PETER J. GILMAN, P.C.

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

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Over the past few years, the rules governing stock options have become increasingly complicated. More than ever, it is important that employees who receive stock options have a good understanding about how they are taxed -- on receipt of the option, at its exercise, or pursuant to the sale of the underlying stock -- as well as the potential consequences of their decisions regarding the timing of the taxation of those options.

NSOs vs ISOs

The most common type of stock option that employees receive is called a nonstatutory stock option (NSO). The other, less common type of stock option is generically referred to as an incentive stock option (ISO). ISOs are governed by very specific rules and are subjected to strict statutory requirements; NSOs, on the other hand, are subject to more general rules and guidelines.

Incentive stock options (ISOs) give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. The employee is not taxed on the ISO at the time of its grant or at the time of the exercise of the option. Instead, he or she is taxed only at the time of the disposition of the stock acquired through exercise of the option. Note, however, the exercise of an ISO does give rise to an alternative minimum tax item in the amount of the difference between the option price and the market price of the stock.

Note. The IRS temporarily suspended the collection of ISO alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities through September 30, 2008.

NSOs also give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. When and how an NSO is taxed depends on several factors including whether the underlying stock is substantially vested, and whether or not the fair market value of the stock is readily ascertainable.

Vesting. If an employee receives options from his employer, the tax consequences depend on whether the stock is vested. Stock you receive from your employer is "substantially vested" if it is either "transferable" by the employee or it is no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture". Property is "transferable" if you can sell, assign or pledge your interest in the option without the risk of losing it. A "substantial risk of forfeiture" exists if the rights in the property transferred depend on the future performance (or refraining from performance) of substantial services by any person, or the occurrence of a certain condition related to the transfer.

Readily ascertainable fair market value. An NSO always has a readily ascertainable fair market value when the option is publicly traded. When an option is not publicly traded, it can have a readily ascertainable fair market value if its value can be measured with reasonable accuracy. IRS rules spell out when fair market value can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

Generally, an employee who receives an NSO that has a readily ascertainable fair market value is subject to special tax rules under the Internal Revenue Code that apply to property received by a taxpayer in exchange for services when the option is granted. Under these rules, the option must be included in the employee's income as ordinary income in the amount of the fair market value in the year the option becomes substantially vested. If the employee paid for the option, he recognizes the value of the option minus its cost. The employee is not taxed again when he exercises the option and buys the corporate stock; he is taxed when the stock is sold. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature.

No readily ascertainable fair market value. Employees who receive NSOs from privately held companies are most likely to receive an NSO without a readily ascertainable fair market value. In general, when an NSO does not have a readily ascertainable fair market value, taxation occurs at the time when the option is exercised or transferred. The employee will recognize ordinary income in the amount of the value of the stock when it becomes substantially vested minus any amounts paid for the option or stock. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature. However, employees who have NSOs without a readily ascertainable fair market value also have the ability to elect to have the transaction taxed differently,

Section 83(b) election: Elector beware

Employees who exercise options that did not have a readily ascertainable fair market value when they were granted may elect to report income from the stock underlying the option at the time of the exercise rather than waiting until the stock is substantially vested. This election is referred to as a "Section 83(b) election" and is non-revocable. Once the election is made, any later subsequent appreciation when the stock becomes substantially vested would not be includible in income.

As you can see, the rules and tax laws related to stock options are indeed complicated and require some advance planning in order to avoid a big tax "gotcha". If you are contemplating entering into any transactions that involve stock options, please contact the office for additional guidance.

Close

Keeping the family business in the family upon the death or retirement of the business owner is not as easy as one would think. In fact, almost 30% of all family businesses never successfully pass to the next generation. What many business owners do not know is that many problems can be avoided by developing a sound business succession plan in advance.

In the event of a business owner's demise or retirement, the absence of a good business succession plan can endanger the financial stability of his business as well as the financial security of his family. With no plan to follow, many families are forced to scramble to outsiders to provide capital and acquire management expertise.

Here are some ideas to consider when you decided to begin the process of developing your business' succession plan:

Start today. Succession planning for the family-owned business is particularly difficult because not only does the founder have to address his own mortality, but he must also address issues that are specific to the family-owned business such as sibling rivalry, marital situations, and other family interactions. For these and other reasons, succession planning is easy to put off. But do you and your family a favor by starting the process as soon as possible to ensure a smooth, stress-free transition from one generation to the next.

Look at succession as a process. In the ideal situation, management succession would not take place at any one time in response to an event such as the death, disability or retirement of the founder, but would be a gradual process implemented over several years. Successful succession planning should include the planning, selection and preparation of the next generation of managers; a transition in management responsibility; gradual decrease in the role of the previous managers; and finally discontinuation of any input by the previous managers.

Choose needs over desires. Your foremost consideration should be the needs of the business rather than the desires of family members. Determine what the goals of the business are and what individual has the leadership skills and drive to reach them. Consider bringing in competent outside advisors and/or mediators to resolve any conflicts that may arise as a result of the business decisions you must make.

Be honest. Be honest in your appraisal of each family member's strengths and weaknesses. Whomever you choose as your successor (or part of the next management team), it is critical that a plan is developed early enough so these individuals can benefit from your (and the existing management team's) experience and knowledge.

Other considerations

A business succession plan should not only address management succession, but transfer of ownership and estate planning issues as well. Buy-sell agreements, stock gifting, trusts, and wills all have their place in the succession process and should be discussed with your professional advisors for integration into the plan.

Developing a sound business succession plan is a big step towards ensuring that your successful family-owned business doesn't become just another statistic. Please contact the office for more information and a consultation regarding how you should proceed with your business' succession plan.

Close

As you open the doors of your new business, the last thing on your mind may be the potential for loss of profits through employee oversight or theft - especially if you are the only employee. However, setting up some basic internal controls to guard against future loss before you hire others can save you headaches in the future.

Soon after you start making money and the world realizes that they cannot live without your goods or service, you will probably need to hire employees. Although necessary for your growing company, hiring employees increases your risk of loss through errors, oversights and theft.

Implementing internal controls to help you monitor your business can decrease the need for constant supervision of your employees. Internal controls are checks and balances to prevent fraud, limit financial losses and reduce errors or oversights by employees. For example, the most basic internal control concept requires that certain tasks be handled by different people. This process, called "separation of duties", can greatly decrease the probability of loss.

The following basic internal control checklist includes suggestions that, once implemented, can help you and your employees avoid concerns about fraud or theft in the workplace:

Have one person open the mail and list all the checks on the deposit slip while another enters cash receipts in your financial records.

Make sure someone who does not handle the checkbook or purchasing is in charge of payments to suppliers and vendors.

Have your bank reconciliation done by someone who does not have access to daily checkbook transactions.

Make sure that you approve all vendors and that you count all goods received. Check all orders to make sure they are correct and of the quality you intended. Sign each check and review the invoice, delivery receipt and purchase order.

As your company grows, you may want to become less and less involved with the day-to-day operations of the business. The internal controls you put into place now will help keep the profits up, the losses down, and help you sleep better at night. If you need any assistance with setting up internal controls for you business, please feel free to contact our office.

Close

The United States is currently experiencing the largest influx of inpatriates (foreign nationals working in the U.S.) in history. As the laws regarding United States taxation of foreign nationals can be quite complex, this article will answer the most commonly asked questions that an inpatriate may have concerning his/her U.S. tax liability and filing requirements.

I am a foreign national working in the United States and am paid by my foreign employer. Do I need to file a tax return and pay income taxes?

The general rule is that all wages earned while working in the United States, regardless of who pays for it or the locations of the employer, is taxable in the United States. This is true whether you are treated as a U.S. resident or not.

What is the difference in taxation of a resident alien versus a nonresident alien?

The difference in being taxed as a resident versus a nonresident is as follows: a resident alien is taxable in the U.S. on all worldwide income, regardless of what country it is earned or located in. A nonresident alien is generally taxable only on what is referred to as "effectively connected income". This is normally wages earned while in the U.S., along with earnings on property located in the United States. Certain deductions, exemptions, and filing statuses are not available to nonresidents.

I am not a resident for immigration purposes as I am here on a temporary visa. Can I still be a resident for U.S. tax purposes?

The determination of residency for tax purposes does not bear any relationship to your legal or immigration status. It is quite common for a foreign national to be a nonresident for legal or immigration purposes and yet be a resident for tax purposes. In addition, being a resident for income tax purposes can be different than being a resident for estate tax or even social security tax purposes. In some cases, it is actually more beneficial to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. As a result, it is important to have all of the information we request in order to make the best decision for you.

How do you determine whether you are a resident or nonresident for U.S. income tax purposes?

As a foreign national working in the U.S., you must first determine if you are a "resident" for U.S. income tax purposes. There are two tests to determine whether you are a U.S. tax resident. These two tests are:

The lawful permanent residence test

The substantial presence test.

If you meet the requirements of either of these two tests, you will be treated as a U.S. tax resident (unless a treaty overrides this).

What is the difference between a lawful permanent resident and meeting the substantial presence test?

Lawful Permanent Resident Test - In its simplest form, this is when you have been issued a green card or alien registration card allowing for permanent residency.

Substantial Presence Test - This is a more complicated test that looks at the number of days of physical presence in the U.S. over a three-year period of time. If the number of days of U.S. presence exceeds 183 days in the current year, or 183 equivalent days during a three-year period, you are a resident for U.S. tax purposes. An "equivalent day" is defined as:

In the current year, each partial day counts as one full equivalent day

In the first preceding year, each day counts as 1/3 of an equivalent day

In the second preceding year, each day counts as 1/6 of an equivalent day.

There are exceptions to the counting of days, but in general, any part of a day counts as a full day.

What if I meet the substantial presence test? Are there exceptions to allow me to be a nonresident anyway?

31 Day Exception - If you are present in the States for less than 31 days in the current year, the substantial presence test is not applied.

Closer Connections Exception - If you are present in the U.S. for fewer than 183 days in the current year AND you maintain a "tax home" in another country during the entire year AND you maintain a closer connection to the foreign country in which you have a tax home, then this test will not apply.

J-1 Visa - Subject to some limitations, you do not count days in the U.S., for calculating the substantial presence test, while you are here on a J-1 visa (generally for up to two years). This does not exempt the earnings, but just allows you to be treated as a nonresident alien, not a resident alien.

Treaty - Some countries have treaties with the U.S. which, in some cases, will override either the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or the income tax law of the foreign country.

If I become a U.S. taxable resident during the year, when does my residency begin?

In general, residency begins on the first physically present day in the U.S. during the year you meet the substantial presence test. There are exceptions for "nominal" days along with the closer connection exception, which can apply here. Remember that residency determines from what point you are taxable on your worldwide income, not when you are taxable.

Likewise, your residency is deemed to end on the last day that you are present in the U.S. within the year that you move from the United States. Problems can arise if you return back to the U.S. within a short period of time.

Can I elect to be treated as a taxable resident even if I do not meet any of the tests (in order to take advantage of special tax rates and laws not available to nonresidents)?

First Year Election - Sometimes it can be better to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. There is an election available that allows a foreign national to be taxed as a resident in the initial year of a U.S. assignment even if one of the residency tests is not met for the year. To qualify, you would have to satisfy the following:

Must have been a U.S. nonresident in the year immediately preceding the initial year.

You must satisfy the substantial presence test in the year following the initial year.

You must be present in the U.S. for at least 31 consecutive days in the initial year.

During the initial year, you must be present in the U.S. for at least 75% of the days from the start of your 31 consecutive day period through the end of that year.

What if my home country considers me as a taxable resident at the same time the U.S. treats me as a taxable resident? Am I double taxed?

The general rules discussed above are based on the IRS Code. The United States has entered into numerous tax treaties with other countries. The purpose of these treaties is to prevent double taxation issues that may arise due to differences in the tax laws of the two countries. It is possible to be considered a resident, subject to tax in both countries. The treaties usually provide for 'tiebreaker' rules to override the IRS Code or the foreign home country tax laws. Most treaty provisions require the filing of certain documents, though, in order to take benefit of them.

I am on a short-term assignment from my home country and my employer pays for my rent and meals while I am working here in the U.S. Is any of this taxable?

The first thing you need to do is determine whether your assignment is considered "short-term" within the definition of U.S. law. An individual is treated as being on a short-term assignment in the U.S. if their tax home has not changed from their foreign location. If the intent of the assignment is to return to the original work location within one year, the assignment is considered a temporary assignment. This does not determine whether you are a resident or not. It just determines which types of payments are taxable.

The advantage of a temporary assignment is that the employer-provided benefits such as lodging, meals travel and certain other expenses are not considered taxable wages in the U.S. In this case, a resident or nonresident would not be taxed on these payments. On a long-term assignment (more than 12 months), these are typically taxed in addition to the wages.

What happens if I am a nonresident for part of the year and a resident for another part of the year?

It is possible to be taxed in one year as both a resident and a nonresident. If this is the case, a special filing is made on a single tax return, with certain forms required. During the residency period, you would be taxed on worldwide income. During the nonresidency period, you would be taxed only on effectively connected income (usually wages earned in the U.S., as noted earlier).

Can I be exempt or excluded from tax from the U.S. federal government but still be taxed by one of the States?

Yes. Please note quite a few of the 50 states of the U.S. do not follow some, or all, of the U.S. federal tax codes or recognize the Treaties between the U.S. and other countries. So, it is possible, and highly probable, you could be taxable for State purposes but may be exempt for federal. In addition, other tax filing requirements, including estate and gift taxes, social security taxes, along with other filing forms, may be required regardless of your income tax residency determination.

Close

Newsletters