20-Sep-2019 1:07pm
20-Sep-2019 1:12pm
20-Sep-2019 1:18pm
21-Sep-2019 11:02am
25-Sep-2019 2:04pm
jon wrote:If they show totals use totals!! If they separate with reason they will let you know.
27-Sep-2019 10:17am
27-Sep-2019 7:07pm
IDunnoItDepends wrote:Isn't one of the rules for aggregation that the taxpayer owns at least 50% of the activity?
29-Sep-2019 7:30pm
29-Sep-2019 7:33pm
30-Sep-2019 7:36am
Doug M wrote:makbo is wrong about his 50% statement. The taxpayer has to have some ownership to aggregate. Here are the five requirements:
30-Sep-2019 6:53pm
.....must own a certain minimum percent. It does not have to be the taxpayer.
1-Oct-2019 5:21am
2-Oct-2019 6:04pm
Doug M wrote:As to your assertion, what did you mean by this sentence?.....must own a certain minimum percent. It does not have to be the taxpayer.
2-Oct-2019 6:05pm
Taxalmancer wrote:If the partnership provides a schedule of pass-through activities, we'd need to know which activities the partnership owned at least a 50% interest in.
5-Oct-2019 1:46pm
6-Oct-2019 7:43pm
Wiles wrote:How big is this group allowed to be?
6-Oct-2019 8:35pm
8-Oct-2019 6:52pm
"The preamble to the proposed regulations requested comments on whether the aggregation method described in §1.199A-4 would be an appropriate grouping method for purposes of sections 469 and 1411, in addition to section 199A. One commenter suggested that the section 199A aggregation method would not be an appropriate method for sections 469 and 1411 because the primary focus of grouping under those sections is based on the taxpayer’s level of participation. Another commenter, noting that the standard for aggregation under the proposed regulations is narrower than the section 469 grouping requirements, recommended that taxpayers be permitted to adopt their section 199A aggregation for purposes of section 469. The commenter stated that this would provide taxpayers with an option to mitigate the administrative burden of multiple grouping rules. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study this issue and request additional comments.
B. General Rules - The proposed regulations provide rules that allow a taxpayer to aggregate trades or businesses based on a 50-percent ownership test, which must be maintained for a majority of the taxable year. The final regulations clarify that majority of the taxable year must include the last day of the taxable year. One commenter requested guidance on whether each individual included in making the ownership determination must own an interest in each trade or business to be aggregated. Another commenter suggested that to avoid abuse in situations where actual overlapping ownership is low, anyone who owns less than 10 percent of the value of an enterprise could be excluded from the group of owners whose ownership is considered in testing. The commenter suggested clarification or modification of the overlapping ownership requirement including by requiring a minimum ownership threshold of the trades or businesses, or that the 50 percent test use each owner’s lowest interest in the RPE. The ownership rule in the proposed regulations does not require that every person involved in the ownership determination own an interest in every trade or business. The rule is satisfied so long as one person or group of persons holds a 50 percent or more ownership interest in each trade or business. The Treasury Department and the IRS decline to require a minimum ownership threshold for purposes of the ownership test as the abuse potential is outweighed by the administrative complexity such a rule would create. The Treasury Department and the IRS note that trades or businesses to be aggregated must meet all of the requirements of §1.199A-4, not just the ownership requirement.
Other commenters suggested that aggregation should be allowed for trades or businesses that do not meet the common ownership test if the general partner or managing member is the same for each entity. The Treasury Department and the IRS decline to adopt this recommendation. The aggregation rules are intended to allow aggregation of what is commonly thought of as a single trade or business where the business is spread across multiple entities. Common ownership is an essential element of a single trade or business.
Several commenters noted that the family attribution rules under section 199A do not include grandparents, siblings, or adopted children. One commenter requested clarification that the family attribution rules would not cause an aggregated trade or business to cease to qualify for aggregation when children and grandchildren reached adulthood. A few commenters requested guidance on the manner in which beneficial interests in trusts are considered for purposes of the common ownership rule. Other commenters suggested that the attribution rules in sections 267 and 707 should be used in place of the family attribution rule. Another commenter suggested that final regulations provide a specific attribution rule that treats owners of entities as owning a pro rata share of any business owned by the entity for purposes of the 50 percent ownership test. Another commenter recommended defining “directly or indirectly” as used in the proposed regulations by reference to a specific ownership rule. The final regulations address these recommendations by requiring that the same person or group of persons, directly or by attribution through sections 267(b) or 707(b), own 50 percent or more of each trade or business. A C corporation may constitute part of this group. "