29 May 2025 Tax reconciliation bill passed by House could significantly affect individual taxpayers
On May 22, 2025, the House approved H.R. 1 (Bill), which consists of the underlying budget reconciliation bill and the manager's amendment. The Bill largely serves to permanently implement Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax rates and tax cuts. It also incorporates several of President Trump's campaign promises, such as no tax on tips for certain workers.
Additionally, the Bill would repeal numerous clean air manufacturing and production credits. For more details, see Tax Alert 2025-1069. The bill also would add new IRC Section 899 on the enforcement of remedies against "unfair foreign taxes" (defined within the Bill). For a more fulsome discussion of newly Proposed IRS Section 899, see Tax Alert 2025-1085. Proposed IRC Section 899 would apply to various inbound investors, including certain individuals (other than citizens or residents of the United States). Individuals should give careful consideration to proposed IRC Section 899, as noted below in this Tax Alert. While countless provisions within the Bill impact individual taxpayers, this Tax Alert focuses on those most applicable to high net-worth individuals. The Bill proposes making the tax rate schedules under the TCJA permanent. The Bill would also modify the indexing for inflation by providing one additional year in the cost-of-living adjustment. The Bill, however, would not include the one additional year in the cost-of-living adjustment for the dollar amount at which the 35% rate bracket ends and the 37% rate bracket begins (37% rate bracket threshold). Higher earners would welcome the preservation of the TCJA rates; however, the corresponding limitation on itemized deductions would lessen the overall benefit. Under current law, a top tax rate of 40% applies to property inherited through an estate or acquired by gift. The first $10 million (plus inflation) in transferred property (the basic exclusion) is exempt from any combination of estate, gift and generation-skipping taxes. For 2025, the exemption amount is $13.99 million. Transfers between spouses are generally exempt from these taxes, and a surviving spouse may carryover (add) to his or her own basic exclusion any portion of that spouse's basic exclusion that has not been exhausted. The Bill would permanently increase the estate and gift tax exemption to $15 million (indexed for inflation) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025. The Bill also would permanently increase the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption to $15 million (indexed for inflation). Fewer than 1% of current taxpayers face a tax on their estate. However, the preservation of the high lifetime estate tax exemption is a welcome provision. Under current law, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, an individual taxpayer may deduct: (1) 20% of qualified business income from a partnership, S corporation or sole proprietorship; and (2) 20% of aggregate qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership income. The deduction is not permitted with respect to certain SSTBs above certain income levels. The 20% deduction may not be used in computing adjusted gross income and may be utilized both by non-itemizers and itemizers. "Qualified business income" is the net amount of domestic qualified items of income, gain, deduction and loss from the taxpayer's qualified business.
The Bill would make the qualified business deduction permanent and increase the deduction amount from 20% to 23%. The Bill also would replace the phase-in of W-2 wages, capital investment and the disallowance of a deduction to SSTBs with a two-step process for taxpayers with taxable income that exceeds the threshold amount:
The provision would require the taxpayer to compare the aggregate deductible amounts under steps one and two, and include the greater of those amounts in combined qualified business income. The provision would also allow the taxpayer to include qualified business development company interest dividends in the aggregated qualified REIT dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership income used to calculate the qualified business income. The proposed change to the phase-out computation would make an IRC Section 199A deduction available to many owners of SSTBs who were previously shut out of the benefit. For example, a married attorney with $1 million of qualified business income and $600,000 of taxable income would receive no deduction under current law, but if the proposed phase-out rules were in place for 2025, the attorney would receive an IRC Section 199A deduction of $75,950. Current law allows an individual taxpayer to claim an itemized deduction for state, local or foreign property or sales taxes up to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) of the amount paid. Additionally, individuals are generally able to deduct their distributive share of state and local property taxes allocable from a pass-through entity (the so-called PTET deduction). The Bill would increase the cap for the individual deduction from $10,000 to $40,000. The limitation would be reduced by 30% of the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income over $500,000 ($250,000 if married filing separately). The cap and income threshold would grow 1% each year from 2026 until 2033. The Bill also would impose an addition to the federal income tax owed by an individual, estate or trust if there is a SALT allocation mismatch. A mismatch would occur when the three following conditions are met:
While many will welcome the higher limit to the SALT deduction, the highest earners would receive little to no benefit. A partner of a partnership or a shareholder of an S corporation must take into account their respective distributive share of the partnership's or S corporation's:
Currently, a partner or shareholder retains the character of the separately stated income, gain, loss, deduction or credit that the partnership or S corporation realized. While partnerships and S corporations calculate their taxable incomes in the same manner as an individual, the entities are prohibited from claiming several deductions. These deductions must be taken into account separately by the partners or shareholders. The Bill would modify the list of items for which a partner of a partnership or shareholder of an S corporation must separately take into account. Under the Bill, a partner or shareholder would have to separately account for their distributive share of the partnership's or S corporation's:
More importantly, the Bill would further deny the partnership or S corporation a deduction for any of those taxes or payments when calculating its taxable income, unless the partnership or S corporation was engaged in a trade or business that is not an SSTB as defined by IRC Section 199A. Thus, for many pass-through businesses, the Bill would repeal Notice 2020-75, which allows certain passthrough entity owners to partially avoid the SALT deduction cap by converting a personal income tax liability into an entity-level tax liability. The Bill takes aim at the PTET regimes that were developed by more than 30 states as a workaround to the limitation on individual-level state and local income taxes that were enacted as part of the TCJA. Should the bill become law, SSTBs and investment entities would not be permitted to deduct the entity-level state taxes but instead would be required to separately state the taxes to its owners, where the proposed individual-level limitations would apply to such taxes. If a noncorporate taxpayer has an excess business loss, the excess business loss for the tax year is treated as a net operating loss (NOL) that is carried over to subsequent tax years under the applicable NOL carryover rules. An excess business loss for the tax year is the excess of the taxpayer's aggregate deductions attributable to trades or businesses over the sum of aggregate gross income or gain attributable to the trades or businesses, plus a threshold amount. For tax year 2025, the threshold amount is $313,000, as indexed for inflation. The aggregate business deductions are determined without regard to any IRC Section 172 or 199A deduction. The Bill would make the limitation on excess business loss for noncorporate taxpayers permanent. The limitation would apply for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020. The Bill also would modify the limitation on excess business losses. To determine the excess business loss for a tax year, the Bill would increase the aggregate deductions attributable to the taxpayer's trades or businesses by the portion of the allowable NOL carryover or carryback that is a specified loss. A "specified loss" would mean a disallowed excess business loss under the limitation set forth in IRC Section 461(l)(1). A specified loss would be "treated as an NOL arising from the original [tax] year incurred." This provision would trap large business losses for countless individual taxpayers and render them effectively useless. What is now a one-year deferral would become a wholesale bar on utilization unless an individual generated sufficient net business income in future years. The adjusted basis of an amortizable IRC Section 197 intangible held in connection with a trade or business is amortized on a straight-line basis over 15 years. The Bill would limit the ability of a sports franchise business (e.g., football, basketball or hockey) to amortize the adjusted basis of an amortizable IRC Section 197 asset by excluding 50% of the asset's adjusted basis from amortization. Decreasing the ability of sports franchises to amortize IRC Section 197 intangibles would impact the value of these franchises and put more pressure on the allocation of purchase price to amortizable and depreciable assets. This provision would not apply to franchises acquired before the enactment date. The Bill includes the newly proposed IRC Section 899, which would impose an additional US tax on income derived from the US by any "applicable person." The definition of "applicable person" would include:
The Bill defines "unfair foreign taxes" (further discussed in Tax Alert 2025-1085) that result in a foreign country being classified as a discriminatory foreign country. The term "unfair foreign tax" expressly includes certain categories of taxes and additionally, includes certain extraterritorial or discriminatory taxes to the extent provided by the Secretary. The tax rates would increase for applicable persons under IRC Section 899. For example, the 30% rate would increase by 5 percentage points on fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits (FDAP) income. This rate would increase by an additional 5 percentage points for every subsequent year up to a cap of 20 percentage points over the statutory rate. If another rate of tax applies in lieu of the statutory rate, then that rate of tax would be subject to the increase under the Bill. Although the Bill does not refer to tax treaties, the JCT Report explains that, if another rate of tax applies in lieu of the statutory rate of tax, "such as pursuant to a treaty obligation of the United States," the other rate would increase by the applicable number of percentage points. The Bill authorizes the IRS to issue regulations and other guidance to carry out its provisions. Such wide authority could mean that several terms provided by the Bill might be expanded or broadened. Individuals, who are shareholders in certain foreign corporations or have interests in partnerships, or who are beneficiaries of certain foreign trusts, should pay close attention to the evolution of this provision. The Bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to undergo further changes. Although senators have not yet detailed their proposed changes, there will likely be heavy discussion on the same provisions that proved volatile in the House, including the SALT cap, rollback of clean-energy credits and spending cuts. Increasing the tax rate for millionaires and closing the "carried interest loophole" are notably absent from the Bill. This could suggest that these proposals may remain out of the Bill as it progresses. At the same time, deficit concerns could prompt further discussions on potential revenue raisers within the Senate, so attention on previously abandoned tax hikes could resurface. Another factor that may lead to changes in the Senate is that the Senate's FY25 budget resolution adopts a budget baseline based on current tax policy rather than current law. This approach, which excludes the cost of extending expiring TCJA provisions, is untested in budget reconciliation. The Senate Parliamentarian has yet to rule on its compliance with reconciliation rules, which along with other potential Byrd rule issues could complicate negotiations. That said, we still expect the Bill to move fairly quickly to a vote in the Senate. Shortly after the House vote, Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated the previously communicated timeline for the Bill, stating, "We're going to get it [to the President] by Independence Day, July 4th."
Document ID: 2025-1161 | ||||||