Larry's Tax Law

BACKGROUND

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) creates, modifies or eliminates a number of employment and employee fringe benefit related provisions of the Code. Both employers and employees need to be aware of these changes. Accordingly, this installment of our ongoing review and analysis of the TCJA focuses on these employer and employee fringe benefit provisions.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be…” or at least, if you insist on borrowing (and we understand the appeal), we are here to help you stay abreast of the new rules on deducting interest.

BACKGROUND/PRIOR LAW

Interest on a business or investment related debt is, in most instances, a deductible expense of the borrower and taxed as income to the lender. With a few exceptions, such as mortgage interest on a personal residence, borrowers generally cannot deduct personal interest. A borrower’s deduction is subject to a number of limitations set forth in Code Section 163. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) has changed some of these limitations.

Before the enactment of the TCJA, nondeductible interest included any interest on a taxpayer’s debt not arising from a trade or business, home mortgage, investment activity, or qualified student loans (in other words, interest arising from those debts was deductible).

BACKGROUND

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) adopted a new 20% deduction for non-corporate taxpayers. It only applies to “qualified business income.” The deduction, sometimes called the “pass-through deduction,” is found in IRC § 199A. There has been a significant amount of media coverage of this new deduction. Rather than repeat what you have undoubtedly already read or heard, we chose to focus this blog post on the not so obvious aspects of IRC § 199A—the numerous pitfalls and traps that exist for the unwary.

BACKGROUND/PRIOR LAW

Under IRC § 708(a), a partnership is considered as a continuing entity for income tax purposes unless it is terminated. Given the proliferation of state law entities taxed as partnerships today (e.g., limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships), a good understanding of the rules surrounding termination is ever important.

Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), IRC § 708(b)(1) provided that a partnership [1] was considered terminated if:  

1.  No part of any business, financial operation, or venture of the partnership continues to be carried on by any of the partners of the partnership; or

2.  Within any 12-month period, there is a sale of exchange of 50% or more of the total interests of the partnership’s capital and profits.

The proposed $3 billion per year tax-raising bill, Oregon Measure 97, was defeated yesterday by a 59% to 41% margin. The fight was long and bloody. Media reports that opponents and proponents together spent more than $42 million in their campaigns surrounding the tax bill.

So, What Now?

The defeat of Measure 97 eliminates the proposed 2.5% gross receipts alternative corporate tax applicable to C Corporations with annual Oregon gross receipts over $25 million. Oregon C Corporations, however, are still faced with a minimum tax based on Oregon gross receipts. The minimum tax applicable to Oregon’s C Corporations is based on gross revenues as follows:

C Corporations with Oregon annual revenues greater than $25 million may face a new minimum tax obligation – 2.5 percent of the excess – if Measure 97 passes. If a business falls within this category, there may be ways to mitigate its impact. The time to start planning, however, is now.

Background

Oregon taxes corporations under an excise tax regime.  The Oregon corporate excise tax regime was adopted in 1929.  The original legislation included what is commonly called a “minimum tax” provision.  In accordance with this provision, corporations subject to the Oregon excise tax are required to pay the greater of the tax computed under the regular corporate excise tax provision or the tax computed under the “minimum tax” provision.  Accordingly, the “minimum tax” is an “alternative” tax; it is not an “additional” tax as many commentators have recently asserted.

Originally, the Oregon corporate “minimum tax” was a fixed amount – $25.  As a result of the lobbying efforts of Oregon businesses, the “minimum tax” was eventually reduced to $10, where it remained for almost 80 years.

In 2010, Oregon voters dramatically changed the corporate “minimum tax” landscape with the passage of Measure 67.  The corporate “minimum tax” (beginning with the 2009 tax year), is no longer a fixed amount.  Rather, it is now based on Oregon sales (gross revenues).  The “minimum tax” is now:

Oregon Sales

Minimum Tax

< $500,000

$150

$500,000 to $1 million

$500

$1 million to $2 million

$1,000

$2 million to $3 million

$1,500

$3 million to $5 million

$2,000

$5 million to $7 million

$4,000

$7 million to $10 million

$7,500

$10 million to $25 million

$15,000

$25 million to $50 million

$30,000

$50 million to $75 million

$50,000

$75 million to $100 million

$75,000

$100 million or more

$100,000

S corporations are exempt from the alternative graduated tax system.  Instead, they are still subject to a fixed amount “minimum tax,” which is currently $150.

As an example, under the current corporate “minimum tax” provision, a corporation with Oregon gross sales of $150 million, but which, after allowable deductions, has a net operating loss of $25,000, would be subject to a minimum tax of $100,000.  Many corporations operating in Oregon, which traditionally have small profit margins (i.e., high gross sales, but low net income), found themselves (after Measure 67 was passed) with large tax bills and little or no money to pay the taxes.  Three possible solutions for these businesses exist:

• • Make an S corporation election (if eligible);

• • Change the entity to a LLC taxed as a partnership (if the tax cost of conversion is palatable); or

• • Move all business operations and sales outside of Oregon to a more tax-friendly jurisdiction.

Several corporations in this predicament have adopted one of these solutions.

Initiative Petition 28/ Measure 97

Measure 97 will be presented to Oregon voters this November.  If it receives voter approval, it will amend the “minimum tax” in two major ways:

• • The “minimum tax” will remain the same for corporations with Oregon sales of $25 million or less.  For corporations with Oregon sales above $25 million, however, the “minimum tax” (rather than being fixed) will be $30,001, PLUS 2.5 percent of the excess over $25 million.

• • The petition specifically provides that “legally formed and registered benefit companies” as defined in ORS 60.750 will not be subject to the higher “minimum tax.”  Rather, they will continue to be subject to the pre-Measure 97 “minimum tax” regime (as discussed above).  Caveat: The exception, as drafted, appears to only apply to Oregon benefit companies; it does not extend to foreign benefit companies authorized to do business in Oregon.

Measure 97 expressly provides that all increased tax revenues attributable to the new law will be used to fund education, healthcare and senior citizen programs.  As a result, many commentators believe the initiative has great voter appeal and will likely be approved by voters.  If Measure 97 is passed, it is slated to raise over $6 billion in additional tax revenue per biennium.

Many of our readers have asked me about the likely controversy that will ensue following the death of Prince. In fact, two readers feel, since I have been reporting about some of the controversy surrounding the Estate of Michael Jackson, that I must write about Prince’s estate and the expected controversy surrounding it. So, here we go!

Prince Rogers Nelson, known to his fans as “Prince,” passed away on April 21, 2016 in Carver County, Minnesota at his estate, Paisley Park. He was 57 years old. The media reports that he left no spouse or children, but he is survived by a sister and five half siblings. In addition, the initial accounts are that he died without a Last Will and Testament. What is likely to follow is best summed up by the title to Prince’s 1981 hit song “Controversy.”

Controversy involving the pop star’s estate could arise on many fronts. Potential instigators of controversy include the taxing authorities and persons claiming to be legal heirs of Prince.

In March 2014, I reported on the all-out battle that was ensuing in the U.S. Tax Court between the IRS and the Estate of Michael Jackson over the value of the late pop singer’s estate. It began in 2013, when the estate petitioned the court, alleging that the Service’s assessment, based upon the assertion that the estate underreported its estate tax obligation by more than $500 million, was incorrect. In addition, the estate challenged the IRS’s additional assessment of almost $200 million in penalties. Keep in mind that although these numbers are staggering, they do not include the estate’s potential state of California estate tax obligations.

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 impacts: (i) the manner in which entities taxed as partnerships[1] will be audited by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); and (ii) who is required to pay the tax resulting from any corresponding audit adjustments. These new rules generally are effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. As discussed below, because of the nature of these rules, partnerships need to consider taking action now in anticipation of the new rules.

The Current Landscape

Entities taxed as partnerships generally do not pay income tax. Rather, they compute and report their taxable income and losses on IRS Form 1065. The partnership provides each of its partners with a Schedule K-1, which allows the partners to report to the IRS their share of the partnership’s income or loss on their own tax returns and pay the corresponding tax. Upon audit, pursuant to uniform audit procedures enacted as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”), examinations of partnerships are conducted generally under one of the following scenarios:

• • For partnerships with ten (10) or fewer eligible partners,[2] examinations are conducted by a separate audit of the partnership and then an audit of each of the partners;

• • For partnerships with greater than ten (10) partners and/or partnerships with ineligible partners, examinations are conducted under uniform TEFRA audit procedures, whereby the examination, conducted at the partnership level, is binding on the taxpayers who were partners of the partnership during the year under examination; and

• • For partnerships with 100 or more partners, at the election of the partnership, examinations may be conducted under uniform “Electing Large Partnership” audit procedures, whereby the examination, conducted at the partnership level, is binding on the partners of the partnership existing at the conclusion of the audit.

Lawmakers believed a change in TEFRA audit framework was necessary for the efficient administration of Subchapter K of the Code. If a C corporation is audited, the IRS can assess an additional tax owing against a single taxpayer—the very taxpayer under examination—the C corporation. In the partnership space, however, despite the possible application of the uniform audit procedures, the IRS is required to examine the partnership and then assess and collect tax from multiple taxpayers (i.e., the partners of the partnership). In fact, the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) reported in 2014 that, for tax year 2012, less than one percent (1%) of partnerships with more than $100 million in assets were audited. Whereas, for the same tax year, more than twenty-seven percent (27%) of similarly-sized corporations were audited. The GAO concluded the vast disparity is directly related to the increased administrative burden placed on the IRS under the existing partnership examination rules.

Earlier this week, United States Tax Court Judge Richard T. Morrison ruled, in the case of Emmanuel A. Santos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2016-100 (May 17, 2016), that the government will not pay the cost of a taxpayer obtaining a law degree.

Case Background

This is a pro se case. While the record was not very clear, the taxpayer, Emmanuel A. Santos, claimed he earned a degree in accounting from Indiana University in 1988. Thereafter, he began a career as a tax return preparer. In 1996, he obtained a master’s degree in taxation. Eventually, Mr. Santos expanded his tax return preparer practice to include accounting and financial planning services.