Newsletters

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

FinCEN's announcement is based on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division) to stay its prior nationwide injunction order against the reporting requirement (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, DC Tex., 6:24-cv-00336, Feb. 17, 2025). This district court stayed its prior order, pending appeal, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order to stay the nationwide injunction against the reporting requirement that had been ordered by a different federal district court in Texas (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., SCt, No. 24A653, Jan. 23, 2025).

Given this latest district court decision, the regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA are no longer stayed.

Updated Reporting Deadlines

Subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting is now mandatory, but FinCEN is providing additional time for companies to report:

• For most reporting companies, the extended deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now March 21, 2025. FinCEN expects to provide an update before that date of any further modification of the deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply.
• Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than March 21, 2025, must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, DC Ala., No. 5:22-cv-01448, are not required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

FinCEN Notice FIN-2025-CTA1

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

Under Code Sec. 6055, entities providing minimum essential coverage must report coverage details to the IRS and furnish statements to responsible individuals. Similarly, Code Sec. 6056 requires ALEs, generally those with 50 or more full-time employees, to report health insurance information for those employees. The Paperwork Burden Reduction Act amended these sections to introduce an alternative furnishing method, effective for statements related to returns for calendar years after 2023.

Instead of automatically providing statements, reporting entities may post a clear and conspicuous notice on their websites, informing individuals that they may request a copy of their statement. The notice must be posted by the original furnishing deadline, including any automatic 30-day extension, and must remain accessible through October 15 of the following year. If a responsible individual or full-time employee requests a statement, the reporting entity must furnish it within 30 days of the request or by January 31 of the following year, whichever is later.

For statements related to the 2024 calendar year, the notice must be posted by March 3, 2025. Statements may be furnished electronically if permitted under Reg. § 1.6055-2 for minimum essential coverage providers and Reg. § 301.6056-2 for ALEs.

This alternative method applies regardless of whether the individual shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 5000A is zero. The guidance clarifies that this method applies to statements required under both Code Sec. 6055 and Code Sec. 6056. Reg. § 1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) sets forth the requirements for the alternative manner of furnishing statements under Code Sec. 6055, while the same framework applies to Code Sec. 6056 with relevant terminology adjustments. Form 1095-B, used for reporting minimum essential coverage, and Form 1095-C, used by ALEs to report health insurance offers, may be provided under this alternative method.

Notice 2025-15

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2025 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2025 are:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

• $7,060 for passenger cars and
• $7,060 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2025, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

• $62,000 for a passenger car, or
• $62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2025 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Rev. Proc. 2025-16

The leadership of the Senate Finance Committee have issued a discussion draft of bipartisan legislative proposals to make administrative and procedural improvements to the Internal Revenue Service.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

Easement Valuation

The taxpayer asserted that the highest and best use of the property was as a commercial mining site, supporting a valuation significantly higher than its purchase price. However, the Court concluded that the record did not support this assertion. The Court found that the proposed mining use was not financially feasible or maximally productive. The IRS’s expert relied on comparable sales data, while the taxpayer’s valuation method was based on a discounted cash-flow analysis, which the Court found speculative and not supported by market data.

Penalties

The taxpayer contended that the IRS did not comply with supervisory approval process under Code Sec. 6751(b) prior to imposing penalties. However, the Court found that the concerned IRS revenue agent duly obtained prior supervisory approval and the IRS satisfied the procedural requirements under Code Sec. 6751(b). Because the valuation of the easement reported on the taxpayer’s return exceeded 200 percent of the Court-determined value, the misstatement was deemed "gross" under Code Sec. 6662(h)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, the Court upheld accuracy-related penalties under Code Sec. 6662 for gross valuation misstatement, substantial understatement, and negligence.

Green Valley Investors, LLC, TC Memo. 2025-15, Dec. 62,617(M)

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The taxpayer filed income taxes for tax years 2012 (TY) through TY 2017, but he did not pay tax. During a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, the taxpayer raised constitutional arguments that IRS Appeals and associated employees serve in violation of the Appointments Clause and the constitutional separation of powers.

No Significant Authority

The court noted that IRS Appeals officers do not wield significant authority. For instance, the officers do not have authority to examine witnesses, unlike Tax Court Special Trial Judges (STJs) and SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The Appeals officers also lack the power to issue, serve, and enforce summonses through the IRS’s general power to examine books and witnesses.

The court found no reason to deviate from earlier judgments in Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker I), 135 T.C. 114, Dec. 58,279); and Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker II), CA-DC, 676 F.3d 1129, 2012-1 ustc ¶50,312). Both judgments emphasized the court’s observations in the current case. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (per curiam), the Supreme Court similarly held that Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioners were not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause, and thus none of them were permitted to exercise "significant authority."

The taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the IRS Appeals Chief, and said officers under the Appointments Clause, and the removal of the Chief under the separation of powers doctrine.

IRC Chief of Appeals

The taxpayer failed to prove that the Chief’s tenure affected his hearing and prejudiced him in some way, under standards in United States v. Smith, 962 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Castillo, 772 F. App’x 11 (3d Cir. 2019). The Chief did not participate in the taxpayer's CDP hearing, and so the Chief did not injure the taxpayer. The taxpayer's injury was not fairly traceable to the appointment (or lack thereof) of the Chief, and the Chief was too distant from the case for any court order pointed to him to redress the taxpayer's harm.

C.C. Tooke III, 164 TC No. 2, Dec. 62,610

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

2021 Wage Cap
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on wages is 7.65 percent each for the employee and the employer. FICA tax has two components:

• a 6.2 percent Social Security tax, also known as Old Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance (OASDI); and
• a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, also known as hospital insurance (HI).

For self-employed workers, the Self-Employment tax is 15.3 percent, consisting of:

• a 12.4 percent OASDI tax; and
• a 2.9 percent HI tax.

OASDI tax applies only up to a wage base, which includes most wages and self-employment income up to the annual wage cap.

For 2021, the wage base is $142,800. Thus, OASDI tax applies only to the taxpayer’s first $142,800 in wages or net earnings from self-employment. Taxpayers do not pay any OASDI tax on earnings that exceed $142,800.

There is no wage cap for HI tax.

Maximum Social Security Tax for 2021
For workers who earn $142,800 or more in 2021:

• an employee will pay a total of $8,853.60 in social security tax ($142,800 x 6.2 percent);
• the employer will pay the same amount; and
• a self-employed worker will pay a total of $17,707.20 in social security tax ($142,800 x 12.4 percent).

Additional Medicare Tax
Higher-income workers may have to pay an Additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent. This tax applies to wages and self-employment income that exceed:

• $250,000 for married taxpayers who file a joint return;
• $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separate returns; and
• $200,000 for other taxpayers.

The annual wage cap does not affect the Additional Medicare tax.

Benefits Increase for 2021
Finally, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase social security and SSI benefits for 2019 by 1.3 percent. The COLA is intended to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of these benefits.

The IRS has adopted previously issued proposed regulations ( REG-106808-19) dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation deduction. In addition, some clarifying changes have been made to previously issued final regulations ( T.D. 9874). Changes to the proposed and earlier final regulations are largely in response to various comments submitted by practitioners, and generally relate to:

The IRS has adopted previously issued proposed regulations ( REG-106808-19) dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation deduction. In addition, some clarifying changes have been made to previously issued final regulations ( T.D. 9874). Changes to the proposed and earlier final regulations are largely in response to various comments submitted by practitioners, and generally relate to:

• the definition of qualified used property;
• the election to claim bonus depreciation on components acquired or self-constructed after September 27, 2017, for larger self-constructed property for which manufacture, construction, or production began before September 28, 2017;
• application of the mid-quarter convention;
• clarifications to the definition of qualified improvement property, predecessor, and class of property; and
• clarifications to the rules for consolidated groups
  The rules for consolidated groups have also been moved from Proposed Reg. §1.168(k)-2(b)(3)(v) to new Reg. §1.1502-68.

Used Property
The 2019 final regulations provide that in determining whether the taxpayer or a predecessor had a depreciation interest in property prior to its acquisition, only the five calendar years immediately prior to the current placed-in-service year are considered. The latest IRS regulations clarify that the five calendar years immediately prior to the current calendar year in which the property is placed in service by the taxpayer, and the portion of such current calendar year before the placed-in-service date of the property without taking into account the applicable convention, are taken into account. In addition, the five-year look-back period applies separately to the taxpayer and a predecessor.

Furthermore, if the taxpayer or a predecessor, or both, have not been in existence during the entire look-back period, then only the portion of the look-back period during which the taxpayer or a predecessor, or both, have been in existence is taken into account.

Expanded Component Election
The prior regulations allow taxpayers to election to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on components of certain larger constructed property that qualifies for bonus depreciation if the construction of the larger property began before September 28, 2017. The components must be acquired or constructed after September 27, 2017, and the larger property must be placed in service before 2020 (2021 in the case of property with a longer construction period). The final regulations remove the 2020/2021 cutoff date. In addition, the final regulations provide that eligible larger self-constructed property also includes property that is constructed for a taxpayer under a written contract that is not binding and that is entered into prior to construction for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business. The definition of a larger constructed property is also clarified.

Qualified Improvement Property
The 15-year recovery period for qualified improvement property applies only to improvements "made by the taxpayer." The final regulations clarify that an improvement is considered made by a taxpayer if the property is constructed for the taxpayer. However, qualified improvement property received by a transferee taxpayer in a nonrecognition transaction described in Code Sec. 168(i)(7) is not eligible for bonus depreciation.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The final regulations clarify that depreciable basis is not reduced by the amount of bonus deduction in determining whether the mid-quarter convention applies.

Binding Contracts
Generally, property acquired pursuant to a binding contract entered into after September 27, 2017, does not qualify for bonus depreciation at the 100 percent rate. The final regulations clarify that a contract for a sale of stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as the result of a Code Sec. 336(e) election made for a disposition described in Reg. §1.336-2(b)(1) is a binding contract if enforceable under state law.

Floor Plan Financing
The IRS intends to issue guidance relating to transition relief for taxpayers with a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that want to revoke elections not to claim bonus depreciation for property placed in service during 2018.

The IRS will not allow a taxpayer to limit the amount of its otherwise deductible floor plan interest in order to qualify for bonus depreciation. However, guidance will address transition relief for the 2018 tax year for taxpayers that treated Code Sec. 168(j)(1) as providing an option for a business with floor plan financing indebtedness to include or exclude its floor plan financing interest expense in determining the amount allowed as a deduction for business interest expense for the tax year.

Effective Date
In general, the regulations apply to property acquired after September 27, 2017, and placed in service during or after a tax years that begins on or after January 1, 2021. However, they may be relied on for earlier tax years.

Final regulations reflect the significant changes that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) made to the Code Sec. 274 deduction for travel and entertainment expenses. These regulations finalize, with some changes, previously released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-100814-19.

Final regulations reflect the significant changes that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) made to the Code Sec. 274 deduction for travel and entertainment expenses. These regulations finalize, with some changes, previously released proposed regulations, NPRM REG-100814-19.

Changes to Code Sec. 274 under the TCJA
For most expenses paid or incurred after 2017, TCJA:

• repealed the "directly related to a trade or business" and the business-discussion exceptions to the general disallowance of entertainment expense deductions;
• eliminated the general business expense deduction for 50 percent of entertainment (but not meal) expenses; and
• repealed the special substantiation rules for deductible entertainment (but not travel) expenses. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until they are finalized.

Entertainment Expenses
Among other things, Reg. §1.274-11:

• restates the statutory rules of Code Sec. 274(a), including the entertainment deduction disallowance rule for dues or fees to any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization;
• substantially incorporates the existing definition of "entertainment" from Reg. §1.274-2(b)(1); and
• confirms that the nine exceptions in Code Sec. 274(e) continue to apply to deductible entertainment expenditures.

The regulations also confirm that "entertainment" does not include food or beverages unless they are provided at or during an entertainment activity, and their costs are included in the entertainment costs.

Food and Beverage Expenses
As under the proposed regulations, Reg. §1.274-12 allows taxpayers to deduct 50 percent of business meal expenses if:

• the expense is an ordinary and necessary business expense;
• the expense is not lavish or extravagant; the taxpayer or an employee is present when the food or beverage is furnished;
• the food or beverage is provided to a current or potential business customer, client, consultant, or similar business contact; and
• food and beverages that are provided during or at an entertainment activity are purchased separately from the entertainment, or their cost is separately stated.

With respect to the fourth requirement listed above, the final regulations adopt the definition of "business associate" in Reg. §1.274-2(b)(2)(iii), but expands it to include employees. Thus, these requirements would apply to employer-provided meals to employees as well as non-employees. The final regulations also flesh out the fifth requirement listed above, and clarify that the separate charges for entertainment-related food and beverages must reflect their actual cost, including delivery fees, tips, and sales tax. Indirect expenses such as transportation to the food are not included in the actual cost.

Exceptions and Special Rules
Food or beverage expenses for employer-provided meals at an eating facility do not include expenses for the operation of the facility, such as salaries of employees preparing and serving meals, and other overhead costs. The final regulations apply the TCJA changes to the exceptions and special rules for deductible food and beverages in Code Sec. 274(e), Code Sec. 274(k) and Code Sec. 274(n), including:

• reimbursed food or beverage expenses;
• recreational expenses for employees;
• items available to the public; and
• goods or services sold to customers.

The final regulations also provide examples on several specific scenarios to illustrate the rules.

The IRS has issued a final regulation addressing tax withholding on certain periodic retirement and annuity payments under Code Sec. 3405(a), to implement amendments made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA). The regulation affects payors of certain periodic payments, plan administrators that are required to withhold on such payments, and payees who receive such payments. The final regulation adopts, without modification, a proposed regulation that updated and replaced the provisions of three questions and answers with a new regulation regarding the default withholding rate on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

The IRS has issued a final regulation addressing tax withholding on certain periodic retirement and annuity payments under Code Sec. 3405(a), to implement amendments made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA). The regulation affects payors of certain periodic payments, plan administrators that are required to withhold on such payments, and payees who receive such payments. The final regulation adopts, without modification, a proposed regulation that updated and replaced the provisions of three questions and answers with a new regulation regarding the default withholding rate on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

Withholding on Periodic Payments
Before the TCJA, if a withholding certificate (Form W-4P) was not in effect for a periodic payment, the default withholding rate on the payment was determined by treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding exemptions. The TCJA amended Code Sec. 3405(a)(4) so that the default withholding rate on such a periodic payment is instead determined under rules prescribed by the Treasury Secretary.

After the TCJA was enacted, the IRS issued three notices providing that, for calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020, the default withholding rate on periodic payments under Code Sec. 3405(a)(4) is based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming three withholding allowances ( Notice 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, 330; Notice 2018-92, I.R.B. 2018-51, 1038; Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353).

Under new Reg. §31.3405(a)-1, the default rate of withholding on periodic payments made after December 31, 2020, is determined in the manner described in the applicable forms, instructions, publications, and other guidance prescribed by the IRS.

Applicability Date
The final regulation applies to periodic payments made after December 31, 2020.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance for employers on federal income tax withholding from employees’ wages.

The IRS has issued final regulations that provide guidance for employers on federal income tax withholding from employees’ wages. The final regulations:

• address the amount of federal income tax that employers withhold from employees’ wages;
• implement changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97); and
• reflect the redesigned Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Certificate, and related IRS publications.

TCJA Changes
The TCJA made many amendments affecting income tax withholding on employees’ wages. The TCJA made many amendments affecting income tax withholding on employees’ wages.After the TCJA was enacted, the IRS issued guidance to implement the changes (for example, Notice 2018-14, I.R.B. 2018-7, 353; Notice 2018-92, I.R.B. 2018-51, 1038; Notice 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, I.R.B. 2020-3, 330). The IRS updated Form W-4 and its instructions with significant changes intended to improve the accuracy of income tax withholding and make the withholding system more transparent for employees. It also released IRS Publication 15-T, Federal Income Tax Withholding Methods, which provides percentage method tables, wage bracket withholding tables, and other computational procedures for employers to use to compute withholding for the 2020 calendar year.

On February 13, 2020, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking ( REG-132741-17) to update the regulations under Code Sec. 3401 and Code Sec. 3402 to reflect the legislative changes, and expand the rules to accommodate changes necessary to fully implement the redesigned Form W-4 and its related computational procedures, along with most existing computational procedures that apply to 2019 or earlier Forms W-4.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with a few revisions.

Form W-4
The final regulations do not require all employees with a 2019 or earlier Form W-4 in effect to furnish a redesigned Form W-4. Comments expressed concerns that the proposed regulations and the related forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance would require employers to maintain two different systems for computing income tax withholding on wages: one for 2019 or earlier Forms W-4, and another for the redesigned Forms W-4.

In response, the IRS is acknowledging concerns with (1) instructions to the redesigned Form W-4 for employees with multiple jobs and (2) optional computational “bridge” entries permitted under the regulations and described in Publication 15-T that will allow employers to continue in effect 2019 or earlier Forms W-4 as if the employees had furnished redesigned Forms W-4.

The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(f)(4)-1(a) to provide that an employer’s use of the computational bridge entries to adapt a 2019 or earlier Form W-4 to the redesigned computational procedures as if using entries on a redesigned Form W-4 will continue in effect such a Form W-4 that was properly in effect on or before December 31, 2019.

Lock-in Letters
The IRS issues a "lock-in" letter to notify an employer that an employee is not entitled to claim exemption from withholding, or is not entitled to the withholding allowance claimed on the employee’s Form W-4. The lock-in letter prescribes the withholding allowance the employer must use to figure withholding. After the lock-in letter becomes effective, the IRS may issue a subsequent modification notice, but only after the employee contacts the IRS to request an adjustment to the withholding prescribed in the lock-in letter.

Under the final regulations, employers are not required to notify the IRS that they no longer employ an employee for whom a lock-in letter was issued. Further, the final regulations do not require the IRS to reissue lock-in letters or modification notices solely because of the redesigned Form W-4.

The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(iv) relating to lock-in letters. and Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(vii) relating to modification notices, to provide that an employer may comply with a lock-in letter or modification notice that is based on a 2019 or earlier Form W-4, as required by the regulations, if the employer implements the maximum withholding allowance and filing status permitted in a lock-in letter or modification notice by using the computational bridge entries as set forth in forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance to calculate withholding for such a Form W-4.

Estimated Tax Payments
The final regulations revise Reg. §31.3402(m)-1(d) to allow employees to take estimated tax payments into account, as long as the employee (1) follows the instructions to the IRS’s Tax Withholding Estimator (available at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-withholding-estimator) or IRS Publication 505, (2) is not subject to a lock-in letter or modification notice, and (3) does not request withholding from wages that falls below the pro rata share of income taxes attributable to wages determined under forms, instructions, publications, and other IRS guidance. The IRS intends to update its Tax Withholding Estimator and Publication 505 to reflect this rule.

Applicable Date
The final regulations generally apply on the date they are published in the Federal Register. Reg. §31.3402(f)(2)-1(g), regarding withholding compliance, applies as of February 13, 2020. Reg. §31.3402(f)(5)-1(a)(3), regarding the requirement to use the current version of Form W-4, applies as of March 16, 2020. The removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), regarding the combined income tax withholding and employee FICA tax withholding tables, applies on and after January 1, 2020.

Except for the removal of Reg. §31.3402(h)(4)-1(b), taxpayers may choose to apply the final regulations on and after January 1, 2020, and before their applicability date set forth in the regulations.