Section 199(a)(1) allows a deduction equal to 9 percent (3 percent in the case of taxable years beginning in 2005 or 2006, and 6 percent in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007, 2008, or 2009) of the lesser of (A) the qualified production activities income (QPAI) of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or (B) taxable income (determined without regard to section 199) for the taxable year (or, in the case of an individual, adjusted gross income (AGI)).

Section 199(b)(1) limits the deduction for a taxable year to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the calendar year that ends in such taxable year. For this purpose, section 199(b)(2)(A) defines the term W-2 wages to mean, with respect to any person for any taxable year of such person, the sum of the amounts described in section 6051(a)(3) and (8) paid by such person with respect to employment of employees by such person during the calendar year ending during such taxable year. Section 514(a) of TIPRA added new section 199(b)(2)(B), which provides that the term W-2 wages does not include any amount which is not properly allocable to domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) for purposes of section 199(c)(1). Section 199(b)(2)(C) provides that the term W-2 wages does not include any amount that is not properly included in a return filed with the Social Security Administration on or before the 60th day after the due date (including extensions) for the return. Section 199(b)(3) provides that the Secretary shall prescribe rules for the application of section 199(b) in the case of an acquisition or disposition of a major portion of either a trade or business or a separate unit of a trade or business during the taxable year.

Section 199(d)(1)(A) provides that, in the case of a partnership or S corporation, (i) section 199 shall be applied at the partner or shareholder level, (ii) each partner or shareholder shall take into account such person’s allocable share of each item described in section 199(c)(1)(A) or (B) (determined without regard to whether the items described in section 199(c)(1)(A) exceed the items described in section 199(c)(1)(B)), and (iii), as amended by section 514(b) of TIPRA, each partner or shareholder shall be treated for purposes of section 199(b) as having W-2 wages for the taxable year in an amount equal to such person’s allocable share of the W-2 wages of the partnership or S corporation for the taxable year (as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary).

Section 199(d)(1)(B) provides that, in the case of a trust or estate, (i) the items referred to in section 199(d)(1)(A)(ii) (as determined therein) and the W-2 wages of the trust or estate for the taxable year shall be apportioned between the beneficiaries and the fiduciary (and among the beneficiaries) under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and (ii) for purposes of section 199(d)(2), AGI of the trust or estate shall be determined as provided in section 67(e) with the adjustments described in such section.

Section 199(d)(1)(C) provides that the Secretary may prescribe rules requiring or restricting the allocation of items and wages under section 199(d)(1) and may prescribe such reporting requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.

Section 199(d)(4)(A) provides that all members of an expanded affiliated group (EAG) are treated as a single corporation for purposes of section 199. Section 199(d)(4)(B) provides that an EAG is an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a), determined by substituting “more than 50 percent” for “at least 80 percent” each place it appears and without regard to section 1504(b)(2) and (4).

Section 199(d)(8) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of section 199, including regulations that prevent more than one taxpayer from being allowed a deduction under section 199 with respect to any activity described in section 199(c)(4)(A)(i).

Section 514(a) of TIPRA amended section 199(b)(2) to provide that the term W-2 wages does not include any amount that is not properly allocable to DPGR for purposes of section 199(c)(1). The Secretary is authorized to provide rules for the proper allocation of items (including wages) in determining QPAI. See section 199(d)(8). The temporary regulations provide that for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the term W-2 wages includes only amounts described in §1.199-2(e)(1) (paragraph (e)(1) wages) that are properly allocable to DPGR. The temporary regulations provide that a taxpayer may determine the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR using any reasonable method that is satisfactory to the Secretary based on all of the facts and circumstances.

The temporary regulations provide safe harbors for determining the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR. Under the wage expense safe harbor for taxpayers using either the section 861 method of cost allocation under §1.199-4(d) or the simplified deduction method under §1.199-4(e), a taxpayer may determine the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR by multiplying the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages by the ratio of the taxpayer’s wage expense included in calculating QPAI for the taxable year to the taxpayer’s total wage expense used in calculating the taxpayer’s taxable income (or AGI, if applicable) for the taxable year. For purposes of determining the amount of wage expense in cost of goods sold (CGS) under this safe harbor, a taxpayer may determine its wage expense included in CGS using any reasonable method that is satisfactory to the Secretary based on all of the facts and circumstances. For example, a reasonable method would include a taxpayer using direct labor included in CGS as wage expense included in CGS. Additionally, a reasonable method would include a taxpayer using the section 263A labor costs used by the taxpayer in its simplified service cost method with labor-based allocation ratio under §1.263-1(h)(4)(ii) as wage expense included in CGS. Because CGS frequently includes goods manufactured in prior years, and thus would frequently include paragraph (e)(1) wages from prior years attributable to DPGR, the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages in CGS that is properly allocable to DPGR may be difficult to determine. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on appropriate safe harbors for determining the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages in CGS that are properly allocable to DPGR.

A taxpayer that uses the small business simplified overall method of cost allocation under §1.199-4(f) may use the small business simplified overall method safe harbor for determining the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR. Under that safe harbor, the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR is equal to the same proportion of paragraph (e)(1) wages that the amount of DPGR bears to the taxpayer’s total gross receipts.

As a consequence of the amendment to section 199(b)(2) made by TIPRA and its interplay with the rules in §1.199-7(a) and (b) for the computation of an EAG’s section 199 deduction, the section 199 deduction for the members of an EAG may be reduced if one member of an EAG uses employees of another member of the EAG to perform activities attributable to DPGR and does not have paragraph (e)(1) wages. In general, §1.199-7(a) and (b) provides that each member of an EAG calculates its own taxable income or loss, QPAI, and W-2 wages, which are then aggregated in determining the EAG’s section 199 deduction. Therefore, prior to the amendment to section 199(b)(2), in determining the wage limitation under section 199(b)(1) (the W-2 wage limitation), it was irrelevant which member of an EAG had the paragraph (e)(1) wages, because there was no requirement that paragraph (e)(1) wages be properly allocable to DPGR to qualify as W-2 wages, and the W-2 wages of all the members of an EAG are aggregated.

For example, assume that X and Y are members of an EAG and do not join in the filing of a consolidated Federal income tax return. X has paragraph (e)(1) wages incurred in connection with Y’s DPGR activities, but X has no DPGR itself. Further assume that Y has no paragraph (e)(1) wages. Prior to the amendment to section 199(b)(2), notwithstanding that X has no DPGR, X would have W-2 wages, because there was no requirement that paragraph (e)(1) wages be properly allocable to DPGR. Thus, the EAG would have W-2 wages, the same as if Y, rather than X, had the paragraph (e)(1) wages. Assuming the EAG had QPAI and taxable income, the EAG would receive a section 199 deduction.

After the amendment to section 199(b)(2), to qualify as W-2 wages within the meaning of §1.199-2T(e)(2), paragraph (e)(1) wages must be properly allocable to DPGR to qualify as W-2 wages. Because each member of an EAG separately calculates its own items before they are aggregated by the EAG, the member having the paragraph (e)(1) wages must itself have DPGR to which the wages are properly allocable in order to qualify those wages as W-2 wages. Paragraph (e)(1) wages that are not properly allocable to DPGR of the member having the paragraph (e)(1) wages do not qualify as W-2 wages, even if the paragraph (e)(1) wages were paid in connection with another member’s DPGR activities. Thus, after the amendment to section 199(b)(2), X’s paragraph (e)(1) wages do not qualify as W-2 wages, because X has no DPGR to which the paragraph (e)(1) wages would be properly allocable. Accordingly, as neither X nor Y has W-2 wages, the EAG has no W-2 wages and no section 199 deduction. If Y had the paragraph (e)(1) wages rather than X, the EAG would have W-2 wages and a section 199 deduction.

However, if X and Y join in the filing of a consolidated Federal income tax return, the results may differ. Section 1.1502-13(c)(1)(i) and (c)(4) requires that the separate entity attributes of X’s and Y’s intercompany items or corresponding items be redetermined to the extent necessary to produce the effect as if X and Y were divisions of a single corporation. Thus, §1.1502-13(c)(1)(i) and (c)(4) may apply to treat the paragraph (e)(1) wages incurred by X as W-2 wages. The temporary regulations provide examples to demonstrate the described scenarios.

Section 514(b) of TIPRA amended section 199(d)(1)(A)(iii) regarding a partner’s or shareholder’s share of W-2 wages from a partnership or S corporation for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006. After TIPRA, the section 199(d)(1)(A)(iii) wage limitation for pass-thru entities no longer includes the second prong of a two-prong standard, by which a partner’s or shareholder’s share of W-2 wages from the partnership or S corporation was limited to the lesser of that person’s allocable share of W-2 wages from the entity or a specified percentage of the person’s QPAI, computed by taking into account only the items of the entity allocated to that person for the taxable year of the entity.

Section 1.199-5T(b)(3) and (c)(3) provides guidance regarding a partner’s or shareholder’s share of W-2 wages of a partnership or an S corporation after the effective date of TIPRA. Except as provided by publication in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)), the partnership or S corporation must allocate its paragraph (e)(1) wages (including any such wages from a lower-tier partnership of which the partnership or S corporation is a partner) among its partners or shareholders in the same manner that wage expense is allocated among those partners or shareholders. The partner or shareholder must add its share of the paragraph (e)(1) wages from the partnership or S corporation to the partner’s or shareholder’s paragraph (e)(1) wages from other sources, if any. The partner (other than a partner that itself is a partnership or S corporation) or shareholder then must calculate its W-2 wages (as defined in §1.199-2T(e)(2)) by determining the amount of its paragraph (e)(1) wages properly allocable to DPGR. See §1.199-2T(e)(2) for the computation of W-2 wages.

Section 1.199-5T(e) requires a non-grantor trust or estate to calculate each beneficiary’s share (as well as the trust’s or estate’s share, if any) of QPAI and W-2 wages from the trust or estate at the trust or estate level. The QPAI of a trust or estate and W-2 wages of the trust or estate are allocated to each beneficiary and to the trust or estate based on the relative proportion of the trust’s or estate’s distributable net income (DNI), as defined by section 643(a), for the taxable year that is distributed or required to be distributed to the beneficiary or is retained by the trust or estate.

Because the second prong of the wage limitation of section 199(d)(1)(A)(iii) was prospectively repealed by TIPRA, there is no longer any need for a special rule for tiered structures (where a pass-thru entity owns an interest in another pass-thru entity). Accordingly, the rule in §1.199-9(g) of the final regulations regarding the section 199(d)(1)(A)(iii) wage limitation and tiered structures has not been included in these temporary regulations.

The temporary regulations provide a transition rule for the situation in which a partner (or shareholder) and a partnership (or S corporation) have different taxable years, only one of which begins on or before the effective date of TIPRA. Under §1.199-5T(b)(4) and (c)(4), the beginning date of the taxable year of the partnership (or S corporation) determines which definition of W-2 wages and which W-2 wage limitation for pass-thru entities apply.

After issuance of the final regulations, it was brought to the attention of the IRS and Treasury Department that the combination of the aggregation rules for determining the taxable income of an EAG in §1.199-7(b)(1) and the rules of section 172 for net operating loss (NOL) deductions can result in the same loss being used twice in determining the taxable income limitation under section 199(a)(1)(B). That is, in determining the taxable income limitation under section 199(a)(1)(B), a loss sustained by a member of an EAG could be used in the year the loss is sustained to offset the taxable income of another member of the EAG in determining the EAG’s taxable income limitation. However, because the EAG is not a separate taxpaying entity that files its own tax return, the member that sustained the loss would still have an NOL carryover or carryback. Thus, the loss could be used again as an NOL deduction of the member that sustained the loss in a previous or subsequent year to offset its own income, either as a member of the same EAG, a different EAG, or on a stand-alone basis. Because the section 199 deduction is a percentage of the lesser of QPAI or taxable income (subject to the W-2 wage limitation), the use of the same loss twice could potentially reduce the section 199 deduction that should be allowable.

For example, assume that corporations X and Y are the only two members of an EAG and that X and Y do not file a consolidated Federal income tax return. In 2010, X and Y each have $100 of QPAI which, under §1.199-7(b), are aggregated in determining the EAG’s QPAI. X has $100 of taxable income and Y has a $100 NOL, which are also aggregated in determining the EAG’s taxable income for purposes of the taxable income limitation of section 199(a)(1)(B). Further assume that the EAG has sufficient W-2 wages so that the section 199 deduction is not limited under section 199(b)(1). Thus, although in 2010 the EAG has $200 of QPAI and sufficient W-2 wages so that the section 199 deduction is not limited under section 199(b)(1), as a result of the use of Y’s NOL, the EAG has $0 of taxable income and no section 199 deduction. However, because the EAG is not a separate taxpaying entity, Y has an NOL of $100 which is available for carryover or carryback. In 2011, X has $100 of taxable income and Y, before the deduction allowed under section 172, has $300 of taxable income. Under section 172, Y reduces its 2011 taxable income of $300 by its 2010 NOL of $100, thus reducing Y’s taxable income to $200. Y’s loss was effectively used twice, first in 2010 to reduce the EAG’s taxable income for purposes of the taxable income limitation of section 199(a)(1)(B) and then in 2011 to reduce Y’s own taxable income, which reduces the EAG’s aggregate taxable income for purposes of the taxable income limitation.

This result was not intended. Accordingly, §1.199-7T(b)(4) has been added to provide that, to the extent that an NOL was used in the year it was sustained in determining any EAG’s taxable income for purposes of the taxable income limitation of section 199(a)(1)(B), such NOL is not treated as an NOL carryover or NOL carryback to any taxable year in determining the taxable income limitation under section 199(a)(1)(B). Thus, in the previous example, solely for purposes of determining the EAG’s 2011 taxable income limitation under section 199(a)(1)(B), Y would not have an NOL carryover from 2010, because the entire $100 NOL was used in 2010 to reduce the EAG’s taxable income. Therefore, for purposes of determining the EAG’s taxable income limitation in 2011, Y would have taxable income of $300 and the EAG would have aggregate taxable income of $400. The temporary regulations provide examples to illustrate this provision.

* * * * *

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Losses used to reduce taxable income of expanded affiliated group. [Reserved].

* * * * *

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(5) Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. [Reserved].

(6) Losses used to reduce taxable income of expanded affiliated group. [Reserved].

* * * * *

Par. 3. Section 1.199-2 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Limitation on W-2 wages for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the enactment date of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. * * * For further guidance, see §1.199-2T(e)(2).

* * * * *

Par. 4. Section 1.199-2T is added to read as follows:

(a) through (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see §1.199-2(a) through (d).

(e) Definition of W-2 wages—(1) In general. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see §1.199-2(e)(1).

(2) Limitation on W-2 wages for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the enactment date of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005—(i) In general. The term W-2 wages includes only amounts described in §1.199-2(e)(1) (paragraph (e)(1) wages) that are properly allocable to domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) (as defined in §1.199-3) for purposes of section 199(c)(1). A taxpayer may determine the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR using any reasonable method that is satisfactory to the Secretary based on all of the facts and circumstances.

(ii) Wage expense safe harbor—(A) In general. A taxpayer using either the section 861 method of cost allocation under §1.199-4(d) or the simplified deduction method under §1.199-4(e) may determine the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR for a taxable year by multiplying the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages for the taxable year by the ratio of the taxpayer’s wage expense included in calculating qualified production activities income (QPAI) (as defined in §1.199-1(c)) for the taxable year to the taxpayer’s total wage expense used in calculating the taxpayer’s taxable income (or adjusted gross income, if applicable) for the taxable year, without regard to any wage expense disallowed by section 465, 469, 704(d), or 1366(d). A taxpayer that uses the section 861 method of cost allocation under §1.199-4(d) or the simplified deduction method under §1.199-4(e) to determine QPAI must use the same expense allocation and apportionment methods that it uses to determine QPAI to allocate and apportion wage expense for purposes of this safe harbor. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the term wage expense means wages (that is, compensation paid by the employer in the active conduct of a trade or business to its employees) that are properly taken into account under the taxpayer’s method of accounting.

(B) Wage expense included in cost of goods sold. For purposes of paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, a taxpayer may determine its wage expense included in cost of goods sold (CGS) using any reasonable method that is satisfactory to the Secretary based on all of the facts and circumstances, such as using the amount of direct labor included in CGS or using section 263A labor costs (as defined in §1.263A-1(h)(4)(ii)) included in CGS.

(iii) Small business simplified overall method safe harbor. A taxpayer that uses the small business simplified overall method under §1.199-4(f) may use the small business simplified overall method safe harbor for determining the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR. Under this safe harbor, the amount of paragraph (e)(1) wages that is properly allocable to DPGR is equal to the same proportion of paragraph (e)(1) wages that the amount of DPGR bears to the taxpayer’s total gross receipts.

(iv) Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of this paragraph (e)(2). See §1.199-5T for an example of the application of paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section to a trust or estate.

Example 1. Section 861 method and no EAG. (i) Facts. X, a United States corporation that is not a member of an expanded affiliated group (EAG) (as defined in §1.199-7) or an affiliated group as defined in the regulations under section 861, engages in activities that generate both DPGR and non-DPGR. X’s taxable year ends on April 30, 2011. For X’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, X has $3,000 of paragraph (e)(1) wages reported on 2010 Forms W-2. All of X’s production activities that generate DPGR are within Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Industry Group AAA (SIC AAA). All of X’s production activities that generate non-DPGR are within SIC Industry Group BBB (SIC BBB). X is able to specifically identify CGS allocable to DPGR and to non-DPGR. X incurs $900 of research and experimentation expenses (R&E) that are deductible under section 174, $300 of which are performed with respect to SIC AAA and $600 of which are performed with respect to SIC BBB. None of the R&E is legally mandated R&E as described in §1.861-17(a)(4) and none of the R&E is included in CGS. X incurs section 162 selling expenses that are not includible in CGS and are definitely related to all of X’s gross income. For X’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, the adjusted basis of X’s assets is $50,000, $40,000 of which generate gross income attributable to DPGR and $10,000 of which generate gross income attributable to non-DPGR. For X’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, the total square footage of X’s headquarters is 8,000 square feet, of which 2,000 square feet is set aside for domestic production activities. For its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, X’s taxable income is $1,380 based on the following Federal income tax items:

(ii) X’s QPAI. X allocates and apportions its deductions to gross income attributable to DPGR under the section 861 method in §1.199-4(d). In this case, the section 162 selling expenses and overhead expense are definitely related to all of X’s gross income. Based on the facts and circumstances of this specific case, apportionment of the section 162 selling expenses between DPGR and non-DPGR on the basis of X’s gross receipts is appropriate. In addition, based on the facts and circumstances of this specific case, apportionment of the headquarters overhead expense between DPGR and non-DPGR on the basis of the square footage of X’s headquarters is appropriate. For purposes of apportioning R&E, X elects to use the sales method as described in §1.861-17(c). X elects to apportion interest expense under the tax book value method of §1.861-9T(g). X has $2,400 of gross income attributable to DPGR (DPGR of $3,000 − CGS of $600 allocated based on X’s books and records). X’s QPAI for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $1,395, as shown in the following table:

(iii) W-2 wages. X chooses to use the wage expense safe harbor under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section to determine its W-2 wages, as shown in the following steps:

(A) Step one. X determines that $625 of wage expense were taken into account in determining its QPAI in paragraph (ii) of this Example 1, as shown in the following table:

(B) Step two. X determines that $1,042 of the $3,000 in paragraph (e)(1) wages are properly allocable to DPGR, and are therefore W-2 wages, as shown in the following calculation:

(iv) Section 199 deduction determination. X’s tentative deduction under §1.199-1(a) (section 199 deduction) is $124 (.09 x (lesser of QPAI of $1,395 or taxable income of $1,380)) subject to the wage limitation under section 199(b)(1) (W-2 wage limitation) of $521 (50% x $1,042). Accordingly, X’s section 199 deduction for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $124.

Example 2. Section 861 method and EAG. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 1 except that X owns stock in Y, a United States corporation, equal to 75% of the total voting power of stock of Y and 80% of the total value of stock of Y. X and Y are not members of an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a). Accordingly, the rules of §1.861-14T do not apply to X’s and Y’s selling expenses, R&E, and charitable contributions. X and Y are, however, members of an affiliated group for purposes of allocating and apportioning interest expense (see §1.861-11T(d)(6)) and are also members of an EAG. Y’s taxable year ends April 30, 2011. For Y’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, Y has $2,000 of paragraph (e)(1) wages reported on 2010 Forms W-2. For Y’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, the adjusted basis of Y’s assets is $50,000, $20,000 of which generate gross income attributable to DPGR and $30,000 of which generate gross income attributable to non-DPGR. All of Y’s activities that generate DPGR are within SIC Industry Group AAA (SIC AAA). All of Y’s activities that generate non-DPGR are within SIC Industry Group BBB (SIC BBB). None of X’s and Y’s sales are to each other. Y is not able to specifically identify CGS allocable to DPGR and non-DPGR. In this case, because CGS is definitely related under the facts and circumstances to all of Y’s gross receipts, apportionment of CGS between DPGR and non-DPGR based on gross receipts is appropriate. For Y’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, the total square footage of Y’s headquarters is 8,000 square feet, of which, 2,000 square feet is set aside for domestic production activities. Y incurs section 162 selling expenses that are not includible in CGS and are definitely related to all of Y’s gross income. For Y’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, Y’s taxable income is $1,710 based on the following Federal income tax items:

(ii) QPAI. (A) X’s QPAI. Determination of X’s QPAI is the same as in Example 1 except that interest is apportioned to gross income attributable to DPGR based on the combined adjusted bases of X’s and Y’s assets. See §1.861-11T(c). Accordingly, X’s QPAI for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $1,455, as shown in the following table:

(B) Y’s QPAI. Y makes the same elections under the section 861 method as does X. Y has $1,800 of gross income attributable to DPGR (DPGR of $3,000 − CGS of $1,200 allocated based on Y’s gross receipts). Y’s QPAI for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $905, as shown in the following table:

(iii) W-2 wages. (A) X’s W-2 wages. X’s W-2 wages are $1,042, the same as in Example 1.

(B) Y’s W-2 wages. Y chooses to use the wage expense safe harbor under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section to determine its W-2 wages, as shown in the following steps:

(1) Step one. Y determines that $480 of wage expense were taken into account in determining its QPAI in paragraph (ii)(B) of this Example 2, as shown in the following table:

(2) Step two. Y determines that $941 of the $2,000 paragraph (e)(1) wages are properly allocable to DPGR, and are therefore W-2 wages, as shown in the following calculation:

(iv) Section 199 deduction determination. The section 199 deduction of the X and Y EAG is determined by aggregating the separately determined taxable income, QPAI, and W-2 wages of X and Y. See §1.199-7(b). Accordingly, the X and Y EAG’s tentative section 199 deduction is $212 (.09 x (lesser of combined QPAI of X and Y of $2,360 (X’s QPAI of $1,455 plus Y’s QPAI of $905) or combined taxable incomes of X and Y of $3,090 (X’s taxable income of $1,380 plus Y’s taxable income of $1,710)) subject to the combined W-2 wage limitation of X and Y of $992 (50% x ($1,042 (X’s W-2 wages) + $941 (Y’s W-2 wages)))). Accordingly, the X and Y EAG’s section 199 deduction is $212. The $212 is allocated to X and Y in proportion to their QPAI. See §1.199-7(c).

Example 3. Simplified deduction method. (i) Facts. Z, a corporation that is not a member of an EAG, engages in activities that generate both DPGR and non-DPGR. Z is able to specifically identify CGS allocable to DPGR and to non-DPGR. Z’s taxable year ends on April 30, 2011. For Z’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, Z has $3,000 of paragraph (e)(1) wages reported on 2010 Forms W-2, and Z’s taxable income is $1,380 based on the following Federal income tax items:

(ii) Z’s QPAI. Z uses the simplified deduction method under §1.199-4(e) to apportion deductions between DPGR and non-DPGR. Z’s QPAI for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $1,290, as shown in the following table:

(iii) W-2 wages. Z chooses to use the wage expense safe harbor under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section to determine its W-2 wages, as shown in the following steps:

(A) Step one. Z determines that $700 of wage expense were taken into account in determining its QPAI in paragraph (ii) of this Example 3, as shown in the following table:

(B) Step two. Z determines that $1,167 of the $3,000 paragraph (e)(1) wages are properly allocable to DPGR, and are therefore W-2 wages, as shown in the following calculation:

(iv) Section 199 deduction determination. Z’s tentative section 199 deduction is $116 (.09 x (lesser of QPAI of $1,290 or taxable income of $1,380)) subject to the W-2 wage limitation of $584 (50% x $1,167). Accordingly, Z’s section 199 deduction for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $116.

Example 4. Small business simplified overall method. (i) Facts. Z, a corporation that is not a member of an EAG, engages in activities that generate both DPGR and non-DPGR. Z’s taxable year ends on April 30, 2011. For Z’s taxable year ending April 30, 2011, Z has $3,000 of paragraph (e)(1) wages reported on 2010 Forms W-2, and Z’s taxable income is $1,380 based on the following Federal income tax items:

(ii) Z’s QPAI. Z uses the small business simplified overall method under §1.199-4(f) to apportion CGS and deductions between DPGR and non-DPGR. Z’s QPAI for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $690, as shown in the following table:

(iii) W-2 wages. Z’s W-2 wages under paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section are $1,500, as shown in the following calculation:

(iv) Section 199 deduction determination. Z’s tentative section 199 deduction is $62 (.09 x (lesser of QPAI of $690 or taxable income of $1,380)) subject to the W-2 wage limitation of $750 (50% x $1,500). Accordingly, Z’s section 199 deduction for its taxable year ending April 30, 2011, is $62.

Example 5. Corporation uses employees of non-consolidated EAG member. (i) Facts. Corporations S and B are members of the same EAG but are not members of a consolidated group. S and B are both calendar year taxpayers. All the activities described in this example take place during the same taxable year and they are the only activities of S and B. S and B each use the section 861 method described in §1.199-4(d) for allocating and apportioning their deductions. B is a manufacturer but has only three employees of its own. S employs the remainder of the personnel who perform the manufacturing activities for B. S’s only receipts are from supplying employees to B. In 2010, B manufactures qualifying production property (QPP) (as defined in §1.199-3(j)(1)), using its three employees and S’s employees, and sells the QPP for $10,000,000. B’s total CGS and other deductions are $6,000,000, including $1,000,000 paid to S for the use of S’s employees and $100,000 paid to its own employees. B reports the $100,000 paid to its employees on the 2010 Forms W-2 issued to its employees. S pays its employees $800,000 that is reported on the 2010 Forms W-2 issued to the employees.

(ii) B’s W-2 wages. In determining its W-2 wages, B utilizes the wage expense safe harbor described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. The entire $100,000 paid by B to its employees is included in B’s wage expense included in calculating its QPAI and is the only wage expense used in calculating B’s taxable income. Thus, under the wage expense safe harbor described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, B’s W-2 wages are $100,000 ($100,000 (paragraph (e)(1) wages) x ($100,000 (wage expense used in calculating B’s QPAI)/$100,000 (wage expense used in calculating B’s taxable income))).

(iii) S’s W-2 wages. In determining its W-2 wages, S utilizes the wage expense safe harbor described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. Because S’s $1,000,000 in receipts from B do not qualify as DPGR and are S’s only gross receipts, none of the $800,000 paid by S to its employees is included in S’s wage expense included in calculating its QPAI. However, the entire $800,000 is included in calculating S’s taxable income. Thus, under the wage expense safe harbor described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, S’s W-2 wages are $0 ($800,000 (paragraph (e)(1) wages) x ($0 (wage expense used in calculating S’s QPAI)/$800,000 (wage expense used in calculating S’s taxable income))).

(iv) Determination of EAG’s section 199 deduction. The section 199 deduction of the S and B EAG is determined by aggregating the separately determined taxable income or loss, QPAI, and W-2 wages of S and B. See §1.199-7(b). B’s taxable income and QPAI are each $4,000,000 ($10,000,000 DPGR − $6,000,000 CGS and other deductions). S’s taxable income is $200,000 ($1,000,000 gross receipts − $800,000 total deductions). S’s QPAI is $0 ($0 DPGR − $0 CGS and other deductions). B’s W-2 wages (as calculated in paragraph (ii) of this Example 5) are $100,000 and S’s W-2 wages (as calculated in paragraph (iii) of this Example 5) are $0. The EAG’s tentative section 199 deduction is $360,000 (.09 x (lesser of combined QPAI of $4,000,000 (B’s QPAI of $4,000,000 + S’s QPAI of $0) or combined taxable income of $4,200,000 (B’s taxable income of $4,000,000 + S’s taxable income of $200,000)) subject to the W-2 wage limitation of $50,000 (50% x ($100,000 (B’s W-2 wages) + $0 (S’s W-2 wages))). Accordingly, the S and B EAG’s section 199 deduction for 2010 is $50,000. The $50,000 is allocated to S and B in proportion to their QPAI. See §1.199-7(c). Because S has no QPAI, the entire $50,000 is allocated to B.

Example 6. Corporation using employees of consolidated EAG member. The facts are the same as in Example 5 except that B and S are members of the same consolidated group. Ordinarily, as demonstrated in Example 5, S’s $1,000,000 of receipts would not be DPGR and its $800,000 paid to its employees would not be W-2 wages (because the $800,000 would not be properly allocable to DPGR). However, because S and B are members of the same consolidated group, §1.1502-13(c)(1)(i) provides that the separate entity attributes of S’s intercompany items or B’s corresponding items, or both, may be redetermined in order to produce the same effect as if S and B were divisions of a single corporation. If S and B were divisions of a single corporation, S and B would have QPAI and taxable income of $4,200,000 ($10,000,000 DPGR received from the sale of the QPP − $5,800,000 CGS and other deductions) and, under the wage expense safe harbor described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, would have $900,000 of W-2 wages ($900,000 (combined paragraph (e)(1) wages of S and B) x ($900,000 (wage expense used in calculating QPAI)/$900,000 (wage expense used in calculating taxable income))). The single corporation would have a tentative section 199 deduction equal to 9% of $4,200,000, or $378,000, subject to the W-2 wage limitation of 50% of $900,000, or $450,000. Thus, the single corporation would have a section 199 deduction of $378,000. To obtain this same result for the consolidated group, S’s $1,000,000 of receipts from the intercompany transaction are redetermined as DPGR. Thus, S’s $800,000 paid to its employees are costs properly allocable to DPGR and S’s W-2 wages are $800,000. Accordingly, the consolidated group has QPAI and taxable income of $4,200,000 ($11,000,000 DPGR (from the sale of the QPP and the redetermined intercompany transaction) − $6,800,000 CGS and other deductions) and W-2 wages of $900,000. The consolidated group’s section 199 deduction is $378,000, the same as the single corporation. However, for purposes of allocating the section 199 deduction between S and B, the redetermination of S’s income as DPGR under §1.1502-13(c)(1)(i) is not taken into account. See §1.199-7(d)(5). Accordingly, the consolidated group’s entire section 199 deduction of $378,000 is allocated to B.

Par. 5. Section 1.199-3 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of each of paragraphs (i)(7) and (8) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(7) Qualifying in-kind partnership for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the enactment date of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. * * * For further guidance, see §1.199-3T(i)(7).

(8) Partnerships owned by members of a single expanded affiliated group for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the enactment date of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. * * * For further guidance, see §1.199-3T(i)(8).

* * * * *

Par. 6. Section 1.199-3T is amended by adding paragraphs (i)(7) and (8) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(7) Qualifying in-kind partnership for taxable years beginning after May 17, 2006, the enactment date of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005—(i) In general. If a partnership is a qualifying in-kind partnership described in paragraph (i)(7)(ii) of this section, then each partner is treated as having manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted (MPGE) (as defined in §1.199-3(e)) or produced the property MPGE or produced by the partnership that is distributed to that partner. If a partner of a qualifying in-kind partnership derives gross receipts from the lease, rental, license, sale, exchange, or other disposition of the property that was MPGE or produced by the qualifying in-kind partnership and distributed to that partner, then, provided such partner is a partner of the qualifying in-kind partnership at the time the partner disposes of the property, the partner is treated as conducting the MPGE or production activities previously conducted by the qualifying in-kind partnership with respect to that property. With respect to a lease, rental, or license, the partner is treated as having disposed of the property on the date or dates on which it takes into account its gross receipts derived from the lease, rental, or license under it