Discharge of Federal Student Loans Not Income to Defrauded Students; Creditors Relieved From Information Reporting Regarding Discharge

Post by
January 23, 2017

The IRS announced in Rev. Proc. 2017-24 that creditors of federal student loans made to former students of American Career Institutes, Inc. (ACI) that were discharged under the Department of Education’s “Defense to Repayment” or “Closed School” discharge processes need not file or furnish a Form 1099-C reporting the loan discharge.  Former ACI students whose loans were discharged do not need include in income the amount of the loans discharged.  Only the federal loans discharged under one of the two named processes are subject to the relief.

Two years ago, in Rev. Proc. 2015-57, the IRS provided the same income exclusion under the same conditions to former students defrauded by Corinthian Colleges, Inc.  However, unlike Rev. Proc. 2017-24, Rev. Proc. 2015-57 did not alleviate the information reporting obligations under Code section 6050P for the creditors of those loans.  Rev. Proc. 2017-24 amends the earlier revenue procedure to eliminate the reporting requirement for loans made to former Corinthian College students whose loans were discharged.  Thus, these creditors need not file Forms 1099-C with the IRS or furnish payee statements regarding the loan discharges.

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), the Closed School discharge process allows DOE to discharge a Federal student loan obtained by a student, or by a parent on behalf of a student, who was attending a school at the time it closed or who withdrew from the school within a certain period before the closing date.  Federal student loans for this purpose include Federal Family Education Loans, Federal Perkins Loans, and Federal Director Loans.  The HEA excludes from income the amount of these loans discharged under the Closed School discharge process.

Under the Defense to Repayment discharge process, DOE must discharge a Federal Direct Loan if the borrower establishes, as a defense against repayment, that a school’s actions would give rise to a cause of action against the school under applicable state law.  Federal Family Education Loans can also be discharged under this process if certain other requirements are met.  Although the HEA does not exclude from income the amount of loans discharged under this process, two other authorities are relevant.  First, a common law tax principle is that a debt that is reduced due to a legal infirmity relating back to the original sale transaction (e.g., fraud) is not income to the extent of the debt reduction.  Second, under Code section 108(a)(1)(B), a taxpayer may exclude from income a discharge of indebtedness to the extent the taxpayer is insolvent.  The Treasury and IRS concluded that all or most borrowers who took out Federal student loans to attend ACI-owned schools are eligible for one or both of these exclusions.

IRS Begins Requesting Missing ACA Returns from Employers

Post by
January 19, 2017

Despite an uncertain future for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the IRS is moving forward with enforcement efforts for 2015.  Employers have recently begun receiving IRS Letter 5699 requesting Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for 2015.  The letter notifies the recipient that it may have been an applicable large employer (ALE) in 2015 with ACA reporting obligations and that the IRS has not yet received Forms 1095-C for 2015.  The returns were due on June 30, 2016, for electronic filings through the ACA Information Reporting (AIR) system, or May 31, 2016, for paper filing (see prior coverage).

The letter requires that, within 30 days from the date of the letter, the recipient must provide one of the following responses: (1) the recipient was an ALE for 2015 and has already filed the returns; (2) the recipient was an ALE for 2015 and is now enclosing the returns with the response; (3) the recipient was an ALE for 2015 and will file the returns by a certain date; (4) the recipient was not an ALE in 2015; or (5) an explanation of why the recipient has not filed the returns and any actions the recipient intends to take.

Code section 6056 requires ALEs to file ACA information returns with the IRS, and furnish statements to full-time employees relating to any health insurance coverage the employer offered the employee.  Failure to file returns may result in penalties under Section 6721 (penalties for late, incomplete, or incorrect filing with IRS) and Section 6722 (penalties for late, incomplete, or incorrect statements furnished to payees, in this case, employees).  Importantly, the “good faith” penalty relief previously announced by the IRS applies only to incorrect or incomplete ACA returns—not to late filing of returns (see prior coverage).  Accordingly, ALEs who failed to file the required returns by the deadline may be subject to penalties of up to $520 for each return they failed to file with the IRS and furnish to employees, in addition to any employer shared responsibility penalties that may apply if the ALE failed to offer the required coverage.

While the change in political administration casts uncertainty on the future of the ACA and its penalties, the IRS’s actions indicate that its enforcement efforts are moving forward.  The request for missing ACA returns may mean that the IRS will begin assessing ACA reporting penalties and employer shared responsibility penalties in the near future.  Accordingly, ALEs that have not yet filed the 2015 ACA returns should do so as soon as possible and timely respond to Letter 5699 if they receive one.

Refusal to Allow Closing Agreements on FICA Timing May Lead to Challenge

Post by
January 17, 2017

In an IRS Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum released on January 13, the IRS concluded that it should not enter into closing agreements with employers who failed to subject amounts of nonqualified deferred compensation to FICA taxes under the special timing rule in Section 3121(v)(2)(A).  In the past, some employers have been able to obtain a closing agreement in such circumstances.  In the CCA, the IRS concludes that, because the regulations apply the general timing rule in such situations, closing agreements that would allow the avoidance of the harsh result prescribed by the regulations are inappropriate.

The unwillingness of the IRS to issue closing agreements on the issue going forward may bring to a head arguments that the IRS’s regulations under Section 3121(v)(2) are not well supported by the language of the statute.  Under the statute, an amount deferred under a “nonqualified deferred compensation plan” is required to be “taken into account” as wages for FICA tax purposes when the services creating the right to that amount are performed, or, if later, the date on which the right to that amount is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.  Under the “nonduplication rule,” an amount taken into account as wages under this mandatory timing rule (and any income attributable to such amount) are not treated as wages at any later time.  In other words, deferrals under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan and the related earnings are subjected to FICA taxation only once—at the time mandated by Section 3121(v)(2)(A).

Under the Treasury Regulations, the IRS goes a step further and creates out of whole cloth a second time for including in wages amounts deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan—the time that the deferred amount and earnings would have been taken into account as wages under Section 3121(a) but for the application of Section 3121(v)(2).  The IRS’s regulatory approach is arguably contrary to the statutory language, which does not include a “backup” timing rule but instead provides the sole and exclusive rule regarding the time at which such amounts are wages as a matter of statutory law. There is no other Code provision that would override the clear and unambiguous mandate of Section 3121(v)(2)(A) to require, or event permit, amounts deferred under nonqualified deferred compensation plans to be treated as FICA wages in a later year.

In the absence of an explicit statutory command that would require the later inclusion in wages of deferred amounts that were not properly subjected to FICA taxation, the approach taken by Treasury and the IRS in the regulations may be vulnerable to attack.  With the IRS now refusing to enter into closing agreements on the issue, a cornered taxpayer might seek to do just that.

First Friday FATCA Update

Post by
January 6, 2017

Since our last monthly FATCA update, we have addressed several other recent FATCA developments, including a flurry of FATCA-related regulations released by the IRS and Treasury Department:

  • Late Friday, December 30, 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department released four regulation packages related to its implementation of FATCA (see previous coverage).   These regulations largely finalized the 2014 temporary FATCA regulations and 2014 temporary FATCA coordination regulations with the changes that the IRS had previously announced in a series of notices.
  • The final regulations released by the IRS under FATCA on December 30, 2016, finalized the temporary presumption rules promulgated on March 6, 2014 with no substantive changes, but several changes were made to the final coordinating regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61, also released on the same date (see previous coverage).
  • In the preamble to the final FATCA regulations released on December 30, 2016, the IRS rejected a request from a commenter that the regulations be modified to permit a non-financial foreign entity (NFFE) operating in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status using the criteria specified in the IGA (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS released final agreements for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) and qualified intermediaries (QIs) to enter into with the IRS, set forth in Revenue Procedure 2017-16 and Revenue Procedure 2017-15, respectively (see previous coverage).
  • Two FATCA transition rules expired on January 1, 2017:  One related to limited branches and limited FFIs, and one related to the deadline for sponsoring entities to register their sponsored entities with the IRS (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2016-56 to add to the list of countries subject to the reporting requirements of Code section 6049, which generally relate to reporting on bank interest paid to nonresident alien individuals (see previous coverage).
  • The IRS issued Notice 2016-76 providing phased-in application of certain section 871(m) withholding rules applicable to dividend equivalents, and easing several reporting and withholding requirements for withholding agents and qualified derivatives dealers (QDDs) (see previous coverage).

In addition, the Treasury Department recently released the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) entered into between the United States and the following treaty partners, in these respective forms:

  • Grenada, Model 1B;
  • Macau, Model 2;
  • Taiwan, Model 2.

Further, the IRS released the Competent Authority Agreement (CAA) implementing the Model 1A IGA between the United States and Guyana entered into on October 17, 2016.

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions (FFIs) operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.


Final Regulations Make Minor Changes to FATCA and Chapter 3 Presumption Rules

Post by
January 5, 2017

The final regulations released by the IRS under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) on December 30, 2016 finalized the temporary presumption rules promulgated on March 6, 2014 with no substantive changes, but several changes were made to the final coordinating regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61, also released on the same date.

Under FATCA, withholding agents must conduct certain due diligence to identify the Chapter 4 status of their payees.  In the absence of information sufficient to reliably identify a payee’s Chapter 4 status, withholding agents must apply specific presumption rules to determine that status.

According to the preamble to the final FATCA regulations, a commenter requested that a reporting Model 1 foreign financial institution (FFI) receiving a withholdable payment as an intermediary or making a withholdable payment to an account held by an undocumented entity be permitted to treat such an account as a U.S. reportable account.  The IRS rejected the commenter’s suggestion, explaining that a reporting Model 1 FFI that follows the due diligence procedures required under Annex I of the IGA should not maintain any undocumented accounts.  In the absence of information to determine the status of an entity account, a reporting Model 1 FFI must obtain a self-certification, and in the absence of both the required information and a self-certification, the reporting Model 1 FFI must apply the presumption rules contained in the Treasury Regulations by treating the payee as a nonparticipating FFI and withholding.

The discussion in the preamble is consistent with the rules set forth in the IGAs, which require reporting Model 1 or Model 2 FFIs to withhold on withholdable payments made to nonparticipating FFIs in certain circumstances.  The reasoning provided is also the same as provided with respect to reporting Model 2 FFIs in Revenue Procedure 2017-16, setting forth the updated FFI agreement.

Although the IRS declined to make the requested change to the final Chapter 4 regulations, it did make a number of changes to the presumption rules in the final FATCA coordination regulations.  It also rejected some changes that were requested by commenters.

Under the temporary coordination regulations, a withholding agent must presume that an undocumented entity payee that is an exempt recipient is a foreign person if the name of the payee indicates that it is a type of entity that is on the per se list of foreign corporations.   However, an entity name that contains the word “corporation” or “company” is not required to be presumed foreign because such information in itself it is not indicative of foreign status.  According to the preamble, a commenter requested that the IRS amend the presumption rules to allow a presumption of foreign status for an entity whose name contains “corporation” or “company,” if the withholding agent has a document that reasonably demonstrates that the entity is incorporated in the relevant foreign jurisdiction on the per se list.  The IRS adopted this change to the coordination regulations.

In contrast, the IRS rejected a commenter’s other suggested changes to the presumption rules.  One commenter requested that a withholding agent making a payment other than a withholdable payment to an exempt recipient be permitted to rely on documentary evidence to presume the payee is foreign.  The IRS reasoned that the documentary evidence rule was not worthwhile because it would be limited in scope because an existing rule, which requires a withholding agent to presume a payee that is a certain type of exempt recipient is foreign with respect to withholdable payments, may be applied by the withholding agent to all payments with respect to an obligation whether or not they are withholdable payments.  The IRS also expressed concern about how the proposed change would work in the context of payments made to foreign partnerships with partners who are non-exempt recipients and for which different presumption rules apply.

The IRS also declined to make a suggested change that would permit an undocumented entity to be presumed foreign if the withholding agent has a global intermediary identification number (GIIN) on file for the payee and the payee’s name appears on the IRS FFI list.  The IRS rejected the proposed change because U.S. entities can register and obtain a GIIN (for example, as a sponsoring entity), so the existence of a GIIN does not necessarily indicate the payee is foreign.

IRS Says NFFEs Must Determine their Chapter 4 Status Under Treasury Regulations

Post by
January 5, 2017

In the preamble to the final FATCA regulations released on December 30, 2016, the IRS rejected a request from a commenter that the regulations be modified to permit a non-financial foreign entity (NFFE) operating in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status using the criteria specified in the IGA.

In the preamble, the IRS responded to the request by indicating that although an NFFE may use the IGA to determine whether it is a foreign financial institution (FFI) or a NFFE,  it must look to U.S. Treasury Regulations to determine its Chapter 4 status once it determines it is an NFFE.  As a result, different sets of rules apply to determine an entity’s specific Chapter 4 status depending upon whether the entity is determining its status for purposes of documenting its status to a withholding agent or documenting its status to an FFI in its own jurisdiction.  Similarly, the IRS said a passive NFFE will be required to report U.S. controlling persons to FFIs in IGA jurisdictions and report substantial U.S. owners to participating FFIs and U.S. withholding agents.  As a justification for its response, the IRS said that the rules in the IGAs are intended only for FFIs and not for NFFEs.

Many practitioners believe that it is illogical for a single entity to have different Chapter 4 statuses depending upon who is documenting its status or where its status is being documented.  As a result, many practitioners believed it was appropriate for an entity resident in an IGA jurisdiction to determine its Chapter 4 status under the terms of the applicable IGA.  Because different rules apply to determine the entity’s status in different jurisdictions, an NFFE could otherwise have one Chapter 4 status when receiving payments from a U.S. withholding agent and a different Chapter 4 status in an IGA jurisdiction.

From a policy perspective, the IRS’s decision appears somewhat irrational—it requires NFFEs to follow U.S. Treasury Regulations to identify their Chapter 4 status, rather than using the rules for determining their status that are in the IGA that was agreed to by Treasury and the tax authorities in their own jurisdictions.  The impact of this goes beyond mere nomenclature, as the specific type of NFFE determines an entity’s responsibilities under FATCA.  Fortunately, since the two sets of rules contain significant overlap, applying the different rules will lead to the same Chapter 4 status in many situations.  To the extent that the two sets of rules would arrive at different results, the entities affected will have additional compliance burdens, as they will have to be familiar with both the rules under the U.S. Treasury Regulations and under the applicable IGA.

Temporary FATCA Coordination Regulations Bring U.S. Source Gross Transportation Income Saga to a Close

Post by
January 4, 2017

On Friday, December 30, 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department released over 600 pages of new final, temporary and proposed regulations under Chapter 4 (FATCA), Chapter 3, and Chapter 61 (see earlier coverage).  The four packages finalize the temporary regulations issued in 2014 and make additional changes based on comments received by the IRS.  One issue addressed by the temporary FATCA coordination regulations issues under Chapter 3 addresses the outstanding question of whether withholding agents must document the foreign payees of U.S. source gross transportation income (USSGTI) and withhold under Chapter 3.  The temporary regulations amend the regulations under Section 1441 to specifically exempt USSGTI from amounts subject to withholding.

Although it informally suggested that withholding agents were not required to document or withhold 30% on payments of USSGTI, the IRS has been reluctant to issue formal guidance.  To this end, IRS Publication 515 provides that such amounts are not subject to Chapter 3 withholding under Section 1441 or 1442.  However, Sections 1441 and 1442 generally require withholding agents to withhold 30% on payments subject to the tax imposed by Sections 871 and 881 (i.e., FDAP income).  However, payments of gross transportation income that is U.S. source because the transportation begin or ends (not both) in the United States are subject to a 4% excise tax under Section 887 that is self-imposed by the payee, unless an exception applies.  Section 887(c) provides that the 30% gross tax applicable to most U.S. source income of foreign persons (other than income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business) does not apply to transportation income.

The issue that has arisen is that neither Section 1441 or 1442 explicitly reference Sections 871 and 881 as a basis for the withholding.  However, it seems illogical to require 30% withholding on U.S. source gross transportation income given that such income is only subject to the 4% excise tax.  Despite the guidance in Publication 515, examiners have asserted on audit that such payments are subject to withholding under Chapter 3.  Nevertheless, withholding agents have generally been successful in rebutting such assertions and avoiding audit assessments.

The IRS created confusion regarding this issue earlier in 2016 when it asserted in a practice unit that USSGTI did not constitute FDAP income and was therefore not subject to withholding under Chapter 3 (see earlier coverage).  The IRS later revised the practice unit to remove the reference to USSGTI (see earlier coverage) after taxpayers questioned whether such payments are FDAP income.  The preamble to the temporary regulations now clarify that although USSGTI is FDAP income, it is nonetheless not subject to Chapter 3 withholding because the tax imposed under Section 871 or 881 does not apply.  The temporary regulations now thankfully bring this saga to a close six years after the IRS Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee made its original request for the IRS to clarify this problem for withholding agents in 2010.  A discussion of this issue can be found in IRPAC’s 2013 annual report.

IRS Releases Four FATCA-Related Regulation Packages

Late Friday, December 30, 2016, the IRS and Treasury Department released four regulation packages related to its implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).  Two of the packages include final and temporary regulations and two contain proposed regulations.  The packages are:

  • Final and Temporary Regulations under Chapter 4 that largely finalize the temporary regulations issued in 2014 and update those temporary regulations to reflect the guidance provided in Notices 2014-33, 2015-66, and 2016-08 and in response to comments received by the IRS.
  • Final and Temporary FATCA Coordinating Regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61 that largely finalize the temporary coordination regulations issued under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61 in 2014 and update those temporary regulations to reflect the guidance provided in Notices 2014-33, 2014-59, and 2016-42 and in response to comments received by the IRS.
  • Proposed Regulations under Chapter 4 that describe the verification and certification requirements applicable to sponsoring entities; the certification requirements and IRS review procedures applicable to trustee-documented trusts; the IRS review procedures applicable to periodic certifications of compliance by registered deemed-compliant FFIs; and the certification of compliance requirements applicable to participating FFIs in consolidated compliance groups. The proposed regulations also reflect the language of the temporary Chapter 4 regulations described above.
  • Proposed Coordinating Regulations under Chapter 3 and Chapter 61 that reflect the language of the temporary coordination regulations described above.

We are reviewing the regulations and preparing a series of articles discussing various provisions in the regulations.  We will post the articles over the next several days.

IRS Provides Guidance on De Minimis Safe Harbor for Errors in Amounts on Information Returns

Post by
January 4, 2017

The IRS today released Notice 2017-09 providing guidance on the de minimis safe harbor for errors in amounts reported on information returns.  The safe harbor was added to Sections 6721 and 6722 by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act).

Under the statute, filers are not subject to penalties under either Section 6721 and 6722 if an amount reported on the return is within $100 of correct amount or within $25 if the amount is an amount of tax withheld.  However, if the payee requests a corrected return, the filer must file and furnish one or the payee is liable for potential penalties.  Prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, any error in an amount was considered consequential and could result in a penalty—even if the error was only one cent.  With this change, de minimis errors no longer necessitate corrected information returns or payee statements.  The safe harbor is effective for information returns and payee statements required to be filed after December 31, 2016.

Notice 2017-09 specifies that the safe harbor will not apply in the event of an intentional error or if a payor fails to file a required information return or furnish a required payee statement.  In other words, a filer cannot use the safe harbor to increase the filing threshold for reporting by arguing that the amount that should have been reported was within $25 of a threshold.  Accordingly, if a filer determines that a Form 1099-MISC was not required because the amount paid to the payee was $550 and later determines the amount paid was actually $650, the safe harbor would not apply.  Similarly, filers cannot apply the safe harbor to avoid penalties for payees of interest of less than $100 for whom they did not file a Form 1099-INT because the filer incorrectly believed the interest paid was less than $10.

The notice also clarifies the process by which a payee may request a corrected information return by electing that the safe harbor not apply.  If the payee makes such an election and the payor furnishes a corrected payee statement and files a corrected information return within 30 days of the election, the error will be deemed to be due to reasonable cause and neither Section 6721 or 6722 penalties shall apply unless specific rules specify a time in which to provide the corrected payee statements, such as for Forms W-2.  The notice leaves unanswered, however, how this rule will apply when a payee has an ongoing election not to apply the safe harbor in effect as described below.

The notice permits payors to prescribe any reasonable manner for making the election, including in writing, on-line, or by telephone, provided that the payor provide written notification of the manner prescribed before the date the payee makes an election.  If on-line elections are prescribed by the payor, the payor must also provide another means for making an election.  If the payor has prescribed a manner for making such an election, the payee must make the election using the prescribed manner and elections made otherwise are not valid.  If the payor has not prescribed a manner for making the election, the payor may make an election in writing to the payor’s address on the payee statement or by a manner directed by payor after making an inquiry.  The payor may not otherwise limit the payee’s ability to make the election.

Payees are permitted to make an election with respect to information returns and payee statements that were required to be furnished in the calendar year of the election.  Alternatively, a payee may make an election for such returns and payee statements and all succeeding calendar years.  The statute did not clearly envision an ongoing election as prescribed in the notice.  The decision to allow for an ongoing election as opposed to an annual election requirement raises compliance concerns with respect to small payors who do not have electronic vendor management systems and with respect to payees who only receive intermittent payments that may have been inactivated in the payor’s systems.

The payee may subsequently revoke an election at any time after the election is made by providing written notice to the payor.  The revocation applies to all information returns and payee statements of the type specified in the revocation that are required to be filed and furnished, respectively, after the date on which the payor receives the revocation.

A valid election must: (1) clearly state that the payee is making the election; (2) provide the payee’s name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN); (3) identify the type of payee statement(s) and account number(s), if applicable, to which the election applies if the payee wants the election to apply only to specific statements; and (4) if the payee wants the election to apply only to the year for which the payee makes the election, state that the election applies only to payee statements required to be furnished in that calendar year.  If the payee does not identify the type of payee statement and account number or (ii) the calendar year to which the election relates, the payor must treat the election as applying to all types of payee statements that the payor is required to furnish to the payee and as applying to payee statements that are required to be furnished in the calendar year in which the payee makes the election and all succeeding calendar years.

The notice indicates that it does not prohibit a payee from making a request with respect to payee statements required to be furnished in an earlier calendar year.  It is not clear, however, whether such a request must be honored by the payor.

With respect to Forms W-2, Notice 2017-09 encourages employers to correct any errors on Forms W-2c even though the safe harbor may apply.  The notice expresses concern that failure to correct de minimis errors on Forms W-2 will result in combined annual wage reporting (CAWR) errors.  Under the CAWR program, the IRS compares amounts reported on Forms 941 with those reported on Forms W-3 and the processed totals from Forms W-2.  When the amounts do not match, an intentional disregard penalty is automatically assessed under Section 6721.  Although the notice does not specify as much, these penalties would presumably be abated if the employer demonstrated that the mismatch resulted from de minimis errors that were not required to be corrected under the safe harbor.

The notice states that the Treasury Department and IRS intend to issue regulations incorporating the rules contained in the notice.  The regulations are also expected to require payors to notify payees of the safe harbor and the option to make an election to have the safe harbor not apply.  The notice also indicates that the regulations may provide that the safe harbor does not apply to certain information returns and payee statements to prevent abuse as permitted by the statute, but does not indicate which, if any, information returns the IRS believes raise such concerns.  Comments are requested on the rules in the notice and are due by April 24, 2017.