Larry's Tax Law

Introduction

On November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act (“Act”) was signed into law by President Barack Obama.  One of the many provisions of the Act significantly impacted: (i) the manner in which entities taxed as partnerships are audited by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); and (ii) who is required to pay the tax resulting from any corresponding audit adjustments.  The new rules sprung into life for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. 

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, companies in wide-ranging industries across the country have unprecedented numbers of employees working from remote locations.  In a prior post, we discussed numerous issues that may arise from this new normal of teleworking, including tax, labor and employment, liability, and business registration implications. 

In this post, we drill down a bit further with respect to employers’ state tax reporting and payment obligations that may result from having employees working remotely in states other than where the employers maintain physical offices.  This is especially relevant in metropolitan areas that straddle multiple states, like here in Portland, Oregon.

When we thought times were bad enough with the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread social unrest in our country, the West Coast, including the Pacific Northwest, was struck with unprecedented wildfires and massive windstorms, taking lives, destroying property and rendering the air quality throughout the region unhealthy.  On September 16 and 17, the Internal Revenue Service announced good news for many taxpayers residing in Oregon. 

In News Release OR-2020-23 and News Release IR-2020-215, the IRS announced that, due to the wildfires and windstorms striking Oregon, the deadline for certain Oregonians to file returns and make tax payments will be extended to January 15, 2021.

Earlier this year, the Idaho Supreme Court, in Noell Industries, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, --- P.3d ---- (2020), ruled that gain from the sale of membership interests in a limited liability company that had business operations in Idaho by a taxpayer domiciled outside of Idaho was not business income.  As a result, the gain was not taxable in Idaho.

The court, in a 3-2 decision, upheld the district court’s reversal of the Idaho Tax Commission’s determination to tax the income.  The sharks were circling the taxpayer, ready to attack, but the majority of the justices on the Idaho Supreme Court intervened, saving the taxpayer from a savage death (or at least a boatload of taxes).

As most people are aware, the 2019 income tax filing and payment deadlines for all taxpayers who file and pay their federal income taxes on April 15, 2020, were automatically extended until July 15, 2020.  This relief is automatic and generally applies to all individual, trust and corporation tax returns.  Additionally, this relief extends to estimated tax payments for tax year 2020 that were due on April 15, 2020.

People First Initiative

Additionally, the People First Initiative offered taxpayers who owed taxes some further relief.  IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig stated relative to the People First Initiative:

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act waives the requirement that taxpayers take required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) for 2020 from IRAs, 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans.  Taxpayers who already took 2020 RMDs may be able to return them to their retirement plans or IRAs and avoid paying income tax on the distributions.  The timing, however, is critical.

Notice 2020-51, issued by the IRS last week, provides needed clarity about this provision of the CARES Act.

Up until this past Wednesday, the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan forgiveness application issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) had not been updated since May.  New guidance was issued in the interim (and anyone who has been following this area knows that guidance is constantly evolving).  Most taxpayers have some breathing room before they must file their forgiveness applications; so, it may behoove them to wait to file their applications until they digest the most recent guidance.

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.