COVID-19

The House today passed the Senate-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) (“OBBBA”), which includes a number of major tax provisions, including a number of provisions that would affect withholding and information reporting obligations (see prior coverage here, here, here, here, here, and here—note that earlier coverage of some other provisions in the original House bill were dropped or modified from the legislation that was ultimately enacted).

One provision that was in the original House-proposed legislation but then removed before it passed the House found its way back into the final legislation that ultimately passed the House and Senate. Section 112205 of OBBBA includes enforcement provisions related to COVID-Related Employee Retention Credits. That credit was originally enacted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in 2020 and then extended and expanded in 2021. The credit, which was modeled on a credit previously used for physical disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires, was intended to cover a portion of employer’s payroll costs to encourage them to keep employees on payroll and was similar to programs enacted in other countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unfortunately, the credit became mired in IRS delays as the IRS struggled to process the influx of claims amid staffing shortages of its own. The IRS released guidance in the form of FAQs, which this blogged detailed, and then later in more formal notices, which became more restrictive over time. (See our earlier three-part series on IRS guidance: here, here, and here.) In the face of this guidance, a cottage industry began advising employers on the credit, some of whom took increasingly aggressive positions in the view of the IRS—and in the views of some tax professionals. Section 112205 of OBBBA is a response to those perceived abuses.

OBBBA (1) retroactively suspends some pending claims for the employee retention credit; (2) extends the limitation period on assessments for some employee retention credit claims; (3) extends the penalty on excess refunds to employment taxes; and (4) adds a new of enforcement provisions targeting “COVID-ERTC Promoters.”Continue Reading Reconciliation Bill Affects Pending ERC Claims; Cracks Down on ERC Promoters

On March 7, 2023, the IRS issued a renewed warning to employers considering an Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) claim.  While many businesses with legitimate ERC claims have already made them, a cadre of consulting firms have come forward to, in the words of the IRS, “push[] ineligible people to file” claims. …
Continue Reading IRS Repeats Cautions Regarding Aggressive Claims for Employee Retention Credit

Recently released IRS Notice 2021-20 (the “Notice”) provides guidance on the interaction between the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and the employee retention credit.  Unfortunately, the Notice may limit the ability of many PPP borrowers to claim an employee retention credit that employers may have believed they would be entitled to claim.
Continue Reading Notice 2021-20 Limits Employee Retention Credit For Many PPP Borrowers

Almost a year after the employee retention credit was adopted as part of the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), and nearly a month after the final Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, claiming the credit for 2020 was due, the IRS issued Notice 2021-20 (the “Notice”).  This is the first of three articles looking at the evolution of IRS guidance on the employee retention credit.  This article focuses on Congress’s intention in enacting the employee retention credit and the guidance the IRS provided in the frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) it issued in April 2020.  The second article focuses on the first signs of trouble for employers that appeared when the IRS updated the FAQs in June 2020.  The final article focuses on how Notice 2021-20 builds on those FAQs to narrow the scope of the credit and limit its availability.
Continue Reading A Look at IRS Guidance on the Employee Retention Credit: Part I—Broad and Pragmatic Interpretations in the Pandemic’s Early Days

Recently released IRS Notice 2021-11, implements the extension of the period for collecting from employees and depositing employee Social Security tax that was deferred in the last four months of 2020.  IRS Notice 2020-65 (see earlier coverage) had specified that the employer “must withhold and pay the total…
Continue Reading Notice 2021-11 Implement’s CAA’s Extension of Time for Employers to Collect Employee Social Security Tax

On January 4, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2021-7 pertaining to the valuation of the personal use of employer-provided vehicles.  The Notice permits employers who rely on the special valuation rule of Treasury Regulation § 1.61-21(d), known as the Automobile Lease Valuation (ALV) method, to retroactively apply the vehicle cents-per-mile method of Treasury Regulation § 1.61-21(e) for purposes of valuing an employee’s personal use of a company vehicle in 2020.  Due to decreased business use of employer-provided vehicles during the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS agreed with employers that the application of the ALV method may have resulted in higher income imputation than usual for many employees and that the use of the vehicle cents-per-mile method may provide a “more accurate reflection of the employee’s income . . [,]” particularly in 2020.  The ability to switch from the ALV method to the vehicle cents-per-mile method for 2020 applies only to a vehicle with a fair market value not exceeding $50,400 in 2020 and with respect to which the employer would reasonably have expected its regular use in the employer’s trade or business, were it not for the pandemic.

In addition, Notice 2021-7 provides employers, who switch from the ALV method to the vehicle cents-per-mile method for purposes of calculating personal use of the vehicle in 2020, with the option of continuing to apply the vehicle cents-per-mile method in 2021.  If the employer decides to continue using the vehicle cents-per-mile method in 2021, that method must be used by the employer and employee for all subsequent years, except to the extent the commuting valuation rule applies.  This decision will require employers to carefully evaluate whether the vehicle will continue to meet all of the requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.61-21(e), other than the consistency requirement, and whether the value of the employee’s personal use of the vehicle will actually be calculated more favorably under the vehicle cents-per-mile method as compared to the ALV method, once the pandemic recedes in 2021 and vehicle use increases.
Continue Reading Notice 2021-7 Provides Employers Relief and Potential Opportunities on Valuation of Employer-Provided Vehicles in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic

On November 16, the IRS added two new FAQs to its website that address an issue that has been concerning employers since the CARES Act was adopted.  For purposes of the employee retention credit (“ERC”), Section 2301(d) of the CARES Act includes an aggregation rule that treats all employers required to be aggregated under section 52 of the Code or certain provisions of section 414 of the Code to be treated as a single employer.  (See earlier coverage of the aggregation rule.)  Because the CARES Act also prohibits any employer who receives a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan (regardless of whether the loan is forgiven) from claiming the ERC.

Based on the statutory language, practitioners have been concerned that if an employer acquires another employer that previously received a PPP loan, the acquirer’s entire aggregated group may no longer be eligible to claim the ERC.  More troubling, Section 2301(l)(3) of the CARES Act instructs the Treasury to promulgate regulations for the recapture of the ERC claimed by an employer that subsequently obtains a PPP loan.  This caused concerned that the acquirer could not only lose the ability to claim the ERC prospectively after the acquisition, but could be required to repay any amount or ERC previously claimed.  Although the new FAQs are not binding on the IRS, they prove welcome news.
Continue Reading IRS FAQs Provide Welcome Guidance on Employee Retention Credit and PPP Loans in M&A Transactions

Without notice or fanfare, the New York Department of Taxation updated guidance on its website to address the application of its “convenience of the employer” rule to COVID-19 telecommuters.  The question of whether New York would consider employees who are working remotely due to the pandemic as doing so for “convenience” or “necessity,” has been vexing employers and employees since April.  New York’s latest update, which is disappointing but not surprising, has come down on the side of convenience.  As a result, an employee whose principal office is in New York State but who is working outside of the state during the pandemic will generally remain subject to New York State income tax, and the employer should generally continue to withhold New York State tax from the employee’s compensation.
Continue Reading Bad News for New York Nonresident Telecommuters: New York Issues COVID-19 Telecommuting Guidance

On Monday, October 19, the State of New Hampshire filed a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court of the United States asserting that its southern neighbor, Massachusetts, is violating its state sovereignty.  The suit attacks Massachusetts’s emergency regulations governing the taxation of income during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Massachusetts enacted a rule pursuant to which income earned by a nonresident of Massachusetts who worked in Massachusetts prior to the pandemic but who is working from home outside of the state remains Massachusetts-source income subject to Massachusetts income tax.  Accordingly, employers would be required to continue to withhold Massachusetts income tax on wages paid to those individuals even though the individuals are no longer working in Massachusetts.  Although the Massachusetts guidance is among the most sophisticated and detailed withholding guidance issued by the states during the pandemic, it is not alone in taking this approach.  Rhode Island issued regulations substantially similar to Massachusetts, and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has issued similar guidance in the form of FAQs posted on its website.  Other states have hinted at taking a similar approach, but the guidance is often vague and left open to interpretation.
Continue Reading New Hampshire Brings COVID-19 Tax Dispute to Supreme Court; Case Highlights Challenges Facing Employers and Employees

The IRS recently announced that it erroneously sent failure-to-deposit (“FTD”) penalty notices to certain employers that reduced their employment tax deposits on Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return) in anticipation of claiming sick and family leave credits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) or the employee retention credit (“ERC”) under the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Securities (“CARES”) Act.
Continue Reading IRS Warns Employers Claiming New Tax Credits of Erroneous Penalty Notices