Larry's Tax Law

This third installment of my multi-part series on Subchapter S is focused on a single Code Section, namely IRC Section 1361(b)(1)(C) and the ineligibility of nonresident aliens as shareholders of Subchapter S corporations.

Background

As we all have come to understand, nonresident aliens are ineligible S corporation shareholders.  If a nonresident alien were to become a shareholder of an S corporation, the result is straightforward – as of the date the nonresident alien became a shareholder, the corporation’s S election is terminated. There are, however, some obscure aspects of this well-known rule that are worthy of discussion.  One of the obscurities has to do with a 2018 change in the law resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Additionally, there have long existed hidden traps for unwary taxpayers and their advisers as well as some twists and turns in the road in this area of Subchapter S that are also worthy of discussion.

This second installment of my multi-part series on Subchapter S is focused on two Code Sections, namely IRC Section 1375 and IRC Section 1362(d)(3).

Background

While most of my readers are all quite familiar with these two Code sections, there are some obscure practical implications of these provisions that I want to bring to your attention or remind you. 

These Code Sections only apply to S corporations that have retained earnings and profits from C corporation years (“C E&P”).  In a nutshell, under Code Section 1375, S corporations that have C E&P at the close of the taxable year and “passive investment income” totaling more than 25 percent of gross receipts will be subject to a tax imposed at the highest corporate income tax rate under Code § 11 (which is currently a flat 21 percent).  The tax is based upon the lessor of the corporation’s “taxable income” or its “excess net passive investment income.”

In October 2023, I authored a new White Paper, A Journey Through Subchapter S / A Review of The Not So Obvious & The Many Traps That Exist For The Unwary.  This year, in a multi-part article, I intend to take our blog subscribers through some of the most significant changes made to Subchapter S over the past 40 years, (i) pointing out some of the not-so-obvious aspects of these developments, (ii) alerting readers to some of the obscure traps that were created by these changes, and (iii) arming readers with various methods that may be helpful in avoiding, minimizing or eliminating the adverse impact of the traps.  This first installment is focused on one area of Subchapter S – the Built-In-Gains Tax.

Brief History of Subchapter S

In 1954, President Eisenhower recommended legislation that would minimize the influence federal income tax laws had on the selection of a form of entity by closely held businesses.  Congress did not act on the president’s recommendation, however, until 1958.  Interestingly, the new law was not contained in primary legislation.  Rather, the first version of Subchapter S was enacted as a part of the Technical Amendments Act of 1958.  The legislation was, at best, an afterthought.  

The original legislation contained numerous flaws and traps that often caught the unwary, resulting in unwanted tax consequences.  Among these flaws and traps existed: (i) intricate eligibility, election, revocation and termination rules; (ii) complex operational priorities and restrictions on distributions; (iii) a harsh rule whereby net operating losses in excess of a shareholder’s stock basis were lost forever without any carry forward; and (iv) a draconian rule whereby excessive passive investment income caused a retroactive termination of the S election (i.e., all of the way back to the effective date of the S election).  Due to these significant flaws, tax advisers rarely recommended Subchapter S elections.

As you may be aware, the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) is a new federal law that requires most U.S.-based companies, including corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies, to report information regarding their “beneficial owners” to the federal government through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and a new FinCEN IT system known as the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (“BOSS”).  The intent of the CTA and the reporting to FinCEN is to combat money laundering, tax fraud and other illegal activities.

The CTA reporting requirements will become effective on January 1, 2024, for newly formed companies (which do not otherwise qualify as exempt); provided, however, existing non-exempt companies have until January 1, 2025 to comply.

It is a rainy day in the Pacific Northwest with chances of snow showers.  For those taxpayers that reside in the state of Washington or own highly appreciated capital assets located in the state, their day just got a bit gloomier. 

Earlier today, the Washington Supreme Court, in a 7-2 opinion, overturned the Douglas County Superior Court decision that had ruled the state capital gains tax enacted by the legislature in 2021 violates the Washington State Constitution.  

Majority Opinion

In its 50-plus page opinion written by Justice Debra L. Stevens, the majority of the court concludes:

“The court below [the Douglas County Superior Court] concluded the tax is a property tax that violates article VII’s uniformity requirement. In light of this ruling, the court did not address Plaintiffs’ additional constitutional challenges. We accepted direct review and now reverse. The capital gains tax is appropriately characterized as an excise because it is levied on the sale or exchange of capital assets, not on capital assets or gains themselves. This understanding of the tax is consistent with a long line of precedent recognizing excise taxes as those levied on the exercise of rights associated with property ownership, such as the power to sell or exchange property, in contrast to property taxes levied on property itself. Because the capital gains tax is an excise tax under Washington law, it is not subject to the uniformity and levy requirements of article VII. We further hold the capital gains tax is consistent with our state constitution’s privileges and immunities clause and the federal dormant commerce clause. We therefore reject Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the capital gains tax and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

On August 23, 2022, the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court issued its opinion in Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Department of Revenue, State of Oregon.  The court determined that the taxpayer in that case is subject to the corporate excise tax. 

The taxpayer, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., required that its wholesale customers located in Oregon accept and process returned goods.  In addition, the taxpayer’s in-state sales representatives, who did not maintain inventory, routinely confirmed and processed purchase orders between Oregon retailers and wholesalers.

As I previously reported, the Washington state capital gains tax has had a turbulent ride, commencing with a rough ride through the legislative process where it almost hit disastrous terrain on at least six (6) occasions.  Then, it was hit with a lawsuit to strike it down as unconstitutional before Governor Inslee could even sign the legislation into law.  Days later, it was sideswiped with a second lawsuit to end its short life.

As I reported on March 2, 2022, the new tax regime took a near lethal blow when Douglas County Superior Court Judge Brian C. Huber struck down the newly enacted Washington state capital gains tax as unconstitutional. 

Judge Huber concluded:

ESSB 5096 violates the uniformity and limitation requirements of article VII, sections 1 and 2 of the Washington State Constitution. It violates the uniformity requirement by imposing a 7% tax on an individual's long-term capital gains exceeding $250,000 but imposing zero tax on capital gains below that $250,000 threshold. It violates the limitation requirement because the 7% tax exceeds the 1% maximum annual property tax rate of 1%.

As suspected by many local commentators, the state would not let the tax regime die without a fight.  It is now seeking a higher court review of Judge Huber’s ruling, hoping to bring life back into the tax.

On March 25, 2022, Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson filed a notice of appeal.  Instead of appealing to the Washington Court of Appeals (the normal course of review), Mr. Ferguson filed a petition requesting the Washington State Supreme Court hear the case. 

As previously reported on May 7, June 17 and November 4 of last year, two lawsuits were filed in Douglas County Superior Court in Washington, seeking a declaration that the state’s new capital gains tax is unconstitutional.  The court consolidated the cases.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, along with legal briefs in support of their positions.  The lawyers for the State of Washington asked for a judgment that the tax regime meets constitutional muster.  On the other hand, the lawyers for the taxpayers that initiated the case sought a judgment that the tax regime is unconstitutional.

The Oregon Legislature, in House Bill 3373, created the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate within the Oregon Department of Revenue.  The new law became effective on September 25, 2021.  According to the Oregon Department of Revenue website, the office is open and “here to help.”

The mission of the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate is threefold:

1. To assist taxpayers in obtaining “easily understandable” information about tax matters, department policies and procedures, including audits, collections and appeals;
2. To answer questions of taxpayers or their tax professionals about preparing and filing returns; and
3. To assist taxpayers and their tax professionals in locating documents filed with the department or payments made to the department.

On November 19, 2021, HR 5376, the 2,476-page bill, commonly known as the Build Back Better Act, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 220-213.

The House’s vote on HR 5376 was held after the Congressional Budget Office released its cost estimates for the proposed legislation. It estimates HR 5376 will cost almost $1.7 trillion and add $367 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years. 

HR 5376 started out with robust changes to our tax laws, including large increases in the corporate, individual, trust and estate income tax rates, significant increases in the capital gains tax rates, taxation of unrealized gains of the ultra-wealthy, a huge reduction in the unified credit, a tax surcharge on high income individuals, trusts and estates, expansion of the application of the net investment income tax, elimination of gift and death transfer discounts, and additional limitations on the application of the qualified business income deduction. 

To the cheer of most U.S. taxpayers, HR 5376, as passed by the House, is a dwarf, in terms of the tax provisions, compared to its original form.  As tax legislation, at least in its current state, it is much ado about nothing.  

However, U.S. taxpayers should not get too joyful about the legislation in its current form.  It will likely be substantially altered by the Senate, regaining many of its original provisions (with or without modification).  In fact, Skopos Labs reports that the bill, as passed by the House, has a 10 percent chance of being in enacted into law.

HR 5376, at its heart, provides funding, establishes new programs and otherwise modifies current provisions of the law aimed at enhancing a broad array of programs, including education, childcare, healthcare and the environmental protections.

While it may not be worth spending too much time focusing on HR 5376, as its tax provisions will be drastically altered by the Senate, it is worth briefly noting what is in the bill and what may be missing.