2025 tax preview: Perspective from an AICPA tax policy advocate

Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA, reflected on how election results might inform future tax legislation and why any change in administration and tax policy can make it more difficult for practitioners seeking clarity.

Lauridsen also discussed advocacy related to beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting and what might change related to IRS funding, the corporate tax rate, and more in this episode of the Journal of Accountancy podcast.

What you’ll learn from this episode:

• An update on AICPA advocacy related to BOI reporting relief.
• Why Lauridsen expects any changes to the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) to be “hybrid” — as opposed to all TCJA provisions becoming permanent.
• Discussion about the future of the deduction limit for state and local taxes, aka the SALT cap.
• The fate of IRS funding from the Inflation Reduction Act — and why a “rebalance” might be possible.
• Lauridsen’s summation that 2025 “is a huge tax year.”

Play the episode below or read the edited transcript:

— To comment on this episode or to suggest an idea for another episode, contact Neil Amato at Neil.Amato@aicpa-cima.com.

Transcript

Neil Amato: Welcome to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. This episode is a special collaboration between the JofA and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast. It’s Nov. 19 as we’re recording, two weeks since the 2024 election. With the election over, we have results. We also have questions about the future of several tax topics. Here to provide some analysis and clarity on those topics is Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. Melanie, welcome back to the podcast.

Melanie Lauridsen: Thank you for having me back, Neil.

Amato: We talk pretty regularly, pretty much a quarterly basis. It’s safe to say that even if we keep this discussion fairly narrow in scope, there is plenty to discuss, so we’ll get right to it. I’m going to tease for the listeners that there will be discussion of the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But first, I’d like to ask about BOI reporting, beneficial ownership information reporting, as that’s been in the news lately as well. What’s the latest from your lens, the advocacy lens, on the topic of FinCEN’s disaster relief for BOI?

Lauridsen: Good topic, Neil. Disaster relief is something, regardless of what it is, whether it’s tax or BOI, it is critical that people are able to get it as quickly as possible in the largest scope possible. With BOI, we are grateful that FinCEN did offer disaster relief for victims of various hurricanes, most notably Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene, which created quite a bit of damage to the areas they hit.

But, unfortunately, the scope of the relief, particularly for those victims of Hurricane Helene, is not as broad and as encompassing as we would have liked it to have been. They did offer a filing relief for those victims. However, they didn’t extend it to entities that had been created prior to 2024 and therefore had a Jan. 1, 2025, deadline.

We know that [for] some of the entities, it took everything away. It destroyed everything, and those entities have years to rebuild, and they really could use an extension. With that in mind, we are actually working with various state CPA societies, and we are also working with FinCEN in order to broaden the scope that was issued, in particular for victims of Hurricane Helene. Of course, we are working with people on the Hill because there are a lot of questions around the Corporate Transparency Act and BOI reporting to begin with, much more so also with disaster relief that they would like to see some expansion of the scope, too.

Amato: Yeah, and on that topic of the reports that are in versus the reports that are expected, it’s still a pretty small number. I know people like to do things at the last minute, but it’s something like 6.5 million of 32 million, so still a long way to go.

Lauridsen: There is an awareness issue there, and FinCEN is highly aware that there is an awareness issue because, like you said, 6.5 million filings of 32.6 [million], there’s a little bit of a disconnect, especially when we’re in November. So we’re talking there’s a month and a half to file to meet those other — what is it? — 20-plus million filings that we have to go in 1½ months? I don’t think they’re going to be able to meet those numbers, so, yes.

But a couple of things to note about that 6.5 million. Of those 6.5 million, the majority of those filings are for entities that were created in 2024 and had that 90-day deadline, and also for the 30-day corrected and updates that are needed, and that’s the 30-day deadline needed. A lot of the existing entities, those that were created prior to 2024, still need to file. Now, FinCEN realizes that their numbers are not where they want them to be, and they are now focusing on awareness and not so much on enforcement. But they are, like I said, making pushes for awareness, and they were even on our AICPA Town Hall, so you can look at the archive there because we did host Phil Lam for that.

But also, the other day, I was watching national television, and I saw one of their commercials. I just about fell out of my seat. I didn’t think the messaging was as clear as it could have been, but they are trying to make efforts there.

Amato: Was this the coffee shop ad that you saw?

Lauridsen: Yes, it is.

Amato: We wrote about that earlier this year, that the outreach had begun. But still, I guess, a ways to go on that topic. Let’s look ahead to one item that was popular at the tax conference. It’s popular in the news headlines, and I know it’s something you’re paying attention to: the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It’s a very open-ended question, but I’ll ask it anyway: What’s the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

Lauridsen: Well, Neil, we would all love to know exactly what the future is. But, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it’s interesting because a lot of people said prior to the election, we always knew that tax was going to be on the agenda. People were saying that, it all depended on if it was Democrat or Republican that ended up taking the presidency. Ultimately, the same topics are at stake. TCJA was always something that was going to be debated and discussed, regardless of who ended up being in office and who will be in office. The difference is we definitely know that President-elect Trump would like to see TCJA provisions become permanent.

Now, the reality is all those provisions cost money, and there are real dollars associated with it. Even though we are going to be seeing in 2025 the trifecta effect, where the Republicans have swept across the board, it doesn’t mean that everybody is in line with the same provisions, and therefore it doesn’t mean we know exactly what will be coming. A lot of what is to come becomes an argument of how much things cost and how much things don’t cost and what can be included and what can be agreed on. The debate is still very much alive as to what will happen with TCJA.

I think, this is my pure speculation, I think we’re going to see a hybrid of all the things that are there and not necessarily everything becoming permanent. But who’s to say? Things could absolutely change.

Amato: Do you want to talk about any of the particulars within that, for example, the SALT cap, estate tax policies, the future of the corporate tax rate?

Lauridsen: All of those pieces are very interesting. The SALT cap, let’s start with that one. The SALT cap, we have heard that they would like to eliminate the SALT cap. On a personal level, sure. I would love to see that go away. I know quite a few people feel that way about it. But the reality is that it costs money. Right now, the SALT cap at the $10,000 cap is a revenue raiser, and it helps pay for other aspects of it. If they were to eliminate it, that will cost a lot more money than what is anticipated.

If we were to see a change, again, this is pure speculation on my part, obviously, we have to wait and see how things play out and what indicators we see. Right now, we haven’t seen any specific indicators, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the SALT cap ends up being raised slightly, not completely eliminated because, again, it costs money to eliminate it.

Amato: OK, state tax policies next.

Lauridsen: You said estate?

Amato: Estate. Sorry, estate, not state, as opposed to state and local tax. Now, estate tax.

Lauridsen: With estate tax policy, there’s definitely a desire and a will to see the cap also eliminated because with TCJA, after TCJA, it will cut in half of what we’re seeing. Who knows what we’ll see in that play. Again, it costs money to be able to have no limit for estate tax planning purposes. I do think like the SALT cap we’re going to see something come out in the middle. Maybe it’ll maintain, maybe it might increase, but completely unlimited — I don’t see that happening, either.

Amato: Then finally, the corporate tax rate as it relates to the TCJA.

Lauridsen: The corporate tax rate, that is definitely something that has been discussed.

We have heard during the campaigns from President-elect Trump that he would like to lower the corporate tax rates, but please keep in mind that the current corporate tax rates in TCJA, again, they cost money. What is paying for those corporate tax rates are those small business provisions that we would like to see come back. For example, Sec. 174, the R&E expenditures. We would like to see that 100% bonus depreciation. We would like to see that come back, but those are some of those provisions that pay for that lower corporate tax rate. Of course, there’s the [Sec.] 163(j) interest expense deduction and Sec. 199A, the qualified business income. Again, all those pieces come into play into that corporate tax rate because, technically, those are the pay-fors for that corporate tax rate, so it’s a handoff.

Amato: Good description of the pay-for aspect of it. Anytime there’s a change in administration, I guess the IRS funding topic comes up. The IRS has said many times that the funding it received under the Inflation Reduction Act was helping it provide better service. Now, I guess that funding is going to be up for debate. What do you see as the future there?

Lauridsen: Well, that is definitely something. The funding for the IRS, specifically, the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA as we call it, is something that we are definitely going to keeping an eye on because, if you take a look at the Inflation Reduction Act, the majority of the money, $80 billion — that was allocated towards enforcement. Now there was a piece that was allocated to IRS services, and it is that piece, that portion where we’ve seen the increased answering of the telephone, the hiring of people at the IRS to be able to provide services with that. Now, we know that that particular funding for IRS services from the Inflation Reduction Act is set to run out by 2026. If the money runs out, what do you think will happen? We’ll see decreased IRS services. The way we’re looking at it is we do know there is interest in clawing back the Inflation Reduction Act funding and, specifically, for the enforcement piece of it.

Our position is, well, let’s not take it away from the IRS. Let’s rebalance it and shift it over to services. One thing to note, though, is enforcement is a critical function of the IRS. Not everything under enforcement is audits, liens, and levies — all these things that people don’t want to see happening. There are pieces of enforcement like Chief Counsel’s Office that is covered under enforcement, and Chief Counsel are the ones who provide the regulations and those guides, the guidelines to people in order to be compliant with their taxes. It is a critical function of the IRS. Now, do they need as much as they got? I would venture to say and would like to see some of that money going from enforcement to IRS services and not necessarily clawed back.

Amato: That’s great. Now, I said we’re two weeks since the election. We’re also about one week since the AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference. I know you were there. I know you were busy yourself, but maybe, as you interact with members, as you interact with people in Washington, if you could then look ahead to 2025, what do you see as challenges that are tax-related and also opportunities for the new year?

Lauridsen: Some of the challenges that our people have, and we’ve actually done some informal surveys, too, and the results are the same and we’re seeing this trend. There’s a lot of growing concern with new legislation coming and, in particular, retroactive legislation or midyear legislation, which makes it particularly hard for members to be able to keep up with it. Retroactivity doesn’t help because then you have to amend returns if you already started down that process. Of course, with both last-minute legislation and retroactive legislation, you have to keep on top of the tax changes. Now, you should do that on every given year, but when they do it retroactively or midyear, it makes it particularly hard when you’re in the middle of filing season. That is one of the biggest challenges that our members are concerned about.

Also, with new legislation, that means we are waiting on guidance from the IRS. The IRS [process] can be very time-consuming in looking at the rules to able to provide guidance. Again, people just want to be compliant. People aren’t trying to get out of it. They just want to be compliant, and they need some guidance. That’s another concern that we see there.

Of course, other challenges that we’re seeing associated with Sec. 199A — we would love to see the extension of that to continue, but ideally, we would also like to see the expansion of Sec. 199A. Again, that costs money, and where is that money going to come by in order to be able to achieve something along those lines within it.

But, there are opportunities, Neil. Some of those opportunities there’s mobile workforce, opportunities there’s an appetite for that hopefully that we can see move forward, and that would be something that would make a lot of people’s lives a lot easier. That essentially is saying to put a safe harbor that if you work less than 30 days in a state, then you don’t file at that state level. It would have to be over 30 days to be able to move forward with that.

The expanded use of 529 accounts to be able to pay for studying to sit for the CPA Exam or to be able to get your financial planning certification associated with that. There are pieces of opportunities. Another piece of opportunity that we would like to see — maybe we’ll see a change with the Form 1099-K, with the threshold. Remember that was at $600, and there’s been a debate where it could be, so maybe we’ll see an increase in that threshold filing. Of course, disaster relief. We would love to be able to see some of the bigger positions that we’ve had associated with disaster relief to make a real difference for victims of disasters.

Amato: Good points all. Thank you very much, Melanie. I’ll give you the opportunity to give a closing thought if you have one.

Lauridsen: My closing thoughts are, I think 2025 is a huge tax year. I think we just need to buckle down and get ready for that roller coaster that’s going to be coming, and it’s always important to keep up to date and follow through, but in this year, changes are happening. They’re happening quickly. I think podcasts like this, webcasts, things like the AICPA Town Hall, they become even more critical for people to keep up to date.

Amato: Great. We will keep having you on. We’ll see you again in 2025, and thank you for being on the show today.

Lauridsen: Thank you, Neil.