Main Telephone: 858.646.0681

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Close

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Close

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Close

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

Close

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Close

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
the value of the QOF’s investment; and
the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

Close

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

Close

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;
provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and
describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

Close

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The final regulations:

reflect statutory changes affecting Code Sec. 401(k) plans, including changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123); and
affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of plans that include cash or deferred arrangements or provide for employee or matching contributions.

Deemed Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need. The final regulations:

add "primary beneficiary under the plan" as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
modify the expense listed in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to provide that the limitations in Code Sec. 165(h)(5) do not apply for this purpose; and
add to the list a new type of expense, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

Distribution Necessary to Satisfy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need, by:

eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution; and
eliminating any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.

In particular, the final regulations, like the proposed regulations, eliminate the safe harbor in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E), under which a distribution is deemed necessary to satisfy the financial need only if elective contributions and employee contributions are suspended for at least six months after a hardship distribution is made and, if available, nontaxable plan loans are taken before the hardship distribution is made.

Expanded Sources for Hardship Distributions
The final regulations modify existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3) to permit hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned.

Section 403(b) Plans
A hardship distribution of Code Sec. 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3). Accordingly, the preamble to the proposed regulations had stated that the new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Code Sec. 401(k) plan generally apply to Code Sec. 403(b) plans. Because this requirement is retained in the final regulations, at Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B), it applies to Code Sec. 403(b) plans.

Applicability Dates
The changes to the hardship distribution rules made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Plan Amendments
The Treasury Department and IRS expect that plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions to reflect the final regulations, and any such amendment must be effective for distributions beginning no later than January 1, 2020. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Rev. Proc. 2016-37, I.R.B. 2016-29,136.

Close

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.

Why IRS Is Interested

A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.

Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.

Factors Examined

The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:

The salary history of the individual employee
Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
The salary history of other employees of the company
Special employee expertise or efforts
Year-end payments
Independent inactive investor analysis
Deferred compensation plan contributions
Independence of the board of directors
Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.

Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.

Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)

The S Corp Enigma

The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.

Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.

Conclusions

Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.

Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.

Close

'Tax risk management" is a fairly recent term first used by large accounting firms to underscore to businesses the opportunities and pitfalls inherent within the particular tax positions taken by a business at any point in time. The collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and Congress's response through Sarbanes/Oxley legislation, have elevated corporate tax departments from what were once sleepy backroom operations to key participants in corporate bottom-line performance. Tax reserves and other tax forecasts now take a more prominent role in SEC-required disclosure and their resulting impact on shareholder value. Corporate boards and top executives are now held directly responsible for tax-related mistakes.

In tandem with tighter legislative rules, the corporate tax world itself has become more complicated. From state and local tax considerations and a growing federal tax code to aggressive audit positions by the IRS on tax-shelter type transactions to the growing body of international tax rules that a global business must follow, the tax world for many businesses has become considerably more dangerous. Like a juggler trying to keep too many balls in the air at once, businesses are feeling more pressure on the tax side of their operations. The greater the number of balls (or tax risk situations) in the air, the greater the need is for preventive management of them.

Tax risk management, however, is no longer confined to large public companies listed on a major stock exchange. The "trickle down" of tax problems from public corporations to private businesses, run as corporations, partnerships or LLCs, to small businesses is evident. Lenders, take-over prospects, and co-owners are all acutely concerned with the financial health of a business. Tax considerations now play an increasingly vital role in determining whether any particular business can receive a clean bill of health. Past positions taken on open-year tax returns, the likelihood of the success of any ongoing tax strategy, stepped up IRS audits, changing tax accounting rules and the growing complexity of the tax code itself, not to mention state and local tax law considerations and the increasingly large penalties that taxing authorities are free to assess if a tax position turns out to be incorrect, make tax risk management essential for the smaller business as well.

How much tax risk is your business carrying? The first step to finding a solution to a problem is determining the extent of the problem. Do you know how many "dropped balls" on the tax-side of your business it would take to bankrupt your operations or set them back several years? If you have neglected this side of managing your business, or if you want some reassurance that you are prepared for "worst case" tax scenarios, please feel free to give this office a call.

Close

For partnerships and entities taxed like partnerships (e.g., limited liability companies), each partner must compute the basis of his/her partnership interest separately from the basis of each asset owned by the partnership. Because the basis of this interest is critical to determining the tax consequences resulting from any number of transactions (e.g., distributions, sale of your interest, etc..), if your business is taxed as a partnership, it is important that you understand the concept of tax basis as well as how to keep track of that basis for tax purposes.

Note: The term "partnership interest" generally refers to an interest in any type of entity taxed as a partnership. The term "partnership" usually means any entity that is taxed as a partnership, and the term "partner" refers to any owner of an entity taxed as a partnership.

Determining your initial basis

The initial basis in your partnership interest depends on how you acquired your interest. The basis of a partnership interest that you obtained in exchange for a contribution of cash or property to the partnership is equal to the amount of money you invested plus the adjusted basis of any property that you contributed. If you purchased your partnership interest, your initial basis will be the amount of cash you paid plus the fair market value of any property that you provided as part of the purchase price.

Generally, if you receive your partnership interest as a gift, your basis will be the same basis that the donor had in the partnership interest before he or she gave it to you. On the other hand, if you inherit your partnership interest, your initial basis in the partnership interest generally will be the fair market value of the partnership interest on the date of the partner's death.

Adjustments to initial basis

Each year, various adjustments must be made to the tax basis in your partnership interest to reflect certain partnership transactions that have occurred during the year. The basis in your partnership interest is increased to reflect your proportional share of partnership income (both taxable and tax-exempt income). This increase protects you as a partner from being taxed again when (1) the partnership distributes cash to you or (2) when you dispose of your partnership interest. The basis in your partnership interest also increases if you make additional contributions of cash or other property to the partnership.

The basis in your partnership interest is likewise decreased each year to reflect your share as a partner of any partnership losses and your share of any nondeductible expenses. This adjustment is made to prevent you from obtaining a tax benefit when the partnership makes a distribution to you or when you dispose of your partnership interest. Your basis in the partnership also must be decreased by any actual or deemed distributions you received from the partnership. However, the basis in your partnership interest may never be reduced below zero.

Adjustments to a partner's basis also must be made to reflect any increases or decreases in a partner's share of the partnership's liabilities

Recordkeeping

It is important that a partnership keep proper records of all transactions that occur during the year and take the time to make the basis adjustments using these basis computation rules as close in time to the occurrence of the transaction as possible.

The general guidelines detailed above will give you a good foundation of knowledge for computing the basis of your partnership interest. For more information about how to track your basis in your partnership interest, please contact the office.

Close

If you are considering selling business property that has substantially appreciated in value, you owe it to your business to explore the possibility of a like-kind exchange. Done properly, a like-kind exchange will allow you to transfer your appreciated business property without incurring a current tax liability. However, since the related tax rules can be complex, careful planning is needed to properly structure the transaction.

Like-kind exchanges: The basics

The tax law permits you to exchange property that you use in your business or property that you hold for investment purposes with the same type of property held by another business or investor. These transactions are referred to as "like-kind" exchanges and, if done properly, can save your business from paying the taxes that normally would be due in the year of sale of the appreciated property.

Instead of an immediate tax on any appreciation in the year of sale, a like-kind exchange allows the appreciated value of the property you're transferring to be rolled into the working asset that you'll be receiving in the exchange. Mixed cash and property sales, multi-party exchanges, and time-delayed exchanges are all possible under this tax break.

What property qualifies?

In order to qualify as a tax-free like-kind exchange, the following conditions must be met:

The property must be business or investment property. You must hold both the property you trade and the property you receive for productive use in your trade or business or for investment. Neither property may be property used for personal purposes, such as your home or family car.
The property must not be held primarily for sale. The property you trade and the property you receive must not be property you sell to customers, such as merchandise.
Most securities and instruments of indebtedness or interest are not eligible. The property must not be stocks, bonds, notes, chooses in action, certificates of trust or beneficial interest, or other securities or evidences of indebtedness or interest, including partnership interests. However, you can have a nontaxable exchange of corporate stocks in certain circumstances.
There must be a trade of like property. The trade of real estate for real estate, or personal property for similar personal property is a trade of like property.

Examples:
Like property:
An apartment house for a store building
A panel truck for a pickup truck
Not like property:
A piece of machinery for a store building
Real estate in the U.S. for real estate outside the U.S.

The property being received must be identified by a specified date. The property to be received must be identified within 45 days after the date you transfer the property given up in trade.
The property being received must be received by a specified date.The property to be received must be received by the earlier of:
1. The 180th day after the date on which you transfer the property given up in trade, or
2. The due date, including extensions, for your tax return for the year in which the transfer of the property given up occurs.

Dealing with "boot" received

If you successfully make a straight asset-for-asset exchange, as discussed earlier, you will not pay any immediate tax with respect to the transaction. The property you acquire gets the same tax "basis" (your cost for tax purposes) as the property you gave up. In some circumstances, when you are attempting to make a like-kind exchange, the properties are not always going to be of precisely the same value. Many times, cash or other property is included in the deal. This cash or other property is referred to as "boot." If boot is present in an exchange, you will be required to recognize some of your taxable gain, but only up to the amount of boot you receive in the transaction.

Example:

XYZ Office Supply Co. exchanges its business real estate with a basis of $200,000 and valued at $240,000 for the ABC Restaurant's business real estate valued at $220,000. ABC also gives XYZ $35,000 in cash. XYZ receives property with a total value of $255,000 for an asset with a basis of $200,000. XYZ's gain on the exchange is $55,000, but it only has to report $35,000 on its tax return - the amount of cash or "boot" XYZ received. Note: If no cash changed hands, XYZ would not report any gain or loss on its tax return.

Using like-kind exchanges in your business

There are several different ways that like-kind exchanges can be used in your business and there are, likewise, a number of different ways these exchanges can be structured. Here are a couple of examples:

Multi-party exchanges. If you know another business owner or investor that has a piece of property that you would like to acquire, and he or she only wants to dispose of the property in a like-kind exchange, you can still make a deal even if you do not own a suitable property to exchange. The tax rules permit you to enter into a contract with another business owner that provides that you are going to receive the property that he or she has available in exchange for a property to be identified in the future. This type of multi-party transaction can also be arranged through a qualified intermediary with unknown third (or even fourth) parties.

Multiple property exchanges. Under the like-kind exchange rules, you are not limited in the number of properties that can be involved in an exchange. However, the recognized gain and basis of property is computed differently for multiple property exchanges than for single property-for-property exchanges.

Trade-ins. You could also structure a business to business trade-in of machinery, equipment, or vehicles as a like-kind exchange.

There are many ways that you can advantageously use the like-kind exchange rules when considering disposing of appreciated business assets. However, since the rules are complicated and careful planning is critical, please contact the office for assistance with structuring this type of transaction.

Close

Limited liability companies (LLCs) remain one of the most popular choice of business forms in the U.S. today. This form of business entity is a hybrid that features the best characteristics of other forms of business entities, making it a good choice for both new and existing businesses and their owners.

An LLC is a legal entity existing separately from its owners that has certain characteristics of both a corporation (limited liability) and a partnership (pass-through taxation). An LLC is created when articles of organization (or the equivalent under each state rules) are filed with the proper state authority, and all fees are paid. An operating agreement detailing the terms agreed to by the members usually accompanies the articles of organization.

Choosing the LLC as a Business Entity

Choosing the form of business entity for a new company is one of the first decisions that a new business owner will have to make. Here's how LLCs compare to other forms of entities:

C Corporation: Both C corporations and LLCs share the favorable limited liability feature and lack of restrictions on number of shareholders. Unlike LLCs, C corporations are subject to double taxation for federal tax purposes - once at the corporate level and the again at the shareholder level. C corporations do not have the ability to make special allocations amongst the shareholders like LLCs.

S Corporation: Both S corporations and LLCs permit pass-through taxation. However, unlike an S corporation, an LLC is not limited to the number or kind of members it can have, potentially giving it greater access to capital. LLCs are also not restricted to a single class of stock, resulting in greater flexibility in the allocation of gains, losses, deductions and credits. And for estate planning purposes, LLCs are a much more flexible tool than S corporations

Partnership: Partnerships, like LLCs, are "pass-through" entities that avoid double taxation. The greatest difference between a partnership and an LLC is that members of LLCs can participate in management without being subject to personal liability, unlike general partners in a partnership.

Sole Proprietorship: Companies that operate as sole proprietors report their income and expenses on Schedule C of Form 1040. Unlike LLCs, sole proprietors' personal liability is unlimited and ownership is limited to one owner. And while generally all of the earnings of a sole proprietorship are subject to self-employment taxes, some LLC members may avoid self-employment taxes under certain circumstances

Tax Consequences of Conversion to an LLC

In most cases, changing your company's form of business to an LLC will be a tax-free transaction. However, there are a few cases where careful consideration of the tax consequences should be analyzed prior to conversion. Here are some general guidelines regarding the tax effects of converting an existing entity to an LLC:

C Corporation to an LLC: Unfortunately, this transaction most likely will be considered a liquidation of the corporation and the formation of a new LLC for federal tax purposes. This type of conversion can result in major tax consequences for the corporation as well as the shareholders and should be considered very carefully.

S Corporation to an LLC: If the corporation was never a C corporation, or wasn't a C corporation within the last 10 years, in most cases, this conversion should be tax-free at the corporate level. However, the tax consequences of such a conversion may be different for the S corporation's shareholders. Since the S corporation is a flow-through entity, and has only one level of tax at the shareholder level, any gain incurred at the corporate level passes through to the shareholders. If, at the time of conversion, the fair market value of the S corporation's assets exceeds their tax basis, the corporation's shareholders may be liable for individual income taxes. Thus, any gain incurred at the corporate level from the appreciation of assets passes through to the S corporation's shareholders when the S corporation transfers assets to the LLC.

Partnership to LLC: This conversion should be tax-free and the new LLC would be treated as a continuation of the partnership.

Sole proprietorship to an LLC: This conversion is another example of a tax-free conversion to an LLC.

While considering the potential tax consequences of conversion is important, keep in mind how your change in entity will also affect the non-tax elements of your business operations. How will a conversion to an LLC effect existing agreements with suppliers, creditors, and financial institutions?

Taxation of LLCs and "Check-the-Box" Regulations

Before federal "check-the-box" regulations were enacted at the end of 1996, it wasn't easy for LLCs to be classified as a partnership for tax purposes. However, the "check-the-box" regulations eliminated many of the difficulties of obtaining partnership tax treatment for an LLC. Under the check-the-box rules, most LLCs with two or more members would receive partnership status, thus avoiding taxation at the entity level as an "association taxed as a corporation."

If an LLC has more than 2 members, it will automatically be classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes. If the LLC has only one member, it will automatically be classified as a sole proprietor and would report all income and expenses on Form 1040, Schedule C. LLCs wishing to change the automatic classification must file Form 8832, Entity Classification Election.

Keep in mind that state tax laws related to LLCs may differ from federal tax laws and should be addressed when considering the LLC as the form of business entity for your business.

Since the information provided is general in nature and may not apply to your specific circumstances, please contact the office for more information or further clarification.

Close

Newsletters