Q&A Re: Tangible Property Regs. Small Taxpayer Safe Harbor Election

Can we confirm whether the tangible property regs’ Small Taxpayer Safe Harbor election mentions anywhere whether, for purposes of the gross receipts test, one must consider “controlled group” or attribution rules under section 318?

This is a good question. (To clarify the Small Taxpayer Safe Harbor is an annual election for businesses with $10 million in gross receipts ((avg of 3 years)) and buildings with an adjusted basis of $1 million or less) I think the hope was that the regulations would provide the general rules and administrative guidance would be issued to clean up these types of practical issues.

The regulations reference the term “taxpayer,” but they don't provide a definition of the term “taxpayer” or address consolidated groups. These concepts are addressed in the administrative guidance that explains how to make the necessary method changes pursuant to the regulations, however.

You will recall that the IRS has issued a series of Rev. Procs. for automatic consents for the temp regs and now the final regs (and there is at least one more Rev. Proc. forthcoming). They build on each other. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 modified parts of Rev. Proc. 2012-19 and Rev. Proc. 2012-19 modified parts of 2011-14. So if you look back at Section 3.03 of Rev. Proc. 2011-14, it includes the following language:

  • In general. The term “taxpayer” has the same meaning as the term “person” defined in § 7701(a)(1) (rather than the meaning of the term “taxpayer” defined in § 7701(a)(14)).
  • Consolidated group. For purposes of the following sections of this revenue procedure, the term “taxpayer” includes a consolidated group: (a) sections 3.08(1), 3.09(1), and 4.02(1) (taxpayer under examination), (b) section 3.09(2) (taxpayer before an appeals office), and (c) section 3.09(3) (taxpayer before a federal court).

This would provide the answer to your question if the small building safe harbor was an accounting method change. I would have to read the rules a little closer, but my first thought is that it really isn't a method change per se and that it is an annual election.

***The purpose of this post is for informational & discussion purposes only and is not intended to be used as tax advice. Answer provided by Kreig Mitchell, ETS Board Member and Tax Attorney.

Author

Stay Tax-Savvy

Get expert tax tips and insights delivered to your inbox. Stay ahead with our specialty tax newsletter.

Recent Posts

Engineered Incentive Reports: A Smarter Way to Uncover Business Incentives

Most businesses have one thing in common: they’re busy. Whether it’s hiring new staff, expanding into new spaces, investing in equipment, or just trying to stay on top of day-to-day operations there’s rarely time to step back and ask, “Are we missing out on anything?”  That’s exactly where an Engineered Incentive Report comes in. It’s

Read More »
Big Beautiful Bill Act

What’s in the One Big Beautiful Bill and What It Means for You

The Senate just introduced The One Big Beautiful Bill, and it’s filled with significant updates for CPAs, business owners, real estate investors, developers, and innovators. While tax policy isn’t always the easiest thing to digest, this bill includes real, practical changes that could impact how you plan, invest, and grow over the next few years.  Whether

Read More »

Barry Habib, CEO of MBS Highway, Joins Engineered Tax Services Advisory Board

West Palm Beach, FL – Engineered Tax Services (ETS), the nation’s leader in specialty tax services and government incentive solutions, proudly announces the appointment of Barry Habib, Founder and CEO of MBS Highway, to its Advisory Board. Barry Habib is a legendary figure in the mortgage and real estate industry, known for his award-winning market

Read More »

Contact Us