The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department released guidance Wednesday on claiming deductions for expenses associated with Paycheck Protection Program loans that have been forgiven.
The guidance in Revenue Ruling 2021-02 also reverses previous guidance issued last year by the IRS and the Treasury when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin fiercely opposed the ability to deduct expenses related to forgiveness of PPP loans. Industry groups, including the American Institute of CPAs, lobbied for the ability to write off such expenses, arguing it would help struggling businesses and was in line with congressional intent when the CARES Act was passed last year setting up the PPP loans as a way to get money quickly into the hands of desperate business owners. The latest coronavirus relief bill included a provision that allows the expenses to be deductible and revives the PPP with a fresh round of $284 billion in funding. It will allow expenses related to seeking forgiveness of the Small Business Administration-backed loans to be deducted by businesses that received the loans, so businesses will be able to engage accountants to help with the task of applying for PPP loan forgiveness.
Wednesday’s revenue ruling reflects some of the changes to the tax laws that were included in the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020. The COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 amended the CARES Act to specify that no deduction would be denied, no tax attribute would be reduced, and no basis increase would be denied by reason of the exclusion from gross income of the forgiveness of an eligible recipient’s covered loan. The change applies for tax years ending after March 27, 2020.
Darryl Wegner is a managing director in PKF O'Connor Davies' Forensic, Litigation and Valuation practice. Prior to joining PKF O'Connor Davies, he served as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 21 years where he conducted and led complex, multi-jurisdictional investigations involving anti-money laundering, financial and accounting fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, health care fraud, anti-bribery and anti-corruption, criminal antitrust, national security, counter threat finance and sanctions. He has extensive experience working with federal, state, local and international law enforcement and regulatory agencies. He began his FBI career in the Boston Field Office, investigating terrorism and white-collar crime while also serving as a crisis negotiator. He held several positions at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., including as the national leader of the bureau's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, kleptocracy and antitrust programs, as one of the FBI's deputy chief human capital officers and led efforts to stand up a multidisciplinary nation state focused mission center. In addition to Boston and D.C., he was assigned to the FBI's Houston Field Office where he directed all white-collar crime investigations in southeast Texas. He started his professional career as an engineer in the automotive industry. After attending law school, he practiced as a corporate attorney for an international law firm in New York.
Gerald McMahon is a principal at W1 Global Inc. He has over 20 years of experience in the intelligence, national security and law enforcement communities. As the senior supervisory intelligence analyst for FBI Boston, he led one of the FBI's largest field intelligence programs comprising analysts, linguists and data specialists. He led teams, and interagency task forces covering the criminal, counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber programs. He has extensive experience managing crises and special events. In the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, McMahon advanced international terrorism investigations as an operations specialist, collaborating with domestic and international partners. As a tactical specialist on FBI Boston's Joint Terrorism Task Force, he conducted communications, network, and threat analysis. As a strategic analyst, McMahon authored analyses of current and emerging trends, with a focus on emerging technologies. McMahon is the recipient of two Office of the Director of National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation awards for his contributions to the 2006 US/UK Aviation Threat Task Force, and the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing team. He was a Recanati-Kaplan Fellow with the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Intelligence Project, where his research focused on the use of AI in intelligence analysis.
The new revenue ruling thus obsoletes the old guidance from the IRS and the Treasury last year in Notice 2020-32 and Revenue Ruling 2020-27, which said the PPP loan forgiveness expenses couldn’t be deducted. The obsoleted guidance disallowed deductions for the payment of eligible expenses when the payments resulted (or could be expected to result) in forgiveness of a covered loan, but that has been changed now in the new guidance.
“This law uncategorically says that all expenses that were paid to meet the requirements of having the PPP loans forgiven are now deductible,” said Evan Morgan, director of tax services at Kaufman Rossin, which does tax and accounting work for many professional services clients, including law firms and doctors’ offices. “That’s a very big deal, particularly because they weren’t sure how to plan for this because professional services firms are a little bit different than normal entities in that they like to pay out all of their profits in the form of salaries prior to the end of the year.”
Howard Wagner, a partner in the Washington national tax practice at Crowe, believes the IRS and the Treasury took the correct position last year on nondeductibility of PPP loan forgiveness expenses, but acknowledged it was politically unpopular and didn’t survive. However, there may be some extra complexity in accounting for the reversal on financial statements. “The interesting thing on the PPP is because the Service had said they were nondeductible, you had to account for them in your provision as if they were nondeductible,” he said. “And now you have to go back and adjust your provision for the fact that they will be deductible. That impacts the tax rate and that impacts your financial statement tax provision.”
