Connect with us

Accounting

Guide to TCJA extension for financial advisors and clients

Published

on

The slim margins, trillions of dollars in tax cuts at stake and key missing details add up to great reasons for financial advisors and their clients to contact their members of Congress.

“Now’s the time to be doing it, because they’re starting to put together the legislation now,” said Mary Burke Baker, a government affairs counselor and the leader of the tax policy practice of law firm K&L Gates. “It’s important to let them know what’s important.”

That’s because every Republican member of Congress could exercise outsize influence on the process as President Donald Trump’s party extends the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Even though no one expects any steep tax increases as Congress confronts its year-end deadline, Burke Baker acknowledged that it “has to be difficult to advise clients to the extent that you can advise clients” on questions that may affect their payments to Uncle Sam — without any definitive answers until the passage of a bill that has yet to be written.

The elusive law appears far away from the finish line. Republicans are debating among themselves about how much they are willing to expand the federal budget deficit and whether they should pursue other priorities first. The intraparty squabbling could even provide an opening for Democrats to change the entire equation, if Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune fail to align the GOP behind a way forward.

As they aim to prepare clients’ for the unknown possible impacts to say, estate taxes, deductions for state and local duties, Trump’s campaign promises or any number of other wish-list items among various constituencies, advisors could drive themselves crazy trying to stay abreast of every phase of an inevitably complicated political endeavor. 

Instead, they should be counseling clients about “avoiding the temptation to act based on the news” of any particular day in the Beltway, said Ben Henry-Moreland, a former advisor who’s a senior financial planning nerd with the Kitces.com blog. While he said he doesn’t see “a high probability” that the current exemptions to the estate tax might revert to a lower level, Henry-Moreland suggested that advisors discuss the possibility with clients and prepare any necessary documents before December, just in case. If there are alterations to estate taxes in particular, they could find it incredibly difficult to draft new documents in a rush.

“It’s not necessarily, ‘Oh, here’s what X and Y congressmen are saying,’ but more, ‘Let’s take the big picture and figure out, is it really going to help you to act based on what you’re hearing on the news now, versus waiting until we’re going to know a little bit more?'” Henry-Moreland said. “Otherwise the documents can go in the shredder. It’s good to have some amount of flexibility, but you probably don’t want to make too many commitments yet.”

READ MORE: 26 tips on expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions to review before 2026

Pressing numbers

At this point, Trump and Congressional GOP leaders are also looking for leeway as they search for common ground on the cost of the legislation, possible tax expenditures that add to it or potential spending cuts that take away from it. To pass the law, they must navigate any number of twists and turns in coming months, with detours to keep every faction aboard and moving on a budgetary path that hasn’t even been laid out. For advisors and clients wondering how they’ll get to the ultimate destination, Republicans have barely embarked on their journey.  

House and Senate budget resolutions tabbed the cost of tax legislation at north of $4 trillion over the next decade, but Trump’s plans may come with a price tag between $5 trillion and $11.2 trillion. Even if lawmakers let the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expire, the national debt is on pace to top its prior record of 106% of gross domestic product in 2029 and trigger so-called bond vigilantes’ ever-higher interest rates that would curtail economic growth. The arguments that new tariff revenue or higher federal receipts due to economic expansion from the tax cuts hold more sway among the White House and its allies than with budgetary experts. 

To the toughest fiscal watchdogs, the mere $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade in the House budget plan would only amount to a quarter of the necessary reductions, according to Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan-led nonprofit policy research organization.

“For anyone who has made the case they support lower government spending, this is a pretty puny number, which is pretty darn close to a rounding error,” MacGuineas said in a statement. “It would be far better to use these savings as part of a larger debt reduction deal than to offset tax cuts. We have cut taxes and increased spending year after year since the last budget surplus in 2001, which is how our debt got so out of control. Lawmakers now need to face the reality that we should be adopting a debt deal rather than pursuing tax cuts or spending increases.”

But Republicans are not likely to abandon the main tax plank of their official campaign platform. In a speech on economic issues last fall, Speaker Johnson vowed to “keep those cuts in place to support job creation, along with the doubled guaranteed deduction and a strong child tax credit.” Last month, Majority Leader Thune introduced a bill called the “Death Tax Repeal Act” while expressing the hope that Congress “will not merely extend this exemption, but that we will get rid of this fundamentally flawed tax once and for all.” 

Trump pledged frequently on the campaign trail to extend and expand the tax cuts, but the lofty goals of his administration and those of Trump’s allies in the conservative Project 2025 blueprint are now facing the political and fiscal calculus of passing major legislation through Congress. Trump has displayed a willingness to separate taxes from other legislative priorities, even if he has a clear preference.

“Well, I like one big beautiful bill. I always have. I always will. But if two is more certain, it does go a little bit quicker, because you can do the immigration stuff early,” he said in January.

READ MORE: Economists want to trash the QBI deduction       

Devil in details

Despite some earlier talk of passing the legislation by May, the “latter half of the year” sounds like a much better estimate for the timing, according to Erica York, the vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy.

“Congress tends to act at the last minute,” York said. “In an ideal world, we would get this taken care of very quickly, in a fiscally responsible way, so that people would have the certainty to make decisions. I think this will be a very long, drawn-out process, given the slim majority in the House.”

And the cost could balloon well above $7 trillion, if lawmakers include Trump’s other priorities such as ending taxes on tips and Social Security benefits or creating a deduction for the interest on auto loans for American-made cars, according to Jonathan Traub, a managing principal and the leader of the Tax Policy Group at consulting and professional services firm Deloitte Tax. In their recipe for tax cuts and spending pullbacks that go far beyond any undertaken by Elon Musk’s efforts, lawmakers are effectively trying to come up with a solution to the problem of, “‘How do you fit 7 trillion pounds of sugar into a $2 trillion sack,'” Traub said.

Take the deduction for state and local taxes, which, conveniently, is often referred to as SALT. Currently, taxpayers may deduct up to $10,000 — a level that Republicans from high-tax states such as New York and California say is too low. Trump, Johnson and Thune will need nearly all of those votes to pass the bill if they are going to do so without any Democrats’ support. 

Using figures and policy options from guidance document compiled in January by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers could: double that limit for married couples at a cost of $100 to $200 billion over a decade; boost it to $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for married couples ($500 billion); make only property taxes deductible but eliminate deductibility for income and sales taxes ($300 billion); get rid of the deduction for corporations to create $310 billion in savings against the cost; or eliminate the SALT deduction entirely to raise $1 trillion in revenue over a decade. 

The issue “breaks down on regional lines” rather than ideological ones, which explains why the SALT discussion has been so hard for leaders of both major parties, Traub said.

“I don’t envy anybody in that process,” he said. “It’s a really difficult challenge. It has vexed leaders for years, and it will keep vexing them this year, as well.”

The idea of repealing the tax credits for green energy investments that President Joe Biden and the Democrats put in place through the Inflation Reduction Act could deliver savings of $800 billion and fit nicely into the Trump administration’s stated goal of slashing government spending for climate change. However, that may threaten manufacturing jobs and other economic benefits connected to projects in many Republican districts, according to Joe Hughes, a senior analyst for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which provides “data-driven recommendations to shape equitable and sustainable tax systems.” So cutting them could be tricky, as well.

“It would only pay for maybe about a third of the tax cuts to the wealthy,” Hughes said. “That issue is going to be awkward for Republican lawmakers, but I would highlight that as the biggest pay-for that they can come up with.”

READ MORE: A tax deduction for financial advice? Why chances are murky

What to watch in coming months

For policy experts, the next important step will come with the requirement that Congress must agree to “identical budget resolutions” in both chambers, with instructions about whether the Senate will take up one or two bills subject to so-called reconciliation bills, Burke Baker said. That’s a Senate procedure enabling the passage of a bill with only a majority of 51 votes, rather than the 60 necessary to overcome a filibuster. 

With Trump’s support, the House GOP is pursuing a “one big, beautiful bill” strategy encapsulating tax cuts as well as border security and other priorities. Republicans in the Senate are pushing for two reconciliation bills, which would delay passage of any tax legislation until later in the year. Burke Baker and other experts say that the longer it takes for the two chambers to reach agreement on a budget resolution, the more likely it will be for the Senate to prevail in waiting on the tax cuts until later in the year.

“It’s going to be difficult, even if both chambers were really rowing in the same direction,” she said. “It’s just a terribly complicated topic, and, if any of these issues were easier, they would have been taken care of earlier, and we wouldn’t even be talking about them right now.”

The procedural and policy topics could morph the debate into something altogether different if they stretch longer into the year. Otherwise, any tax changes are likely to fall “mostly on the corporate side” rather than on provisions affecting individual retail wealth management clients, Traub said. To him, repeal of green energy credits and deductions for corporate SALT and highly paid executives or an excise tax on stock buybacks would be more probable than any shifts in policies for municipal bond investments or mortgage interest. 

If the Republican talks fall apart completely and lawmakers face the prospect of raising taxes in the year of a midterm election, the deduction for qualified business income for pass-through entities or even higher rates for some taxpayers could come up for debate if any Democrats’ votes are required for passage, Traub said.

“There’s a variety of things they could demand,” he said. “The universe of what is possible becomes quite a bit more dramatic.”

READ MORE: Why tax-related services drive business for RIAs

The bottom line

That scenario would represent a shocking outcome, though, for advisors and clients who don’t have much reason to expect a big tax hit from the legislation. Wealthier households will get more benefits from extending the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions than those with less than $400,000 in annual income. In a parallel universe, proposals such as raising corporate tax rates, placing foreign income of U.S. corporations in the same bracket as their domestic earnings or repealing the “Gingrich/Edwards loophole” may be on the table, Hughes said.   

“There are plenty of options out there, and those are the sort of things that Republicans would be looking at and discussing if they were remotely serious about some sort of deficit-neutral tax reform,” he said. “There’s no goal of actual tax reform or of really helping the middle class here. The main goal here is to provide tax cuts to very wealthy individuals.” 

Regardless, the complexities signal that there is “a good chance at this point” that passage of any bill waits until December, according to Henry-Moreland. Republicans won the trifecta with control of both houses of Congress and the White House, but passing a law entails much more than a simple agreement to push back the sunset date of the current rules under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or make them all permanent, he noted.

“I still don’t think that this bill is going to be a straight-up extension of TCJA. We have a different group of legislators, and we have different political and economic environments right now,” Henry-Moreland said. “There are so many moving pieces and so many different priorities right now. It’s going to be more of a TCJA replacement than an extension, per se.”

The debate currently revolves around factions among Republicans that are “pulling in the opposite direction,” with one seeking higher itemized deductions and the other trying to reduce the deficit, York said. The push-pull between them and Trump’s influence could leave advisors and their clients guessing until the end of the year.

“For each provision, you have a set of constituents who are vested in that provision existing, so it makes it politically difficult to say, ‘We’re going to cut it,” said York. “A dollar for something means a dollar less for something else.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accounting

Are you ready for it? 4 steps to successfully integrate AI into your operations

Published

on

Over the last few years, AI has gone from being a novelty to a mission-critical business strategy for many accountants. Innovative, forward-thinking firms are using these tools to streamline manual tasks, ensure compliance and provide the best possible service to their clients. According to the 2025 Intuit QuickBooks Accountant Technology Survey, 81% of accountants report AI boosts productivity, and 86% agree it reduces mental load. 

Processing Content

However, AI adoption is at varying levels across the industry. While nearly every firm has begun experimenting with basic AI tools, many remain in a sandbox phase, hesitant to move toward full-scale integration due to perceived complexity or costs.No matter where you may fall on the integration spectrum, the fact remains: AI is rapidly reshaping the accounting industry. If you’ve delayed AI adoption in your business, you’ll want to create a focused plan to catch up. 

Time is of the essence, but don’t sacrifice strategy for speed

Firms that are ready to take the leap from casual use to deep integration may find themselves in need of accelerated adoption, but speed should not come at the cost of strategy. Identify tangible, practical ways that easy-to-use tools can impact your business through automation. Having a strong strategic focus allows firms to implement workflow changes to streamline manual tasks, ensure compliance and provide excellent service to your clients.

To begin your AI journey, here is a four-step plan that firms can use to transition from experimentation to execution, in a safe, practical manner:

Step 1: Kick off your first AI project

As is the case with many things, getting started is often the most challenging step. While enthusiasm is high, uncertainty with implementation risks can cause hesitation. The key is to lower risk by embracing AI and implementing an intentional, phased approach. Begin by weaving AI tools into high-impact, low-risk tasks, such as summarizing meeting notes, drafting client or firm-wide memos, or translating complex concepts into easy-to-understand ideas. Monitor results carefully and, if these initial attempts need adjustment, be prepared to pivot to the next use case until you can clearly demonstrate that AI systems are delivering a measurable impact on your operations. From there, you can learn from early experiences, adapt strategy, and scale appropriately to complete more complex projects. 

Step 2: Dig into your AI toolkit

The marketplace is crowded with AI-powered tools that promise to do everything from enhancing your workflows to improving the customer experience. It can be hard to know which ones are worth investing your time and money. Find a trusted source like a respected peer, or leverage your professional network to help discuss the tools that may be the best fit for achieving your business goals. You can also look within the tools you’re already using to see if they offer AI-powered features, which can help ease into the transition. Additionally, look for free high-quality education to upskill your team. For example, Anthropic offers a Claude AI University that provides excellent foundational resources for moving beyond basic prompts.

Step 3: Review an AI security checklist

An important element in AI implementation is security. With AI tools needing access to firm and client data to function, it leads to questions of how the data will be protected.  This makes the right AI and cybersecurity strategy critical. Firms must proactively ensure that client data remains protected from today’s increasingly sophisticated threats by embracing an established cybersecurity framework such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001. IRS Publication 4557 (Safeguarding Taxpayer Data) can be a helpful guide for navigating these compliance standards. Regardless of the security framework you select, utilize accompanying compliance checklists and ensure they are strictly followed by your firm to protect both your practice and your clients as AI tools are woven into everyday workflows. 

Step 4: Openly discuss AI usage with your clients

Once you’ve established the best way to use AI tools that meet your firm’s needs, you’ll want to communicate all of the advantages afforded by these tools to your clients. Make sure you highlight the benefits and simultaneously ensure you are addressing any potential concerns. It’s also important to get explicit consent from all clients if you’re sharing their information with the third-party tools you may use. While this might seem like an extra step, it will go a long way toward fostering a greater level of transparency and deepen trust between you and your clients. 

Don’t get left behind

Adopting AI does not have to be intimidating, expensive or overly complex. Think of it as a strategic business move that will not only keep you competitive, but will potentially free you up to focus on keeping clients happy and growing your practice. By strategically focusing on these best practices, identifying AI use cases in a phased approach, evaluating the right tools for your business, ensuring client information is secure and clearly communicating your AI strategy, you’ll be AI-ready in no time.

Continue Reading

Accounting

FASB plans changes in crypto accounting

Published

on

The Financial Accounting Standards Board met this week to discuss its projects on accounting for transfers of cryptocurrency assets and enhancing the disclosures around certain digital assets, such as stablecoins.

Processing Content

During Wednesday’s meeting, FASB’s board made certain tentative decisions, according to a summary posted to FASB’s website. FASB began deliberating the Accounting for transfers of crypto assets project and decided to expand the scope of its guidance in  Subtopic 350-60, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets, to address crypto assets that provide the holder with a right to receive another crypto asset. FASB decided to clarify the existing disclosure guidance by providing an example of a tabular disclosure illustrating that wrapped tokens, if they’re significant, would be disclosed separately from other significant crypto asset holdings.

At a future meeting, the board plans to consider clarifying the derecognition guidance for crypto transfer arrangements to assess whether the control of a crypto asset has been transferred.

FASB also began deliberations on the Cash equivalents—disclosure enhancement and classification of certain digital assets project and made a number of decisions.

The board decided to provide illustrative examples in Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows, to clarify whether certain digital assets such as stablecoins can meet the definition of cash equivalents. It also decided to include the following concepts in the illustrative examples:

  1. Interpretive explanations that link to the current cash equivalents definition;
  2. The amount and composition of reserve assets; and,
  3. The nature of qualifying on-demand, contractual cash redemption rights directly with the issuer.

FASB plans to clarify that an entity should consider compliance with relevant laws and regulations when it’s creating a policy concerning which assets that satisfy the Master Glossary definition of the term “cash equivalents will be treated as cash equivalents.

“I agree with the staff suggestion to look at examples,” said FASB vice chair Hillary Salo. “From my perspective, I think that is going to help level the playing field. People have been making reasonable judgments. I agree with that. And I think that this is really going to help show those goalposts or guardrails of what types of stablecoins would be in the scope of cash equivalents, and which ones would not be in the scope of cash equivalents. I certainly appreciate that approach, and I think it has the least potential impact of unintended consequences, because I do agree with my fellow board members that we shouldn’t be changing the definition of cash equivalents, and it’s a high bar to get into the cash equivalent definition.”

“I’m definitely supportive of not changing the definition of cash equivalents,” said FASB chair Richard Jones. “I believe that’s settled GAAP in a way, and we’re not really seeing a call to change it for broader issues. I am supportive of the example-based approach. The challenge with examples, though, is everybody’s going to want their exact pattern, but that’s not what we’re doing.”

The examples will explain the rationale for how digital assets such as stablecoins do or do not qualify as cash equivalents and give a roadmap for other types of digital assets with varying fact patterns to be able to apply.

“We really don’t want to be as a board facing a situation where something was a cash equivalent and then no longer is at a later date,” said Jones. “That’s not good for anyone, so keeping it as a high bar with certain rigid criteria, I think, is fine.”

Stablecoins are supposed to be pegged to fiat currencies such as U.S. dollars and thus provide more stability to investors. “In my view, while a stablecoin may meet the accounting definition established for cash equivalents, not every one of those stablecoins in the cash equivalent classification represents the same level of risk,” said FASB member Joyce Joseph.

She noted that the capital markets recognize the distinctions and have established a Stablecoin Stability Assessment Framework to evaluate a stablecoin’s ability to maintain its peg to a fiat currency. Such assessments look at the legal and regulatory framework associated with the stablecoin, and provide investors with information that could enable them to do forward-looking assessments about the stability of the stablecoin.

“However, for an investor to consider and utilize such information for a company analysis the financial statement disclosures would need to include information about the stablecoin itself,” Joseph added. “In outreach, the staff learned that investors supported classifying certain stablecoins as cash equivalents when transparent information is available about the entities at which the reserve assets are held. Therefore, in my view, taking all of this into consideration a relevant and informative company disclosure would include providing investors with the name of the stablecoin and the amount of the stablecoin that is classified as a cash equivalent, so investors can independently assess the liquidity risks more meaningfully and more comprehensively by utilizing broader information that is available in the capital markets and its emerging information.”

Such information could include the issuer, reserves, governance and management, she noted, so investors would get a more holistic look at the risks that holding the stablecoin would entail for a given company.

The board decided to require all entities to disclose the significant classes and related amounts of cash equivalents on an annual basis for each period that a statement of financial position is presented.

Entities should apply the amendments related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents on a modified prospective basis as of the beginning of the annual reporting period in the year of adoption.

FASB decided that entities should apply the amendments related to the disclosure of the significant classes and amounts of cash equivalents on a prospective basis as of the date of the most recent statement of financial position presented in the period of adoption.

The board will allow early adoption in both interim and annual reporting periods in which financial statements have not been issued or made available for issuance.

FASB also decided to permit entities to adopt the amendments to be illustrated in the examples related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents without the need to perform a preferability assessment as described in Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.

The board directed the staff to draft a proposed accounting standards update to be voted on by written ballot. The proposed update will have a 90-day comment period.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Lawmakers propose tax and IRS bills as filing season ends

Published

on

Senators introduced several pieces of tax-related legislation this week, including measures aimed at improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service, cracking down on tax evasion and curbing the carried interest tax break, in addition to efforts in the House to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

Processing Content

Senators Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, teamed up on introducing a bipartisan bill, the Improving IRS Customer Service Act, which would expand information on refunds available to taxpayers online and help taxpayers with payment plans if they need it.

The bill would establish a dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times; expand electronic access to information and refunds; expand callback technology and online accounts; and inform individuals facing economic hardship about collection alternatives.

“Taxpayers deserve a simple, stress-free experience when dealing with the IRS,” Cassidy said in a statement Wednesday. “This bill makes the process quicker and easier for taxpayers to get the information they need.”

He also mentioned the bill during a Senate Finance Committee hearing about tax season when questioning IRS CEO Frank Bisignano. During the hearing, Cassidy secured a commitment from Bisignano that the IRS would work with Congress to implement these reforms if the legislation were signed into law.

“I’m happy to meet with the team … and do all I can to make it as good as you want it to be,” said Bisignano.

“My bill would equip the IRS with the legislative mandate to create an online dashboard so that taxpayers can monitor average call wait time and budget time accordingly,” said Cassidy. He noted that the bill would allow a callback for taxpayers that might need to wait longer than five minutes to speak to a representative, and establish a program to identify and support taxpayers struggling to make ends meet by providing information about alternative payment methods, such as installments, partial payments and offers in compromise. 

“I know people are kind of desperate and don’t know where to turn for cash, so I think this could really ease anxiety,” he added. “This legislation is bipartisan and is likely to pass this Congress.”

Cassidy and Warner introduced the Improving IRS Customer Service Act in 2024. Last year, Warner wrote to National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins at the IRS regarding the underperforming Taxpayer Advocate Service office in Richmond, Virginia, and advocated against any harmful personnel decisions that would negatively impact taxpayers.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get basic answers from the IRS — and in the last year, those challenges have only gotten worse,” Warner said in a statement. “I am glad to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation on Tax Day to ease some of this frustration by increasing clear communication and making IRS resources more readily available.”

Stop CHEATERS Act

Also on Tax Day, a group of Senate Democrats and an independent who usually caucuses with Democrats teamed up to introduce the Stop Corporations and High Earners from Avoiding Taxes and Enforce the Rules Strictly (Stop CHEATERS) Act.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, joined with Senators Angus King, I-Maine, Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. The bill would provide additional funding for the IRS to strengthen and expand tax collection services and systems and crack down on tax cheating by the wealthy.

“Wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations are stealing billions and billions from the American people by refusing to pay what they legally owe, and far too many of them are getting a free pass because Republicans gutted the enforcement capacity of the IRS,” Wyden said in a statement. “A rich tax cheat who shelters mountains of cash among a web of shell companies and passthroughs is likelier to be struck by lightning than face an IRS audit, and Republicans want to keep it that way. This bill is about making sure the IRS has the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats while improving customer service for the vast majority of American taxpayers who follow the law every year.”

Earlier this week. Wyden also introduced two other pieces of legislation aimed at cracking down on the use of grantor retained annuity trusts and private placement life insurance contracts to avoid or minimize taxes.

The Stop CHEATERS Act would provide the IRS with additional funding for tax enforcement focused upon high-income tax evasion, technology operations support, systems modernization, and taxpayer services like free tax-payer assistance.

“As Congress seeks ways to fund much-needed policy priorities and address our growing national debt, there is one common sense solution that should have unanimous bipartisan support: let’s enforce the tax laws already on the books,” said King in a statement. “Our legislation will make sure the IRS has the resources it needs to confront the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid – while ensuring that our tax enforcement professionals are focused on the high-income earners who account for the most tax evasion. This is a serious problem with an easy solution; let’s pass this legislation and make sure every American pays what they owe in taxes.”

Carried interest

Wyden, King and Whitehouse also teamed up on another bill Thursday to close the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers that Democrats as well as President Trump have pledged for years to curtail. The tax break mainly benefits hedge fund managers, private equity firm partners and venture capitalists, who have lobbied heavily to defeat attempts to end the lucrative tax break. The tax break was scaled back somewhat under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Carried interest is a form of compensation received by a fund manager in exchange for investment management services, according to a summary of the bill. A carried interest entitles a fund manager to future profits of a partnership, also known as a “profits interest.” Under current law, a fund manager is generally not taxed when a profits interest is issued and only pays tax when income is realized by the partnership, often in connection with  the sale of an investment that happens years down the road. Not only does this allow a fund manager to defer paying tax, but the eventual income from the partnership almost always takes the form of capital gain income, taxed at a preferential rate of 23.8% compared to the top rate of 40.8% for wage-like income.  

Under the bill, the Ending the Carried Interest Loophole Act, fund managers would be required to recognize deemed compensation income each year and to pay annual tax on that amount, preventing them from deferring payment of taxes on wage-like income. A fund manager’s compensation income would be taxed similar to wages on an employee’s W-2, subject to ordinary income rates and self-employment taxes.   

“Our tax code is rigged to favor ultra-wealthy investors who know how to game the system to dodge paying a fair share, and there is no better example of how it works in practice than the carried interest loophole,” Wyden said in a statement. “For several decades now we’ve had a tax system that rewards the accumulation of wealth by the rich while punishing middle-class wage earners, and the effect of that system has been the strangulation of prosperity and opportunity for everybody but the ultra-wealthy. There are a lot of problems to fix to restore fairness and common sense to our tax code, and closing the carried interest loophole is a great place to start.”

Repealing Corporate Transparency Act

The House Financial Services Committee is also planning to markup a bill next Tuesday that would fully repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which has already been significantly scaled back under the Trump administration to only require beneficial ownership information reporting by foreign companies to FinCEN, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 

If enacted, the repeal would eliminate beneficial ownership reporting requirements, removing a transparency measure designed to help law enforcement and national security officials identify who is behind U.S. companies. 

“This repeal would turn the United States back into one of the easiest places in the world to set up anonymous shell companies, something Congress worked for years to fix,” said Erica Hanichak, deputy director of the FACT Coalition, in a statement. “These entities are routinely used to facilitate corruption, financial crime, and abuse. Rolling back the CTA doesn’t just weaken transparency, it signals to bad actors around the world that the U.S. is once again open for illicit business.”

Continue Reading

Trending