Florida is the only state that imposes sales tax on the lease of commercial real property. Over the last several years, this tax rate has been reduced in increments from 6.0% to 5.5%. Under recently enacted legislation, this rate will be further reduced to 2.0%. However, this rate reduction will not go into effect until two months after Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund is replenished to pre-pandemic levels. Depending upon future unemployment claims, Florida economists estimate this may occur in 2024 or 2025. The 3.5% reduction is estimated to save commercial tenants approximately $1.2 billion annually. The local sales tax portion of the commercial rent tax is not changed by the new legislation.
On April 19, 2021, Florida Senate Bill 50 was enacted into law. The legislation modernizes Florida’s sales and use tax system and imposes tax collection obligations on remote sellers and marketplace providers. Among the many reforms in the new legislation is the imposition of sales tax on “remote sales” and requiring tax collection by sellers lacking a physical presence in Florida. Remote sellers (seller with no physical presence in Florida) are required to collect Florida tax if they have in excess of $100,000 of retail sales for delivery into Florida in the previous calendar year. The new legislation also extends these sales tax collection obligations to marketplace providers that facilitate and collect payment for sales made by remote sellers utilizing their platform. In such instances, the marketplace provider, rather than the remote seller, would collect and remit Florida sales tax. These remote seller and marketplace provider obligations become effective July 1, 2021.
The new legislation also provides a “safe harbor” from potential past Florida tax liability. A remote seller required to collect and remit Florida tax under the new legislation will be relieved from liability for tax, penalty, and interest due on remote sales made before July 1, 2021, if they register with the Florida Department of Revenue before October 1, 2021. A similar safe harbor is provided for marketplace providers.
One of the major business-tax relief provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act is the paycheck protection program (“PPP”) loan forgiveness and the accompanying exclusion of the forgiven amounts from taxable income. Over the past month since the CARES Act’s enactment, the IRS has released guidance clarifying the interaction between PPP loan forgiveness and other provisions of the Act. However, a lingering, big-picture question regarding the deductibility of certain business expenses paid for with later forgiven PPP loan funds remained. Such expenses include mortgage interest, rent obligations, utility payments, and payroll costs—all covered uses of a PPP loan. Continue reading
On April 8, the IRS released guidance through Revenue Procedure 2020-23 that will allow partnerships to take advantage of certain tax benefits granted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. The CARES Act grants certain businesses tax relief in the way of bonus depreciation deductions and an increased business interest deduction limit. This tax relief has been applied retroactively to affect 2018 and 2019 tax years. Partnerships will be allowed to file amended returns for the 2018 and 2019 tax years without first making a request for IRS approval for such changes.
Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2017 (the “BBA”), partnerships which have not elected out of the centralized partnership regime are required to file a tax return for the tax year while also furnishing to its partners tax information regarding the partnership, including each partner’s Schedule K-1. Under the BBA, a Schedule K-1 could not be amended without prior IRS approval once the partnership’s tax return due date has passed. This created an inconsistency with the CARES Act, causing a partnership to be unable to take advantage of retroactive tax benefits without first jumping over a number of IRS procedural hurdles.
To alleviate the stress the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought to partnerships, Revenue Procedure 2020-23 allows partnerships that have filed a tax return for tax years beginning in 2018 or 2019 to file amended partnership returns and furnish amended Schedule K-1s to partners before September 30, 2020. The amended returns may take into account tax changes brought about by the CARES Act affecting a partnership’s tax attributes.
Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7123 on May 15, 2019, which reduces the state sales tax rate on commercial real property leases from 5.7 percent to 5.5 percent effective January 1, 2020. Prior legislation reduced the general 6 percent state sales tax rate for commercial real property leases to 5.8 percent for 2018 and to 5.7 percent for 2019. There is no reduction to the local option surtax, which is imposed in 0.5 percent increments by many Florida counties. So, for example, effective January 1, 2020, the applicable rate for commercial real property leases in Sarasota County would be 6.5 percent (5.5 percent level sales tax plus Sarasota County’s 1 percent local option surtax).
The Internal Revenue Service has issued updated regulations regarding the Opportunity Zone tax break created by the 2017 tax reform legislation. Investors have proven slow to seek Opportunity Zone investments because of ambiguities and a lack of details in The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act statute and the limited scope of initial guidance issues in October 2018. The new guidance is more sweeping and offers more definite answers to many of the open questions.
Opportunity Zone investments offer two tax benefits:
- Deferral of capital gain recognition on other assets sold before an Opportunity Zone investment until earlier of (1) sale of the new investment or (2) December 31, 2026.
- 100 percent elimination of capital gain on the Opportunity Zone investment itself, if held more than 10 years, or reduction of capital gain if held at least five, but not greater than 10 years.
Requirements exist regarding investment timing, legal structure, and investment characteristics. The program generally favors taxpayers with reliable access to emergency liquidity and a longer-term investment horizon.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
8:30 – 11:30 a.m.
(Add to calendar)
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.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided clarity to a question of how to treat gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a partnership interest held by a foreign person. The IRS, through Revenue Ruling 91-32, previously provided that “the gain realized by a foreign partner upon disposing of its interest in a U.S. partnership should be analyzed asset by asset and, to the extent any such asset would give rise to effectively connected income, the departing partner’s pro rata share of such gain should be treated as effectively connected income.” The Tax Court disagreed with the findings of Revenue Ruling 91-32 in Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and instead held that income, gain, or loss from the sale or exchange of a U.S. partnership interest by a foreign person will only be attributable to a U.S. office, and thus taxed as effectively connected income, if the U.S. office is a material factor in the production of such income, gain, or loss in the ordinary course of business of that U.S. office.
Rather than waiting for courts to come to a consensus as to how to treat gain or loss from a foreign person’s sale of a partnership interest, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended the previous tax law and took the position of Revenue Ruling 91-32. Now if a partnership has a U.S. office and a foreign person sells an interest in such a partnership, then an asset-by-asset analysis will need to be conducted to determine how much of the gain or loss from such a sale will be subject to U.S. taxes.
For more information regarding the Tax Act, please see our recent related blog posts linked below:
- Tax Savings Estimator: Qualified Business Income Deduction
- A Guide to the Toll Charge of the Tax Act
- Planning to Live Beyond 2025? How You Can Still Enjoy Estate Tax Reform’s Sunset Special
- Rethinking Large 2017 Year-End Charitable Gifts
- 2017 Year-End Planning for Art, Equipment, and Other Non-Real Estate 1031 Exchanges
- Should You Reform Your Business for Tax Reform?
- What’s in the Tax Reform Bill?
Un poco de claridad para personas no estadounidenses que ofrecen a la venta su participación en una sociedad americana (también conocida como “U.S. Partnership”)
La ley de recortes fiscales y empleos de 2017, conocida como el “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” dió claridad a la cuestión de cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas de capital generadas después de la venta o intercambio de capital de una sociedad americana (“U.S. partnership”) en poder de una persona no estadounidense.
El IRS (Servicio de Impuestos Internos), a través de la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32, sostenía que las ganancias generadas por un socio extranjero al vender o transferir su parte en una sociedad americana debían ser analizadas activo por activo y, en la medida en que las ganancias de cualquier activo estuviesen vinculadas a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos, las ganancias de dicho socio (medidas en proporción a su participación en la sociedad) debían ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos.
El tribunal de impuestos no estuvo de acuerdo con la forma en que la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32 fue interpretada en el caso de Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. El tribunal sostuvo que los ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas generadas en la venta o intercambio de la participación de una sociedad americana por una persona extranjera debían ser atribuibles solamente a una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados, solamente si la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos era indispensable para la producción de dichos ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas en el curso ordinario de los negocios de la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos.
En lugar de esperar a que los tribunales llegaran a un consenso en cuanto a cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas generadas en la venta de capital de una sociedad en propiedad de una persona extranjera, la reforma fiscal de 2017 modificó la ley tributaria anterior y asumió la regla establecida por la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32. Ahora, si una sociedad tiene una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y una persona extranjera vende su participación en tal sociedad, un análisis de cada activo debe ser conducido para determinar el monto de las ganancias o pérdidas sujetas a impuestos en los Estados Unidos.
Traducción por Juliana Ferro, Abogada