Tag Archives: Tax Law

Applicable Federal Rates for October 2018

The Internal Revenue Code prescribes minimum imputed interest rates and time-value-of-money factors applicable to certain loan transactions and estate planning techniques. These rates are tied formulaically to market interest rates. The Internal Revenue Service updates these rates monthly.

These are commonly applicable rates in effect for October 2018:

Short Term AFR (Loans with Terms <= 3 Years)                                          2.55%

Mid Term AFR (Loans with Terms > 3 Years and <= 9 Years)                    2.83%

Long Term AFR (Loans with Terms >9 Years)                                              2.99%

7520 Rate (Used in many estate planning vehicles)                                    3.4%

Here is a link to the complete list of rates.

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

Applicable Federal Rates for September 2018

The Internal Revenue Code prescribes minimum imputed interest rates and time-value-of-money factors applicable to certain loan transactions and estate planning techniques. These rates are tied formulaically to market interest rates. The Internal Revenue Service updates these rates monthly.

These are commonly applicable rates in effect for September 2018:

Short Term AFR (Loans with Terms <= 3 Years)                                          2.51%

Mid Term AFR (Loans with Terms > 3 Years and <= 9 Years)                   2.86%

Long Term AFR (Loans with Terms >9 Years)                                             3.02%

7520 Rate (Used in many estate planning vehicles)                                    3.4%

Here is a link to the complete list of rates.

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

FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO FILE – 2018 Florida Annual Uniform Business Reports

The deadline to file a 2018 Florida Annual Uniform Business Report for your Corporation, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, or Limited Liability Limited Partnership to maintain its active status with the State of Florida was Tuesday, May 1, 2018.  If you have not already filed a Florida Annual Report for your entity for 2018, you may still do so to avoid the administrative dissolution of the entity by filing the report by the close of business on Friday, September 21, 2018, and paying a $400 late fee in addition to the standard filing fee.  Failure to file a 2018 Florida Annual Report by Friday, September 21, 2018, for an entity will result in the entity’s administrative dissolution or revocation on September 28, 2018.  Entities that are administratively dissolved or revoked may be reinstated; however, such reinstatement will require the submission of a reinstatement application, as well as the payment of a reinstatement fee and the standard annual report fee.

Even if a third party, like Cross Street Corporate Services, LLC, serves as your entity’s registered agent, it is your responsibility to file the Annual Report with the State of Florida.  Annual Reports should be electronically filed at the Florida Department of State’s website: www.sunbiz.org.  If you need assistance, please contact us.

You may disregard this notice if your entity was formed in 2018 or has already filed a Florida Annual Report for 2018.

James-Allen McPheeters
jamcpheeters@williamsparker.com
941-329-6623

199A Regulations Address Specified Service Trades or Businesses with Other Business Elements

In a prior blog post, we addressed rules in the proposed regulations for the treatment of a trade or business that is not a specified service trades or business (“SSTB”) but has some relatively small elements that are attributable to the performance of services in a field that would qualify as an SSTB. The topic of this post is the rules for the treatment of an SSTB that has some incidental or relatively small non-SSTB elements, which are contained in Section 1.199A-5(c)(3).

Under these rules, if a non-SSTB has (1) 50% or more common ownership with an SSTB, (2) shares expenses, such as shared wages or overhead expenses, with the SSTB, and (3) gross receipts that are no more than 5% of the total combined (SSTB and non-SSTB) gross receipts, then the non-SSTB will be treated as part of the SSTB for Section 199A purposes. Common ownership is determined by applying the related party rules in Sections 267(b) and 707(b).

The proposed regulations provide an example where a dermatologist provides medical services to patients and also sells skin care products to patients. The same employees and office space are used for the medical services and the sale of skin care products. The gross receipts of the skin care product sales do not exceed 5% of the combined gross receipts. Under the rule, the sale of the skin care products (which is not an SSTB) will be treated as incident to, and part of, the medical service SSTB. Therefore, the qualified business income, w-2 wages, and any unadjusted basis of qualified property attributable to the skin care products business will not be eligible for Section 199A purposes unless the dermatologist is under the taxable income thresholds specified in Section 199A.

The proposed regulations do not address a scenario where the gross receipts of the skin care products business were, for example, 6% of the total combined gross receipts. Presumably, the skin care products business would then be considered a separate trade or business (a non-SSTB) from the dermatology practice, which would be an SSTB. A potential gotcha is for a business that is an SSTB that is entrepreneurial and tries to expand into a business that is not a SSTB. For example, consider a financial services business that starts-up a business to create personal budgeting and retirement software and that uses some of the employees and office space of the financial services business. Unless and until either (1) the gross receipts of the software start-up exceeds 5% of the combined gross receipts or (2) there are no longer any shared expenses, then the software business will be treated as a part of the financial services SSTB.

View the proposed regulations. 

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

199A Proposed Regulations Address Businesses with De Minimis Specified Service Trade or Business Elements

The proposed Section 199A regulations contain rules for the treatment of a trade or business that is not a specified service trades or business (“SSTB”) but has some relatively small elements that are attributable to the performance of services in a field that would qualify as an SSTB. These rules are contained in Section 1.199A-5(c)(1), and the SSTB issue is important because, with some exceptions based upon income level, income from an SSTB is not eligible for the Section 199A deduction.

Under these rules, if a non-SSTB has some relatively small elements that are SSTB services, then the SSTB services will not taint the treatment of the overall business. Specifically, the rule provides that for a trade or business with gross receipts of $25M or less for a taxable year (before application of the aggregation rules), the trade or business will not be treated as an SSTB if less than 10% of its gross receipts are attributable to an SSTB. If the gross receipts of the trade or business are more than $25M, then the 10% threshold is dropped to 5%. For example, if an eye glass store had $10M total gross receipts, and $9.5M of such gross receipts were attributable to the sale of eye glasses, and $0.5M of the gross receipts attributable to eye examinations performed by ophthalmologists, then the entire trade or business would be considered a non-SSTB for purposes of the Section 199A deduction.

The regulations do not address a scenario where, for example, $2M of the gross receipts were attributable to eye examinations. In that scenario, will the entire $10M business be treated as an SSTB? That does not seem like it should be the correct answer. A better answer would be that the eye glass and eye exam activities are treated as two separate trades or business for Section 199A purposes.

In interesting scenario is if the individual taxpayer operated the eye glass ($9.5M of gross receipts) and eye exam ($0.50M of gross receipts) businesses in separate entities. In that case, the eye glass business would be a non-SSTB, and the eye exam business would be an SSTB (and thus not eligible for the Section 199A deduction). However, a tax planning opportunity may exist to merge the two entities, and then take advantage of the aggregation rule to “cleanse” the eye exam business of its SSTB taint by having it become a de minimis part of the eye glass business under the aggregation rules.

View the proposed regulations. 

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

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

Join Us: FICPA’s The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act CPE Seminar May 1

Williams Parker will lead a discussion on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tomorrow for the FICPA Gulf Coast Chapter at the Sarasota Yacht Club. Beginning at 8:30 a.m., the seminar will focus on the new carried interest rules, the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction, changes in the estate and gift tax and certain international provisions, and updates on tax controversy and IRS practice and procedure. Presenting on these topics will be attorneys from our Estate Planning, Corporate, and Tax practices. Three CPE credits will be provided.

John Wagner is a board certified tax attorney and chair of Williams Parker’s Corporate and Tax practices. He represents executives, entrepreneurs, and real estate investors in tax, transactional, capital raising, estate planning, and estate administration matters.

Michael Wilson is a board certified tax attorney with Williams Parker in Sarasota. He practices tax, corporate, and business law handling sophisticated tax planning and tax controversy matters and advising clients on their most significant business transactions.

Jamie Koepsel is a corporate and tax attorney with Williams Parker in Sarasota. His experience includes handling federal and state tax issues for individual and business clients.

Daniel Tullidge is a trusts and estates attorney with Williams Parker in Sarasota. He focuses on taxation, estate planning, and estate and trust administration.

Nicholas Gard is a corporate and tax attorney with Williams Parker in Sarasota. His experience includes work on a variety of tax matters, including federal tax litigation, tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service at the examination and appeals levels, and international tax issues involving tax treaties, transfer pricing, and cross-border investments and business operations.

When:
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
8:30 – 11:30 a.m.
(Add to calendar)

Where:
Sarasota Yacht Club
1100 John Ringling Blvd, Sarasota, FL 34236

Breakfast and CPE credits will be provided. 

Register now at FICPA.org or by phone at (800) 342-3197.

We look forward to seeing you tomorrow as we share technical information, new developments, and practical advice on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

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

Charitable Giving Under the New Tax Act – The Standard Deduction Bump

One of the more visible changes from the Tax Act will be the increase in the standard deduction. When completing an annual tax return, a taxpayer has the choice to either take a standard deduction or to itemize deductions. The standard deduction is a flat dollar amount which reduces your taxable income for the year, with the same standard deduction amount applying to every taxpayer who takes the standard deduction. The itemized deduction instead allows a taxpayer to deduct a number of different expenses from throughout the year, including certain medical expenses, mortgage interest, casualty and theft losses, state and local taxes paid, and charitable contributions. Whether a taxpayer uses the standard deduction or itemizes his or her deductions will depend on whether that taxpayer’s itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction amount.

In 2017, the standard deduction amount was $6,350 for single taxpayers and $12,700 for married taxpayers filing jointly. The Tax Act has nearly doubled these amounts for 2018, with the standard deduction increased to $12,000 for single taxpayers and $24,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Limitations have also been placed on deducting state and local taxes (capped at $10,000) and on mortgage interest (limited to new loans, capped at $750,000).

Taxpayers now have a higher standard deduction amount they need to pass before itemizing their deductions and they have more limited expenses available in order to get over that bar. Fewer people will be generating the expenses needed to make itemizing deductions worthwhile. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the percentage of taxpayers itemizing deductions will drop from 30% to only 6%.

If fewer taxpayers are itemizing their deductions, the tax benefits of charitable giving will be available to fewer taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center estimates charitable giving to drop anywhere from $12 billion to $20 billion in the next year. Taxpayers may instead bunch their charitable gifts into a single year, itemizing their deductions in such a year while using the standard deduction in subsequent years rather than spreading out these gifts over a stretch of years.

People charitably give to their favorite organizations out of a humanitarian desire to help less fortunate people and to benefit the wider community; a smaller tax incentive will not change this. But the smaller tax incentive is expected to have a negative impact both for a taxpayer’s ability to deduct charitable gifts and for the amount of gifts charitable organizations expect to receive.

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

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