Larry's Tax Law

In a new temporary rule, the Oregon Department of Revenue (“DOR”) formalized its prior informal guidance relative to the assessment of penalties for failing to make sufficient estimated payments under Oregon’s Corporate Activity Tax (“CAT”).  The temporary rule provides some relief to CAT taxpayers whose businesses are adversely affected by COVID-19. 

Background

Pursuant to ORS 317A.137(2), a taxpayer must make estimated quarterly CAT payments.  As discussed previously, ORS 317A.161(2) imposes a penalty on taxpayers who fail to make estimated payments equal to at least 80 percent of their CAT liability for any quarter during 2020. 

The DOR announced in April that it would not assess penalties against a taxpayer for failure to make estimated CAT payments during 2020 if the taxpayer did not have the financial ability to make the estimated payments.  The DOR further stated that it would honor a taxpayer’s good faith compliance efforts if the taxpayer documents those efforts. 

Unfortunately, the DOR pronouncement about penalty abatement was contained in an email blast.  Consequently, many taxpayers and tax practitioners were concerned about whether such an informal announcement could be relied upon, what actually constitutes “good faith compliance efforts” and how to document the efforts.

I previously reported that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan program appeared to have been extended to December 31, 2020.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) quashed that dream.  While Congress extended the “covered period” to December 31, 2020, it did not extend the life of the PPP to that date.  The SBA recently made that clear when it announced that the extension of the covered period “should not be construed as to permit the SBA to continue accepting applications for [PPP] loans after June 30, 2020.”  So, the PPP application deadline remains June 30, 2020; borrowers in need of a PPP loan only have until the end of this month to submit their applications.  While funds may remain available ($130 billion according to a recent government announcement), borrowers need to hurry up and get their applications submitted to lenders.  Time is of the essence.  To avoid any problems with application submissions, borrowers are wise to submit their applications well in advance of the June 30 deadline.  According to Murphy’s Law, if something can go wrong, it will.  So, applications should be made as soon as possible.  Don’t wait until the last minute.

As I previously reported, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (“PPPFA”) was jointly introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) by Representative Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas and Representative Dean Phillips, a Democrat from Minnesota.  By a nearly unanimous vote, the PPPFA was passed in the House on May 28, 2020.  As anticipated, the legislation was promptly introduced in the U.S. Senate (“Senate”), where (without amendment) it was unanimously passed on June 3, 2020 by a voice vote.  President Trump signed the PPPFA into law today.

This is especially good news for businesses that have been shut down and/or otherwise severely financially impaired by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The PPPFA changes the landscape relative to loans received by businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) that was enacted as part of the CARES Act.  The PPPFA, at least for some PPP loan borrowers, may not bring glee and joy!  The law contains some provisions that could be detrimental to some businesses.

As I previously reported, the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) was touted as providing emergency assistance (i.e., a lifeline) to restaurants and other businesses ordered to shut their doors (e.g., dental offices, bars, hair salons, fitness clubs, yoga studios, shopping malls and movie theatres).  The owners of these businesses thought the availability of a forgivable loan equal to two-and-one-half times their monthly payroll costs could be exactly what the doctor ordered.  The loan, if forgiven, could keep these business afloat and allow them to retain their trained and skilled workforces once they were allowed to reopen.  Unfortunately, that hypothesis is severely flawed. 

Under the PPP, in order for a borrower to be eligible for forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be used for payroll costs (75 percent), and rent and utilities (25 percent) within eight weeks following the date of the loan.  If a borrower’s business is shut down due to an executive order of the governor for most, if not all, of the eight-week period, how can the borrower use the loan proceeds that indisputably are needed to reopen and maintain the workforce?  That circumstance was clearly not contemplated by Congress when it passed the CARES Act. 

On Friday, May 22, 2020, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), in conjunction and consultation with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), published an interim final rule (“IFR”) containing new guidance on the treatment of bonuses, prepayments, and the loan forgiveness application and process for Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans.

Loan Forgiveness Process 

Loan forgiveness under the PPP is not automatic.  Rather, borrowers must apply for forgiveness using the SBA’s Loan Forgiveness Application (SBA Form 3508) or their lender’s equivalent form, if any.  The process is somewhat streamlined:

• • The application is submitted to the lender for review and approval.
  • The lender will review the application and make a decision regarding loan forgiveness.
  • The lender has 60 days from receipt of a complete forgiveness application to issue a decision to the SBA.
  • The lender is responsible for notifying the borrower of the amount approved for forgiveness.
  • The lender will then request that the SBA repay the amount forgiven.
  • Within 90 days from the lender’s request for payment, the SBA will pay the lender the amount forgiven, plus any accrued interest. (If applicable, the SBA will deduct the amount of advances under the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program from its payment to the lender.) 

In addition to worrying about keeping their business afloat these days, businesses are focusing on whether their Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan will be forgiven.  Without loan forgiveness, many of these businesses will not survive.  Consequently, the stakes are high! 

The eligibility requirements for PPP loan forgiveness are complex.  As we discussed previously, in large part, loan forgiveness is based on the borrower using the loan proceeds within the eight-week period immediately following receipt of the loan on specified expenses, including payroll and rent. 

Some landlords have been generous enough to reduce or even abate rent for a period (e.g., three months) to assist the tenant in salvaging its business.  Consequently, these businesses may have little or no rent to pay during the eight-week period.  If a business owner asks the landlord for advice on what to do in this situation, the landlord will likely say: 

Love thy landlord – pay me anyway!

Whether the prepayment of rent (or the payment of rent for a period preceding the eight-week period) applies for purposes of the loan forgiveness computation under the PPP is likely a question being pondered by many businesses and their advisors.

As we recently reported, the Oregon Department of Revenue (“ODOR”) issued written guidance concluding that the receipt of funds pursuant to PPP loans (whether or not forgiven), EIDLP advances and SBA debt relief for certain business loans do not constitute commercial activity under Oregon’s new gross receipts tax, the Corporate Activity Tax (the “CAT”).  Accordingly, taxpayers subject to the CAT do not include these items in their computation of commercial activity. 

Washington state enacted its Business and Occupations Tax (“B&O Tax”) almost 90 years ago. The B&O Tax, like the CAT, is a gross receipts tax.  Unlike the CAT, however, taxpayers subject to the B&O Tax are generally not allowed to deduct any of their costs, including materials and labor, from gross revenues.   

The Washington Department of Revenue (“WDOR”) issued written guidance last week, possibly joining the ranks with the ODOR.  Better late than never!

The WDOR concludes that taxpayers subject to the B&O Tax should not include the receipt of funds pursuant to COVID-19 relief programs for purposes of computing their tax liability under the B&O Tax regime.

As discussed in recent blog posts, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), signed into law on March 27, 2020, created the Payroll Protection Plan (“PPP”) under which the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was authorized to make up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to enable them to meet payroll costs, benefits, rent and utility payments.  On April 24, 2020, Congress increased the amount of available funds under the PPP to $659 billion when the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act was signed into law.

The PPP legislation and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder are plagued with numerous unanticipated defects.  One of the defects in the PPP, as rolled out by the federal government, may be the death of small businesses, including restaurants.

New guidance from the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) with respect to Oregon’s Corporate Activity Tax (“CAT”) was issued yesterday.

Specifically, the DOR announced that: 

• • Certain forgivable federal loans and advances, including Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans, are excluded from the definition of commercial activity under the CAT;
  • The DOR is scheduling a public hearing to discuss the first set of permanent rules promulgated under the CAT; and
  • The DOR released a draft temporary rule regarding the sourcing of commercial activity for financial institutions.

Last week, we reported that the IRS issued Notice 2020-32, wherein (relying primarily on Code Section 265) it emphatically pronounced that taxpayers receiving Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans do not get to have their cake and eat it too!  As a result of the notice, if a taxpayer’s PPP loan is forgiven and, in accordance with the CARES Act, has no cancellation of debt income as he/she/it would otherwise have under Code Section 61(a)(11), the taxpayer cannot deduct the business expenses for which it used the forgiven loan proceeds. 

As we explained last week, the government’s conclusion, from a purely academic perspective, makes some sense.  In normal times, taxpayers should not get a double tax benefit from a forgiven debt (i.e., a deduction with respect to expenses paid from the loan proceeds and an exemption from tax on the forgiven loan).  However, we are not living in normal times.