He said it was "mind boggling" that someone with $1 million of interest investment income but $1 million in business losses, would not be able to net out and avoid paying any income tax. Now, however, the loss is treated as a net operating loss in the subsequent year. 

"If you have a client with $1 million interest income and $1 million in business losses and every year not paying tax, suddenly you'll find they are paying tax this year and next year, even though they never had a net operating loss [before], because ...  that excess business loss will be net operating loss, subject to [a taxable income limit] an 80 percent," he said.  He did note, however, that, because of the carry-forward, "it's only a one-year tax implication, and then [the client will] pay very little tax," but "I think that's one big surprise on folks." 

Gruda said that the TCJA has completely changed fundamental assumptions on how tax policy fits into business planning, and he noted that much of the confusion came from the nature of how the bill was created. 

"This was supposed to be tax simplification, right? Everything we're talking about today is meant to be simplified," he said. "But we get ink to paper in November, a law in December and proposed regulations in August. I think in 1986, we had two years to go through public policy, but this was really rushed through, so there's a lot of statutory language ambiguity and not a lot of commentary. Interestingly enough, never before has discussion around deal-structuring provisions, reviews of provisions, operating agreements and investment decisions been driven by tax policy. Now, there's a lot of opportunities."