Tag Archives: Florida

IRS Issues Small Business Tax Reform Regulations, Clarifies Combinations of Business Entities

The tax reform legislation Congress passed in December left many details unanswered, especially regarding the small business tax benefit giving some businesses a twenty percent deduction against their income if the businesses satisfy certain employee payroll and property ownership thresholds. On August 8, the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations attempting to address many of the open questions.

One of the biggest questions was whether taxpayers can treat employee payroll and property owned across multiple business entities (like corporation and limited liability companies) as a single combined business for the purpose of satisfying the employee payroll and property ownership tests.

For most types of businesses, the regulations generally would allow aggregation of property and payroll amongst different entities (such as partnerships and S corporations) if the same group of persons own the majority of the business for the majority of the year, the entities satisfy certain integration and interdependence tests, and the taxpayers follow specified filing procedures.

Those rules will not apply to most professional businesses, which are subject to limitations in the use of the small business deduction. These businesses are subject to rules forcing aggregation of income to prevent circumvention of the deduction limitations.

The rules are not fully binding until finalized, but IRS will apply the anti-abuse rules retroactively. Taxpayers can rely on these proposed rules until they are finalized.

We will provide more perspective on these important new rules soon. In the meantime, for more details, you can read the proposed regulations at irs.gov.

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

South Dakota v. Wayfair Rejects the Physical Presence Standard

States desperate for an influx of cash just received a blessing from the United States Supreme Court through the Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair. The decision reverses prior decisions in Quill v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, which provided that only a business with a physical presence in a state could be required by that state to collect sales tax. In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Court found that a “substantial nexus” with a state, rather than physical presence, is all that is required for a state to have the power to require an out-of-state business to withhold and pay sales tax.

For years, businesses have avoided the collection of sales tax on online sales by working around the physical presence requirement. Catalogs and phone orders were the original avenues allowing a business to reach more customers without establishing a physical presence in new jurisdictions. The growth of online sales has only compounded the problem faced by state budgets.

Until South Dakota v. Wayfair, a business making an online sale to a customer located in a state where that business does not have a physical store could not be required to collect sales tax on that sale. The sales tax owed would, in theory, be paid directly by the customer, with the customer required to report the sale and pay a use tax to his or her home state. Such use taxes are nearly impossible for states to enforce, with less than two percent of taxpayers ever reporting the use taxes they owe. Unfair competitive advantages have arisen as online retailers sell their goods for a lower, tax-free price than what could be offered by a local store selling from a physical location and required to collect sales tax at the time of sale.

States have attempted to fight back against the physical presence requirement through a number of different tax laws and strategies. The law brought before the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair required any business with $100,000 or more of sales delivered to South Dakota or engaging in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods into the state to withhold and pay sales tax directly to the state.  In upholding the law, the Court defined substantial nexus as when a taxpayer “avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on a business in that jurisdiction.”

With states having broader reach to directly tax sales, we can expect a more level playing field between online retailers and brick and mortar shops. We can also expect states looking to expand the reach of their sales tax laws to pass new legislation affecting a broader number of businesses. Businesses conducting sales online to customers in other states must be aware of new requirements a state may impose on the collection and payment of sales tax and what sales may be subject to the withholding of tax by the seller.

Jamie E. Koepsel
jkoepsel@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2562

Tax Cuts and Job Act – Estate Planning Update

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with a clear emphasis on job creation, introduced major tax changes for businesses. However, it also included a doubling of the exemption amount for federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax purposes. With the increased exemption expected to sunset on December 31, 2025, or earlier, now is the time for persons with taxable estates to consider how best to use and lock-in the increased exemption. For those persons safely under the current and prior exemption, care needs to be taken that their current documents do not result in a misallocation of assets where such allocation is tied to the exemption amount.

A recent presentation given to the FICPA explores these issues as well as other changes that may affect estate planning and administration.

Daniel L. Tullidge
dtullidge@williamsparker.com
(941) 329-6627

Business Tax Changes Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The Tax Act passed at the end of 2017 brought with it a number of changes to how businesses both big and small are to be taxed moving forward. While the most visible change has been the lowering of the corporate tax rate to a flat 21 percent rate, most businesses should be able to find additional benefits from changes in how business equipment is to be depreciated, how net operating losses can be carried forward into future years, and what improvements to non-residential real property are eligible for an immediate deduction.

A recent presentation given to FICPA discusses the aspects of the Tax Act, other than the Qualified Business Income Deduction, which are most likely to affect the tax savings of your business.

Jamie E. Koepsel
jkoepsel@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2562

For Want of a Nail? How Long-Term Capital Gain Eligibility Can Turn on a Single Piece of Paper

An old proverb teaches that the absence of a horseshoe nail can cause the downfall of a kingdom. A recent Tax Court cases suggest a real estate owner’s eligibility for long-term capital gain can turn on something just as trivial:  a single piece of paper.

The Sugar Land case involved real estate businesspersons who, though various entities, held some land for investment purposes and other land for development purposes. During 2008, they decided to abandon development plans for raw land they originally intended to develop. In 2008, they executed an owner resolution expressing their change of intent. Their land holding company subsequently sold most of the property to an unrelated homebuilder in three transactions in 2011 and 2012. The company then sold substantially all the remaining property to related entities in four transactions spanning 2012 through 2016. The related entities developed that land for resale.

The IRS asserted that the 2012 sales should have generated ordinary income instead of long-term capital gain. Despite several factors militating against capital gain eligibility—including nearby development activity by related entities–the Tax Court found that the sales qualified as long-term capital gain. The court identified the 2008 owner resolution as the critical factor showing their intent.

The Sugar Land opinion is a bookend to the Fargo case we discussed in 2015. In Fargo, the Tax Court held that a taxpayer who held land without developing it for over a decade recognized ordinary income on its sale. The court reasoned that the long holding period did not overcome the absence of an owner resolution or other documentation evidencing the abandonment of the owner’s original development plan. The taxpayer could not recognize long-term capital gain.

Lesson learned? Silly or not, documenting the non-development intent for holding raw land can make a big difference in the income tax bill when the property is sold. If you want long-term capital gain, take a few minutes to make sure the owners execute a contemporaneous resolution or governing documents expressing the intent to hold the property for investment, not development. Otherwise you might tell a tale of losing your own financial kingdom, for want of just one piece of paper.

Helpful Resources:

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

The Tax Act May Limit Resolutions of Sexual Harassment Complaints

One aspect of the new Tax Act (the Act) that has not been widely reported impacts employers that amicably resolve claims of sexual harassment. The provision denies tax deductions for any settlements, payouts, or attorneys’ fees related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such payments are subject to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. Specifically, Section 162(q) to the Internal Revenue Code provides:

PAYMENTS RELATED TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE.—No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for—

(1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or
(2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.

The intent of this provision is to deter confidentiality provisions in settlements of harassment claims. It is unclear if this provision will actually have the desired impact. Companies may value the confidentiality provisions more than the tax deductions permitted in their absence, and thus continue to enter into confidential settlement agreements. Alternatively, this provision of the Act may end up hurting those bringing harassment claims. Alleged victims may want confidentiality provisions in order to avoid any publicity about their claims. However, by removing tax incentives for employers, an employer may reject a higher settlement amount or settlement of claims altogether.

Section 162(q) of the Act is bound to create confusion as to its applicability as it fails to define key terms. Namely, the Act fails to define “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse,” both of which are pivotal to the application of the new provision. The Act also fails to contemplate how the provision is to be applied in settlement arrangements involving a variety of claims. Are the sex-based claims separable from a universal confidentiality covenant? Causing further confusion, the Act fails to explain what attorney’s fees are considered to be “related to such a settlement or payment.” Are these only the fees related to settlement negotiations, drafting the agreement, and execution or payment? Or does it extend to the claim’s inception and include the underlying investigation of the claims?

In light of the numerous questions raised by Section 162(q), employers should review their standard settlement agreements and practices and consider revising the breadth of any releases, nondisclosure provisions, or any representations or remedies.

This post was originally posted on the Williams Parker Labor & Employment Blog.

Ryan P. Portugal
rportugal@williamsparker.com
941-329-6626

When is a Rose Not a Rose? IRS Tries to Plug Carried Interest Loophole by Claiming Roses are Not Flowers

The sweeping tax law passed in December requires partners holding some “carried interests” (partnership interests disproportionately large as compared to the relative capital contributed) to recognize gain at ordinary income tax rates (up to 37%) if their holding periods do not exceed three years, as opposed to the one-year holding period normally required to qualify for 20%-tax-rate long-term capital gain. The idea is that these interests are associated with services — often performed by hedge fund and private equity managers — that don’t carry the investment risk associated with a normal capital asset, and therefore holders of these partnership interests should have to own the interests longer to qualify for a low tax rate.

The statute categorically exempts partnership interests held by “corporations” from the new rules. Without explanation, the IRS announced this week it will take the position that “S corporations” are not “corporations” for the purposes of the carried interest law, even though by definition the opposite is true throughout the Internal Revenue Code. Their interpretation is akin to claiming roses aren’t flowers.

There are common sense reasons why S corporations should not be exempt from the carried interest statute. Because S corporations are pass-through entities, there is no practical difference between an individual owning a carried interest directly, as opposed to owning it through an S corporation. Yet read literally, the statute produces different results in these practically comparable situations.

Still, statutes are supposed to mean what they say. S corporations are corporations, just like roses are flowers. Unless Congress changes the statute, the Internal Revenue Service may have a hard time defending its position in litigation.

See our prior discussion of the new carried interest law:

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

Accrual-Method Taxpayers with Audited Financials May Have to Recognize Income Sooner

Section 13221 of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended IRC section 451 to link the all events test for accrual-method taxpayers to revenue recognition on the taxpayer’s audited and certain other financial statements. Specifically, new IRC section 451(b) (old 451(b) through (i) were redesignated as 451(d) through (k)) provides that for accrual-method taxpayers “the all events test with respect to any item of gross income (or portion thereof) shall not be treated as met any later than when such item (or portion thereof) is taken into account in revenue in” either (1) an applicable financial statement or (2) another financial statement specified by the IRS. In other words, taxpayers subject to this rule must include an item in income for tax purposes upon the earlier satisfaction of the all events test or the recognition of such item in revenue in the applicable or specified financial statement. For example, any unbilled receivables for partially performed services must be recognized for income tax purposes to the extent the amounts are taken into income for financial statement purposes, instead of when the services are complete or the taxpayer has the right to invoice the customer. The new rule does not apply to income from mortgage servicing rights.

The new rule defines an “applicable financial statement” as (1) a financial statement that is certified as being prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that is (a) a 10-K or annual statement to shareholders required to be filed with the SEC, (b) an audited financial statement used for credit purposes, reporting to shareholders, partners, other proprietors, or beneficiaries, or for any other substantial nontax purpose, or (c) filed with any other federal agency for purposes other than federal tax purposes; (2) certain financial statements made on the basis of international financial reporting standards filed with certain agencies of a foreign government; or (3) a financial statement filed with any other regulatory or governmental body specified by the IRS. It appears that (1)(b) would capture accrual-method taxpayers that have audited GAAP financial statements as a requirement of their lender or as a requirement of their owners, such as a private equity fund owner.

This new rule should also be considered by affected taxpayers in relation to the relatively new and complex revenue recognition standards in ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which becomes applicable to nonpublic GAAP companies later this year (unless adopted earlier). For example, a taxpayer’s tax function and financial accounting function would need to coordinate to ensure that the sales price of contracts containing multiple performance obligations (i.e., bundles of goods and services, such as software sales agreements that include a software license, periodic software updates, and maintenance and support services) is allocated to the separate components in the same manner for financial statement and tax purposes.

The new tax rule is effective for tax years beginning after 2017.

Discussion of the new tax rule begins on page 272 of the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report.

Michael J. Wilson
mwilson@williamsparker.com
941-536-2043

Tax Savings Estimator: Qualified Business Income Deduction

If you own a business taxed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or S corporation, the new Section 199A Qualified Business Income Deduction offers one of the biggest potential tax benefits under the recently-enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It allows you to deduct up to twenty percent of your business income. If your income exceeds $157,500 ($315,000 for a married joint filer), the deduction is limited by filters tied to your company’s employee payroll and depreciable property ownership. There are other restrictions, but for most business owners our calculator offers a useful, simplified estimate of tax savings from the new deduction.

Curious whether you should change the tax status of your company? Read our analysis here: Should You Reform Your Business for Tax Reform?

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037

Planning to Live Beyond 2025? How You Can Still Enjoy Estate Tax Reform’s Sunset Special

The just-enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubles the federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer lifetime tax exemptions through 2025. The exemptions revert to their pre-Act levels on January 1, 2026. Ignoring inflation adjustments, the combined exemptions for a married couple will then fall from over $22 million to $11 million. At the 40% Federal transfer tax rate, a 2026 sunset will increase a married couple’s estate tax by $4.4 million.

Do you want to avoid $4.4 million of estate tax, even if you plan to celebrate the 2026 New Year amongst the living?

A married couple can permanently harvest the increased exemptions by gifting assets with value up to the full $22 million exemption amount before 2026. If you gift into a generation-skipping trust, the exempted assets can pass through many generations free of transfer tax. With valuation discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability still fully available, family business assets are particularly attractive for gifting.

A taxpayer can not use the increased exemption until he or she first make gifts exhausting his or her pre-Act exemption. An individual does not create an additional tax benefit until he or she first gifts about $5.5 million worth of property. A couple does not capture the full additional benefit until they give away property worth over $22 million.

These ordering rules create an obstacle for many, who can not afford to give away that much property. Married taxpayers in that situation may consider funding “Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts.” Each spouse gifts assets to a trust for the other spouse, leaving the gifted assets available to the beneficiary spouse for his or her lifetime. When the beneficiary spouse dies, the remaining trust assets pass to children or other beneficiaries free of estate tax. Persons who created such trusts shortly before 2013, when another legislative sunset almost reduced the lifetime exemptions, can fund their existing trusts with additional gifts.

Many families will wait until 2026 is closer before taking action. Families with sufficient wealth to afford substantial gifting, who also expect estate tax liability even with the increased exemptions, should consider gifting sooner, to remove appreciation in the gifted assets before 2026 from their future taxable estates.

For more information regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, follow these links:

E. John Wagner, II
jwagner@williamsparker.com
941-536-2037