easy Feeling. Stay tuned.