Tax Notes logo

Recapping States’ SALT Cap Workarounds

David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: SALT substitutes. As states have begun wrapping up their 2021 legislative sessions, a new trend in state tax policy has emerged: a rise in passthrough workarounds to the state and local tax deduction cap. The $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction has been a major source of contention since it was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. Higher tax states, like New York and California, have viewed it as a threat to their tax regimes and led others to explore legislative workarounds to the federal policy. So, how are states approaching these workarounds? And are they the most effective way to deal with the SALT cap? Here to talk more about this is Tax Notes senior reporter Paul Jones. Paul, welcome back to the podcast.

Paul Jones: Thanks, Dave. Good to be back.

David D. Stewart: Now, Republicans enacted the SALT deduction cap as part of the TCJA and some Democrats have been quite vocal about wanting to repeal it. Could you give listeners some background on the politics behind the policy?

Paul Jones: Sure. Republicans in Congress backed the policy to help pay for the new tax law and part of the debate ever since, as you noted, has been whether capping the SALT deduction was a sort of swipe at high-tax, progressive states, often blue democratic states, where taxpayers may have relied upon the deduction to help offset the high-state tax burden. And progressive Democratic politicians have accused Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration of sort of seeking to undermine their tax structures.

David D. Stewart: So, why are these states going toward these workarounds now?

Paul Jones: Well, in fact, both blue and red states have been approving these workarounds, even though there's been a lot of talk about these being targeted at democratic states. There's about 19 states that have adopted them total, I believe, and about 12 of those have been in 2021. And the workaround essentially applies to taxpayers that receive passthrough income. The state creates a tax that the passthrough entity pays, in most cases via an election, on its income. And the state then gives the owners a tax break, usually a credit, to offset that tax on their passthrough income. And the effect is that the entity is paying the state income tax for its owners, and it can take a full federal deduction for that state tax, unlike the owners who are limited by the cap, and the benefit of that full deduction is received by the owners. And this is seen by states as a way of helping those taxpayers, offsetting the cost of their taxes at the expense of the federal government, and ensuring that they are a more competitive or attractive business environment.

David D. Stewart: Now, I understand you recently spoke with someone about this topic. Could you tell us about your guest and what you talked about?

Paul Jones: Yes. We spoke with Nikki Dobay who's a partner with Eversheds Sutherland. And she talked about the adoption of this workaround by states, and she also delved a bit into the different rules that states have adopted for their particular version of this type of workaround. And she also got in some other issues, including whether Congress might actually repeal the SALT cap before its scheduled expiration, which obviously would impact whether these policies are going to be particularly impactful, and a lot of other issues that I think listeners will find interesting.

David D. Stewart: All right, let's go to that interview.

Paul Jones: Nikki, thanks for joining us today.

Nikki Dobay: Thank you so much, Paul.

Paul Jones: So, let's get into some of the issues. So, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed, we saw a couple of different kinds of proposals for how states could try and help taxpayers sort of work around the $10,000 SALT deduction limit. And there was one that was popular for a little while, a number of states adopted it. And that had to do with providing taxpayers with credits for donations that they made to state supported causes. But the IRS put the kibosh on that and said that it would not allow that to work. But then we saw more states begin adopting these so-called passthrough entity type workarounds. And the popularity of that particular model of workaround has surged since the IRS and Treasury said in a notice in November that they will allow that type of workaround where in the entity, the passthrough entity, pays the tax and is able to take a full deduction because the SALT cap applies to the individual taxpayer and not the entity. So, you've got a whole bunch of states that have said, "Well, this sounds great. Let's follow the lead of some of the early adopters. We'll adopt this as well." And so, they've all got this type of workaround.

But as we've discussed before, it's not the case that this particular type of workaround, as adopted by each state, is identical. All of these states have a little bit of a variation between their model. Can you sort of talk to some of the differences that we're looking at here between states' passthrough entity workarounds?

Nikki Dobay: Sure, Paul. You know, It wouldn't be a state tax discussion without us talking about how the states all like to be different. I will attribute this to Bruce Ely. When we were working on the RAR/Partnership Project with the MTC, he described the states' approaches to the RAR provisions as each state was like a snowflake, uniquely different. And I think that really applies here as well.

As you mentioned, you know, we— I think we saw Connecticut was the first state that adopted this back in 2019, maybe 2018, and their model was a mandatory model. It's the only state that has required passthrough entities to use this workaround, if you will, that it's basically a mandatory tax, but they also provide a corresponding credit. Where the rest of the 18 states that we've seen adopt SALT cap workarounds have gone is an elective model.

So, maybe it sounds like, "OK, we've got one and then we've got 18 other ones." But it wouldn't be that easy of a conversation if that were the case either. So, I really divide these into there's two big issues: there's the who can elect in to these SALT cap workarounds? And then we'll talk about how they work.

So, let's start with the who. There's a variety of different ways in which the states are doing this, with respect to who can elect in. And so, some states have rules on what types of passthrough entities can elect in. Oregon, for example, only passthrough entities that have individual owners or a single passthrough layer with individual owners can elect in. Other states will allow a passthrough entity with any passthrough owner to, you know, so it could be a corporation or another passthrough entity with other corporate owners. So, the states definitely vary there.

So, you have to look at kind of who can elect into begin with. Then you have to look at some of the specific rules about how a passthrough entity might elect in. I think this still falls into the who category, because there are certain states where you have to get all of the partners in alignment on this. And I think there's definitely a group of folks that become owners in passthroughs or partners in partnerships because they don't like to be told what to do. So, getting all those folks to march in one common direction I think will definitely have its challenges. So, we've seen the states put in some very strict restrictions as to kind of what specific types of entities and then what will need to happen for an entity to elect in.

So, I think that's one level of how different these really are. And then when we move to the how, it's how does this SALT cap workaround work so that it effectuates what we're trying to get to, which is to lower the overall federal tax burden by applying the tax at the entity level, but then also making the partner whole at the state level. And so, we see one variety and one path the states have gone down where the income attributable to that partner where the partnership has paid tax will be excluded from that partner's state income. So, we see an exclusion methodology. And then we see several states, and I think this is probably the majority role, that provide a credit. And there they're going to get a state level credit for the state tax that was paid at the entity level.

And here again, we don't see everybody perfectly falling in line. We see some states giving a dollar-for-dollar credit, and then we see other states providing a haircut. So, really a variety of different ways in which the states are doing this. And this is all before I think we really get to how the information gets put on the form. And what type of— what are the mechanics of the election going to be? How is this going to be reported to the partners? And we don't have uniform rules with respect to state level K-1s. So, going to be a lot of challenges there that I think practitioners will be working through for quite a while.

Paul Jones: Right. So, it sounds like for entities taking advantage of this, there's going to be some complexity. And there isn't going to be one approach that everyone, like a tax professional or a partnership, can use. But as we've also discussed, there's also some implications that could complicate the use of these workarounds if you are an entity that is operating in multiple states. So, if you're a passthrough entity that just operates within one state, then you've only got to worry about that one state's rules. But can you talk about what one of the problems might be for an entity that's operating in multiple states, that has partners potentially in multiple states or at least operations in other states, that is paying one of these entity-level taxes or possibly multiple entity-level taxes as part of multiple workarounds in other states? What is one of the major problems there?

Nikki Dobay: Yeah. And, you know, as we've seen, the proliferation of partnerships generally is kind of an entity that's doing business on a multi-state basis. That wasn't always the case. Often it was corporations that were operating on more of a multi-state basis. I don't think that's any longer the case. So, we have a lot of partnerships that are doing business on a multi-state basis. Layer on top of that COVID and the remote work environment, you now have partners in these entities that may no longer be residing in the state. You may have a single state partnership, but the partners have now moved. So, a lot of complexity has kind of been overlaid on this already complex issue.

I think one of the challenges and probably the biggest minefields as partnerships try to figure out whether or not they will elect into these SALT cap workaround regimes is thinking about where the partners in that partnership are residents. And has the resident state that the partners reside in, will they recognize the credit or the exclusion from income in that situation?

And that's where I think we still— there's a lot of uncertainty. There's a few states, D.C. comes to mind, Virginia comes to mind, where the states had clear guidance prior to these SALT cap workarounds that disallowed an individual resident partner to take a credit for any taxes paid at the entity level. Why would we have cared about that pre-SALT cap workaround? Well, we had states like Ohio imposing tax on partnerships, Texas, there's a handful of states that do impose just an entity level tax. So, we've got some guidance out there related to a totally different issue that seems to be prohibitive for purposes of what's going on here. We also saw New York include very specific language that a credit would only be provided if I think it's—there's some substantially similar language. So, what does that mean?

And so, I think we're just going to see a lot of states having to grapple with will they be respecting a credit that an individual resident taxpayer is trying to claim for tax paid at the entity level in another state? And I don't think we have a clear answer on that. And it will definitely be an area to watch. So, that's kind of the simple version. That's if you've got a partnership operating in one state, they make the election and you've got a resident in just one other state. What if you've got partners in 20 different states? So, it's really— you've got to make the determination as to what is the impact to the partners for purposes of making the election. But then also will they get to claim that credit and see the benefit in their resident state? And so, as you can imagine in the multi-state environment, there's just going to be a lot of questions there.

Paul Jones: Right. We're going to have to take a sort of wait and see approach as to how these issues are addressed.

Before we delve any further into some of the more technical aspects of this, I also wanted to ask, as we know, the SALT cap has been controversial, particularly progressive Democrats have sort of savaged it as an attack on blue states, which often have more progressive tax structures, in an attempt to pay for more services, et cetera. And after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was approved, a lot of people were complaining that this was potentially going to undermine or threaten those states' tax models. And so, we've seen a lot of talk recently now that the Democratic party controls Congress and the White House, that there may be an effort to repeal the SALT cap before it expires, I believe, at the end of 2025.

Is there, in your opinion, a likelihood that that could happen? Are these SALT cap workarounds sort of a day late, a dollar short in the sense that just as states are adopting them, they may be about to be kaput? Or is it likely that the cost of repealing the cap is going to be an obstacle that those who would want to see it repealed are going to be unable to overcome?

Nikki Dobay: I think the more interesting question in some ways is because the SALT cap is meant to expire, are these a day late and a dollar short for that reason? I think that was some of the thought at the beginning. But now there are all these discussions about the SALT cap being repealed. I'm not holding my breath. There's been a lot of discussions about tweaking the SALT cap. I think we've heard $15,000 thrown out there, increasing it from $10,00 to $15,000, and then also doubling that for joint filers. So, providing some relief in that way. But to the point you made, this was one of the biggest base broadeners when the TCJA was adopted.

And so, you know what do I mean by that? So, under the TCJA we saw a significant rate decreases on the corporate side. We saw some rate decreases on the individual side as well. Well, in order to make up for those, there were all these base broadeners that were adopted as well to kind of increase the base so we could lower rate. And this was a significant one. I want to say it was in the trillion dollar area. And so, it's a really, really hard hole to plug.

Now, what I think is going to be fascinating to watch, Paul, is do these SALT cap workarounds kind of negate that base broadener? And kind of make it at the end of the day, maybe the feds should just bring it back because we're all going through this big process and they're not getting the base they wanted because the states have found a workaround, which the IRS has blessed. Or maybe we see the IRS retract from their guidance. So, I think this is definitely an area to watch. And I think the states will continue down this path, as long as it looks like the cap is going to kind of remain.

Paul Jones: Right. So, in your opinion, no one should be waiting for the federal government necessarily to repeal this. It's more a question, at this point, as to whether these workarounds are successful enough to sort of counteract the SALT cap in a broad sense, generally.

Nikki Dobay: Yeah. I feel like this is one of those slippery slope moments. Like, we've already started down this path. It's going to be very hard for the federal government to retreat 100 percent and go back to kind of the way life used to be. My sense is we're going to get to some middle ground eventually. And what specifically that looks like, I don't think we know yet.

Paul Jones: Based on one of the things you mentioned, obviously, which is that the federal government may have to take a look at this and see if these workarounds are really becoming sort of an existential threat to the policy. I should note, as you've previously mentioned in our conversations, that the Treasury and the IRS both put out this guidance in November saying, "This workaround will be recognized, will work, will be honored.' But it is August of 2021 and we still do not have any guidance. We had all these states passing their version of this type of a workaround to the SALT cap, but we don't really know yet what the actual final sort of rules for it are going to look like. What do you think the tax professionals and taxpayers are going to need to see from the federal government? What are they looking for? And what risks are there, if any, to the policy, the use of these workarounds, that exists until we have some kind of really solid guidance from the federal government about how it's going to work and what they are, and potentially are not going to allow within the context of this?

Nikki Dobay: Interestingly, Paul, everybody's gotten pretty darn comfortable with this, just based on that IRS notice that came out last year. Because as you know, what did we see? I think it was about 10 states, maybe more, that all passed the SALT cap workarounds this year. And when you read that guidance, it doesn't get in the weeds too much. It really just blesses this concept of yes, the entity paying the tax falls outside of the cap as adopted by the TCJA. And the IRS does say they will provide additional guidance, but to your point, we haven't seen it. So, I don't know at this point how high on the IRS's kind of list of to-dos this is. It doesn't seem like they're overly concerned with this issue. I don't know if maybe they thought the states wouldn't move forward all that quickly, or this wouldn't be that big of an issue, but it would be nice to see some guidance.

It would be nice to see what specifically will partnership have to do on the forms to make sure this is all copacetic. But I just don't think we know that. And right now everybody's kind of just operating under the assumption that it's all, we're all good. And I think the IRS can't provide guidance on how these credits will work, these exclusions at the state level will work. So, so there, I see some risks that partnerships and practitioners and partners are going to have to deal with, get comfortable with, because we just don't know what's exactly going to happen on that state side. And I think at the end of the day, those credits could be a big deal too. So, I don't have anything great on what the IRS will do. Hopefully we get something and it will provide the detail so that everybody is comfortable. That for, for federal purposes, we can kind of carry on under this methodology. But until we see some cases or there's challenges where states have denied credits, or you don't get the exclusion in a state, in a different state than where you paid the tax, the IRS can't bless that. And that's going to all be questions that get dealt with on an individual state basis by state tax courts. And we'll see what happens there.

Paul Jones: Right. So, even if— when and if we get a little bit more detail from the federal government, a lot of this, the way it's been written about, it sort of seems like it's sewn up. The IRS has given approval, this is how it works. But until we actually see this implemented, even with federal guidance, we don't really know how it's going to work. Is that a fair statement?

Nikki Dobay: I think that's really fair. Again, I think everybody's gotten pretty darn comfortable that they're going to be able to get the deduction at the federal level. I think where things get a whole heck of a lot more murky is going back to your initial example. You've got a solely intrastate partnership. All the partners are in that state and the state rules seem pretty clear that you get the credit or the exclusion that I think you check all the boxes and you can go home and the SALT cap workaround really did its job. Once you've got a partnership crossing state lines or partners crossing state lines, that's where you're going to— the questions just start to kind of coming at you. And I think they're going to keep coming at you until we really know the specific roles at the state level. And all I can say is you've been here a while, but welcome to state tax.

Paul Jones: To that point, if we assume that the SALT cap isn't repealed, that the IRS, Treasury, or Congress doesn't decide to say, "Hey, these workarounds are negating this policy. We're going to try and disallow them." Even potentially, when it comes time for the SALT cap to sunset, maybe the concern about the revenue hits is such that it gets extended, assuming the SALT cap workarounds are not so undermining the policy that it's no longer serving its original intended purpose. If this is something that maybe is a longer-term issue, or even just for the period of years these things apply, if there's enough potential interest at stake, is there any potential for states to maybe modify these, to try and amend them, to make them a little bit more consistent with one another?

Nikki Dobay: Yeah. Uniformity would be great if the SALT cap workaround is here to stay. And I don't think it's going away anytime soon. So, I think we're going to see evolution in this space. I think we're going to see more states adopt these indefinitely the next few years. It's a little bit reminiscent of marketplace and remote seller collection laws. The states went full-bore. We didn't quite get that uniformity we were hoping for. So, I think we're in a little bit of a that situation here. The MTC just kicked off a couple of weeks ago, a massive project looking at many different issues related to partnership taxation in the state tax space. And this is an issue that they've got on their list of things they will be talking about as part of that work group, that project.

That project is so massive. I worry a little bit this particular issue might get lost in the weeds. And I think it's one that is particularly relevant right now. And so, maybe that's incumbent upon the business community to really use their voices and say, "Hey, we know we really need the MTC. We need the states. We need everybody to come together and think about this issue." It would be wonderful if we could see a model. It would be wonderful if we could at least get comfortable that the states that don't have SALT cap workarounds will nonetheless recognize the credit or the exclusion provided by a state that does have a SALT cap workaround. So, I think just getting some clarity on some of those issues would be really helpful. To the extent the MTC could help facilitate that, I think it would be great. But I think there'll be— continue to be some evolution.

I think on the practitioner side, we're all still kind of wrapping our heads around these different pieces of legislation, trying to figure out which one we like the best. And once I think the practitioners kind of can figure that, then we can come forward and say, "Hey, look at this state. I think they did it really, really well." And so, I think that's still a little bit of a work in progress cause probably shouldn't have caught us by surprise, but in some level I think the amount of bills that passed this year, it kind of got everybody's attention. So it's like, "OK, now we've really got to dig in and figure all this out. Cause it's probably not going away."

Paul Jones: Yes. It's definitely been a huge surge since that November guidance came out. And we've been discussing this, for obvious reasons, in the context of the SALT cap workarounds as they're intended to function and the thing that they're intended to accomplish. But I think now that I'd be remiss if I didn't also bring up another point, which is that even leaving the SALT cap aside, is there some potential for these workarounds now that they have established, for a very specific reason and under very specific sort of unusual rules, attacks on passthrough entity, as opposed to the members. Is there a potential that this could be turned by at least some states into a different policy long-term? That you could take that entity level tax and start using it for something other than just circumventing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act limitation on the SALT deduction?

Nikki Dobay: I think that's the definite fear that has been on the minds of some of us in the policy space. I think that's also why there wasn't probably a land swell or whatever that phrases of kind of the business community behind this. Because I think there was just that fear that, "OK, this is a new tax on passthrough entities, and we've really got to trust the state that they're going to give that credit or that exclusion." By way of example, that was a very significant concern here in Oregon when they were passing their SALT cap workaround because credits have to come up for a mandatory review every six years. And the fear really was, well, what happens if the credit doesn't get renewed? Well I got pretty comfortable with the proposal because the passthrough entity-level tax in Oregon is elective.

And right now, as I mentioned earlier, all but Connecticut, these are elective. So, right now it's really the partnership that will have to evaluate whether or not they want to elect into this regime. And so I'm going to be a glass half full person right now and say so long as, if the credit goes away, then they're not going to take away the election. And so, this is just kind of one of those odd code provisions that will have somebody scratching their head in 50 years, trying to figure out what the heck was all this about. But if the credits go away or the exclusions go away and we see the states start taking away the election, then we are in a much different situation.

Paul Jones: Yeah. And I guess everyone is just going to have to sort of keep watching this to see how it develops based on all of the unknowns. But we started off the year with only a handful of states with these workarounds and now we're closing on half. I guess I do have one last question. Do you think that these are sort of the bulk of the states that are going to want to implement this policy? Or do you think that potentially even more are going to be adopting this, possibly even retroactively for the next year?

Nikki Dobay: Yeah. Great question. I suspect there's going to be some more states that jump on board. I don't know that any state's going to go retroactively, unless one particular state model jumps out as like everybody just loves it and then it's like, why wouldn't you do it? But I think we're going to continue to see the states move in this direction. Especially if there's absolutely zero movement on the SALT cap workaround. Or if we really see the feds kind of double down and make the SALT cap permanent. So, I definitely think that this isn't the end of the story when it comes to states adopting these. It was interesting to see a few state— I think it was the governor of Michigan that vetoed their bill. I don't really recall the politics as to why that was done. But we kind of danced around this a little bit, but there's some interesting bedfellows on this policy as well. But I think we'll see more of these in the future. And I think we'll see tweaks to them. And I really just do hope they're tweaks in the direction to make these easier for partnerships to comply with and to take advantage of if the goal is to achieve those policy goals that everybody I think thinks we're trying to achieve.

Paul Jones: Nikki, thank you so much for spending time with us and sharing your insights on this issue. It's always a pleasure to speak with you.

Nikki Dobay: Thank you so much, Paul. Happy to be here.

David D. Stewart: And now coming attractions. Each week we highlight new and interesting commentary in our magazines. Joining me now is Acquisitions and Engagement Editor in Chief Paige Jones. Paige, what will you have for us?

Paige Jones: Thanks, Dave. In Tax Notes Federal, David Burton and Alex Leff consider how proxy revenue swaps are taxed in the hands of renewable energy project owners. Thomas Spade argues that the IRS isn’t honoring Congress’s intent in section 7508A(d), causing continuing uncertainty regarding filing due dates for taxpayers in disaster areas. In Tax Notes State, Karl Frieden and Barbara Angus review the unprecedented convergence of international, federal, and state tax policies represented by the OECD Pillar 1 and 2 proposals. In the next installment of The Search for Tax Justice, Wilton Hyman reviews two books that address the wealth gap between Black and White Americans. In Featured Analysis, Joseph Thorndike explains how America’s form of economic subordination is not something of the past or limited to quasi-colonial territorial control. On the Opinions page, Robert Goulder and Ruth Mason discuss the reasoning behind the OECD/G-20’s two-pillar agreement compromise and debate whether a final agreement will be unanimously approved.

And now for a closer look at what's new and noteworthy in our magazines, I'm here with Philip Wolf, an associate at the law firm Belcher, Smolen & Van Loo, and we're going to discuss his new column in Tax Notes International called The Tax Scribe. Welcome to the podcast, Philip.

Philip Wolf: Thank you so much for having me.

Paige Jones: Great. So, to begin, could you give us a brief overview of your column and where the idea came from?

Philip Wolf: Yeah, so my column is called The Tax Scribe. It's talks about kind of tax writing and kind of how to be a good tax legal writer. The idea came from the fact that in law school, a lot of the time we learn kind of the nuts and bolts of tax. But when I started going into the job world, I've seen there's so much more to learn that I haven't learned in law school that I've had to pick up. And one of those things really is to know how to be a good writer. I'm still learning. It's a process that, you know, it probably take me a lot, it's going to take me many years. And I know there are a lot of people that have a lot more experience in this than I do. But I thought it would be kind of a helpful thing to write about each month for young practitioners such as me and also for anybody else who has interest in it.

Paige Jones: I think writing about writing is awesome. Obviously it's very much so what we do here at Tax Notes. Now, in your first column, you lay out five steps on how to write effective opening paragraphs in taxation. Could you tell our listeners a little bit about that process?

Philip Wolf: During the last few years, what I've kind of begun to realize is that a lot of paragraphs can be broken down into five simple steps. To go through them, the first one is to, before you even write the paragraph, figure out who your reader is. If you know who your audience is you can write something that'll be more convincing to them. Right? If your reader is a tax professor, you might have a different way of writing than if it's a judge or if it's an IRS agent or if it's somebody else. So, there's different styles, depending on who your audience is. Knowing that style will basically know how to convince them of your main point.

The next one is kind of your first sentence. Your first sentence is kind of like your sales pitch. Somebody reading your first sentence must know exactly what you're going to be covering.

The next step is basically what's called the "because." So, a lot of times when doing analysis, I found that the easiest way to analyze something is to write "because." It was to say, this is true because of this and then give kind of reasons why. It actually funny enough, as simple as the step sounds, it took me quite a while before I realized that this was actually the easiest way for me personally to do analysis. Obviously for other practitioners, it's probably different. And for people with more experience, I'm sure you could add a lot more. I'd love to hear about it.

The next thing is step four, which is called the action item. Right? At the end you want to say what you would like to be done. Right? If you try to convince a judge to rule in your favor, you have to say, basically, "This is what I'd like you to rule on." Or if it's a conclusion about some sort of analysis you say, you basically want to say the reason that you're writing the paragraph at the very end.

And then finally, of course, is revision. No writing and no tax writing is complete without a great deal of revision. So, those are my five steps that I've figured out. And I understand there probably are a lot more. More advanced practitioners will probably know a lot more than me. And of course, if you have any suggestions, I'd really love to hear them.

Paige Jones: Wonderful. And before we let you go, where can listeners find you online?

Philip Wolf: I have a LinkedIn. I also have a Twitter handle, which is @Wolf10Philip. Or you can email me at my corporate email, which would be

Paige Jones: Awesome. Well, thank you for joining us on the podcast today Philip.

Philip Wolf: Thank you for having me. It's such an honor. And I just also wanted to say a special thank you to Cathleen Phillips for always encouraging me to do these types of columns and for really going out of her way for me. So, thank you so much, Cathleen.

Paige Jones: You can find Phillip's article online at And be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel Tax Analysts for more in-depth discussions on what's new and noteworthy in Tax Notes. Again, that's Tax Analysts with an S. Back to you, Dave.

David D. Stewart: That's it for this week. You can follow me online @TaxStew, that's S-T-E-W. And be sure to follow @TaxNotes for all things tax. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for a future episode, you can email us at And as always, if you like what we're doing here, please leave a rating or review wherever you download this podcast. We'll be back next week with another episode of Tax Notes Talk.

Tax Analysts Inc. does not provide tax advice or tax preparation services. The information you have seen and heard today represents the views of the presenters, which may not be the same as those of Tax Analysts Inc. It may include information obtained from third parties, and Tax Analysts Inc. makes no warranties or representations of any kind, and is not responsible for any inaccuracies. Nothing in the podcast constitutes legal, accounting, or tax advice. The tax laws change frequently, and neither Tax Analysts Inc. nor the presenters, can guarantee that any information seen or heard is accurate. Also, due to changing tax laws, any information broadcast or downloaded after its original air date may no longer represent the current views of the presenters. If you have any specific questions about any legal or tax matter, you should always consult with your attorney or tax professional.

All content in this broadcast is protected under U.S. and international laws. Copyright © 2021 Tax Analysts Inc. Unauthorized recording, downloading, copying, retransmitting, or distributing of any part of the podcast is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved.

Copy RID