Treatment of Payments to Charitable Entities in Return for Consideration, 68833-68842 [2019-26969]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
1. FDA/Economics Staff, ‘‘Revised
Procedures for the Announcement of
Approvals and Denials of Premarket
Approval Applications and
Humanitarian Device Exemption
Applications, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Preliminary Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act Analysis,’’ 2019 (available at:
https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
EconomicAnalyses/default.htm).
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 814
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Medical devices, Medical
research, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that
21 CFR part 814 be amended as follows:
PART 814—PREMARKET APPROVAL
OF MEDICAL DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 814
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 814.118
[Amended]
6. In § 814.118(c)(3), remove
‘‘515(d)(3)’’ and add in its place
‘‘515(d)(4)’’.
■
Dated: December 9, 2019.
Brett P. Giroir,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2019–27045 Filed 12–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–107431–19]
RIN 1545–BP40
Treatment of Payments to Charitable
Entities in Return for Consideration
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 353, 360,
360c–360j, 360bbb–8b, 371, 372, 373, 374,
375, 379, 379e, 381.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notification of public hearing.
§ 814.40
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
[Amended]
2. In § 814.40, remove ‘‘515(d)(3)’’ and
add in its place ‘‘515(d)(4)’’
■
§ 814.44
[Amended]
3. Amend § 814.44 as follows:
a. In the fourth sentence in paragraph
(d)(1), remove ‘‘515(d)(3)’’ and add in its
place ‘‘515(d)(4)’’ and remove the sixth
sentence;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove
‘‘Division of Dockets Management
(HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852’’ and add in
its place ‘‘Freedom of Information
Staff’s address listed on the Agency’s
website at https://www.fda.gov.’’; and
■ c. In paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2),
remove ‘‘515(d)(3)’’ and add in its place
‘‘515(d)(4)’’.
■
■
§ 814.45
[Amended]
4. Amend § 814.45 as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(1), remove the
third sentence and
■ b. In paragraph (e)(3), remove
‘‘515(d)(3)’’ and add in its place
‘‘515(d)(4)’’.
■ 5. In § 814.116 revise the fourth
sentence in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
■
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
page on the internet (https://
www.fda.gov) in accordance with the
rules and policies applicable to PMAs
submitted under § 814.20. * * *
§ 814.116
HDE.
Procedures for review of an
(b) * * * The notice of approval of an
HDE will be placed on the FDA’s home
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
This document provides
proposed amendments to the
regulations under sections 162, 164, and
170 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code). First, the proposed amendments
update the regulations under section
162 to reflect current law regarding the
application of section 162 to a taxpayer
that makes a payment or transfer to an
entity described in section 170(c) for a
business purpose. Second, the proposed
amendments provide safe harbors under
section 162 to provide certainty with
respect to the treatment of payments
made by business entities to an entity
described in section 170(c). Third, the
proposed amendments provide a safe
harbor under section 164 for payments
made to an entity described in section
170(c) by individuals who itemize
deductions and receive or expect to
receive a state or local tax credit in
return. Fourth, the proposed
amendments update the regulations
under section 170 to reflect past
guidance and case law regarding the
application of the quid pro quo
principle under section 170 to benefits
received or expected to be received by
a donor from a third party.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
must be received by January 31, 2020
Requests to speak and outlines of topics
to be discussed at the public hearing
scheduled for February 20, 2020, must
be received by January 31, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68833
Submit electronic
submissions via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and
REG–107431–19) by following the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments
cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
Department of the Treasury (Treasury
Department) and the IRS will publish
for public availability any comment
received to its public docket, whether
submitted electronically or in hard
copy. Send hard copy submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–107431–19), Room
5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O.
Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions
may be hand-delivered Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and
4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–107431–
19), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
Mon L. Lam and Merrill D. Feldstein at
(202) 317–4059; concerning submission
of comments and requests to speak at
the public hearing, Regina Johnson at
(202) 317–6901 (not toll-free numbers)
or fdms.database@irscounsel.treas.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background and Explanation of
Provisions
I. Contributions in Exchange for State
and Local Tax Credits
Section 170(a)(1) generally allows an
itemized deduction for any ‘‘charitable
contribution’’ paid within the taxable
year. Section 170(c) defines ‘‘charitable
contribution’’ as a ‘‘contribution or gift
to or for the use of ’’ an entity described
in that section. Under section 170(c)(1),
such entities include a State, a
possession of the United States, or any
political subdivision of the foregoing, or
the District of Columbia. Section
170(c)(2) includes certain corporations,
trusts, or community chests, funds, or
foundations, organized and operated
exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, literary, or educational
purposes, or to foster national or
international amateur sports
competition, or for the prevention of
cruelty to children or animals. Section
1.170A–1(c)(5) of the Income Tax
Regulations provides that transfers of
property to an organization described in
section 170(c) that bear a direct
relationship to the taxpayer’s trade or
business and that are made with a
reasonable expectation of financial
return commensurate with the amount
of the transfer may constitute allowable
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
68834
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
deductions as trade or business
expenses rather than as charitable
contributions. Section 162(a) allows a
deduction for all the ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred
during the taxable year in carrying on
any trade or business. Section 162(b)
provides that no deduction shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any
contribution or gift that would be
allowable as a deduction under section
170 were it not for the percentage
limitations, the dollar limitations, or the
requirements as to the time of payment
set forth in that section.
Section 1.162–15(a) applies to
contributions to entities described in
section 170(c). Section 1.162–15(a)(1)
currently provides that no deduction is
allowable under section 162(a) for a
contribution or gift by an individual or
a corporation if any part thereof is
deductible under section 170. For
example, if a taxpayer makes a
contribution of $5,000 and only $4,000
of this amount is deductible under
section 170(a) (whether because of the
percentage limitation under either
section 170(b)(1) or (2), the requirement
as to time of payment, or both), no
deduction is allowable under section
162(a) for the remaining $1,000.
However, § 1.162–15(a)(2) clarifies that
the limitations provided in section
162(b) and § 1.162–15(a)(1) apply only
to payments that are in fact
contributions or gifts to organizations
described in section 170. For example,
payments by a transit company to a
local hospital (which is a charitable
organization within the meaning of
section 170) in consideration of a
binding obligation on the part of the
hospital to provide hospital services and
facilities for the company’s employees
are not contributions or gifts within the
meaning of section 170 and may be
deductible under section 162(a) if the
requirements of section 162(a) are
otherwise satisfied.
Section 164(a) allows a deduction for
the payment of certain taxes, including:
(1) State and local, and foreign, real
property taxes; (2) state and local
personal property taxes; and (3) state
and local, and foreign, income, war
profits, and excess profits taxes. In
addition, section 164 allows a deduction
for taxes not described in the preceding
sentence that are paid or accrued within
the taxable year in carrying on a trade
or business or an activity described in
section 212. Moreover, under section
164(b)(5), taxpayers may elect to deduct
state and local general sales taxes in lieu
of state and local income taxes.
Section 164(b)(6), as added by section
11042(a) of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Public Law 115–97, (the ‘‘TCJA’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
provides that in the case of an
individual, deductions for foreign real
property taxes are not allowable under
section 164(a)(1), and the deduction for
the aggregate amount of the following
state and local taxes paid during the
calendar year is limited to $10,000
($5,000 in the case of a married
individual filing a separate return): (1)
Real property taxes; (2) personal
property taxes; (3) income, war profits,
and excess profits taxes; and (4) general
sales taxes. This limitation applies to
taxable years beginning after December
31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026,
and does not apply to foreign taxes
described in section 164(a)(3) or to any
taxes described in section 164(a)(1) and
(2) that are paid or accrued in carrying
on a trade or business or an activity
described in section 212.
In response to the limitation in
section 164(b)(6), some taxpayers have
considered tax planning strategies to
avoid or mitigate its effects. Some of
these strategies rely on state and local
tax credit programs under which states
provide tax credits in return for
contributions by taxpayers to entities
described in section 170(c), and some
state and local governments have
created new programs intended to
facilitate use of these strategies.
On June 11, 2018, the Treasury
Department and the IRS announced
their intention to propose regulations
addressing the proper application of
sections 164 and 170 to taxpayers who
make contributions under state and
local tax credit programs to entities
described in section 170(c). See Notice
2018–54, 2018–24 I.R.B. 750. On August
27, 2018, proposed regulations (REG–
112176–18) under sections 170 and
642(c) were published in the Federal
Register (83 FR 43563) (‘‘2018 proposed
regulations’’). The 2018 proposed
regulations proposed amending
§ 1.170A–1(h)(3) to provide, in general,
that if a taxpayer makes a payment or
transfers property to or for the use of an
entity described in section 170(c), and
the taxpayer receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit in
return for such payment or transfer, the
tax credit constitutes a return benefit to
the taxpayer and reduces the taxpayer’s
charitable contribution deduction. The
2018 proposed regulations were
premised, in part, on the quid pro quo
principle articulated by the Supreme
Court in United States v. American Bar
Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 116 (1986),
and its progeny that ‘‘a payment of
money generally cannot constitute a
charitable deduction if the contributor
expects a substantial benefit in return.’’
The 2018 proposed regulations also
proposed amending regulations under
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section 642(c), to provide a similar rule
for payments made by a trust or
decedent’s estate.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received over 7,700 comments
responding to the 2018 proposed
regulations and 25 requests to speak at
the public hearing, which was held on
November 5, 2018. After taking into
account the comments received and the
concerns expressed at the public
hearing, the Treasury Department and
the IRS published final regulations in
the Federal Register on June 13, 2019
(T.D. 9864, 84 FR 27513) (‘‘the final
regulations’’). The final regulations
retained the rules set out in the 2018
proposed regulations, with certain
clarifying and technical changes. Most
significantly, the final regulations
retained the general rule that, if a
taxpayer makes a payment or transfers
property to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c), and the
taxpayer receives or expects to receive
a state or local tax credit in return for
such transfer, the tax credit constitutes
a return benefit to the taxpayer, or quid
pro quo, reducing the taxpayer’s
charitable contribution deduction. See
§ 1.170A–1(h)(3) of the final regulations.
In response to Notice 2018–54 and the
2018 proposed regulations, commenters
raised several ancillary issues. These
issues involved: (1) Treatment of
business entity payments to entities
described in section 170(c); (2)
treatment of payments by individuals
with total state and local tax liabilities
that were less than or equal to the
section 164(b)(6) limitations; and (3)
application of the quid pro quo
principle under section 170 to benefits
received or expected to be received by
the donor from a party other than the
donee.
Although the Treasury Department
and the IRS have provided subregulatory safe harbors related to the
first two issues (in Rev. Proc. 2019–12,
2019–04 I.R.B. 401, and Notice 2019–12,
2019–27 I.R.B. 57), the Treasury
Department and the IRS believe that it
is appropriate to include these safe
harbors in proposed regulations and to
request comments. Further, in the
preamble to the final regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
extensively addressed the third issue—
whether a benefit received or expected
to be received from a party other than
the donee may constitute a quid pro quo
that reduces the taxpayer’s charitable
contribution deduction under section
170. The preamble to the final
regulations stated that the Treasury
Department and the IRS would propose
additional regulations setting forth a
general rule for benefits received or
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
expected to be received from third
parties. Accordingly, the proposed
regulations, provided herein, would
amend the regulations under sections
162, 164, and 170 to provide guidance
on these three issues.
II. Payments by Business Entities in
Exchange for State or Local Tax Credits
After the issuance of Notice 2018–54,
and continuing after the publication of
the 2018 proposed regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
received inquiries from taxpayers
regarding the application of the
proposed regulations to businesses that
make payments to entities described in
section 170(c) pursuant to state and
local tax credit programs. The taxpayers
sought guidance as to whether a
business entity may deduct these
payments under section 162 as ordinary
and necessary business expenses
incurred in carrying on a trade or
business. In response, on September 5,
2018, the IRS released a frequently
asked question (‘‘FAQ’’) stating that a
business taxpayer making a payment to
an entity described in section 170(c) is
generally permitted to deduct such
payment as an ordinary and necessary
business expense under section 162 if
the payment is made with a business
purpose. However, after the release of
the FAQ, taxpayers continued to express
concern about whether the business
purpose requirement is met for
contributions that result in a tax credit.
Specifically, taxpayers asked whether
payments by business entities in
exchange for state and local tax credits
would bear a direct relationship to the
taxpayer’s trade or business such that
these payments would qualify as
ordinary and necessary business
expenses of carrying on a trade or
business under section 162(a).
On December 28, 2018, the IRS issued
Rev. Proc. 2019–12, providing a safe
harbor under section 162 for payments
made by a business entity that is a C
corporation or specified passthrough
entity to or for the use of an
organization described in section 170(c)
if the C corporation or specified
passthrough entity receives or expects to
receive state or local tax credits in
return. The revenue procedure states
that, to the extent that a C corporation
receives or expects to receive a state or
local tax credit in return for a payment
to an organization described in section
170(c), it is reasonable to conclude that
there is a direct benefit and a reasonable
expectation of commensurate financial
return to the C corporation’s business in
the form of a reduction in the state or
local taxes the C corporation would
otherwise be required to pay. Thus, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
revenue procedure provides a safe
harbor that allows a C corporation
engaged in a trade or business to treat
the portion of the payment that is equal
to the amount of the credit received or
expected to be received as meeting the
requirements of an ordinary and
necessary business expense under
section 162.
The IRS determined that a similar
analysis is appropriate in the case of a
business entity other than a C
corporation if (1) the business entity is
regarded as separate from its owner for
all Federal tax purposes under
§ 301.7701–3 of the Procedure and
Administration Regulations
(‘‘passthrough entity’’); (2) the
passthrough entity operates a trade or
business within the meaning of section
162; (3) the passthrough entity is subject
to a state or local tax incurred in
carrying on its trade or business that is
imposed directly on the entity; and (4)
in return for a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c), the
passthrough entity receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit that the
entity applies or expects to apply to
offset a state or local tax other than a
state or local income tax. Thus, to the
extent that a specified passthrough
entity makes a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c) and receives
or expects to receive a state or local tax
credit, Rev. Proc. 2019–12 permits the
passthrough entity to treat the payment
as meeting the requirements of an
ordinary and necessary business
expense under section 162. The safe
harbors for C corporations and specified
passthrough entities apply only to
payments of cash and cash equivalents.
In the interest of providing certainty
for taxpayers, the Treasury Department
and the IRS believe that it is appropriate
to propose regulations to incorporate the
safe harbors set out in Rev. Proc. 2019–
12 and to request comments on these
safe harbors. Thus, these proposed
regulations propose amending § 1.162–
15(a) to incorporate the Rev. Proc. 2019–
12 safe harbors. These proposed
regulations also propose amending
§ 1.170A–1(c)(5) and (h)(3)(viii) to
provide cross references to § 1.162–
15(a). The Treasury Department and the
IRS specifically request comments on
whether the safe harbors should be
expanded to apply to an individual who
is carrying on a trade or business or an
activity described in section 212.
The proposed regulations propose
additional revisions to § 1.162–15(a) to
more clearly reflect the current state of
the law regarding a taxpayer’s payment
or transfer to an entity described in
section 170(c). If the taxpayer’s payment
or transfer bears a direct relationship to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68835
its trade or business, and the payment
is made with a reasonable expectation of
commensurate financial return, the
payment or transfer to the section 170(c)
entity may constitute an allowable
deduction as a trade or business
expense under section 162, rather than
a charitable contribution under section
170. See § 1.170A–1(c)(5); Marquis v.
Commissioner, 49 T.C. 695 (1968). A
proposed example illustrates that this
rule applies regardless of whether the
taxpayer expects to receive a state or
local tax credit in return.
The proposed revisions are also
consistent with the decision in
American Bar Endowment, which states
that a payment to an entity described in
section 170(c) may have a dual
character—part charitable contribution
and part business expense. 477 U.S. at
117. Under American Bar Endowment
and § 1.170A–1(h), if a taxpayer makes
a payment to an entity described under
section 170(c) in an amount that
exceeds the fair market value of the
benefit that the taxpayer receives or
expects to receive in return, and this
excess amount is paid with charitable
intent, the taxpayer is allowed a
charitable contribution deduction under
section 170 for this excess amount.
In addition, the proposed regulations
propose to add a cross-reference to
§ 1.170A–1(h) (payments to section
170(c) entities in exchange for
consideration), which provides more
detailed rules for determining whether a
payment, or a portion of a payment, to
an entity described in section 170(c)
may be deducted under section 162(a)
or section 170.
III. Payments by Individuals in
Exchange for State and Local Tax
Credits
After publication of the 2018
proposed regulations, commenters
expressed concerns that the proposed
regulations would create unfair
consequences for certain individuals
who receive state or local tax credits in
return for their payments. Specifically,
commenters noted that individuals who
itemize deductions for Federal income
tax purposes and have total state and
local tax liabilities for the taxable year
of $10,000 or less ($5,000 or less in the
case of a married individual filing a
separate return) would be precluded
from taking charitable contribution
deductions to the extent that they
receive state or local tax credits even
though the individuals would have been
able to deduct equivalent payments of
state and local taxes. Thus, if these
individuals chose to make a payment to
a section 170(c) entity through a state or
local tax credit program instead of
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
68836
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
paying tax to the state or local
government, they would lose the
deduction to which they would
otherwise have been entitled under
section 164 even after the application of
the section 164(b)(6) limitation.
These state and local tax credit
programs effectively offer taxpayers a
choice of paying taxes to the state or
local government or making a payment
to a section 170(c) entity and receiving
a tax credit that offsets a tax liability the
taxpayer would otherwise owe to the
state or local government. This situation
can be analogized to situations in which
an individual entitled to receive a
payment from a second party directs or
permits the second party to satisfy its
payment obligation by making a
payment to a third party. In such
situations, the payment may be treated,
for Federal income tax purposes, as a
payment by the payor to the individual
entitled to receive payment. Cf. Rev.
Rul. 86–14, 1986–1 C.B. 304, modifying
Rev. Rul. 74–75, 1974–1 C.B. 19
(payment made by an employer to a
third party to discharge an obligation of
an employee treated for Federal income
tax purposes as made by the employer
to the employee).
For these reasons, on June 11, 2019,
the IRS released Notice 2019–12,
announcing that the Treasury
Department and the IRS intend to
publish proposed regulations with a safe
harbor under section 164 for individuals
who make payments to section 170(c)
entities in return for state or local tax
credits. Under this safe harbor, an
individual who itemizes deductions and
who makes a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c) in exchange
for a state or local tax credit may treat
as a payment of state or local tax for
purposes of section 164 the portion of
such payment for which a charitable
contribution deduction is or will be
disallowed under § 1.170A–1(h)(3). This
treatment is allowed in the taxable year
in which the payment is made, but only
to the extent that the individual applies
the resulting credit pursuant to
applicable state or local law to offset the
individual’s state or local tax liability
for such taxable year or the preceding
taxable year. Notice 2019–12 requested
comments for purposes of incorporating
the safe harbor in proposed regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received several comments in response
to Notice 2019–12. Generally,
commenters responded favorably to the
safe harbor in the notice, finding that its
rationale was sound and that the rule
would effectively eliminate concerns
that the final regulations under
§ 1.170A–1(h)(3) unfairly burden
individuals who itemize deductions and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
have state and local tax liabilities that
are less than the section 164(b)(6)
limitation. One commenter noted that
Executive Order 12866, which directs
the agency issuing a regulation to
identify the problem it intends to
address and design the regulation in the
most cost-effective manner to achieve
that objective with the least amount of
burden on society, further supports the
safe harbor. See Executive Order 12866,
section 1(b). This commenter also
suggested that the IRS should track the
effects of the safe harbor by requiring
taxpayers to disclose state tax and local
tax credits on their Form 1040,
Schedule A. Alternatively, the
commenter suggested that the IRS
obtain this information directly from the
states. Another commenter generally
supported the safe harbor, but suggested
that the Treasury Department and the
IRS should avoid creating more safe
harbor exceptions to § 1.170A–1(h)(3) of
the final regulations. This commenter
also expressed concerns about the
application of the safe harbor when the
state and local tax limitation under
section 164(b)(6) expires or is modified.
Other commenters were concerned
that Notice 2019–12 did not fully
address the tax consequences to
taxpayers who received or expected to
receive state or local tax credits.
Specifically, these commenters asked
that the Treasury Department and the
IRS provide guidance to address the
treatment of state or local tax credits for
Federal income tax purposes upon their
sale or expiration. As noted in the
preamble to the final regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize the significance and
complexity of these questions. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
continue to study these issues and
invite additional comment to inform
potential future guidance on these
issues.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
continue to believe that the notice
provides a fair, reasonable, and legally
sound basis for the safe harbor for
individual taxpayers, and that the safe
harbor should be added to the
regulations under section 164.
Accordingly, these proposed regulations
propose adding § 1.164–3(j) to provide a
safe harbor for individuals who make a
payment to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c) in return for
a state or local tax credit. These
proposed regulations also propose
adding § 1.170A–1(h)(3)(ix) to provide a
cross reference to the safe harbor
proposed under § 1.164–3(j) and to
request comments.
Under these proposed regulations, an
individual who itemizes deductions and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
who makes a payment to a section
170(c) entity in exchange for a state or
local tax credit may treat as a payment
of state or local tax for purposes of
section 164 the portion of such payment
for which a charitable contribution
deduction under section 170 is or will
be disallowed under § 1.170A–1(h)(3).
This treatment is allowed in the taxable
year in which the payment is made, but
only to the extent that the resulting
credit is applied pursuant to applicable
state or local law to offset the
individual’s state or local tax liability
for such taxable year or the preceding
taxable year. Any unused credit
permitted to be carried forward may be
treated as a payment of state or local tax
under section 164 in the taxable year or
years for which the carryover credit is
applied in accordance with state or local
law. The safe harbor for individuals
applies only to payments of cash and
cash equivalents.
The proposed regulations are not
intended to permit a taxpayer to avoid
the limitations of section 164(b)(6).
Therefore, the proposed regulations
provide that any payment treated as a
state or local tax under section 164,
pursuant to the safe harbor provided in
§ 1.164–3(j) of the proposed regulations,
is subject to the limitations on
deductions in section 164(b)(6).
Furthermore, the proposed regulations
are not intended to permit deductions of
the same payments under more than one
provision. Thus, the proposed
regulations provide that an individual
who relies on the safe harbor in § 1.164–
3(j) to deduct qualifying payments
under section 164 may not also deduct
the same payments under any other
section of the Code.
IV. Consideration Provided by Party
Other Than the Donee
Section 1.170A–1(h)(1) provides that
no part of a payment that a taxpayer
makes to or for the use of an
organization described in section 170(c)
that is in consideration for (as defined
in § 1.170A–13(f)(6)) goods or services
(as defined in § 1.170A–13(f)(5)) is a
contribution or gift within the meaning
of section 170(c) unless the taxpayer (i)
intends to make a payment in an
amount that exceeds the fair market
value of the goods or services; and (ii)
makes a payment in an amount that
exceeds the fair market value of the
goods or services.
Section 1.170A–1(h)(2) states that the
charitable contribution deduction under
section 170(a) may not exceed the
amount of cash paid and the fair market
value of property transferred to an
organization described in section 170(c)
over the fair market value of goods or
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
services the organization provides in
return. Section 1.170A–13(f)(5) defines
goods or services as cash, property,
services, benefits, and privileges.
Section 1.170A–13(f)(6) provides that a
donee provides goods or services in
consideration for a taxpayer’s payment
if, at the time the taxpayer makes a
payment to the donee, the taxpayer
receives or expects to receive goods or
services in exchange for that payment.
Section 1.170A–1(h)(3)(iii) defines ‘‘in
consideration for’’ for purposes of
determining whether a state or local tax
credit should reduce a charitable
contribution under section 170. This
section provides that the term ‘‘in
consideration for’’ shall have the
meaning set forth in § 1.170A–13(f)(6),
except that the state or local tax credit
need not be provided by the donee
organization.
Some commenters on the 2018
proposed regulations interpreted the
definition of ‘‘in consideration for’’
under § 1.170A–13(f)(6) to suggest that
consideration provided by a third party
is disregarded in calculating the
charitable contribution deduction, and
that § 1.170A–1(h)(3)(iii) of the
proposed regulations provided an
exception from this rule solely for state
or local tax credits provided by third
parties. Other commenters disagreed
with this interpretation and suggested
that the final regulations should set
forth a general rule clarifying that
consideration includes all benefits that
a taxpayer receives or expects to receive,
regardless of whether they are provided
by the donee.
In the preamble to the final
regulations, the Treasury Department
and the IRS acknowledged that the final
regulations did not address all
situations in which a taxpayer makes a
payment or transfers property and
receives or expect to receive benefits
from a party that is not the donee.
Accordingly, the preamble to the final
regulations indicated that the Treasury
Department and the IRS intended to
propose amendments to the regulations
under section 170 to make clear that the
quid pro quo principle applies
regardless of whether the party
providing the quid pro quo is the donee.
As noted in the preamble to the final
regulations, in American Bar
Endowment, 477 U.S. at 116–17, and
Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S.
680, 691–92 (1989), the Supreme Court
made clear that a payment is not a
charitable contribution if the donor
expects to receive a substantial benefit
in return. American Bar Endowment
and Hernandez did not directly address
the question of benefits provided by
third parties; the return benefits at issue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
in those cases were provided by the
donees. However, the Court derived the
quid pro quo principle in those cases
from a lower court decision and a
revenue ruling that directly addressed
the question. See American Bar
Endowment, 477 U.S. at 117 (citing
Singer v. United States, 449 F.2d 413
(Ct. Cl. 1971), and Rev. Rul. 67–246,
1967–2 C.B. 104); Hernandez, 490 U.S.
at 691 (citing Singer). In Singer, the
appellate division of the Court of Claims
(the predecessor to the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit) held that a
sewing machine company was not
eligible for a charitable contribution
deduction for selling sewing machines
to schools at a discount because the
company ‘‘expected a return in the
nature of future increased sales’’ to
students. Singer, 449 F.2d at 423–24. In
so holding, the court expressly rejected
the company’s argument that this
expected benefit should be ignored
because it would come from the
students rather than from the schools.
Id. at 422–23. The court stated,
‘‘Obviously, we cannot agree with
plaintiff’s distinction.’’ Id.
In Rev. Rul. 67–246, Example 11, a
local store agreed to award a transistor
radio, worth $15, to each person who
contributed $50 or more to a specific
charity. The ruling concluded that if a
taxpayer received a $15 radio as a result
of a $100 payment to the charity, only
$85 qualified as a charitable
contribution deduction. It did not
matter that the donor received the $15
radio from the store, a third party, rather
than from the charity. This conclusion
is reflected in the IRS’s audit practices.
See IRS Conservation Easement Audit
Techniques Guide (Rev. Jan. 24, 2018, p.
16) (stating that a ‘‘quid pro quo
contribution is a transfer of money or
property . . . partly in exchange for
goods or services in return from the
charity or a third party,’’ and ‘‘a quid
pro quo may also be in the form of an
indirect benefit from a third party’’).
Moreover, courts have ruled that a
taxpayer’s expectation of significant
financial returns demonstrates a lack of
charitable intent. For example, in
Ottawa Silica Co. v. United States, 699
F.2d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the Federal
Circuit denied a taxpayer’s charitable
contribution deduction for the value of
land the taxpayer donated for
construction of a school. The court’s
analysis focused on the taxpayer’s
expectation of benefits, and not on the
source of such benefits. The court found
that the taxpayer had reason to believe
that construction of a school would
result in the construction of new roads
that would in turn increase the value of
the taxpayer’s retained land. The court
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68837
recognized that although the taxpayer
did not receive an agreement from any
party that the roads would be built, the
expectation of this benefit was a
sufficient reason to deny the charitable
contribution deduction. More recently,
in Wendell Falls Development, LLC v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018–45, a
taxpayer contributed a conservation
easement that essentially restricted land
for use as a park. The taxpayer expected
this restriction to increase the value of
the taxpayer’s adjacent property. The
Tax Court disallowed the taxpayer’s
claimed charitable contribution
deduction for the easement, finding that
the taxpayer contributed the easement
with the expectation of receiving a
substantial benefit (increased value of
taxpayer’s adjacent property) from the
contribution, even though the expected
benefit would not come from the donee.
In accordance with these authorities, the
source of the return benefit is
immaterial in determining whether the
donee at the time of the contribution
expects to receive substantial benefits in
return.
The quid pro quo principle is thus
equally applicable regardless of whether
the donor expects to receive the benefit
from the donee or from a third party. In
either case, the donor’s payment is not
a charitable contribution or gift to the
extent that the donor expects a
substantial benefit in return.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department
and the IRS propose amendments to
§ 1.170A–1(h) that address a donor’s
payments in exchange for consideration
in order for the regulation to reflect
existing law. Specifically, these
proposed amendments revise paragraph
(h)(4) to provide definitions of ‘‘in
consideration for’’ and ‘‘goods and
services’’ for purposes of applying the
rules in § 1.170A–1(h). Under the
proposed regulations, a taxpayer will be
treated as receiving goods and services
in consideration for a taxpayer’s
payment or transfer to an entity
described in section 170(c) if, at the
time the taxpayer makes the payment or
transfer, the taxpayer receives or expects
to receive goods or services in return.
The proposed regulations do not
amend the language of § 1.170A–13(f)(6)
which discusses ‘‘in consideration for’’
for purposes of determining whether the
taxpayer provides proper substantiation
of its charitable contribution. Section
1.170A–13(f) details the requirements of
a contemporaneous written
acknowledgment, including a statement
of whether the donee organization
provides any goods or services in
consideration for any cash or other
property transferred to the donee
organization and a description and a
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
68838
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
good faith estimate of the value of those
goods or services. See § 1.170A–
13(f)(2)(ii) and (iii). These substantiation
provisions refer only to written
acknowledgments from donee
organizations and do not address the
application of quid pro quo principles
to benefits received from parties other
than donees. The Treasury Department
and the IRS request comments on
whether guidance concerning
substantiation and reporting of quid pro
quo benefits provided or expected to be
provided by third parties, including
state governments, would be beneficial
to taxpayers in demonstrating that they
have given more than they received or
expected to receive and to the IRS in
administering the proposed regulation.
In addition, the Treasury Department
and the IRS request comments regarding
the manner by which donors, donees, or
third parties may report or provide
substantiation for the value or type of
consideration received or expected to be
received from third parties.
For additional clarity, the proposed
regulation amends the language in
§ 1.170A–1(h)(2)(i)(B) to clarify that the
fair market value of goods and services
includes the value of goods and services
provided by parties other than the
donee. Also, the proposed regulation
adds a definition of ‘‘goods and
services’’ that is the same as the
definition in § 1.170A–13(f)(5). Finally,
the proposed regulation revises the
cross-references defining ‘‘in
consideration for’’ and ‘‘goods and
services’’ in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(3)(iii) to be consistent with the
proposed definitions provided in
paragraph (h)(4).
Proposed Applicability Dates
The proposed amendments contained
in §§ 1.162–15(a)(1) and (2) and 1.170A–
1(c)(5), regarding the application of
section 162 to taxpayers that make
payments or transfers to entities
described in section 170(c), are
proposed to apply to payments or
transfers on or after December 17, 2019.
However, a taxpayer may rely on these
proposed regulations for payments and
transfers made on or after January 1,
2018 and before the date regulations
finalizing these proposed regulations are
published in the Federal Register.
The proposed amendment contained
in § 1.162–15(a)(3), regarding safe
harbors for C corporations and specified
passthrough entities making payments
to or for the use of section 170(c)
entities in exchange for state or local tax
credits, is proposed to apply to
payments on or after December 17,
2019. However, prior to this date, a
taxpayer may continue to apply Rev.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
Proc. 2019–12, which applies to
payments made on or after January 1,
2018.
The proposed amendments contained
in §§ 1.164–3(j) and 1.170A–1(h)(3)(ix),
regarding the safe harbor for payments
by certain individuals to or for the use
of section 170(c) entities, are proposed
to apply to payments made on or after
June 11, 2019, the date that the IRS
issued Notice 2019–12, announcing it
intended to publish proposed
regulations with a safe harbor under
section 164 for individuals who make
payments to section 170(c) entities in
return for state or local tax credits.
However, individuals may rely on these
proposed regulations for payments
made after August 27, 2018, the
applicability date of the final
regulations, and before the date
regulations finalizing these proposed
regulations are published in the Federal
Register.
Finally, the proposed amendments
contained in §§ 1.170A–1(h)(1),
(h)(2)(i)(B), (h)(3)(iii), and (h)(4)(i), and
1.170A–13(f)(7) clarifying ‘‘in
consideration for’’ for purposes of
applying § 1.170A–1(h) are proposed to
apply to payments or transfers on or
after December 17, 2019.
Special Analyses
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
direct agencies to assess costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This
proposed rule is expected to be an E.O.
13771 regulatory action. Details on the
estimated costs of this proposed rule
can be found in the rule’s economic
analysis.
These proposed regulations have been
designated as subject to review under
Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the
Memorandum of Agreement (April 11,
2018) between the Treasury Department
and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regarding review of tax
regulations. The Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs has designated
these regulations as significant under
section 1(b) of the MOA. Accordingly,
the OMB has reviewed these
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Background
Section 164 of the Code allows a
deduction for certain state and local
taxes paid, including state or local
income and property taxes. Section
164(b)(6), added by the TCJA, generally
limits an individual’s deduction of these
taxes to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of
a married individual filing a separate
return). The limitation does not apply to
foreign income taxes or to property
taxes that are paid or incurred in
carrying on a trade or business or an
activity described in section 212.
Section 162 allows a deduction for
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred in carrying on a trade or
business. Section 170 allows a
deduction for charitable contributions,
specifically for payments or transfers to
an entity described in section 170(c);
however, the deduction must be
reduced by any quid pro quo benefit
that the taxpayer receives or expects to
receive in return.
After the enactment of the TCJA,
questions arose regarding the interaction
of these deductions. To clarify the
application of these provisions, the
Treasury Department and the IRS issued
guidance including: (1) Final
regulations (T.D. 9864, 84 FR 27513)
providing that a tax credit received or
expected to be received in return for a
payment or transfer to an entity
described in section 170(c) (hereafter
referred to as a charitable entity) is a
return benefit to the taxpayer, resulting
in the reduction of the charitable
contribution deduction; (2) Notice
2019–12 announcing the intent to issue
proposed regulations providing a safe
harbor for individuals under which a
charitable contribution that is
disallowed because of a return benefit of
a state or local tax credit may be treated
as a payment of state or local tax; and
(3) Rev. Proc. 2019–12 providing a safe
harbor allowing as a deductible business
expense certain payments by businesses
to charitable organizations.
B. Need for the Proposed Regulations
The Treasury Department and the IRS
believe that it is appropriate to propose
as regulations and seek additional
public comment on the safe harbors
provided in Notice 2019–12 and Rev.
Proc. 2019–12. In addition, comments
received in response to Notice 2018–54
and the 2018 proposed regulations
(guidance preceding the final
regulations T.D. 9864) indicate that
taxpayers will benefit from additional
guidance regarding contributions to a
charitable entity resulting in a return
benefit from a third party.
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
C. Overview of the Proposed
Regulations
First, these proposed regulations
reflect the guidance in Notice 2019–12.
Under the safe harbor an individual
who itemizes deductions and who
makes a payment to a charitable entity
in exchange for a state or local tax credit
may be able to claim a state and local
tax deduction for the portion of the
payment for which a charitable
contribution deduction is or will be
disallowed as a return benefit. The safe
harbor for individuals applies only to
payments of cash and cash equivalents.
In addition, these payments are subject
to the overall limitation on state and
local deductions added by the TCJA.
Further, any payment may be deducted
under only one provision of the Code.
Thus, an individual who has total state
and local tax liability of $10,000 or less,
and who makes a payment to a
charitable entity and receives a state tax
credit in return resulting in the
disallowance of a charitable
contribution deduction, may claim an
itemized deduction for the disallowed
amount, subject to other requirements of
the Code.
Second, the proposed regulations
incorporate into the regulations under
section 162 longstanding principles
from case law and existing section 170
regulations regarding a taxpayer’s
payment or transfer to a charitable
entity. Specifically, the proposed
regulations confirm that, when a
taxpayer’s transfer or payment bears a
direct relationship to its trade or
business, and that transfer or payment is
made with a reasonable expectation of
commensurate financial return, the
transfer or payment to the charitable
entity may constitute an allowable
deduction under section 162, rather
than under section 170. In addition, the
proposed regulations incorporate the
safe harbors provided by Rev. Proc.
2019–12 for certain payments by C
corporations and specified passthrough
entities, for cases in which the financial
return is a tax credit. Thus, under the
proposed regulations, a C corporation
may treat the portion of the payment to
a charitable entity that is equal to the
amount of tax credit received or
expected to be received in return as a
deductible business expense under
section 162. Consistent with Rev. Proc.
2019–12, the proposed regulations also
provide that a specified passthrough
entity may treat a payment resulting in
a tax credit as a business expense if the
business is regarded as separate from its
owner for Federal tax purposes, if it
operates a trade or business within the
meaning of section 162, if it is subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
to state or local tax incurred in carrying
on its trade or business that is imposed
directly on the passthrough entity, and
if it receives or expects to receive a state
or local tax credit in return for the
payment.
Third, the proposed regulations
clarify that a payment to a charitable
entity that results in a return benefit is
a quid pro quo for purposes of section
170, regardless of whether the donor
expects to receive the benefit from the
donee or from a third party. As a result,
the contribution is reduced by the
amount of the return benefit for
purposes of determining the amount
allowable as a charitable contribution
deduction.
D. Economic Analysis
1. Baseline
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have assessed the benefits and costs of
these proposed regulations compared to
a no-action baseline that reflects
anticipated Federal income tax-related
behavior in the absence of these
proposed regulations.
2. Summary of Economic Effects
The proposed regulations reflect
existing, published, Treasury
Department and IRS policies. As a
result, they provide some additional
clarity to taxpayers by clearly
articulating these existing policies as
regulations. The Treasury Department
does not expect any noticeable change
in taxpayer behavior resulting from
these regulations, but requests
comments on their potential economic
effects. The increased clarity, in
particular the provision of safe harbors,
is expected to reduce compliance
burdens.
As described in the Special Analyses
for the final regulations (T.D. 9864),
allowing a payment that is disallowed
as a charitable contribution deduction
because of the receipt or expected
receipt of a tax credit to be deducted as
a payment of state or local tax means
that payments by taxpayers with state
and local tax liabilities of $10,000 or
less are subject to the same tax
treatment under these proposed
regulations as under the TCJA (in
absence of any guidance) and as under
the law prior to the TCJA. (See Example
2, Table 1, T.D. 9864.) It also means that
such taxpayers are not treated less
favorably than taxpayers with state and
local tax liabilities in excess of $10,000
or taxpayers subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax. (See Examples 1 and 3
of Table 1, T.D. 9864.)
The Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on the economic
effects of the proposed regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68839
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby
certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Although data are not readily available
for the IRS and the Treasury Department
to assess the number of small entities
that are likely to be directly affected by
the regulations, the economic impact is
unlikely to be significant.
As discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, the proposed rule largely
updates the regulations to reflect
existing law and policy. The proposed
amendments would update the section
162 and section 170 regulations to
reflect current law. In addition, the
proposed amendments add to the
regulations safe harbors under section
162 and section 164, regarding
deductions when payments are made to
entities described in section 170(c) and
the donor receives or expects to receive
a state or local tax credit in return; these
safe harbors were provided previously
in Internal Revenue Bulletin guidance.
These regulations are expected to
provide some additional certainty to
taxpayers but are not expected to result
in any noticeable change in taxpayer
behavior. The increased certainty, and
in particular the provision of safe
harbors, is expected to reduce
compliance burdens. Accordingly, the
Treasury Department and the IRS certify
that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding this certification, the
Treasury Department and the IRS invite
comments about the potential impact of
this proposed rule on small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), the
proposed regulations will be submitted
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
comment on its impact on small
businesses.
Comments and Requests and Public
Hearing
Before the regulations proposed
herein are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
electronic and written comments that
are submitted timely to the IRS as
prescribed in this preamble under the
ADDRESSES heading. All comments
submitted will be made available at
https://www.regulations.gov or upon
request. A public hearing has been
scheduled for February, 20, 2020,
beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium
of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20224. Due to building security
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
68840
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
procedures, visitors must enter at the
Constitution Avenue entrance. In
addition, all visitors must present photo
identification to enter the building.
Because of access restrictions, visitors
will not be admitted beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish
to present oral comments at the hearing
must submit an outline of the topics to
be discussed and the time to be devoted
to each topic by January 31, 2020.
Submit a signed paper or electronic
copy of the outline as prescribed in this
preamble under the ADDRESSES heading.
An agenda showing the scheduling of
the speakers will be prepared after the
deadline for receiving outlines has
passed. Copies of the agenda will be
available free of charge at the hearing.
Statement of Availability of IRS
Documents
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue
Rulings, Notices, and other guidance
cited in this document are published in
the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or
Cumulative Bulletin) and are available
from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting
the IRS website at https://www.irs.gov.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
proposed regulations is the Office of the
Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax
and Accounting). However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury
Department participated in their
development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.162–15 is amended
by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
§ 1.162–15
Contributions, dues, etc.
(a) Payments and transfers to entities
described in section 170(c)—(1) In
general. A payment or transfer to or for
the use of an entity described in section
170(c) that bears a direct relationship to
the taxpayer’s trade or business and that
is made with a reasonable expectation of
financial return commensurate with the
amount of the payment or transfer may
constitute an allowable deduction as a
trade or business expense rather than a
charitable contribution deduction under
section 170. For payments or transfers
in excess of the amount deductible
under section 162(a), see § 1.170A–1(h).
(2) Examples. The following examples
illustrate the rules of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section:
(i) Example 1. A, an individual, is a sole
proprietor who manufactures musical
instruments and sells them through a
website. A makes a $1,000 payment to a local
church (which is a charitable organization
described in section 170(c)) for a half-page
advertisement in the church’s program for a
concert. In the program, the church thanks its
concert sponsors, including A. A’s
advertisement includes the URL for the
website through which A sells its
instruments. A reasonably expects that the
advertisement will attract new customers to
A’s website and will help A to sell more
musical instruments. A may treat the $1,000
payment as an expense of carrying on a trade
or business under section 162.
(ii) Example 2. P, a partnership, operates
a chain of supermarkets, some of which are
located in State N. P operates a promotional
program in which it sets aside the proceeds
from one percent of its sales each year, which
it pays to one or more charities described in
section 170(c). The funds are earmarked for
use in projects that improve conditions in
State N. P makes the final determination on
which charities receive payments. P
advertises the program. P reasonably believes
the program will generate a significant degree
of name recognition and goodwill in the
communities where it operates and thereby
increase its revenue. As part of the program,
P makes a $1,000 payment to a charity
described in section 170(c). P may treat the
$1,000 payment as an expense of carrying on
a trade or business under section 162. This
result is unchanged if, under State N’s tax
credit program, P expects to receive a $1,000
income tax credit on account of P’s payment,
and under State N law, the credit can be
passed through to P’s partners.
(3) Safe harbors for C corporations
and specified passthrough entities
making payments in exchange for state
or local tax credits—(i) Safe harbor for
C corporations. If a C corporation makes
a payment to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c) and receives
or expects to receive in return a state or
local tax credit that reduces a state or
local tax imposed on the C corporation,
the C corporation may treat such
payment as meeting the requirements of
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an ordinary and necessary business
expense for purposes of section 162(a)
to the extent of the amount of the credit
received or expected to be received.
(ii) Safe harbor for specified
passthrough entities—(A) Definition of
specified passthrough entity. For
purposes of this paragraph (a)(3)(ii), an
entity is a specified passthrough entity
if each of the following requirements is
satisfied—
(1) The entity is a business entity
other than a C corporation and is
regarded for all Federal income tax
purposes as separate from its owners
under § 301.7701–3 of this chapter;
(2) The entity operates a trade or
business within the meaning of section
162;
(3) The entity is subject to a state or
local tax incurred in carrying on its
trade or business that is imposed
directly on the entity; and
(4) In return for a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c), the entity
described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) of
this section receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit that
this entity applies or expects to apply to
offset a state or local tax described in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section.
(B) Safe harbor. Except as provided in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, if
a specified passthrough entity makes a
payment to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c), and receives
or expects to receive in return a state or
local tax credit that reduces a state or
local tax described in paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section, the
specified passthrough entity may treat
such payment as meeting the
requirements of an ordinary and
necessary business expense for purposes
of section 162(a) to the extent of the
amount of credit received or expected to
be received.
(C) Exception. The safe harbor
described in this paragraph (a)(3)(ii)
does not apply if the credit received or
expected to be received reduces a state
or local income tax.
(iii) Definition of payment. For
purposes of this paragraph (a)(3),
payment is defined as a payment of cash
or cash equivalent.
(iv) Examples. The following
examples illustrate the rules of
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(A) Example 1: C corporation that receives
or expects to receive dollar-for-dollar state or
local tax credit. A, a C corporation engaged
in a trade or business, makes a payment of
$1,000 to an entity described in section
170(c). In return for the payment, A expects
to receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit
to be applied to A’s state corporate income
tax liability. Under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, A may treat the $1,000 payment as
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
an expense of carrying on a trade or business
under section 162.
(B) Example 2: C corporation that receives
or expects to receive percentage-based state
or local tax credit. B, a C corporation engaged
in a trade or business, makes a payment of
$1,000 to an entity described in section
170(c). In return for the payment, B expects
to receive a local tax credit equal to 80
percent of the amount of this payment ($800)
to be applied to B’s local real property tax
liability. Under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section, B may treat $800 as an expense of
carrying on a trade or business under section
162. The treatment of the remaining $200
will depend upon the facts and
circumstances and is not affected by
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(C) Example 3: Partnership that receives or
expects to receive dollar-for-dollar state or
local tax credit. P is a limited liability
company classified as a partnership for
Federal income tax purposes under
§ 301.7701–3 of this chapter. P is engaged in
a trade or business and makes a payment of
$1,000 to an entity described in section
170(c). In return for the payment, P expects
to receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit
to be applied to P’s state excise tax liability
incurred by P in carrying on its trade or
business. Under applicable state law, the
state’s excise tax is imposed at the entity
level (not the owner level). Under paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, P may treat the
$1,000 as an expense of carrying on a trade
or business under section 162.
(D) Example 4: S corporation that receives
or expects to receive percentage-based state
or local tax credit. S is an S corporation
engaged in a trade or business and is owned
by individuals C and D. S makes a payment
of $1,000 to an entity described in section
170(c). In return for the payment, S expects
to receive a local tax credit equal to 80
percent of the amount of this payment ($800)
to be applied to S’s local real property tax
liability incurred by S in carrying on its trade
or business. Under applicable state and local
law, the real property tax is imposed at the
entity level (not the owner level). Under
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, S may
treat $800 of the payment as an expense of
carrying on a trade or business under section
162. The treatment of the remaining $200
will depend upon the facts and
circumstances and is not affected by
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(v) Applicability of section 170 to
payments in exchange for state or local
tax benefits. For rules regarding the
availability of a charitable contribution
deduction under section 170 where a
taxpayer makes a payment or transfers
property to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c) and receives
or expects to receive a state or local tax
benefit in return for such payment, see
§ 1.170A–1(h)(3).
(4) Applicability dates. Paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section, regarding
the application of section 162 to
taxpayers making payments or transfers
to entities described in section 170(c),
apply to payments or transfers on or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
after December 17, 2019. However,
taxpayers may choose to apply
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to payments
and transfers on or after January 1, 2018.
Paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
regarding the safe harbors for C
corporations and specified passthrough
entities making payments to section
170(c) entities in exchange for state or
local tax credits applies to payments
made by these entities on or after
December 17, 2019. However, taxpayers
may choose to apply the safe harbors of
paragraph (a)(3) to payments on or after
January 1, 2018.
*
*
*
*
*
■ Par. 3. Section 1.164–3 is amended by
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 1.164–3
Definitions and special rules.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Safe harbor for payments by
individuals in exchange for state or
local tax credits—(1) In general. An
individual who itemizes deductions and
who makes a payment to or for the use
of an entity described in section 170(c)
in consideration for a state or local tax
credit may treat as a payment of state or
local tax for purposes of section 164 the
portion of such payment for which a
charitable contribution deduction under
section 170 is disallowed under
§ 1.170A–1(h)(3). This treatment as
payment of state or local tax under
section 164(a) is allowed in the taxable
year in which the payment is made to
the extent that the resulting credit is
applied, consistent with applicable state
or local law, to offset the individual’s
state or local tax liability for such
taxable year or the preceding taxable
year.
(2) Credits carried forward. To the
extent that a state or local tax credit
described in paragraph (j)(1) of this
section is not applied to offset the
individual’s applicable state or local tax
liability for the taxable year of the
payment or the preceding taxable year,
any excess state or local tax credit
permitted to be carried forward may be
treated as a payment of state or local tax
under section 164(a) in the taxable year
or years for which the carryover credit
is applied in accordance with state or
local law.
(3) Limitation on individual
deductions. Nothing in this paragraph
(j) may be construed as permitting a
taxpayer who applies this safe harbor to
avoid the limitations of section 164(b)(6)
for any amount paid as a tax or treated
under this paragraph (j) as a payment of
tax.
(4) No safe harbor for transfers of
property. The safe harbor provided in
this paragraph (j) applies only to a
payment of cash or cash equivalent.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68841
(5) Coordination with other
deductions. An individual who deducts
a payment under section 164 may not
also deduct the same payment under
any other Code section.
(6) Examples. In the following
examples, assume that the taxpayer is
an individual who itemizes deductions
for Federal income tax purposes.
(i) Example 1. In year 1, Taxpayer A makes
a payment of $500 to an entity described in
section 170(c). In return for the payment, A
receives a dollar-for-dollar state income tax
credit. Prior to application of the credit, A’s
state income tax liability for year 1 was more
than $500. A applies the $500 credit to A’s
year 1 state income tax liability. Under
paragraph (j)(1) of this section, A treats the
$500 payment as a payment of state income
tax in year 1. To determine A’s deduction
amount, A must apply the provisions of
section 164 applicable to payments of state
and local taxes, including the limitation in
section 164(b)(6). See paragraph (j)(3) of this
section.
(ii) Example 2. In year 1, Taxpayer B makes
a payment of $7,000 to an entity described
in section 170(c). In return for the payment,
B receives a dollar-for-dollar state income tax
credit, which under state law may be carried
forward for three taxable years. Prior to
application of the credit, B’s state income tax
liability for year 1 was $5,000; B applies
$5,000 of the $7,000 credit to B’s year 1 state
income tax liability. Under paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, B treats $5,000 of the $7,000
payment as a payment of state income tax in
year 1. Prior to application of the remaining
credit, B’s state income tax liability for year
2 exceeds $2,000. B applies the excess credit
of $2,000 to B’s year 2 state income tax
liability. For year 2, under paragraph (j)(2) of
this section, B treats the $2,000 as a payment
of state income tax under section 164. To
determine B’s deduction amounts in years 1
and 2, B must apply the provisions of section
164 applicable to payments of state and local
taxes, including the limitation under section
164(b)(6). See paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
(iii) Example 3. In year 1, Taxpayer C
makes a payment of $7,000 to an entity
described in section 170(c). In return for the
payment, C receives a local real property tax
credit equal to 25 percent of the amount of
this payment ($1,750). Prior to application of
the credit, C’s local real property tax liability
in year 1 was more than $1,750. C applies the
$1,750 credit to C’s year 1 local real property
tax liability. Under paragraph (j)(1) of this
section, for year 1, C treats $1,750 of her
$7,000 payment as a payment of local real
property tax for purposes of section 164. To
determine C’s deduction amount, C must
apply the provisions of section 164
applicable to payments of state and local
taxes, including the limitation under section
164(b)(6). See paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
(7) Applicability date. This paragraph
(j) applies to payments made to section
170(c) entities on or after June 11, 2019.
However, a taxpayer may choose to
apply this paragraph (j) to payments
made to section 170(c) entities after
August 27, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
68842
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Par. 4. Section 1.170A–1 is amended
as follows:
■ 1. Paragraph (c)(5) is revised.
■ 2. In paragraph (h)(1), remove the
cross-references to ‘‘§ 1.170A–13(f)(6)’’
and ‘‘§ 1.170A–13(f)(5)’’ and add in their
places ‘‘paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this
section’’ and ‘‘paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this
section’’, respectively.
■ 3. Paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(B) and (h)(3)(iii)
are revised.
■ 4. Paragraph (h)(3)(viii) is
redesignated as paragraph (h)(3)(x).
■ 5. New paragraph (h)(3)(viii) and
paragraph (h)(3)(ix) are added.
■ 6. Paragraphs (h)(4) through (6) are
redesignated as paragraphs (h)(5)
through (7).
■ 7. New paragraph (h)(4) is added.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 1.170A–1 Charitable, etc., contributions
and gifts; allowance of deduction.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) For payments or transfers to an
entity described in section 170(c) by a
taxpayer carrying on a trade or business,
see § 1.162–15(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The fair market value of the goods
or services received or expected to be
received in return.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(iii) In consideration for. For purposes
of paragraph (h) of this section, the term
in consideration for has the meaning set
forth in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) Safe harbor for payments by C
corporations and specified passthrough
entities. For payments by a C
corporation or by a specified
passthrough entity to an entity
described in section 170(c), where the C
corporation or specified passthrough
entity receives or expects to receive a
state or local tax credit that reduces the
charitable contribution deduction for
such payments under paragraph (h)(3)
of this section, see § 1.162–15(a)(3)
(providing safe harbors under section
162(a) to the extent of that reduction).
(ix) Safe harbor for individuals. Under
certain circumstances, an individual
who itemizes deductions and makes a
payment to an entity described in
section 170(c) in consideration for a
state or local tax credit may treat the
portion of such payment for which a
charitable contribution deduction is
disallowed under paragraph (h)(3) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
this section as a payment of state or
local taxes under section 164. See
§ 1.164–3(j), providing a safe harbor for
certain payments by individuals in
exchange for state or local tax.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Definitions. For purposes of this
paragraph (h), the following definitions
apply:
(i) In consideration for. A taxpayer
receives goods or services in
consideration for a taxpayer’s payment
or transfer to an entity described in
section 170(c) if, at the time the
taxpayer makes the payment to such
entity, the taxpayer receives or expects
to receive goods or services from that
entity or any other party in return.
(ii) Goods or services. Goods or
services means cash, property, services,
benefits, and privileges.
(iii) Applicability date. The
definitions provided in this paragraph
(h)(4) are applicable for amounts paid or
property transferred on or after
December 17, 2019.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1.170A–13
[Amended]
Par. 5. Section 1.170A–13(f)(7) is
amended by removing the crossreference to ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(5)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(6).’’
■
Sunita Lough,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
covered by the LMRDA, and would be
required to file the Form LM–2 and
Form LM–3 annual union financial
reports.
Submit written comments on or
before February 18, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 1245–AA08, only by
the following method: Electronic
Comments: Submit comments through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. To locate the
proposed rule, use key words such as
‘‘Labor-Management Standards’’ or
‘‘Labor Organization Annual Financial
Reports’’ to search documents accepting
comments. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments. Please be advised
that comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. All
comments must be received by 11:59
p.m. on the date indicated for
consideration in this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Davis, Chief of the Division of
Interpretations and Standards, Office of
Labor-Management Standards, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N–5609,
Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–0123
(this is not a toll-free number), (800)
877–8339 (TTY/TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2019–26969 Filed 12–13–19; 4:15 pm]
I. Statutory Authority
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
The Department of Labor’s statutory
authority is set forth in sections 201 and
208 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431, 438.
Section 208 of the LMRDA provides that
the Secretary of Labor shall have
authority to issue, amend, and rescind
rules and regulations prescribing the
form and publication of reports required
to be filed under Title II of the Act and
such other reasonable rules and
regulations as he may find necessary to
prevent the circumvention or evasion of
the reporting requirements. 29 U.S.C.
438. Section 201, discussed in more
detail below, sets out the substantive
reporting obligations.
The Secretary has delegated his
authority under the LMRDA to the
Director of the Office of LaborManagement Standards and permitted
redelegation of such authority. See
Secretary’s Order 03–2012 (Oct. 19,
2012), published at 77 FR 69376 (Nov.
16, 2012).
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Labor-Management
Standards
29 CFR Part 401
RIN 1245–AA08
Labor Organization Annual Financial
Reports: Coverage of Intermediate
Bodies
Office of Labor-Management
Standards, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(Department) proposes to promulgate a
rule governing intermediate bodies that
are wholly composed of public sector
organizations but are subordinate to
national or international labor
organizations that are covered by the
Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA or Act).
Under the proposed rule, such
intermediate bodies would now be
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Background
A. Introduction
In October of 2003, the Department of
Labor (Department) issued an
interpretation that required certain
E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM
17DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68833-68842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26969]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG-107431-19]
RIN 1545-BP40
Treatment of Payments to Charitable Entities in Return for
Consideration
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notification of public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides proposed amendments to the regulations
under sections 162, 164, and 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
First, the proposed amendments update the regulations under section 162
to reflect current law regarding the application of section 162 to a
taxpayer that makes a payment or transfer to an entity described in
section 170(c) for a business purpose. Second, the proposed amendments
provide safe harbors under section 162 to provide certainty with
respect to the treatment of payments made by business entities to an
entity described in section 170(c). Third, the proposed amendments
provide a safe harbor under section 164 for payments made to an entity
described in section 170(c) by individuals who itemize deductions and
receive or expect to receive a state or local tax credit in return.
Fourth, the proposed amendments update the regulations under section
170 to reflect past guidance and case law regarding the application of
the quid pro quo principle under section 170 to benefits received or
expected to be received by a donor from a third party.
DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by January 31,
2020 Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the
public hearing scheduled for February 20, 2020, must be received by
January 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-107431-19)
by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once
submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited
or withdrawn. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and
the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to
its public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.
Send hard copy submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-107431-19), Room 5203,
Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-
107431-19), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations,
Mon L. Lam and Merrill D. Feldstein at (202) 317-4059; concerning
submission of comments and requests to speak at the public hearing,
Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers) or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Explanation of Provisions
I. Contributions in Exchange for State and Local Tax Credits
Section 170(a)(1) generally allows an itemized deduction for any
``charitable contribution'' paid within the taxable year. Section
170(c) defines ``charitable contribution'' as a ``contribution or gift
to or for the use of '' an entity described in that section. Under
section 170(c)(1), such entities include a State, a possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of the foregoing, or the
District of Columbia. Section 170(c)(2) includes certain corporations,
trusts, or community chests, funds, or foundations, organized and
operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary,
or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur
sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or
animals. Section 1.170A-1(c)(5) of the Income Tax Regulations provides
that transfers of property to an organization described in section
170(c) that bear a direct relationship to the taxpayer's trade or
business and that are made with a reasonable expectation of financial
return commensurate with the amount of the transfer may constitute
allowable
[[Page 68834]]
deductions as trade or business expenses rather than as charitable
contributions. Section 162(a) allows a deduction for all the ordinary
and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on any trade or business. Section 162(b) provides that no
deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution or
gift that would be allowable as a deduction under section 170 were it
not for the percentage limitations, the dollar limitations, or the
requirements as to the time of payment set forth in that section.
Section 1.162-15(a) applies to contributions to entities described
in section 170(c). Section 1.162-15(a)(1) currently provides that no
deduction is allowable under section 162(a) for a contribution or gift
by an individual or a corporation if any part thereof is deductible
under section 170. For example, if a taxpayer makes a contribution of
$5,000 and only $4,000 of this amount is deductible under section
170(a) (whether because of the percentage limitation under either
section 170(b)(1) or (2), the requirement as to time of payment, or
both), no deduction is allowable under section 162(a) for the remaining
$1,000. However, Sec. 1.162-15(a)(2) clarifies that the limitations
provided in section 162(b) and Sec. 1.162-15(a)(1) apply only to
payments that are in fact contributions or gifts to organizations
described in section 170. For example, payments by a transit company to
a local hospital (which is a charitable organization within the meaning
of section 170) in consideration of a binding obligation on the part of
the hospital to provide hospital services and facilities for the
company's employees are not contributions or gifts within the meaning
of section 170 and may be deductible under section 162(a) if the
requirements of section 162(a) are otherwise satisfied.
Section 164(a) allows a deduction for the payment of certain taxes,
including: (1) State and local, and foreign, real property taxes; (2)
state and local personal property taxes; and (3) state and local, and
foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. In addition,
section 164 allows a deduction for taxes not described in the preceding
sentence that are paid or accrued within the taxable year in carrying
on a trade or business or an activity described in section 212.
Moreover, under section 164(b)(5), taxpayers may elect to deduct state
and local general sales taxes in lieu of state and local income taxes.
Section 164(b)(6), as added by section 11042(a) of the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act Public Law 115-97, (the ``TCJA'') provides that in the case of
an individual, deductions for foreign real property taxes are not
allowable under section 164(a)(1), and the deduction for the aggregate
amount of the following state and local taxes paid during the calendar
year is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married individual
filing a separate return): (1) Real property taxes; (2) personal
property taxes; (3) income, war profits, and excess profits taxes; and
(4) general sales taxes. This limitation applies to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, and does
not apply to foreign taxes described in section 164(a)(3) or to any
taxes described in section 164(a)(1) and (2) that are paid or accrued
in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described in section
212.
In response to the limitation in section 164(b)(6), some taxpayers
have considered tax planning strategies to avoid or mitigate its
effects. Some of these strategies rely on state and local tax credit
programs under which states provide tax credits in return for
contributions by taxpayers to entities described in section 170(c), and
some state and local governments have created new programs intended to
facilitate use of these strategies.
On June 11, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced
their intention to propose regulations addressing the proper
application of sections 164 and 170 to taxpayers who make contributions
under state and local tax credit programs to entities described in
section 170(c). See Notice 2018-54, 2018-24 I.R.B. 750. On August 27,
2018, proposed regulations (REG-112176-18) under sections 170 and
642(c) were published in the Federal Register (83 FR 43563) (``2018
proposed regulations''). The 2018 proposed regulations proposed
amending Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(3) to provide, in general, that if a
taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to or for the use of an
entity described in section 170(c), and the taxpayer receives or
expects to receive a state or local tax credit in return for such
payment or transfer, the tax credit constitutes a return benefit to the
taxpayer and reduces the taxpayer's charitable contribution deduction.
The 2018 proposed regulations were premised, in part, on the quid pro
quo principle articulated by the Supreme Court in United States v.
American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 116 (1986), and its progeny that
``a payment of money generally cannot constitute a charitable deduction
if the contributor expects a substantial benefit in return.'' The 2018
proposed regulations also proposed amending regulations under section
642(c), to provide a similar rule for payments made by a trust or
decedent's estate.
The Treasury Department and the IRS received over 7,700 comments
responding to the 2018 proposed regulations and 25 requests to speak at
the public hearing, which was held on November 5, 2018. After taking
into account the comments received and the concerns expressed at the
public hearing, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final
regulations in the Federal Register on June 13, 2019 (T.D. 9864, 84 FR
27513) (``the final regulations''). The final regulations retained the
rules set out in the 2018 proposed regulations, with certain clarifying
and technical changes. Most significantly, the final regulations
retained the general rule that, if a taxpayer makes a payment or
transfers property to or for the use of an entity described in section
170(c), and the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a state or
local tax credit in return for such transfer, the tax credit
constitutes a return benefit to the taxpayer, or quid pro quo, reducing
the taxpayer's charitable contribution deduction. See Sec. 1.170A-
1(h)(3) of the final regulations.
In response to Notice 2018-54 and the 2018 proposed regulations,
commenters raised several ancillary issues. These issues involved: (1)
Treatment of business entity payments to entities described in section
170(c); (2) treatment of payments by individuals with total state and
local tax liabilities that were less than or equal to the section
164(b)(6) limitations; and (3) application of the quid pro quo
principle under section 170 to benefits received or expected to be
received by the donor from a party other than the donee.
Although the Treasury Department and the IRS have provided sub-
regulatory safe harbors related to the first two issues (in Rev. Proc.
2019-12, 2019-04 I.R.B. 401, and Notice 2019-12, 2019-27 I.R.B. 57),
the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is appropriate to
include these safe harbors in proposed regulations and to request
comments. Further, in the preamble to the final regulations, the
Treasury Department and the IRS extensively addressed the third issue--
whether a benefit received or expected to be received from a party
other than the donee may constitute a quid pro quo that reduces the
taxpayer's charitable contribution deduction under section 170. The
preamble to the final regulations stated that the Treasury Department
and the IRS would propose additional regulations setting forth a
general rule for benefits received or
[[Page 68835]]
expected to be received from third parties. Accordingly, the proposed
regulations, provided herein, would amend the regulations under
sections 162, 164, and 170 to provide guidance on these three issues.
II. Payments by Business Entities in Exchange for State or Local Tax
Credits
After the issuance of Notice 2018-54, and continuing after the
publication of the 2018 proposed regulations, the Treasury Department
and the IRS received inquiries from taxpayers regarding the application
of the proposed regulations to businesses that make payments to
entities described in section 170(c) pursuant to state and local tax
credit programs. The taxpayers sought guidance as to whether a business
entity may deduct these payments under section 162 as ordinary and
necessary business expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or
business. In response, on September 5, 2018, the IRS released a
frequently asked question (``FAQ'') stating that a business taxpayer
making a payment to an entity described in section 170(c) is generally
permitted to deduct such payment as an ordinary and necessary business
expense under section 162 if the payment is made with a business
purpose. However, after the release of the FAQ, taxpayers continued to
express concern about whether the business purpose requirement is met
for contributions that result in a tax credit. Specifically, taxpayers
asked whether payments by business entities in exchange for state and
local tax credits would bear a direct relationship to the taxpayer's
trade or business such that these payments would qualify as ordinary
and necessary business expenses of carrying on a trade or business
under section 162(a).
On December 28, 2018, the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2019-12, providing
a safe harbor under section 162 for payments made by a business entity
that is a C corporation or specified passthrough entity to or for the
use of an organization described in section 170(c) if the C corporation
or specified passthrough entity receives or expects to receive state or
local tax credits in return. The revenue procedure states that, to the
extent that a C corporation receives or expects to receive a state or
local tax credit in return for a payment to an organization described
in section 170(c), it is reasonable to conclude that there is a direct
benefit and a reasonable expectation of commensurate financial return
to the C corporation's business in the form of a reduction in the state
or local taxes the C corporation would otherwise be required to pay.
Thus, the revenue procedure provides a safe harbor that allows a C
corporation engaged in a trade or business to treat the portion of the
payment that is equal to the amount of the credit received or expected
to be received as meeting the requirements of an ordinary and necessary
business expense under section 162.
The IRS determined that a similar analysis is appropriate in the
case of a business entity other than a C corporation if (1) the
business entity is regarded as separate from its owner for all Federal
tax purposes under Sec. 301.7701-3 of the Procedure and Administration
Regulations (``passthrough entity''); (2) the passthrough entity
operates a trade or business within the meaning of section 162; (3) the
passthrough entity is subject to a state or local tax incurred in
carrying on its trade or business that is imposed directly on the
entity; and (4) in return for a payment to an entity described in
section 170(c), the passthrough entity receives or expects to receive a
state or local tax credit that the entity applies or expects to apply
to offset a state or local tax other than a state or local income tax.
Thus, to the extent that a specified passthrough entity makes a payment
to an entity described in section 170(c) and receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit, Rev. Proc. 2019-12 permits the
passthrough entity to treat the payment as meeting the requirements of
an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162. The safe
harbors for C corporations and specified passthrough entities apply
only to payments of cash and cash equivalents.
In the interest of providing certainty for taxpayers, the Treasury
Department and the IRS believe that it is appropriate to propose
regulations to incorporate the safe harbors set out in Rev. Proc. 2019-
12 and to request comments on these safe harbors. Thus, these proposed
regulations propose amending Sec. 1.162-15(a) to incorporate the Rev.
Proc. 2019-12 safe harbors. These proposed regulations also propose
amending Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(5) and (h)(3)(viii) to provide cross
references to Sec. 1.162-15(a). The Treasury Department and the IRS
specifically request comments on whether the safe harbors should be
expanded to apply to an individual who is carrying on a trade or
business or an activity described in section 212.
The proposed regulations propose additional revisions to Sec.
1.162-15(a) to more clearly reflect the current state of the law
regarding a taxpayer's payment or transfer to an entity described in
section 170(c). If the taxpayer's payment or transfer bears a direct
relationship to its trade or business, and the payment is made with a
reasonable expectation of commensurate financial return, the payment or
transfer to the section 170(c) entity may constitute an allowable
deduction as a trade or business expense under section 162, rather than
a charitable contribution under section 170. See Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(5);
Marquis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 695 (1968). A proposed example
illustrates that this rule applies regardless of whether the taxpayer
expects to receive a state or local tax credit in return.
The proposed revisions are also consistent with the decision in
American Bar Endowment, which states that a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c) may have a dual character--part charitable
contribution and part business expense. 477 U.S. at 117. Under American
Bar Endowment and Sec. 1.170A-1(h), if a taxpayer makes a payment to
an entity described under section 170(c) in an amount that exceeds the
fair market value of the benefit that the taxpayer receives or expects
to receive in return, and this excess amount is paid with charitable
intent, the taxpayer is allowed a charitable contribution deduction
under section 170 for this excess amount.
In addition, the proposed regulations propose to add a cross-
reference to Sec. 1.170A-1(h) (payments to section 170(c) entities in
exchange for consideration), which provides more detailed rules for
determining whether a payment, or a portion of a payment, to an entity
described in section 170(c) may be deducted under section 162(a) or
section 170.
III. Payments by Individuals in Exchange for State and Local Tax
Credits
After publication of the 2018 proposed regulations, commenters
expressed concerns that the proposed regulations would create unfair
consequences for certain individuals who receive state or local tax
credits in return for their payments. Specifically, commenters noted
that individuals who itemize deductions for Federal income tax purposes
and have total state and local tax liabilities for the taxable year of
$10,000 or less ($5,000 or less in the case of a married individual
filing a separate return) would be precluded from taking charitable
contribution deductions to the extent that they receive state or local
tax credits even though the individuals would have been able to deduct
equivalent payments of state and local taxes. Thus, if these
individuals chose to make a payment to a section 170(c) entity through
a state or local tax credit program instead of
[[Page 68836]]
paying tax to the state or local government, they would lose the
deduction to which they would otherwise have been entitled under
section 164 even after the application of the section 164(b)(6)
limitation.
These state and local tax credit programs effectively offer
taxpayers a choice of paying taxes to the state or local government or
making a payment to a section 170(c) entity and receiving a tax credit
that offsets a tax liability the taxpayer would otherwise owe to the
state or local government. This situation can be analogized to
situations in which an individual entitled to receive a payment from a
second party directs or permits the second party to satisfy its payment
obligation by making a payment to a third party. In such situations,
the payment may be treated, for Federal income tax purposes, as a
payment by the payor to the individual entitled to receive payment. Cf.
Rev. Rul. 86-14, 1986-1 C.B. 304, modifying Rev. Rul. 74-75, 1974-1
C.B. 19 (payment made by an employer to a third party to discharge an
obligation of an employee treated for Federal income tax purposes as
made by the employer to the employee).
For these reasons, on June 11, 2019, the IRS released Notice 2019-
12, announcing that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to
publish proposed regulations with a safe harbor under section 164 for
individuals who make payments to section 170(c) entities in return for
state or local tax credits. Under this safe harbor, an individual who
itemizes deductions and who makes a payment to an entity described in
section 170(c) in exchange for a state or local tax credit may treat as
a payment of state or local tax for purposes of section 164 the portion
of such payment for which a charitable contribution deduction is or
will be disallowed under Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(3). This treatment is
allowed in the taxable year in which the payment is made, but only to
the extent that the individual applies the resulting credit pursuant to
applicable state or local law to offset the individual's state or local
tax liability for such taxable year or the preceding taxable year.
Notice 2019-12 requested comments for purposes of incorporating the
safe harbor in proposed regulations.
The Treasury Department and the IRS received several comments in
response to Notice 2019-12. Generally, commenters responded favorably
to the safe harbor in the notice, finding that its rationale was sound
and that the rule would effectively eliminate concerns that the final
regulations under Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(3) unfairly burden individuals who
itemize deductions and have state and local tax liabilities that are
less than the section 164(b)(6) limitation. One commenter noted that
Executive Order 12866, which directs the agency issuing a regulation to
identify the problem it intends to address and design the regulation in
the most cost-effective manner to achieve that objective with the least
amount of burden on society, further supports the safe harbor. See
Executive Order 12866, section 1(b). This commenter also suggested that
the IRS should track the effects of the safe harbor by requiring
taxpayers to disclose state tax and local tax credits on their Form
1040, Schedule A. Alternatively, the commenter suggested that the IRS
obtain this information directly from the states. Another commenter
generally supported the safe harbor, but suggested that the Treasury
Department and the IRS should avoid creating more safe harbor
exceptions to Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(3) of the final regulations. This
commenter also expressed concerns about the application of the safe
harbor when the state and local tax limitation under section 164(b)(6)
expires or is modified.
Other commenters were concerned that Notice 2019-12 did not fully
address the tax consequences to taxpayers who received or expected to
receive state or local tax credits. Specifically, these commenters
asked that the Treasury Department and the IRS provide guidance to
address the treatment of state or local tax credits for Federal income
tax purposes upon their sale or expiration. As noted in the preamble to
the final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS recognize
the significance and complexity of these questions. The Treasury
Department and the IRS continue to study these issues and invite
additional comment to inform potential future guidance on these issues.
The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to believe that the
notice provides a fair, reasonable, and legally sound basis for the
safe harbor for individual taxpayers, and that the safe harbor should
be added to the regulations under section 164. Accordingly, these
proposed regulations propose adding Sec. 1.164-3(j) to provide a safe
harbor for individuals who make a payment to or for the use of an
entity described in section 170(c) in return for a state or local tax
credit. These proposed regulations also propose adding Sec. 1.170A-
1(h)(3)(ix) to provide a cross reference to the safe harbor proposed
under Sec. 1.164-3(j) and to request comments.
Under these proposed regulations, an individual who itemizes
deductions and who makes a payment to a section 170(c) entity in
exchange for a state or local tax credit may treat as a payment of
state or local tax for purposes of section 164 the portion of such
payment for which a charitable contribution deduction under section 170
is or will be disallowed under Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(3). This treatment is
allowed in the taxable year in which the payment is made, but only to
the extent that the resulting credit is applied pursuant to applicable
state or local law to offset the individual's state or local tax
liability for such taxable year or the preceding taxable year. Any
unused credit permitted to be carried forward may be treated as a
payment of state or local tax under section 164 in the taxable year or
years for which the carryover credit is applied in accordance with
state or local law. The safe harbor for individuals applies only to
payments of cash and cash equivalents.
The proposed regulations are not intended to permit a taxpayer to
avoid the limitations of section 164(b)(6). Therefore, the proposed
regulations provide that any payment treated as a state or local tax
under section 164, pursuant to the safe harbor provided in Sec. 1.164-
3(j) of the proposed regulations, is subject to the limitations on
deductions in section 164(b)(6). Furthermore, the proposed regulations
are not intended to permit deductions of the same payments under more
than one provision. Thus, the proposed regulations provide that an
individual who relies on the safe harbor in Sec. 1.164-3(j) to deduct
qualifying payments under section 164 may not also deduct the same
payments under any other section of the Code.
IV. Consideration Provided by Party Other Than the Donee
Section 1.170A-1(h)(1) provides that no part of a payment that a
taxpayer makes to or for the use of an organization described in
section 170(c) that is in consideration for (as defined in Sec.
1.170A-13(f)(6)) goods or services (as defined in Sec. 1.170A-
13(f)(5)) is a contribution or gift within the meaning of section
170(c) unless the taxpayer (i) intends to make a payment in an amount
that exceeds the fair market value of the goods or services; and (ii)
makes a payment in an amount that exceeds the fair market value of the
goods or services.
Section 1.170A-1(h)(2) states that the charitable contribution
deduction under section 170(a) may not exceed the amount of cash paid
and the fair market value of property transferred to an organization
described in section 170(c) over the fair market value of goods or
[[Page 68837]]
services the organization provides in return. Section 1.170A-13(f)(5)
defines goods or services as cash, property, services, benefits, and
privileges. Section 1.170A-13(f)(6) provides that a donee provides
goods or services in consideration for a taxpayer's payment if, at the
time the taxpayer makes a payment to the donee, the taxpayer receives
or expects to receive goods or services in exchange for that payment.
Section 1.170A-1(h)(3)(iii) defines ``in consideration for'' for
purposes of determining whether a state or local tax credit should
reduce a charitable contribution under section 170. This section
provides that the term ``in consideration for'' shall have the meaning
set forth in Sec. 1.170A-13(f)(6), except that the state or local tax
credit need not be provided by the donee organization.
Some commenters on the 2018 proposed regulations interpreted the
definition of ``in consideration for'' under Sec. 1.170A-13(f)(6) to
suggest that consideration provided by a third party is disregarded in
calculating the charitable contribution deduction, and that Sec.
1.170A-1(h)(3)(iii) of the proposed regulations provided an exception
from this rule solely for state or local tax credits provided by third
parties. Other commenters disagreed with this interpretation and
suggested that the final regulations should set forth a general rule
clarifying that consideration includes all benefits that a taxpayer
receives or expects to receive, regardless of whether they are provided
by the donee.
In the preamble to the final regulations, the Treasury Department
and the IRS acknowledged that the final regulations did not address all
situations in which a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property
and receives or expect to receive benefits from a party that is not the
donee. Accordingly, the preamble to the final regulations indicated
that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to propose amendments
to the regulations under section 170 to make clear that the quid pro
quo principle applies regardless of whether the party providing the
quid pro quo is the donee.
As noted in the preamble to the final regulations, in American Bar
Endowment, 477 U.S. at 116-17, and Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S.
680, 691-92 (1989), the Supreme Court made clear that a payment is not
a charitable contribution if the donor expects to receive a substantial
benefit in return. American Bar Endowment and Hernandez did not
directly address the question of benefits provided by third parties;
the return benefits at issue in those cases were provided by the
donees. However, the Court derived the quid pro quo principle in those
cases from a lower court decision and a revenue ruling that directly
addressed the question. See American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. at 117
(citing Singer v. United States, 449 F.2d 413 (Ct. Cl. 1971), and Rev.
Rul. 67-246, 1967-2 C.B. 104); Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 691 (citing
Singer). In Singer, the appellate division of the Court of Claims (the
predecessor to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) held that
a sewing machine company was not eligible for a charitable contribution
deduction for selling sewing machines to schools at a discount because
the company ``expected a return in the nature of future increased
sales'' to students. Singer, 449 F.2d at 423-24. In so holding, the
court expressly rejected the company's argument that this expected
benefit should be ignored because it would come from the students
rather than from the schools. Id. at 422-23. The court stated,
``Obviously, we cannot agree with plaintiff's distinction.'' Id.
In Rev. Rul. 67-246, Example 11, a local store agreed to award a
transistor radio, worth $15, to each person who contributed $50 or more
to a specific charity. The ruling concluded that if a taxpayer received
a $15 radio as a result of a $100 payment to the charity, only $85
qualified as a charitable contribution deduction. It did not matter
that the donor received the $15 radio from the store, a third party,
rather than from the charity. This conclusion is reflected in the IRS's
audit practices. See IRS Conservation Easement Audit Techniques Guide
(Rev. Jan. 24, 2018, p. 16) (stating that a ``quid pro quo contribution
is a transfer of money or property . . . partly in exchange for goods
or services in return from the charity or a third party,'' and ``a quid
pro quo may also be in the form of an indirect benefit from a third
party'').
Moreover, courts have ruled that a taxpayer's expectation of
significant financial returns demonstrates a lack of charitable intent.
For example, in Ottawa Silica Co. v. United States, 699 F.2d 1124 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), the Federal Circuit denied a taxpayer's charitable
contribution deduction for the value of land the taxpayer donated for
construction of a school. The court's analysis focused on the
taxpayer's expectation of benefits, and not on the source of such
benefits. The court found that the taxpayer had reason to believe that
construction of a school would result in the construction of new roads
that would in turn increase the value of the taxpayer's retained land.
The court recognized that although the taxpayer did not receive an
agreement from any party that the roads would be built, the expectation
of this benefit was a sufficient reason to deny the charitable
contribution deduction. More recently, in Wendell Falls Development,
LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-45, a taxpayer contributed a
conservation easement that essentially restricted land for use as a
park. The taxpayer expected this restriction to increase the value of
the taxpayer's adjacent property. The Tax Court disallowed the
taxpayer's claimed charitable contribution deduction for the easement,
finding that the taxpayer contributed the easement with the expectation
of receiving a substantial benefit (increased value of taxpayer's
adjacent property) from the contribution, even though the expected
benefit would not come from the donee. In accordance with these
authorities, the source of the return benefit is immaterial in
determining whether the donee at the time of the contribution expects
to receive substantial benefits in return.
The quid pro quo principle is thus equally applicable regardless of
whether the donor expects to receive the benefit from the donee or from
a third party. In either case, the donor's payment is not a charitable
contribution or gift to the extent that the donor expects a substantial
benefit in return. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS
propose amendments to Sec. 1.170A-1(h) that address a donor's payments
in exchange for consideration in order for the regulation to reflect
existing law. Specifically, these proposed amendments revise paragraph
(h)(4) to provide definitions of ``in consideration for'' and ``goods
and services'' for purposes of applying the rules in Sec. 1.170A-1(h).
Under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer will be treated as receiving
goods and services in consideration for a taxpayer's payment or
transfer to an entity described in section 170(c) if, at the time the
taxpayer makes the payment or transfer, the taxpayer receives or
expects to receive goods or services in return.
The proposed regulations do not amend the language of Sec. 1.170A-
13(f)(6) which discusses ``in consideration for'' for purposes of
determining whether the taxpayer provides proper substantiation of its
charitable contribution. Section 1.170A-13(f) details the requirements
of a contemporaneous written acknowledgment, including a statement of
whether the donee organization provides any goods or services in
consideration for any cash or other property transferred to the donee
organization and a description and a
[[Page 68838]]
good faith estimate of the value of those goods or services. See Sec.
1.170A-13(f)(2)(ii) and (iii). These substantiation provisions refer
only to written acknowledgments from donee organizations and do not
address the application of quid pro quo principles to benefits received
from parties other than donees. The Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on whether guidance concerning substantiation and
reporting of quid pro quo benefits provided or expected to be provided
by third parties, including state governments, would be beneficial to
taxpayers in demonstrating that they have given more than they received
or expected to receive and to the IRS in administering the proposed
regulation. In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS request
comments regarding the manner by which donors, donees, or third parties
may report or provide substantiation for the value or type of
consideration received or expected to be received from third parties.
For additional clarity, the proposed regulation amends the language
in Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(2)(i)(B) to clarify that the fair market value of
goods and services includes the value of goods and services provided by
parties other than the donee. Also, the proposed regulation adds a
definition of ``goods and services'' that is the same as the definition
in Sec. 1.170A-13(f)(5). Finally, the proposed regulation revises the
cross-references defining ``in consideration for'' and ``goods and
services'' in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3)(iii) to be consistent with
the proposed definitions provided in paragraph (h)(4).
Proposed Applicability Dates
The proposed amendments contained in Sec. Sec. 1.162-15(a)(1) and
(2) and 1.170A-1(c)(5), regarding the application of section 162 to
taxpayers that make payments or transfers to entities described in
section 170(c), are proposed to apply to payments or transfers on or
after December 17, 2019. However, a taxpayer may rely on these proposed
regulations for payments and transfers made on or after January 1, 2018
and before the date regulations finalizing these proposed regulations
are published in the Federal Register.
The proposed amendment contained in Sec. 1.162-15(a)(3), regarding
safe harbors for C corporations and specified passthrough entities
making payments to or for the use of section 170(c) entities in
exchange for state or local tax credits, is proposed to apply to
payments on or after December 17, 2019. However, prior to this date, a
taxpayer may continue to apply Rev. Proc. 2019-12, which applies to
payments made on or after January 1, 2018.
The proposed amendments contained in Sec. Sec. 1.164-3(j) and
1.170A-1(h)(3)(ix), regarding the safe harbor for payments by certain
individuals to or for the use of section 170(c) entities, are proposed
to apply to payments made on or after June 11, 2019, the date that the
IRS issued Notice 2019-12, announcing it intended to publish proposed
regulations with a safe harbor under section 164 for individuals who
make payments to section 170(c) entities in return for state or local
tax credits. However, individuals may rely on these proposed
regulations for payments made after August 27, 2018, the applicability
date of the final regulations, and before the date regulations
finalizing these proposed regulations are published in the Federal
Register.
Finally, the proposed amendments contained in Sec. Sec. 1.170A-
1(h)(1), (h)(2)(i)(B), (h)(3)(iii), and (h)(4)(i), and 1.170A-13(f)(7)
clarifying ``in consideration for'' for purposes of applying Sec.
1.170A-1(h) are proposed to apply to payments or transfers on or after
December 17, 2019.
Special Analyses
Regulatory Planning and Review--Economic Analysis
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.
Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in
the rule's economic analysis.
These proposed regulations have been designated as subject to
review under Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of
Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding review of tax
regulations. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
designated these regulations as significant under section 1(b) of the
MOA. Accordingly, the OMB has reviewed these regulations.
A. Background
Section 164 of the Code allows a deduction for certain state and
local taxes paid, including state or local income and property taxes.
Section 164(b)(6), added by the TCJA, generally limits an individual's
deduction of these taxes to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married
individual filing a separate return). The limitation does not apply to
foreign income taxes or to property taxes that are paid or incurred in
carrying on a trade or business or an activity described in section
212. Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses
paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business. Section 170 allows
a deduction for charitable contributions, specifically for payments or
transfers to an entity described in section 170(c); however, the
deduction must be reduced by any quid pro quo benefit that the taxpayer
receives or expects to receive in return.
After the enactment of the TCJA, questions arose regarding the
interaction of these deductions. To clarify the application of these
provisions, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued guidance
including: (1) Final regulations (T.D. 9864, 84 FR 27513) providing
that a tax credit received or expected to be received in return for a
payment or transfer to an entity described in section 170(c) (hereafter
referred to as a charitable entity) is a return benefit to the
taxpayer, resulting in the reduction of the charitable contribution
deduction; (2) Notice 2019-12 announcing the intent to issue proposed
regulations providing a safe harbor for individuals under which a
charitable contribution that is disallowed because of a return benefit
of a state or local tax credit may be treated as a payment of state or
local tax; and (3) Rev. Proc. 2019-12 providing a safe harbor allowing
as a deductible business expense certain payments by businesses to
charitable organizations.
B. Need for the Proposed Regulations
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is appropriate
to propose as regulations and seek additional public comment on the
safe harbors provided in Notice 2019-12 and Rev. Proc. 2019-12. In
addition, comments received in response to Notice 2018-54 and the 2018
proposed regulations (guidance preceding the final regulations T.D.
9864) indicate that taxpayers will benefit from additional guidance
regarding contributions to a charitable entity resulting in a return
benefit from a third party.
[[Page 68839]]
C. Overview of the Proposed Regulations
First, these proposed regulations reflect the guidance in Notice
2019-12. Under the safe harbor an individual who itemizes deductions
and who makes a payment to a charitable entity in exchange for a state
or local tax credit may be able to claim a state and local tax
deduction for the portion of the payment for which a charitable
contribution deduction is or will be disallowed as a return benefit.
The safe harbor for individuals applies only to payments of cash and
cash equivalents. In addition, these payments are subject to the
overall limitation on state and local deductions added by the TCJA.
Further, any payment may be deducted under only one provision of the
Code. Thus, an individual who has total state and local tax liability
of $10,000 or less, and who makes a payment to a charitable entity and
receives a state tax credit in return resulting in the disallowance of
a charitable contribution deduction, may claim an itemized deduction
for the disallowed amount, subject to other requirements of the Code.
Second, the proposed regulations incorporate into the regulations
under section 162 longstanding principles from case law and existing
section 170 regulations regarding a taxpayer's payment or transfer to a
charitable entity. Specifically, the proposed regulations confirm that,
when a taxpayer's transfer or payment bears a direct relationship to
its trade or business, and that transfer or payment is made with a
reasonable expectation of commensurate financial return, the transfer
or payment to the charitable entity may constitute an allowable
deduction under section 162, rather than under section 170. In
addition, the proposed regulations incorporate the safe harbors
provided by Rev. Proc. 2019-12 for certain payments by C corporations
and specified passthrough entities, for cases in which the financial
return is a tax credit. Thus, under the proposed regulations, a C
corporation may treat the portion of the payment to a charitable entity
that is equal to the amount of tax credit received or expected to be
received in return as a deductible business expense under section 162.
Consistent with Rev. Proc. 2019-12, the proposed regulations also
provide that a specified passthrough entity may treat a payment
resulting in a tax credit as a business expense if the business is
regarded as separate from its owner for Federal tax purposes, if it
operates a trade or business within the meaning of section 162, if it
is subject to state or local tax incurred in carrying on its trade or
business that is imposed directly on the passthrough entity, and if it
receives or expects to receive a state or local tax credit in return
for the payment.
Third, the proposed regulations clarify that a payment to a
charitable entity that results in a return benefit is a quid pro quo
for purposes of section 170, regardless of whether the donor expects to
receive the benefit from the donee or from a third party. As a result,
the contribution is reduced by the amount of the return benefit for
purposes of determining the amount allowable as a charitable
contribution deduction.
D. Economic Analysis
1. Baseline
The Treasury Department and the IRS have assessed the benefits and
costs of these proposed regulations compared to a no-action baseline
that reflects anticipated Federal income tax-related behavior in the
absence of these proposed regulations.
2. Summary of Economic Effects
The proposed regulations reflect existing, published, Treasury
Department and IRS policies. As a result, they provide some additional
clarity to taxpayers by clearly articulating these existing policies as
regulations. The Treasury Department does not expect any noticeable
change in taxpayer behavior resulting from these regulations, but
requests comments on their potential economic effects. The increased
clarity, in particular the provision of safe harbors, is expected to
reduce compliance burdens.
As described in the Special Analyses for the final regulations
(T.D. 9864), allowing a payment that is disallowed as a charitable
contribution deduction because of the receipt or expected receipt of a
tax credit to be deducted as a payment of state or local tax means that
payments by taxpayers with state and local tax liabilities of $10,000
or less are subject to the same tax treatment under these proposed
regulations as under the TCJA (in absence of any guidance) and as under
the law prior to the TCJA. (See Example 2, Table 1, T.D. 9864.) It also
means that such taxpayers are not treated less favorably than taxpayers
with state and local tax liabilities in excess of $10,000 or taxpayers
subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. (See Examples 1 and 3 of Table
1, T.D. 9864.)
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the
economic effects of the proposed regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it
is hereby certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although
data are not readily available for the IRS and the Treasury Department
to assess the number of small entities that are likely to be directly
affected by the regulations, the economic impact is unlikely to be
significant.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the proposed rule largely
updates the regulations to reflect existing law and policy. The
proposed amendments would update the section 162 and section 170
regulations to reflect current law. In addition, the proposed
amendments add to the regulations safe harbors under section 162 and
section 164, regarding deductions when payments are made to entities
described in section 170(c) and the donor receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit in return; these safe harbors were
provided previously in Internal Revenue Bulletin guidance. These
regulations are expected to provide some additional certainty to
taxpayers but are not expected to result in any noticeable change in
taxpayer behavior. The increased certainty, and in particular the
provision of safe harbors, is expected to reduce compliance burdens.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS certify that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding this certification, the Treasury Department and the
IRS invite comments about the potential impact of this proposed rule on
small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), the proposed regulations will be
submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
Comments and Requests and Public Hearing
Before the regulations proposed herein are adopted as final
regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written
comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this
preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. All comments submitted will be
made available at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public
hearing has been scheduled for February, 20, 2020, beginning at 10 a.m.
in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security
[[Page 68840]]
procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In
addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the
building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted
beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the
hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the
building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who
wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit an outline of
the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by
January 31, 2020. Submit a signed paper or electronic copy of the
outline as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. An
agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after
the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda
will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Statement of Availability of IRS Documents
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices, and other
guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at https://www.irs.gov.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these proposed regulations is the Office of
the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in
their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
0
Par. 2. Section 1.162-15 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1.162-15 Contributions, dues, etc.
(a) Payments and transfers to entities described in section
170(c)--(1) In general. A payment or transfer to or for the use of an
entity described in section 170(c) that bears a direct relationship to
the taxpayer's trade or business and that is made with a reasonable
expectation of financial return commensurate with the amount of the
payment or transfer may constitute an allowable deduction as a trade or
business expense rather than a charitable contribution deduction under
section 170. For payments or transfers in excess of the amount
deductible under section 162(a), see Sec. 1.170A-1(h).
(2) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
(i) Example 1. A, an individual, is a sole proprietor who
manufactures musical instruments and sells them through a website. A
makes a $1,000 payment to a local church (which is a charitable
organization described in section 170(c)) for a half-page
advertisement in the church's program for a concert. In the program,
the church thanks its concert sponsors, including A. A's
advertisement includes the URL for the website through which A sells
its instruments. A reasonably expects that the advertisement will
attract new customers to A's website and will help A to sell more
musical instruments. A may treat the $1,000 payment as an expense of
carrying on a trade or business under section 162.
(ii) Example 2. P, a partnership, operates a chain of
supermarkets, some of which are located in State N. P operates a
promotional program in which it sets aside the proceeds from one
percent of its sales each year, which it pays to one or more
charities described in section 170(c). The funds are earmarked for
use in projects that improve conditions in State N. P makes the
final determination on which charities receive payments. P
advertises the program. P reasonably believes the program will
generate a significant degree of name recognition and goodwill in
the communities where it operates and thereby increase its revenue.
As part of the program, P makes a $1,000 payment to a charity
described in section 170(c). P may treat the $1,000 payment as an
expense of carrying on a trade or business under section 162. This
result is unchanged if, under State N's tax credit program, P
expects to receive a $1,000 income tax credit on account of P's
payment, and under State N law, the credit can be passed through to
P's partners.
(3) Safe harbors for C corporations and specified passthrough
entities making payments in exchange for state or local tax credits--
(i) Safe harbor for C corporations. If a C corporation makes a payment
to or for the use of an entity described in section 170(c) and receives
or expects to receive in return a state or local tax credit that
reduces a state or local tax imposed on the C corporation, the C
corporation may treat such payment as meeting the requirements of an
ordinary and necessary business expense for purposes of section 162(a)
to the extent of the amount of the credit received or expected to be
received.
(ii) Safe harbor for specified passthrough entities--(A) Definition
of specified passthrough entity. For purposes of this paragraph
(a)(3)(ii), an entity is a specified passthrough entity if each of the
following requirements is satisfied--
(1) The entity is a business entity other than a C corporation and
is regarded for all Federal income tax purposes as separate from its
owners under Sec. 301.7701-3 of this chapter;
(2) The entity operates a trade or business within the meaning of
section 162;
(3) The entity is subject to a state or local tax incurred in
carrying on its trade or business that is imposed directly on the
entity; and
(4) In return for a payment to an entity described in section
170(c), the entity described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) of this
section receives or expects to receive a state or local tax credit that
this entity applies or expects to apply to offset a state or local tax
described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this section.
(B) Safe harbor. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) of
this section, if a specified passthrough entity makes a payment to or
for the use of an entity described in section 170(c), and receives or
expects to receive in return a state or local tax credit that reduces a
state or local tax described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(3) of this
section, the specified passthrough entity may treat such payment as
meeting the requirements of an ordinary and necessary business expense
for purposes of section 162(a) to the extent of the amount of credit
received or expected to be received.
(C) Exception. The safe harbor described in this paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) does not apply if the credit received or expected to be
received reduces a state or local income tax.
(iii) Definition of payment. For purposes of this paragraph (a)(3),
payment is defined as a payment of cash or cash equivalent.
(iv) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(A) Example 1: C corporation that receives or expects to receive
dollar-for-dollar state or local tax credit. A, a C corporation
engaged in a trade or business, makes a payment of $1,000 to an
entity described in section 170(c). In return for the payment, A
expects to receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit to be
applied to A's state corporate income tax liability. Under paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, A may treat the $1,000 payment as
[[Page 68841]]
an expense of carrying on a trade or business under section 162.
(B) Example 2: C corporation that receives or expects to receive
percentage-based state or local tax credit. B, a C corporation
engaged in a trade or business, makes a payment of $1,000 to an
entity described in section 170(c). In return for the payment, B
expects to receive a local tax credit equal to 80 percent of the
amount of this payment ($800) to be applied to B's local real
property tax liability. Under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, B
may treat $800 as an expense of carrying on a trade or business
under section 162. The treatment of the remaining $200 will depend
upon the facts and circumstances and is not affected by paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
(C) Example 3: Partnership that receives or expects to receive
dollar-for-dollar state or local tax credit. P is a limited
liability company classified as a partnership for Federal income tax
purposes under Sec. 301.7701-3 of this chapter. P is engaged in a
trade or business and makes a payment of $1,000 to an entity
described in section 170(c). In return for the payment, P expects to
receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit to be applied to P's
state excise tax liability incurred by P in carrying on its trade or
business. Under applicable state law, the state's excise tax is
imposed at the entity level (not the owner level). Under paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, P may treat the $1,000 as an expense of
carrying on a trade or business under section 162.
(D) Example 4: S corporation that receives or expects to receive
percentage-based state or local tax credit. S is an S corporation
engaged in a trade or business and is owned by individuals C and D.
S makes a payment of $1,000 to an entity described in section
170(c). In return for the payment, S expects to receive a local tax
credit equal to 80 percent of the amount of this payment ($800) to
be applied to S's local real property tax liability incurred by S in
carrying on its trade or business. Under applicable state and local
law, the real property tax is imposed at the entity level (not the
owner level). Under paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, S may
treat $800 of the payment as an expense of carrying on a trade or
business under section 162. The treatment of the remaining $200 will
depend upon the facts and circumstances and is not affected by
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(v) Applicability of section 170 to payments in exchange for state
or local tax benefits. For rules regarding the availability of a
charitable contribution deduction under section 170 where a taxpayer
makes a payment or transfers property to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c) and receives or expects to receive a state
or local tax benefit in return for such payment, see Sec. 1.170A-
1(h)(3).
(4) Applicability dates. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section,
regarding the application of section 162 to taxpayers making payments
or transfers to entities described in section 170(c), apply to payments
or transfers on or after December 17, 2019. However, taxpayers may
choose to apply paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to payments and transfers on
or after January 1, 2018. Paragraph (a)(3) of this section, regarding
the safe harbors for C corporations and specified passthrough entities
making payments to section 170(c) entities in exchange for state or
local tax credits applies to payments made by these entities on or
after December 17, 2019. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the
safe harbors of paragraph (a)(3) to payments on or after January 1,
2018.
* * * * *
0
Par. 3. Section 1.164-3 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.164-3 Definitions and special rules.
* * * * *
(j) Safe harbor for payments by individuals in exchange for state
or local tax credits--(1) In general. An individual who itemizes
deductions and who makes a payment to or for the use of an entity
described in section 170(c) in consideration for a state or local tax
credit may treat as a payment of state or local tax for purposes of
section 164 the portion of such payment for which a charitable
contribution deduction under section 170 is disallowed under Sec.
1.170A-1(h)(3). This treatment as payment of state or local tax under
section 164(a) is allowed in the taxable year in which the payment is
made to the extent that the resulting credit is applied, consistent
with applicable state or local law, to offset the individual's state or
local tax liability for such taxable year or the preceding taxable
year.
(2) Credits carried forward. To the extent that a state or local
tax credit described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section is not applied
to offset the individual's applicable state or local tax liability for
the taxable year of the payment or the preceding taxable year, any
excess state or local tax credit permitted to be carried forward may be
treated as a payment of state or local tax under section 164(a) in the
taxable year or years for which the carryover credit is applied in
accordance with state or local law.
(3) Limitation on individual deductions. Nothing in this paragraph
(j) may be construed as permitting a taxpayer who applies this safe
harbor to avoid the limitations of section 164(b)(6) for any amount
paid as a tax or treated under this paragraph (j) as a payment of tax.
(4) No safe harbor for transfers of property. The safe harbor
provided in this paragraph (j) applies only to a payment of cash or
cash equivalent.
(5) Coordination with other deductions. An individual who deducts a
payment under section 164 may not also deduct the same payment under
any other Code section.
(6) Examples. In the following examples, assume that the taxpayer
is an individual who itemizes deductions for Federal income tax
purposes.
(i) Example 1. In year 1, Taxpayer A makes a payment of $500 to
an entity described in section 170(c). In return for the payment, A
receives a dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit. Prior to
application of the credit, A's state income tax liability for year 1
was more than $500. A applies the $500 credit to A's year 1 state
income tax liability. Under paragraph (j)(1) of this section, A
treats the $500 payment as a payment of state income tax in year 1.
To determine A's deduction amount, A must apply the provisions of
section 164 applicable to payments of state and local taxes,
including the limitation in section 164(b)(6). See paragraph (j)(3)
of this section.
(ii) Example 2. In year 1, Taxpayer B makes a payment of $7,000
to an entity described in section 170(c). In return for the payment,
B receives a dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit, which under
state law may be carried forward for three taxable years. Prior to
application of the credit, B's state income tax liability for year 1
was $5,000; B applies $5,000 of the $7,000 credit to B's year 1
state income tax liability. Under paragraph (j)(1) of this section,
B treats $5,000 of the $7,000 payment as a payment of state income
tax in year 1. Prior to application of the remaining credit, B's
state income tax liability for year 2 exceeds $2,000. B applies the
excess credit of $2,000 to B's year 2 state income tax liability.
For year 2, under paragraph (j)(2) of this section, B treats the
$2,000 as a payment of state income tax under section 164. To
determine B's deduction amounts in years 1 and 2, B must apply the
provisions of section 164 applicable to payments of state and local
taxes, including the limitation under section 164(b)(6). See
paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
(iii) Example 3. In year 1, Taxpayer C makes a payment of $7,000
to an entity described in section 170(c). In return for the payment,
C receives a local real property tax credit equal to 25 percent of
the amount of this payment ($1,750). Prior to application of the
credit, C's local real property tax liability in year 1 was more
than $1,750. C applies the $1,750 credit to C's year 1 local real
property tax liability. Under paragraph (j)(1) of this section, for
year 1, C treats $1,750 of her $7,000 payment as a payment of local
real property tax for purposes of section 164. To determine C's
deduction amount, C must apply the provisions of section 164
applicable to payments of state and local taxes, including the
limitation under section 164(b)(6). See paragraph (j)(3) of this
section.
(7) Applicability date. This paragraph (j) applies to payments made
to section 170(c) entities on or after June 11, 2019. However, a
taxpayer may choose to apply this paragraph (j) to payments made to
section 170(c) entities after August 27, 2018.
[[Page 68842]]
0
Par. 4. Section 1.170A-1 is amended as follows:
0
1. Paragraph (c)(5) is revised.
0
2. In paragraph (h)(1), remove the cross-references to ``Sec. 1.170A-
13(f)(6)'' and ``Sec. 1.170A-13(f)(5)'' and add in their places
``paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section'' and ``paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of
this section'', respectively.
0
3. Paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(B) and (h)(3)(iii) are revised.
0
4. Paragraph (h)(3)(viii) is redesignated as paragraph (h)(3)(x).
0
5. New paragraph (h)(3)(viii) and paragraph (h)(3)(ix) are added.
0
6. Paragraphs (h)(4) through (6) are redesignated as paragraphs (h)(5)
through (7).
0
7. New paragraph (h)(4) is added.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1.170A-1 Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts; allowance
of deduction.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) For payments or transfers to an entity described in section
170(c) by a taxpayer carrying on a trade or business, see Sec. 1.162-
15(a).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The fair market value of the goods or services received or
expected to be received in return.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) In consideration for. For purposes of paragraph (h) of this
section, the term in consideration for has the meaning set forth in
paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(viii) Safe harbor for payments by C corporations and specified
passthrough entities. For payments by a C corporation or by a specified
passthrough entity to an entity described in section 170(c), where the
C corporation or specified passthrough entity receives or expects to
receive a state or local tax credit that reduces the charitable
contribution deduction for such payments under paragraph (h)(3) of this
section, see Sec. 1.162-15(a)(3) (providing safe harbors under section
162(a) to the extent of that reduction).
(ix) Safe harbor for individuals. Under certain circumstances, an
individual who itemizes deductions and makes a payment to an entity
described in section 170(c) in consideration for a state or local tax
credit may treat the portion of such payment for which a charitable
contribution deduction is disallowed under paragraph (h)(3) of this
section as a payment of state or local taxes under section 164. See
Sec. 1.164-3(j), providing a safe harbor for certain payments by
individuals in exchange for state or local tax.
* * * * *
(4) Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph (h), the following
definitions apply:
(i) In consideration for. A taxpayer receives goods or services in
consideration for a taxpayer's payment or transfer to an entity
described in section 170(c) if, at the time the taxpayer makes the
payment to such entity, the taxpayer receives or expects to receive
goods or services from that entity or any other party in return.
(ii) Goods or services. Goods or services means cash, property,
services, benefits, and privileges.
(iii) Applicability date. The definitions provided in this
paragraph (h)(4) are applicable for amounts paid or property
transferred on or after December 17, 2019.
* * * * *
Sec. 1.170A-13 [Amended]
0
Par. 5. Section 1.170A-13(f)(7) is amended by removing the cross-
reference to ``Sec. 1.170A-1(h)(5)'' and adding in its place ``Sec.
1.170A-1(h)(6).''
Sunita Lough,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019-26969 Filed 12-13-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P