The SBA is now offering one more extension of time to repay a loan under the safe harbor that was originally set at May 7 in third iteration of the PPP loan FAQ issued on May 13.[1] Now the SBA has delayed the date for repayment to avoid a question regarding the certification of the need for the loan to May 18th. Of interest, though, is that this has been issued on the same day the SBA issued guidance that provided the question would not be asked on loans of less than $2 million, as well as providing a later safe harbor for repaying the loan if the SBA determines there was no need for the loan.

The one major reason left to repay the loan would be to obtain the right to claim the employee retention credit in the future, assuming the IRS will move the date to repay the loan and regain the right to claim the credit to May 18.

The IRS has released guidance in Notice 2020-29 that allows for additional flexibility for §125 cafeteria plans given the COVID-19 national emergency that was declared on March 13.[1] The guidance deals with three general issues:

• Plans granting employees the right to make or modify elections mid-year in the §125 plan;

• Allowing participants to use unused amounts deferred to the plan remaining at the end of 2019 in 2020; and

• Allowing retroactive relief to January 1, 2020 for issues related to high deductible health plans and telepath services.

Following a letter written by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA, Chair Senate Finance Committee), Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA, Chair House Ways & Means Committee) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR, Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee) that was critical of the IRS FAQ on the Employee Retention Credit stating that employers could not claim the credit for paying health care benefits for employees on furlough, the IRS has now reversed course.[1]

The long-awaited proposed regulations on the effect of IRC §67(g) on trusts and estates have now been issued by the IRS.[1] The big item in the proposed regulations is an explanation of the treatment of excess deductions on termination under IRC §642(h)(2) after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided, in IRC §67(g), that miscellaneous itemized deductions would no longer be deductible on individual income tax returns.

Existing Reg. §1.642(h)-1 provided that such deductions are “allowed only in computing taxable income and must be taken into account in computing the items of tax preference of beneficiaries; it is not allowed in computing adjusted gross income.” This holding led to such deductions being treated as miscellaneous itemized deductions prior to the TCJA addition of §67(g).

As the SBA has advised borrowers who don’t want to have to worry about being asked about whether their certification that their loan application was necessary was made in good faith to repay those loans by May 7 (recently extended to May 14), a question has arisen regarding the employee retention credit (ERC).

An employer who receives a PPP loan is not eligible to claim the employee retention credit per CARES Act §2301(g). If an employer decides to return its PPP loan under the SBA’s safe harbor repayment program, are they still ineligible for the ERC since they did have a PPP loan, even though they have now repaid it?

In now current Question 80 on the IRS’s page for “COVID-19-Related Employee Retention Credits: Interaction with Other Credit and Relief Provisions FAQs,”[1] the answer is that employers who return the funds by May 7 will be able to claim the ERC if otherwise eligible.

The IRS has added information to their “Economic Impact Payment Information Center”[1] on their website dealing with payments made to deceased taxpayers.

Shortly after the IRS began issuing economic impact payments (EIP) to taxpayers, reports began coming up of amounts being paid to deceased taxpayers. While the Treasury Secretary indicated that such payments were made in error and should be returned to the government, no specific guidance was issued by the IRS until May 6.

The new guidance both makes clear the IRS position on when the payment will need to be returned and also the mechanics of returning the payment. The May 6 changes also contain information about EIPs related to resident aliens and incarcerated individuals.

Key members of the Congressional tax-writing committees have, for the second straight day, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, voicing their displeasure with IRS guidance on a CARES Act issue and requesting that the agency reverse this guidance.[1] This time the letter, signed by Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Ways & Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-MA), raises issues with the guidance in Notice 2020-23.

Notice 2020-23 provided that amounts expended that were used to justify the forgiveness of a PPP loan would not be deductible by the taxpayer in computing federal taxable income. The Treasury Secretary had defended that guidance specifically in an interview with Fox News on May 4. Tax Analysts, in a May 5, 2020 story, provided the following quotes from the Fox News Interview:

“The money coming in the PPP is not taxable,” Mnuchin said May 4 in an interview on Fox Business. “So if the money that's coming is not taxable, you can't double dip.”

…

Mnuchin said the IRS guidance is correct, adding, “I have reviewed this personally. This is basically Tax 101.”[2]

Another interim final regulation on the PPP loan program has been issued by the Small Business Administration.[1] The new guidance deals with non-discrimination rules and student workers.



Two days before the May 7 due date to return PPP loan funds to gain the presumption that the borrower had made a good faith representation that the loan was necessary, the SBA has granted a one week extension on that deadline in an update to the Payroll Protection Program loan FAQ.[1]

When the SBA published Question 31 that emphasized that borrowers who had sufficient liquidity likely could not have correctly represented the loan was necessary for the business, the agency gave borrowers who had already obtained a loan until May 7 to repay the loan. While the relief says in that case it will be presumed the borrower made a good faith certification, in reality what it does is allow the borrower to avoid the risk of being asked to demonstrate the necessity of the loan and any potential sanctions that might arise if it is found that the certification was not made in good faith.

The Chairs of both Congressional tax writing committees (House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee) and the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee have sent a letter to Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin questioning the IRS’s position on the payment of health insurance benefits for employees no longer receiving payroll and the employee retention credit enacted as part of the CARES Act.[1]

The employee retention credit, found at Section 2301 of the CARES Act, provides employers who meet certain conditions a credit of up to 50% of amounts paid for certain payroll costs. The question the IRS sought to answer in the FAQ on the matter is whether an employer could claim this credit if it was not currently paying wages to the employee but continued to pay for the employee’s health insurance costs.

In its most recent addition to the questions and answers for the Payroll Protection Program loans,[1] the SBA has given some protection on forgiveness for an employer that attempts to rehire an employee if the employee declines the offer of employment.

Question 40 provides:

Question: Will a borrower’s PPP loan forgiveness amount (pursuant to section 1106 of the CARES Act and SBA’s implementing rules and guidance) be reduced if the borrower laid off an employee, offered to rehire the same employee, but the employee declined the offer?

Answer: No. As an exercise of the Administrator’s and the Secretary’s authority under Section 1106(d)(6) of the CARES Act to prescribe regulations granting de minimis exemptions from the Act’s limits on loan forgiveness, SBA and Treasury intend to issue an interim final rule excluding laid-off employees whom the borrower offered to rehire (for the same salary/wages and same number of hours) from the CARES Act’s loan forgiveness reduction calculation. The interim final rule will specify that, to qualify for this exception, the borrower must have made a good faith, written offer of rehire, and the employee’s rejection of that offer must be documented by the borrower. Employees and employers should be aware that employees who reject offers of re-employment may forfeit eligibility for continued unemployment compensation.

The IRS has updated the FAQ on the procedures to fax Forms 1045 and 1139 under temporary procedures.[1]

The IRS has updated the initial question describing how the process has changed:

1. How does the process change from the normal hard copy mailing requirement?

Previously, these forms could be filed only via hard copy delivered through the USPS or by a private delivery service. There are well-established procedures for processing the hard copy forms in order to provide quick tentative refunds to taxpayers. A temporary procedure to accept these forms via fax permits us to make the relief in the CARES Act available to taxpayers before IRS processing centers are able to reopen. The procedures to process claims generally remain the same, except as noted in these FAQs. (updated April 30, 2020)

The IRS has now published the draft of the Form 941[1] to be used for the rest of 2020. The new form takes into account the changes made by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that added various types of payroll tax relief.

Specifically, the form adds lines to account for:

• Credit for Qualified Sick and Family Leave Wages;

• Employee Retention Credit; and

• Deferred Amount of the Employer Share of Social Security Tax.