Search This Blog

Showing posts with label TCJA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TCJA. Show all posts

Sunday, December 22, 2024

7th Anniversary of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Enactment

part of page 1 of Public Law 115-97 text

P.L. 115-97, An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), was signed into law on December 22, 2017. It had many changes including significant ones such as a permanent change from a progressive corporate rate structure of 15% to 35% to a flat 21% on a permanent basis. Most of the 160 million individual filers got a tax reduction but on a temporary basis for 2018 through 2025 due to a drop in where tax rates begin, almost doubling of the standard deduction and a $2,000 rather than $1,000 child tax credit.

Most of the individual tax cuts and tax increases were only put into the TCJA for 2018 through 2025. That is, the TCJA had expiration dates for many tax cuts and tax increases (such as the $10,000 SALT cap and disallowance of a deduction for home equity interest). It also had built-in tax increases with significant ones affecting businesses already in effect such and capitalizing R&D rather than expensing it and phasedown of 100% bonus depreciation.

I have a list of the temporary provisions as well as the tax increases that have already started and ones to start after 2025 at the end of this post.  I also have track changes for some of the TCJA changes from this January 2018 blog post.

While we are hearing a lot about extending the individual and estate tax cuts, there are non-TCJA provisions that expire at the end of 2025 including the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, New Markets Tax Credit and enhanced Premium Tax Credit (PTC). For a list of all expiring provisions, see this JCT report issued every January - JCX-1-24 (1/11/24).

Will the expiring provisions all just be renewed including those that expired a few years ago (R&D, §163(j) formula, bonus depreciation at 100%)? Is this the best mix of tax changes for an effective tax law?  For example, the disallowance of miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2%-of-AGI floor is contrary to the operation of an income tax as these include expenditures to produce taxable income such as hobby expenses (up to hobby income), investment expenses and unreimbursed employee business expenses. There are easily over 50 tax expenditures that don't belong in the tax law that could be modified or eliminated to enable for permanent lower rates and an even higher child tax credit for low-to-middle income taxpayers. These include the mortgage interest deduction, exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and other fringe benefits (these could be reduced based on income level and subject to a cap), the higher standard deduction for the elderly or tie it to income, and more.

Will we see a discussion of what changes are best for economic growth? Items other than the expiring or expired provisions?  We'll see.

What do you think?


List of expiring or expired provisions: (tax increases built into TCJA as enacted 12/22/17):

        International Provisions:

        tyba 12/31/25, deduction for GILTI reduced from 50% (10.5% US tax rate) to 37.5% (13.125% US tax rate)

        tyba 12/31/25, FDII deduction reduced to 21.875% (16.406% effective tax rate on FDII) compared to 37.5% deduction (13.125% effective tax rate on FDII) for 2018 through 2025.

        tyba 12/31/25, BEAT rate increases from 10% to 12.5%

        BEAT = Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (§59A and Form 8991)

        Business Provisions:

        §174 expensing converted to capitalization and amortization for tyba 12/31/21.

        100% bonus depreciation started to phasedown starting in 2023 (80%), continuing to no bonus in 2027.

        §163(j) business interest expense became less taxpayer favorable starting for tyba 12/31/21. Prior to that time, add back depreciation, amortization and depreciation to adjusted taxable income (ATI) which is the limitation.  Today, don’t add it back making ATI smaller.

        §199A Qualified Business Income Deduction ends after 2025.

        §274(o) – no deduction for meals provided at convenience of employer including for operating facility for the meals starting for amounts paid or incurred after 12/31/25.

        Individual Provisions:

        It is a long list including of tax cuts and tax increases. Temporary tax cuts included the higher standard deduction, $2,000 rather than $1,000 child tax credit, lowered brackets and a few others. Temporary tax increases included disallowance of interest on home equity debt, no deduction for miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2% of AGI threshold, the $10,000 SALT cap and others. See complete list from the JCT here.


Wednesday, December 21, 2022

5th Anniversary of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - 12/22/22

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) was signed into law on December 22, 2017. This was a budget reconciliation bill so only needed 51 votes in the Senate rather than 60. Among many things, this means the official name of the bill has the word "reconciliation" in it (an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018).

The TCJA was primarily intended to make the corporate tax system more internationally competitive by lowering the corporate rate (from a high of 35% to a flat 21%) and make the international system a semi-territorial one rather than worldwide.  But, not all businesses operate as C corporations and the TCJA included the §199A qualified business income deduction to provide a rate reduction for business income of sole proprietors, partners and others, with a few exceptions. But that provision is only in the law through 2025 while the 21% corporate rate is permanent (pending any congressional action to change it).

There are many temporary provisions in the TCJA, several of which are built-in tax increases. Here is most of that list.

  • Beer, wine and distilled spirits – special rule on interest capitalization (§263A(f)(4) and excise tax rates was to expire 12/31/20 but was made permanent by CAA-21 (PL 116-260; 12/27/20).
  • §45S, Employer credit for paid family and medical leave, terminated for wages paid in tyba 12/31/20, but was extended 5 years by CAA-21 (PL 116-260; 12/27/20) (to 12/31/25).
  • Staring in tax years beginning after 12/31/21 businesses with R&D must capitalize their total R&D expenditures (§174) each year and amortize them over 5 years using the half-year convention (15 years for foreign research).  This is a BIG change since expensing has been the law since 1954. The effect is significant. For example, if a business had $100,000 or domestic R&D in 2022, rathe rather than expensing $100,000 in 2022, they can only expense $10,000 in 2022 and the balance is expensed (amortized) over 2023 to 2017).
  • The §163(j) interest limitation calculation becomes less favorable for tax years beginning after 12/31/21 (depreciation, amortization and depletion will reduce adjusted taxable income).
  • 100% bonus depreciation of §168(k) begins to phase down generally for property placed in service after 12/31/22 through 12/31/26. For 2023, it will be 80% bonus.
  • The deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) are reduced from 37.5% to 21.875% for FDII and from 50% to 37.5% for GILTI for tax years beginning after 12/31/25.
  • Individual provisions expire after 2025 such as doubled child tax creidt, higher standard deduction, lowered brackets, SALT cap.
  • The §461(l) business loss limitation for non-corporate taxpayers expires after 2028 (years changed to 2021 through 2028 by a few post-TCJA public laws).

If there are to be any changes to TCJA now or in very near future, I'd recommend:
  1. Repeal the §174 change. It is simpler and better encourages R&D to allow for it to be expensed when incurred.
  2. Remove the SALT cap for state and local taxes attributable to business income such as is on Schedules C, E and F. These business taxes should be deductible FOR AGI.
  3. Make the Child Tax Credit fully refundable. 
  4. Repeal the individual AMT.
What do you think?


Sunday, January 31, 2021

We Need More Tax Policy Discussion

We have a few proposed changes under consideration that very much need a deep policy discussion rather than only a cost estimate and a general like or dislike. Here are three such items:

1. What is an appropriate phase-out rule for the next economic impact payments? The current ones cause a credit to still be allowed for high income taxpayers who have a few children. The CASH Act (H.R. 9051; 116th Congress) that the House passed late 2020, called for EIP of $2,000 including for dependents. If a married couple has 4 dependents, they credit would be $12,000. The phaseout rule would not cause this entire credit to reach $0 until AGI reached $390,000!  That is not an income level in need of assistance typically.

2. Should the TCJA be made permanent? On 12/22/20, Senator Grassley sent a letter to President-elect Biden suggesting this. While this could be done with a single piece of legislation, it really needs major tax policy discussions. This should include what the goals were of the TCJA beyond the need to reduce the corporate tax rate and move the international tax system for businesses to be more territorial rather than worldwide. Examples of things to discuss:

  • What is the proper rate structure for all buisnesses and individuals. For individuals, a discussion of progressivity and relevance for capital gains and ordinary income as well as looking at the impact at each quintile as well as top 1% and further breakdown that top 1% given the income range from 6 figures to 9 figures.
  • Besides the rate, the base is crucial. What are appropriate deductions and exclusions and phaseouts for any of them?
  • The TCJA denied deductions to employers for certain employee fringe benefits. Seems the more appropriate policy is to allow the business to deduct its normal business expenses and any desire to have wage income equal wage deductions should be done via repeal of certain fringe benefits. Also, transparency and accountability are missing from one of these changes - the denial of a deduction by an employer providing qualified transportation fringe benefits. Why wasn't that prohibition put in section 162 or at a new section 280I? Placing it in section 274(a)(4) makes the exceptions at section 274(e) applicable so some of these QTF expenses are actually deductible.
  • And there is more.  And just a reminder that for the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there were extensive reports written in advance and lots of hearings (for about a year).

3. Should the TCJA $10,000 SALT cap be changed and how? The policy discussion need to include is the point of limiting all taxes of individuals? This is not a new topic as denial of the deduction was proposed back with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The current SALT cap includes state and local income taxes that sole proprietors and partners pay on their business income even though corporations have no such limitation. Such taxes should be a deduction for AGI. A common argument about tax deductions is that they are mandatory payments. That is true, but some have some optional aspects to them. For example, if someone buys a very large home or a second home, that is their choice. Why should they deduct all of their property taxes? That deduction can be limited to the property taxes on a median priced/sized home for that county and just one home. These are just examples of some of the discussions needed here. This makes more sense than writing regs and encouraging states to enact optional or mandatory income taxes on partnerships and S corporations which the IRS has said it will treat as above the line even though the owners still report the income on their federal income tax return. [See Notice 2020-75]

What do you think?

Thursday, October 22, 2020

34th Anniversary of TRA86 Enactment - What's Changed and Still Needed?

On October 22, 1986, President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (PL 99-514). Take a look at this picture at the Social Security Administration website to see a group of men from the tax committees cheerily watching the president sign the bill outside of the White House. At the time, we had a Republican president and controlled Senate and a Democrat controlled House, all working together and holding numerous hearings about the reforms).

The TRA86 lowered rates and broadened the base. Prior to TRA86, the top corporate rate was 46% and the top individual rate was 50%. Today, the top corporate rate is 21% (flat, no longer graduated) and the top individual rate is 37% (goes back to 39.6% after 2025). 

The new rates:

  • Corporations: 15%, 25% and 34%
  • Individuals: 15% and 28% with capital gains taxed at the same rates

Why was there a TRA86? President Reagan wanted to lower the rates and there was bi-partisan support for a fairer, simpler tax law that would be more supportive of economic growth. There was also a desire to shut down some problem areas such as tax shelters that middle and high income individuals were investing in and get most corporations to use the accrual method of accounting and the percentage of completion method for their long-term contracts (as they would for their GAAP financial statements).

There were several extensive reports by the Treasury Department about issues with the existing system and analysis of possible reforms. See Tax Reform for Fairness, Simplicity, and Economic Growth: The Treasury Department Report to the President in 3 volumes with the third volume on a VAT.

The transmittal letter in the report included: "we believe we have followed your mandate of May 1984 to design a sweeping and comprehensive reform of the entire tax code. The Treasury Department study focused on four options: a pure flat tax, a modified flat tax, a tax on income that is consumed, and a general sales tax, including a value-added tax and retail sales taxes.”

Further: “These proposals are bold, and they will be controversial. Those who benefit from the current tax preferences that distort the use of our nation's resources, that complicate paying taxes for all of us, and that create inequities and undermine taxpayer morale will complain loudly and seek support from every quarter. But a far greater number of Americans will benefit from the suggested rate reduction and simplification. The achievement of fundamental tax reform and the manifest benefits it would entail -- will require extraordinary leadership.”

Several provisions of the TRA86 remain such as no deduction for personal interest expense and uniform capitalization rules and required use of the accrual method for large businesses. Some notable changes since TRA86:

  • Max individual rate of 28% ended with addition of 31% bracket by OBRA’90 (P.L. 101-508), effective for 1991.
  • Maximum capital gain rate remained at 28%.
  • Corporate rate raised to 35%
  • AMT preference for contributions of appreciated property was repealed by RA’93 (P.L. 103-66).
  • Base broadening slowly eroded with addition of new preferences, particularly with Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L.  105-34).
  • Added child tax credit, Hope Scholarship credit, expanded §121 gain exclusion for residence, and repealed AMT for small corporations.
  • Numerous credits and special deductions added (§199, energy credits, and more)

After the TRA86, other countries lowered their tax rate on corporate income until the US rate became one of the higest rates until loweredto 21% by the TCJA in December 2017.

Did the TCJA of 2017 address all tax issues? No.  Here is a partial list of once still in need of addressing that have been longstanding issues.

  • Recognition of technology in tax compliance
    • Compliance system still rooted in paper, and not as technologically modern as online banking or online shopping.
    • Return-free system
      • Called for in Treasury’s 1984 report
      • GAO report Alternative Filing Systems (10/96)
      • Many countries have gov’t or employer prepare return
      • Camp’s HR 1 (2014) prohibits it - “SEC. 6103. PRE-POPULATED RETURNS PROHIBITED.”
  • Clarification of worker classification system
    • Revenue Act of 1978, Section 530 – Congress to study; added temp rules
      • 1982 – made permanent
      • Today – issues continue
  • Debt reduction and other budget issues, such as Social Security and Medicare reforms

What do you think? 

Sunday, December 22, 2019

2-Year Anniversary of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) was signed into law with most of it starting to be effective just ten days later. Give the roughly 115 changes in the law, that was a lot of work for the IRS to issue guidance on which is likely to take many years (we are still waiting for some guidance on the Tax Reform Act of 1986). It's also a lot for taxpayers and tax professionals to deal with.

We likely need another year of data to know if the TCJA might stimulate the economy. According to the Congressional Research Service in a June 2019 report (page 14), the lowering of the top corporate rate from 35% to 21% led to a "record-breaking" amount of corporate stock buybacks.

For most individuals, the law did not add any complexity other than dealing with no more personal and dependency exemptions and that effect on wage withholding. A bigger complexity might be the IRS change to the Form 1040 including eliminating 1040-A and 1040-EZ. For about 15% of individuals, there is new complexity from new deduction and loss limitations.

The Joint Committee Bluebook indicates there are about 74 technical corrections needed to make the statute do what the lawmakers suggested. Who knows if these will ever be enacted now that we are two years out and nothing has been fixed.

On 12/20/19, President Trump signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 that funds the government through 9/30/20 and includes several tax changes. They include:

1. Renewal of over 30 provisions many of which expired at the end of 2017, generally through 2020. Affected taxpayers will need to file amended 2018 returns.  Query: Why weren't these addressed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

2. Repeal of three Affordable Care Act taxes including the Cadillac tax which never went into effect.

3. Change the "kiddie tax" to go back to the calculation that existed before the TCJA with taxpayer being able to elect to do the same for 2018 and 2019 returns. This change is due to the TCJA change resulting in some children to have a higher marginal rate on unearned income than their parent's marginal rate which was not the outcome intended by the kiddie tax.

4. Change in the TCJA making tax-exempt employers who provide certain fringe benefits, such as parking or transit passes, to no longer be subject to unrelated business income tax on that cost, effective back to  2018. This change exacerbates a flaw in the TCJA. The House Republicans wanted to have greater parity between what employers deduct as employee compensation and employees report as wages. That means doing something with fringe benefits where the employer deducts the costs of providing them but employees are allowed to exclude them from income. For qualified transportation fringe benefits, Congress decided to get to parity by having the employees continue to exclude that income. Congress could have instead (and likely should have given that these benefits are similar to cash wages) repealed the employee exclusion for these benefits and continue to let employers deduct the cost of providing them to employees.

Many tax-exempt employers complained of having to pay tax on their cost of providing qualified transportation fringe benefits to their employers.  That makes sense because they don't necessarily have funds to pay that tax. But, this is the right result once Congress opted to provide parity of employee and employer compensation amounts by denying employers a deduction for the cost of the benefits.  So, we have one provision of the TCJA now modified contrary to good tax system design, but helpful to the tax-exempt entities.

Beyond the kiddie tax and tax-exempt employer/transportation fringe benefit change, will other changes by made to the TCJA?  We'll see. Some candidates for office are calling for repeal of the TCJA. We'll see if that happens as it provided a tax cut to the vast majority of individuals (voters) although the issue of how the tax cut should be distributed among different income levels was not discussed.

What do you think? If you could change one item in the TCJA what would it be and why?

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

50th Year of AMT - Past Time to Repeal It


The alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individuals was created in 1969 - by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-172; 12/30/69). This problematic tax is about to reach its 50th anniversary at the end of the year. With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the corporate AMT was repealed, it is time to repeal the individual AMT and deal with the reasons why it was enacted in a more equitable and logical manner.

Here is the description from the Joint Committee on Taxation's Summary of H.R. 13270, The Tax Reform Act of 1969 (8/18/69): "Limit on Tax Preferences.—In those cases where tax preferences are not fully subject to tax, provision is made for a minimum tax on individuals having tax preferences in excess of their taxable in- come. The additional tax in this case is determined by adding to the regular income subject to tax, one-half of the tax preferences but only to the extent they exceed the regular income."

The JCT report lists reasons for and against the minimum tax, as follows.

"Arguments For.—(1) The limit on tax preference is based on the premise that individuals generally should be required to pay tax on at least one-half of their economic income.
  (2) The limit on tax preferences has the advantage of making sure that individuals generally pay tax on a substantial part of their 48 income. It, therefore, serves as a second line of defense against the avoidance of income taxes, to back up the first line of defense against such avoidance offered by the remedial provisions in the House bill which limit the scope of specific tax preferences.
  (3) The bill corrects the unfair discrimination in present law which favors those taxpayers who derive their income from the ownership of property as contrasted with those who earn their living from wages and salaries.
  (4) The present law improperly encourages investment of capital in certain areas for tax consideration rather than good business reasons and violates the principle that taxes should have a neutral impact on economic decisions.
  (5) Many individuals with large incomes benefit from tax preferences to the extent that they pay lower average rates of effective tax than many individuals with moderate incomes. This makes a mockery of a tax system based on the ability to pay.

Arguments Against.—(1) This limitation is an imperfect substitute for direct action on the preferential income tax provisions which cause today's tax injustice. Each particular item of tax preference should be considered on its own merits and should be adjusted accordingly.
  (2) Enactment of a limit on tax preference complicates present law by imposing a new income tax system on top of our present system thereby compounding the complexity of the tax laws and adding considerable administrative difficulties to the existing system.
  (3) This new approach could become the forerunner of a gross receipts tax on all taxpayers.
  (4) The bill raises a constitutional question as to the power of Congress to tax income from State and local government obligations, particularly obligations already outstanding.
  (5) The bill is inadequate; the excess of percentage depletion over cost depletion and the excess of intangible drilling and development expenses over the deductions allowed under straight line depreciation should be added to the list of tax preference items subject to the limit on tax preferences.
  (6) The limit on tax preferences will discourage charitable gifts.
  (7) If Congress has seen fit to provide a specific tax benefit, there is no reason why it should be denied to some merely on the ground that it, in combination with other items, represents a large proportion of that individual's income.
  (8) Since this limit will not affect individuals until the sum of their tax preference income equals one-half of their total income, it will still be possible for some individuals to exclude substantial amounts of tax preference income from tax."

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 modified the minimum tax making it the alternative minimum tax. The goal remained mostly the same - to be sure high income individuals do not use a combination of deductions, exclusions and credits to reduce their tax liability below a perceived minimum level. While some of these items could have instead been repealed or scaled back, Congress believed each individually had merit.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does cut back on some deductions which causes far fewer individuals to owe AMT. It is debatable whether the best items were cut back (such as with the $10,000 state and local tax deduction cap), with over 150 special provisions in the law, it seems more could be done to reduce tax preferences, particularly those used by a small number of higher income individuals such as the exclusion for tax-exempt interest income, the high mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion for employer-provided health care could be reduced for higher income individuals. These changes (and perhaps others) should be enough to allow repeal of the AMT

After all, shouldn't there just be one "minimum tax" - your regular tax calculation?  [Also see my 2007 op ed on this topic!]

What do you think?

Note: For more on the history of the AMT, see this 2016 CRS report, The Alternative Minimum Tax forIndividuals: In Brief.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Repeal the Kiddie Tax

The TCJA changed the tax calculation for the kiddie tax which results in the child possibly having a higher marginal tax rate than the parents. This was highlighted by survivors of deceased members of the military in that a pension a child received was subject to more tax in 2018 than in prior years. A report on Military.com, “This Year’s Tax Cut Cost Some Gold Star Families Dearly,” 4/23/19, included an example of a child paying tax of about $1,150 on the benefits but owing $5,400 for 2018. This child’s parent is in a lower bracket than 37%.

While the TCJA does make the calculation one where the child can compute the tax without the need for the parent's return, using the tax rate schedule for trusts where the 37% bracket is reached at just below $13,000 is wrong. Query - Why didn't Congress say to use a rate structure 20 times the trust income tax bracket or some other percentage?

This issue caught the attention of some in Congress with proposals offered for relief for these benefits. S. 1370 and H.R. 2481 propose to treat the benefits as earned income so they are only taxed at the child’s tax rate. H.R. 2716 would not apply the TCJA changes to these benefits (so apparently still taxed at the parent’s marginal tax rate). H.R. 1994, a retirement bill passed by the House in May 2019 would change the kiddie tax calculation back to pre-TCJA times.

My proposal is to just repeal the kiddie tax. It is complex and isn't taxing the owner of an investment at their own tax rate as intended by an income tax. If a family member gives a dividend-paying stock to a child, for example, it belongs to the child. The giver has forever parted with it.

Also, the kiddie tax is poorly targeted at trying to discourage parents from giving investment assets to their children because the tax calculation doesn't ask about the source of the funds. For example, a child movie star with a big bank account is subject to the kiddie tax even though the source of the funds was her own efforts.

There is also something odd that happened with the kiddie tax back in 2013.  When the kiddie tax was created by the TRA86, it was often described as taxing investment income of minors (it then applied to children under age 14). However, the language was broader to include unearned income using a definition under §911. It was also intended to address situations where family members transferred investment assets to children. So, a fix to treat the military benefits as earned income should help.

In 2013, IRS instructions for the Form 8615 and its title changed from Tax for Certain Children Who Have Investment Income of More than $1,900, to Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. One notable change in the instructions was the IRS now calling taxable scholarships unearned income subject to the kiddie tax. Yet, Prop. Reg. 1.117-6 called that income earned. This was not an issue prior to the law change that increased the age of a “kiddie” from under age 14 to up to age 23 for certain full-time college students. [See Chambers, “Kiddie Tax May Be Due on College Scholarships,” The Tax Adviser, 4/1/16).] This treatment also seems odd in that there is no family transfer involved with the scholarship.

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222 (5/17/06) changed the age of a “kiddie” from under age 14 to under age 18, effective for tax years beginning after 2005. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28, 5/25/07) changed the age to its current levels. This also makes no sense to take the unearned income of a legal adult at the parent's marginal rate.

The tax law would be simpler and more equitable and neutral to just repeal the kiddie tax.

What do you think?


Friday, August 9, 2019

Does TCJA Make C Corps Better?

Does TCJA Make C Corps Better? Generally no when you factor in double taxation of C corporations. I've got an article looking at this question but only looking at domestic tax rules. Certainly, lots of international activity might make the C corporation look better.  Here is the article, published this week in the Wealth Strategies Journalhttps://wealthstrategiesjournal.com/2019/08/08/is-a-c-corporation-preferred-after-tax-reform/

What do you think?

Thursday, July 4, 2019

Fixing the SALT $10,000 Cap

Source: JCX-35-19 (6/24/19) for the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on problems with the SALT cap.
On June 25, 2019, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on the SALT cap with the majority's views on it clear from the title of this hearing: How Recent Limitations to the SALT Deduction Harm Communities, Schools, First Responders, and Housing Values. Testimony was provided by some state and local elected officials and the Tax Foundation.

I agree that this is a flawed provision that was addressing what was already a flawed provision. There were no hearings held for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so it was difficult to get broad input into the process.  The AICPA Tax Section did submit a few letters during this process including one that made a very important point. If individuals would have a cap on their state and local tax deduction when claimed as an itemized deduction, an additional change had to be made to treat all business entities the same. Since a C corporation continues to get to deduct all of the state and local income taxes it pays, so should a sole proprietor, partner and S corp shareholder. That could have been accomplished by making a change to a 1944 law to allow state and local income taxes on that business income to be deducted above the line (for AGI) rather than only as an itemized deduction. [See AICPA letter of 11/21/17 and letter of 9/25/18 submitted when the House was discussing Tax Reform 2.0]

My observations regarding the policy of deducting state and local taxes:
  1. There should be equity among different types of business types (see above paragraph).
  2. Prior to the TCJA, only 30% of individuals itemized deductions and many of these folks lost their SALT deduction due to owing AMT. Thus, this was not a widespread deduction.  Many elected officials including governors of New York and New Jersey have issued statements since the change was introduced in fall 2017 that make it sound as if all of their residents are losing a big deduction. But, again, prior to the TCJA, less than 30% of individuals deducted their personal SALT.
  3. Why allow a deduction for state and local taxes not related to a business? After all, there are lots of personal expenditures we can't deduct such as car insurance, 100% of child care, 100% of tuition, and lots more. Well, one argument is that you must pay state and local taxes so it does represent dollars not available for paying federal taxes. But, this is not completely true.  For example, if Jane decides to buy a large home for $1 million rather than a modest one representing the median home value in Jane's area of $300,000, she will owe more property tax. Should she be allowed to deduct property tax on the $1 million home which is far above the median home price in her area?

    Bear in mind that special tax rules (deductions, exclusions, credits and favorable lower tax rates) reduce someone's taxes with the "cost" borne by others.  Why should others bear the cost (tax deduction) of Jane's decision to buy a more expensive home than the median home price. A great example of an extreme on this is evidenced by Mitt Romney's return for 2011 showing he paid property taxes on his personal residences of $214,728.  I'm not singling him our to pick on him, it is just that his return is publicly available from when he ran for President and voluntarily disclosed it. Many high income/high wealth individuals own multiple homes of high value and thus pay a lot of property tax. Many of these high income individuals also used to get a full deduction for these taxes before the $10,000 SALT cap because their regular tax rate was high enough to not be subject to AMT. [Thanks to Tax Notes (and the candidates and elected officials) for making these returns available to the public.]

    Note: Limit or repeal of the SALT deduction is not new. It was addressed in Treasury's 1984 Blueprint for Tax Reform which led to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and repeal of the sales tax deduction. For more, see my May 2008 article - here.
  4. Repeal of the SALT cap will provide a significant benefit to high income individuals. After all, it's a deduction and bigger deductions reduce taxes the most for individuals in high tax brackets. Per data from the Joint Committee on Taxation released for the June 25 hearing (JCX-35-19, Table 4), for 2019, repeal of the $10,000 SALT cap would reduce individuals' taxes by $77.4 billion with $40.4 billion of this savings going to individuals with income over $1 million (less than 0.5% of the public). All told, $73 billion or 94.3% of the benefit would go to individuals making over $200,000 of income.

It is puzzling why so much attention is being paid to repealing the $10,000 SALT cap (and mostly from Democrats who tend not to be fighting for additional tax cuts for high income taxpayers), rather than taking a policy perspective to reforming this flawed deduction and cap.  And better yet, why not look at other weaknesses in our tax system as well, and work to fix them, with the result that we'd have a more understandable (simpler) and equitable system, most likely with lower rates.

I suggest that for fairness and equity and better ability to keep rates low, as part of reform of the SALT cap that it be replaced with a cap on Schedule A property taxes to only allow a deduction for property taxes on a principal residence costing 110% of the median home price for the area. In addition, state and local income taxes attributable to business income should be deductible above the line (for AGI) just like a C corporation is allowed to do. Property taxes on business property (including rental property) would continue to be deducted above the line as they have been in the past (and still today). And the individual AMT should be repealed so there is just one set of rules rather than two with two tax calculations.

What do you think?

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

TCJA Guidance Report from TIGTA


On May 14, TIGTA released a report, Status of the Office of Chief Counsel's Issuance of TCJA Guidance. It reviewed the process for issuing guidance on the 100+ provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97; 12/22/17). It also lists the guidance issued through the end of March (83 items) and what is expected from that date (95 items). A good amount of this includes Treasury Decisions, meaning final regs of the numerous proposed regs issued so far. Here is the detail of what they still plan to issue:

44 Treasury Decisions
35 NPRMs
 4 Revenue Rulings
 6 Revenue Procedures
 4 Notice
 1 Announcement
 1 Undetermined

Appendices to the report list the specific topics of the guidance.

This is a lot of guidance. Practitioners and taxpayers are likely to raise issues on some of the items, as they have with earlier guidance. That could lead to further changes.

Will it all be done by time 2019 tax returns are due?  Probably not and new issues will arise. It's a difficult process as many of the TCJA items are complex such as the international provisions, the business interest expense limitation and the changes for tax-exempt entities. Some of the regulations issued are over 100 pages long! There are many new definitions, limitations, safe harbors, special rules and more.

To get a sense of how long guidance can take, consider that we still have some temporary regulations from the Tax Reform Act of 1986, such as Reg. 1.163-8T and 1.469-5T (issued before 11/20/88 so not subject to the 3-year expiration date of section 7805). Also, on March 26, 2019, proposed regulations were issued under sections 301, 356, 368 and 902. The explanation of these regulations states that they are needed to "update existing regulations under section 301 to reflect statutory changes made by the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988"! [REG-121694-16 (3/26/19)]

Is there an easier way so we don't have to wait so long and have uncertainty as to how some provisions work or have taxpayers taking differing positions, unfortunately with little risk given the low audit rates? I think much of the complexity could have been avoided. For example, for the qualified business income deduction of section 199A, don't include the limitation for "specified service trades or businesses" as it isn't needed and only affects high income individuals. Don't have so many loss and deduction limitations. Instead, see if just one can work. 

What do you think?




Thursday, February 28, 2019

TCJA Reminders/Tips for Practitioners and Their Clients

Otherwise known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97; 12/22/17)
Following is an excerpt from my February Note from the AICPA Tax Executive Committee Chair. For complete note (for AICPA Tax Section members) - click here.

Given the number of TCJA changes, incomplete guidance and many other issues, I offer the following suggestions to share with your clients to help them avoid surprises later.
  1. The TCJA is comprised of over 100 changes with little time for the IRS to issue guidance on all of them before 2018 returns are due.
  2. A good amount of guidance has been issued, but much of it is transitional or interim. That means the guidance might only apply for 2018; a rule could apply differently in 2019.
  3. The Joint Committee on Taxation’s Bluebook, which explains the TCJA, states over 70 times that technical corrections may be needed to achieve what legislators intended. For example, footnote 209 of the Bluebook states that a technical correction may be needed to reflect the intent that wages are not considered when calculating an excess business loss under the new Sec. 461(l).  Form 461Limitation on Business Losses, used for measuring an excess business loss, though,  includes wages (the form follows the statute, as required).

    Be sure clients know that if technical corrections are enacted, they are usually effective back to enactment date (Dec. 22, 2017 for the TCJA) and may require filing an amended return. Some corrections will result in less tax paid while others, such as the Sec. 461 correction, can result in more tax owed.
  4. It’s also possible technical corrections won’t be enacted, or the changes won’t be retroactive to Dec. 22, 2017. The law is not clear as to how much time can pass between original enactment date and passage of technical corrections legislation where a retroactive amendment is viewed as permissible by the courts. That was an issue the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in Carlton in 1994 (512 U.S. 26), finding a span of just over one year permissible but not stating a permissible maximum time between legislative enactments.
  5. There are likely new federal-state tax differences, and some states may still be considering conformity. Again, amended returns might be needed or the state tax rule might be different for 2019 than for 2018.
  6. The effective date of regulations often needs further scrutiny. If a rule in a regulation is also in the statute or a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the effective date of the statute controls. This was covered by the Tax Court in Argo Sales Company Inc.(105 TC 86 (1995)). There, the court stated: “The absence of regulations does not relieve us of the duty of interpreting our tax laws. While it has been stated in the context of a regulation applied retroactively by the Commissioner that ‘if the interpretation of the statute embodied in the regulation is correct, one must conclude that the statute has meant the same thing all along, with or without the regulation,’ that does not mean that where a regulation is not applied retroactively that the statute has no meaning prior thereto without the regulation. It simply falls on us to interpret the statute without the aid of a regulation.”
Note that among many areas, this seems pertinent to a rule on measuring qualified business income (QBI) highlighted in the final Sec. 199A regulations (T.D. 9847). In the Form 1040 instructions and in Publication 535, Business Expenses (p. 51), the IRS summarizes this rule as follows: “[QBI] also includes other deductions attributable to the trade or business including, but not limited to, deductible tax on self-employment income, self-employed health insurance, and contributions to qualified retirement plans.” In making this statement, the IRS makes no reference to a choice of following the proposed or final regulations, likely implying that the rule is in the statute (in addition to the final regulations at Regs. Sec. 1.199A-3(b)). The effective date of Sec. 199A is tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.
Any other tips you have to share?

Friday, January 11, 2019

Tax reform reminders

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017 was mostly effective starting in 2018. That was not enough time for anyone to get a good understanding of all of its over 100 changes and the effect and relevance.  The IRS has issued a lot of guidance, but there wasn't enough time to even get all of this finalized by the time any estimated tax payments for 2018 returns were due. 

If any practitioners have ever used Reg. 1.163-8T, 1.163-10T or temporary regulations under section 469, that's a reminder that guidance for some areas changed or added by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 are not yet final!  And there are areas of many Code sections without sufficient guidance, such as Section 1202 added in 1993, but now widely used due to its now 100% gain exclusion (rather than the original 50%) and its reference in new Section 199A on the qualified business income deduction.

So, a few reminders to consider for yourself and if you're a practitioner, your clients:
  • Regulations and other IRS guidance are likely to continue through the extended due date of 2018 returns (and likely beyond).
  • Some issues might not get addressed! Look at the legislative history; read the Bluebook from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), although there are a few places it conflicts with IRS guidance.
  • IRS Notices, such as Notice 2018-76 on deductibility of client meals, are often transitional or interim guidance. So, the rule might be different for 2019 than what the IRS told us for 2018.
  • Non-binding guidance is also being issued by the IRS: forms, instructions, publications, websites, FAQs, information letters, and news releases. But look at them still; they might just be clarifying the statute. If you rely on an FAQ, be sure to make a copy of it. The IRS can change an FAQ and has no archival responsibilities for this informal, non-binding guidance.
  • There are areas where what the JCT Bluebook says and IRS guidance are not the same. For example, page 189 of the Bluebook says that a meal connected with an entertainment event is non-deductible entertainment. In contrast, Notice 2018-76 says if separately charged, the food (client meal for example) is still 50% deductible.
  • There are several areas where the TCJA had errors where the change that Congress said it intended in the committee reports did not make it into the statute. The statute controls what the law is. Congress needs to enact a technical corrections bill to make any of these changes. It was unable to do so in the 115th Congress (in 2018) other than the grain glitch fix. Will any of these corrections be made in the 116th Congress?  Certainly there will be a challenge to doing so in the House now controlled by Democrats although all members have constituents who want some of these taxpayer favorable corrections made (not all of the corrections are taxpayer favorable thought). The real problem to enactment and why we didn't see technical corrections enacted in the 115th Congress is that 60 votes are needed in the Senate. [See former Ways & Means Committee Chair Brady's technical corrections bill introduced on the last day of the 115th Congress and the JCT explanation of it (JCX-1-19).]
  • State treatment of the TCJA provisions might not be clear or complete. For example, California does not (yet?) conform to most of the TCJA provisions. Will it even conform to some? If yes, will that be retroactive to 1/1/18?

What do you think?

Practitioners will want to be sure clients are aware of these issues so they are not caught by surprise or think the practitioner told them something in error where, for example, the rule works one way for 2018, but under updated guidance, works differently for 2019; or is changed for 2018 due to a technical correction being enacted.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

One Year Anniversary of TCJA

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed an Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Public Law 115-97). While there were over 100 hearings on tax reform starting in 2011, and a "unified framework for tax reform" released in September 2017, the final legislation moved quickly over about five weeks. There were no public hearings to analyze proposals or look at the big picture to be sure it was the type of reform needed.  The law has a long name because it was created via the budget reconciliation process so that the Senate could pass it with 51 votes rather than the usual 60. The TCJA was a partisan process.

On its anniversary, I'll offer just a few observations on the TCJA:
  1. It's major goal was to lower the corporate rate and move the corporate system to more of a territorial system. This was accomplished with a flat rate of 21% rather than the prior top rate of 35%.
  2. There are several new areas of complexity including an interest expense limitation of Section 163(j), excess business loss limit of Section 461(l), extra calculations for high income individual business owners under Section 199A (it is simpler if the individual has taxable income below $157,500 ($315,000 if MFJ); and most people are below these levels), and a new international regime with many new rules and complexities.
  3. Most of the individual changes, including the rate reductions are temporary for 2018 through 2025.
  4. With over 100 changes and the need for lots of guidance from the IRS, we continue to find surprises. One that dawned on my a few weeks ago is that while Congress explicitly expanded the preparer due diligence penalty of Section 6695(g) to cover returns where the client claims head-of-household status, it sneakily also causes this penalty to apply when the client claims the $500 dependent credit because Congress put that credit in Section 24 where the Child Tax Credit is which was already subject to the penalty. For more, see my 12/13/18 post.
  5. This legislation is not the end-all of tax reform. There were many areas in need of attention that were not included in the bill for various reasons. Missing items include efforts to reduce the annual $400 billion tax gap (taxes owed but not collected), recognize today's economy that involves intangible assets (most of the TCJA favors tangible assets) and a growing gig workforce (no effort to clarify worker classification or provide a simpler/better retirement system for these workers), address the growing deficit-debt-interest expense which will harm future economic growth and be a big burden for our children and grandchildren, improve IRS operations and the tax compliance process, or address problems with Social Security, Medicare and the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, more work is needed to help our tax system meet principles of good tax policy better, such as improved equity and simplification.
btw - here is my post from 12/22/17.

What do you think?

Thursday, December 13, 2018

TCJA Expanded Preparer Due Diligence Beyond What Congress and IRS Highlight


The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted December 22, 2017, included over 100 tax changes. In the discussion of tax reform, there was a possibility that the head-of-household filing status would be repealed for simplification purposes. But, it was kept. To try to reduce the errors in claiming this status, Congress expanded the Section 6695(g) preparer penalty to include application of the penalty to a paid preparer who does not exercise the appropriate due diligence in preparing a return where the client claims that status. The penalty is $530 per failure.

The Section 6695(g) penalty has gradually expanded since it was first enacted in 1997 to reduce errors in claiming and calculating the Earned Income Tax Credit by paid preparers. In 2015, Congress expanded the penalty to also possibly apply to a preparer who prepares a return where the client claims the Child Tax Credit (CTC) or American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC).

Congress and IRS have highlighted that the TCJA expanded the penalty to cover returns where the client claims head-of-household filing status. See for example, this November 7 news release (IR-2018-216). Well, the TCJA actually made this penalty potentially apply even more broadly! The TCJA temporarily repealed the personal and dependency exemptions. The dependency exemption was partly replaced with a $500 per dependent credit. Generally, this credit is available for your children over age 16 and under 19 (under age 24 is a full-time college student). It is also available to a qualifying relative. If a child is under age 17, the parent most likely gets a $2,000 credit for that child instead of $500.

The $500 credit is new and Congress put it in IRC Section 24 where the CTC is located. The Section 6695(g) penalty applies to "the credit allowable by section 24." So, the $500 dependent credit requires paid preparers to do extra due diligence to be sure the client is entitled to any such credit claimed. This basically means asking appropriate questions and documenting the questions and answers and maintaining this information and any documents received for at least three years after filing the return. Form 8867 must also be attached to the return.

Surprise!

What do you think?

Additional resources for Form 8867 and the Section 6695(g) preparer penalty:

  • Section 6695
  • Final regulations released in November 2018 (TD 9842 (11/7/18)
  • Draft instructions for Form 8867
  • Information from the California Franchise Tax Board on head-of-household status (California requires additional information on a return claiming this status due to potential for mistake)
  • Due diligence for the EITC, CTC and AOTC (IRS Pub 4687) (let's see if this gets updated to address all items under Section 6695(g))
  • AOTC - Pub 970 includes some helpful flowchart a preparer might want to have a client use to determine if they might be eligible for the AOTC


Friday, September 21, 2018

TCJA Reference to 1944 Law Regarding SALT Cap is Now Online

Santa Clara County Law Library - great place and free - has the 1944 Cumulative Bulletin!
In describing the new $10,000 deduction limit for personal state and local taxes that was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97; 12/22/17), the committee report at footnote 168 refers to a page from the 1944 Cumulative Bulletin (CB) regarding a 1944 law change. To help understand what they were getting at, I recently tracked down that 1944 page.

This is a reminder of a few things. First, not everything is on the Internet.  While there might be a copy of the 1944 legislation available on an online database somewhere, likely not for free access (I could not find it). But the CB is really needed because footnote 168 refers to a specific page for its support of a statement about the present law (pre-TCJA law). I pulled the CB from where the Santa County Law Library (free to public) stores its old government publications (in the attic!) (Note: the photo above shows first and second floors, there really is an attic above that.)

But - now that page from the CB is on the Internet - click on Section 164 from this 1/2/18 post where I have links to a few track changes versions of Code sections changed by the TCJA. The Section 164 link will also take you to the committee report.

Second, the 1944 law is a reminder that when Congress created the concept of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in 1944, they described where state and local taxes are deducted (for or from AGI). For property taxes paid by your sole proprietor business for example, they are deducted for AGI because they are paid and imposed directly on the business. In contrast, state income taxes imposed on that business are deducted from AGI as they are remotely connected to the business income. Basically, I think the concept is that when an individual calculates their state income taxes that calculation involves all of their income, various deductions, exclusions and credits. How much of that state income tax is attributable to the business income?

This is why for decades, state income taxes go on Schedule A rather than splitting it among other schedules, such as C, E, and F. In contrast, property taxes paid by a business, partnership or farm are deducted above the line (as part of one of these schedules).

This was also an issue after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 when tax prep fees became subject to the 2%-of-AGI threshold. People asked - what about the tax prep fee attributable to my Schedule C sole proprietor business? Despite the treatment of state and local income taxes, the IRS determined that the tax prep fee could be allocated (see Rev. Rul. 92-29).

Also, old IRS rulings determined that in calculating a net operating loss (NOL), the state and local income taxes attributable to business income can be part of that NOL (Rev. Rul. 70-40). Thus, there are ways to measure that (there are ways to measure most things).

The $10,000 state and local income cap (also referred to as the SALT cap), is in the law from 2018 through 2025. The House Ways and Means Committee voted to make it permanent, along with other temporary individual provisions including the reduced tax rates), on 9/13/18 (HR 6760). It is unlikely the Senate will vote on this as it would take 60 votes there to pass.

Final point while I'm talking about the $10,000 SALT cap, why not change the law to allow individuals to deduct their state and local income taxes attributable to their business income above the line?  Certainly with the $10,000 cap, this seems like the right thing to do. After all, corporations don't have a cap on their state and local income tax deduction, why should individuals operating a business outside of the corporate form have a limitation. And even without the cap, deducting for AGI makes sense because not all business owners itemized.  The AICPA recommended this change while the TCJA was being discussed in Congress (which was the first time the SALT cap came up) (see item 4 in this 11/2/17 letter to Congress and this 11/13/17 letter and 11/10/17 letter).

What do you think?

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Postcard Size Form 1040 for 2018 - What?

Front:

Back:

For many years, some lawmakers and others touted a postcard-size tax return as an indication that tax simplification had been achieved. Professors Hall and Rabushka had one on the cover of their flat tax book released in 1985 (flat tax first proposed in a Wall Street Journal op ed in 1981). Their brief return was truly simple because the flat tax only included a few items in income and only allowed a standard deduction and personal exemption. But you'll see that there was no place to sign. (Also, it's a consumption tax, not an income tax.)

Leading up to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (PL 115-97; 12/22/17), a postcard size return was touted by President Trump, Speaker Ryan and others.

Well, this past week, Treasury and IRS released a draft postcard-size Form 1040:
Observations:
  • Unlike a postcard, the form will need to be sent in an envelope since it is 2-sided with tax information and there is no room for the sender's address. Also, you'll likely want to include your address and not want the world to see your Social Security Number on the form. There are several schedules that may need to be attached (all postcard size too). But some of the schedules, such as Schedule 1, refer to forms, such as for capital gains/losses, that also need to be attached and won't be postcard size.
  • I asked my graduate students how many had ever sent or received a postcard - about 20% had.  Mailing postcards are really a thing of the 20th and 19th century. I think Gen Z expect one can file a return with a swipe on an app on their smartphone. Technologically, this is feasible.
  • Today, about 90% of individuals e-file (IRS statement in Federal Register seeking comments on the draft forms (FR 34700 (7/20/18)).
  • If not e-filed, you may need something larger than a standard letter-size envelope if you don't want to have to fold your "postcard". Query: Will/can Congress change the law to demand postcard postage rate on mailing your 2018 postcard-size return? (35 cents for a postcard versus 50 cents for standard letter or 71 cents for unusual size!) Seems appropriate.
  • Most returns are filed via software where it really doesn't matter how many lines are on the return. In fact, software would make it possible to produce a return that only shows the lines you needed. Per the IRS, about 95% of individuals use a paid preparer or software to complete their return (FR 34700 (7/20/18))
  • The postcard lists more than five schedules and there might also be one for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income Deduction. The schedules and attachments (with links to the draft if available):
      • More than 2 dependents (return doesn't mention a schedule, but the taxpayer will have to state the names and SSN for these people somewhere on the return).
      • Schedule 1 add’l income and adjustments to income
      • Schedule A if itemize
      • Section 199A deduction – line on page 2; still waiting to learn if there is a form or worksheet for it
      • Schedule 2 - Kiddie tax, AMT, payback any Premium Tax Credit, and likely the alternative tax calculation if have net capital gains
      • Schedule 3 – Non-refundable credits (not required if only credits are child and dependent credits)
      • Schedule 4 – other taxes, such as household taxes, NIIT, individual health insurance mandate (penalty)
      • Schedule 5 – other payments or refundable credits
      • Schedule 6 - foreign address and designee
  • The IRS has also announced that due to these proposed changes to Form 1040, there will no longer be a form 1040EZ or 1040A! Per the IRS: "All filers will use the new Form 1040."
  • Treasury expects that 25% of individuals will be able to file just the postcard-size 1040 without the need for any schedules or other attachments. They note that's better than the 16% of filers who used to use Form 1040EZ. (FR 34699 (7/20/18))  That sounds realistic although IRS should be careful should they share this projection with people who don't read the Federal Register because I suspect that many of these people will have worksheets to complete (such as for the EITC or taxable Social Security benefits measure) and many will look at schedules to see if they apply to them (such as Schedule 1 for other income and adjustments). Of course, what really helps is that 95% of filers use a preparer or software.
  • Starting for 2019, there must be a Form 1040SR for seniors per legislation enacted in February 2018 (PL 115-123; 2/9/18). As this is required by law, looks like that form will still be needed (but 2019 filings are way off from now!).
  • What about the paper waste from people printing the 1040 and new schedules on regular paper when they only take up the top half of the page? Perhaps the makers of tax prep software will include a feature to let you print 2 schedules per page.
Link to draft IRS 2018 tax forms - here.

What do you think?