Tag Archives: Florida

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

Should You Reform Your Business for Tax Reform?

If you own a closely-held business, it likely utilizes a “pass-through” S corporation or partnership tax classification.  The owners pay income tax individually on pass-through entity income, whether or not the business distributes the income.

C corporations are different.  C corporations pay tax on their own income.  The shareholders pay an additional dividend tax only when the C corporation distributes dividends.

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Congress likely will pass Tuesday, the federal tax rate on retained C corporation income will drop from 35% to 21%.  The top individual tax rate, which also applies to pass-through entities, will equal 37%.  The Act makes C corporation tax status more attractive than in the past.

Should you convert your pass-through business to a C corporation?  

Should you change the tax classification of your business?

The short-answer: Probably not, unless you plan to own the business a long time and indefinitely reinvest profits.

A longer answer:

Under the Act, converting your business into a C corporation creates a trade-off between:

  1. a lower tax rate on operating income, leaving more cash to reinvest in the business; and
  2. paying more tax (or getting a lower purchase price) when you sell the company, and having less flexibility taking profits out of the business in the meantime.

If you convert your Florida-based pass-through business to a C corporation, the business will pay state income taxes that pass-through entities avoid. The C corporation’s combined federal and state tax rate will reach just over 25% on reinvested income.

The problems? You will pay a higher or equivalent tax rate, as compared to the pass-through tax rate, if you take the profits out of the corporation.  If you sell the business as a C corporation you will (1) pay about a 43% combined corporate-level and shareholder-level tax rate on the sale gain (versus a likely 20% or 23.8% rate as a pass-through), or (2) receive a lower purchase price to compensate a buyer willing to purchase the corporation stock for forgoing a tax basis step up in the corporate assets.  And if laws or circumstances change, you cannot always readily convert back to pass-through status without negative tax consequences.

What’s in the Act for Pass-Through S Corporations and Partnerships?

The Act includes a new deduction of up-to-20% of income for pass-through businesses.  If your business earns $10 million of income, you might qualify to deduct $2 million.  The deduction would save $740,000 in federal income tax and reduce the business’ effective income tax rate from about 36% to approximately 29%.

The catch?  For taxpayers with income over about $400,000 (or a lower threshold for persons other than married, joint filers), the Act limits the deduction to (1) 50% of the wages paid to employees, or (2) the sum of 25% of wages, plus 2.5% of the value of owned depreciable property.  If the business earns a $10 million profit, but its payroll is $3 million, you may only qualify to deduct $1.5 million, not $2 million. Unless the business has a lot of payroll or owns substantial depreciable property, its tax rate may remain in the mid-to-high 30% range.

Despite the new deduction, the Act leaves most pass-through entity owners paying a higher tax rate than C corporations pay on reinvested business profits.  But most pass-through entities retain the advantages of a lower tax rate on profits distributed to owners and on the sale of the business.

What to Do?

If you can predict future payroll and equipment purchases, the price and timing of a business sale, and Congress’ whims, you can perform a present value calculation to decide whether pass-through or C corporation tax status is best for your business.  The calculation would compare the pre-business-sale tax savings from the reduced C corporation tax rate on reinvested profits, against the increased tax on distributed profits and from a future business sale.

The math is more complicated for businesses qualifying for other tax breaks, such as the Section 1202 small business stock gain exclusion.  It grows even more complicated if the model considers the tax effects of an owner’s death.

If your crystal ball isn’t clear, you are stuck making best guesses about the future of politics and your business.  But if you frequently take profits out of your business or imagine selling it in the foreseeable future, you probably will stick with the pass-through  tax status your business already uses.

For more comprehensive information regarding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, follow this link to our previous post.

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

What’s in the Tax Reform Bill?

Congress is set to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes the most comprehensive changes to the federal tax law in over thirty years.

We will provide insight regarding the new law in the coming days and weeks.

In the meantime, here is a chart summarizing salient provisions in the Act.

Here is a link to the Act (including Congress’ explanation of the law beginning on page 510).

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

The U.S.-Japan Income Tax Treaty

Japan has long been one of the United States’ largest trading partners.  Japan is also one of the United States’ longest-standing tax treaty partners.  The first U.S.-Japan income tax treaty was concluded in 1954.  Updated treaties were signed in 1971 and 2003, and a protocol in 2013 further modernized the treaty.  The U.S.-Japan income tax treaty largely follows the model tax convention published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), of which both countries are members.

The U.S.-Japan income tax treaty helps reduce the incidence of double taxation and encourages the cross-border movement of people and goods.  In general, the tax treaty allocates or restricts taxing rights between the two countries so that a resident of either the United States or Japan does not pay tax in both countries with respect to the same income (or pays reduced rates of tax in one of the countries).

For example, dividends paid by a company which is a resident of the United States to a resident of Japan may generally be taxed in both Japan and the U.S., but the rate of tax imposed by the United States with respect to such dividends is limited to either 5% or 10% (or, in some circumstances, such tax may be eliminated).  In the case of interest and royalties paid by a resident of one of the countries, only the country in which the recipient of the interest or royalty payment resides may tax such payments.  Similarly, capital gains derived by a resident of the United States or Japan from the sale of property other than real estate are generally taxable only by the country in which the seller of the property resides.  Gains from the sale of real estate and certain real estate holding companies, however, remain taxable in both countries under the tax treaty.

The tax treaty also provides for tie-breaker rules so that the same person is not considered a resident of both countries and provides a limited safe harbor for wages and salaries paid to residents of one country who perform employment services in the other country.  Other provisions relate to the taxation of diplomats, athletes, and branches or “permanent establishments” of multinational businesses, among other special situations.  Where disputes regarding the taxation of cross-border activities arise, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty, the treaty provides a dispute resolution mechanism whereby the U.S. and Japanese governments can come to a mutual agreement to reduce or eliminate the additional taxation.

Recent U.S.-Japan income tax treaty documents and Treasury Department technical explanations are available at treasury.gov.

Nicholas A. Gard
ngard@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2563

Williams Parker Convinces IRS to Waive $224,640 Penalty Asserted Against Client

An LLC taxed as a partnership with 128 partners failed to file its partnership tax return electronically, resulting in the IRS asserting a penalty of $224,640 under IRC section 6698(a)(1). Partnerships with more than 100 partners are required to file their tax returns electronically under IRC section 6011(e). Williams Parker represented the partnership in connection with a penalty waiver request pursuant to IRS Announcement 2002-3, 2002-1 CB 305 (Jan. 14, 2002). Shareholder Mike Wilson at Williams Parker convinced the IRS that the partnership was entitled to a penalty waiver under the criteria of the Announcement, and therefore the IRS withdrew the entire $226,640 penalty. Information regarding the Announcement criteria and related guidance can be found at irs.gov.