Chuchian and Chuchian, CPAs

Running a business is easy as long as it's not yours.-John Jennings

The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) advanced President Donald Trump’s nomination of Charles Rettig for IRS Commissioner. The SFC approved the nomination on July 19 by a 14-to-13 party line vote.

Qualified Nominee

Several SFC Democrats and Republicans praised Rettig’s qualifications to serve as the next IRS Commissioner. SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that he is a "qualified nominee."

However, Democrats voted against his nomination in protest of new IRS guidance ( Rev. Proc. 2018-38, discussed later in this Issue) that limits donor reporting for certain tax-exempt organizations.

"The Trump administration has taken a qualified nominee and dumped him right into the middle of a dark money political firestorm of their own creation," Wyden said. Wyden announced the day before the vote that he would not support Rettig’s nomination unless Rettig committed to reversing the IRS’s new rules on certain Schedule B donor disclosures.

However, SFC Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, noted during the markup that the IRS reporting rules are unrelated to Rettig’s nomination. "I know that some of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction with new IRS reporting rules released recently and want to oppose the important appointment of an IRS commissioner because of these new rules, over which he had no control,"Hatch said. Hatch, praising Rettig’s qualifications, expressed confidence that Rettig, if confirmed, would "lead the IRS with integrity."

Next Steps

Rettig’s nomination now heads to the full Senate. If confirmed, Rettig will oversee the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Rettig previously told the committee that restoring taxpayer trust in the IRS would be a top goal as IRS Commissioner. "If I am privileged to serve as Commissioner, my overriding goal will be to strengthen and rebuild trust between the IRS, the American people, and their representatives in Congress," Rettig said. "That trust is critical to all that the IRS does."

Close

President Donald Trump and House GOP tax writers discussed "Tax Cuts 2.0" in a July 17 meeting at the White House. The next round of tax cuts will focus primarily on the individual side of the tax code, both Trump and House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., reiterated to reporters at the White House before the meeting.

Individual Tax Cuts

The discussion between Trump and several top House GOP tax writers was set to focus, in particular, on how to further strengthen the economy post-tax reform, Brady said. "We think the best place to start is with America’s middle class families and our small businesses," he added. Brady has said that making permanent the individual tax cuts that are set to expire in 2026 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) is a top priority for Republicans.

Corporate Tax Rate

Trump is also calling for lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. The corporate tax rate was lowered last December from 35 percent to 21 percent by the TCJA.

Brady told reporters earlier in the week of July 16 that discussions between House GOP tax writers and the White House were continuing on the possible proposal. While Brady did not openly commit to the notion of further lowering the corporate tax rate, he did tell reporters that he thinks the president is right that global competitors will likely respond in kind to last year’s tax reform.

Tax Cuts 2.0 Timeline

The House is expected to vote on the Tax Cuts 2.0 package in September, Brady told reporters at the White House on July 17. Additionally, Brady stated that he anticipates the "Senate setting a timetable, as well."

Brady’s estimated timeline for votes on the tax cuts package is in line with his statements in June that House GOP members will receive a legislative outline of the proposal this month. Further, a draft of the tax package is expected to be released publicly in August.

Senate

At this time, the Tax Cuts 2.0 package is not expected on Capitol Hill to fare well in the Senate. The package would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber.

"The GOP tax scam was a huge tax break for big corporations," Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said in a July 17 tweet. "We should reward work, not just wealth," she added. While Democrats remain outspoken against the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations, Republicans are hopeful for Democratic support, just prior to midterm elections, on a measure that focuses on individual tax cuts.

Close

House Republicans and the Trump Administration are working together to craft a tax cut "2.0"outline, the House’s top tax writer has said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters during the week that House tax writers and the White House are currently working to finalize the "framework."

Tax Cuts 2.0

Additionally, Brady reiterated to reporters that he plans to hold listening sessions with other House Republicans to gather ideas for the tax package. The legislative outline is expected to be circulated among House lawmakers this month and released generally in August. A House floor vote on the package is anticipated this fall.

Individual Tax Cuts

The tax reform "phase two" package will focus on making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted temporarily through 2025 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Extending the individual tax cuts will be the " centerpiece" of the next package, Brady has said.

Impact. "Making the TCJA’s expiring individual tax code changes permanent would result in a larger economy in the long run," the Tax Foundation said in a report released on July 10. According to the report, a "small, positive" economic impact is expected during 2019 through 2028. "In the long run, making all individual tax provisions permanent will lead to 2.2 percent higher long-run GDP, 0.9 percent higher wages, and 1.5 million more full-time equivalent jobs," the report said.

However, the economic boost would not arrive without being accompanied by an increased federal deficit, according to the report. "Making these provisions permanent will also increase the deficit, reducing federal revenues by $638 billion ($575 billion on a dynamic basis) over the 10-year budget window and in the long run, reduce federal revenue on an annual basis by $165 billion ($112 billion on a dynamic basis)."

Corporate Tax Cuts

Additionally, Republicans are "thinking about bringing the 21 percent [corporate tax rate] down to 20," President Trump said in a recent interview. The corporate tax rate was permanently lowered from 35 to 21 percent under the TCJA.

Senate

At this time, the prospect of the House’s tax cut 2.0 package clearing the Senate remains unlikely. Currently, the phase two measure would need at least nine Democratic votes to clear the chamber. Democrats have remained critical of the TCJA and are not expected on Capitol Hill to support legislative efforts to extend the new law’s provisions.

Close

The Senate Finance Committee’s (SFC) leading Democrat has released a report critiquing Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code. The report, focusing primarily on international tax reform, was released by SFC ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on July 18.

Criticism of GOP Tax Reform

The Democratic SFC report, "Trump’s Tax Law and International Tax: More Complexity, Loopholes and Incentives to Ship Jobs Overseas," criticizes a number of provisions enacted in last year’s tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) was signed into law by President Donald Trump last December.

"Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans continue to peddle the false promises outlined in this tax scam report," Wyden said in a July 18 press release. "Their new international tax regime instead rewards companies for investing overseas while hardworking Americans watch their wages fall."

The report focuses on five areas of international tax reform. According to the report, the new tax law makes the tax code more complicated and incentivizes corporations to move jobs overseas.

Tax Cuts 2.0

Meanwhile, Republicans on the other side of the Capitol continue to tout the positive economic effects of tax reform as they prepare to unveil their next tax cuts package. "Tax Cuts 2.0" will focus on making permanent tax cuts for individuals and passthrough entities, which were enacted temporarily through 2025 under the TCJA.

"It wasn’t that long ago that our economy was sluggish, paychecks were going nowhere, jobs were going overseas -- all that has changed," House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in a July 18 televised interview in which he praised the TCJA. According to Brady, Congress and the White House are starting Tax Cuts 2.0 "right now."

"The President is all in," Brady said. Brady, along with several other House tax writers, met with Trump on the next round of tax reform in a July 17 meeting at the White House.

Close

Homeowners will be hurt financially by last year’s tax reform, according to a new House Democratic staff report. The report alleges that real estate developers will primarily benefit from the new tax law at the expense of homeowners.

The Democratic staff report was released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., on July 5. The report highlights the effects of specific provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) on homeowners across the United States.

Home Equity Interest Deduction

Prior to the TCJA, homeowners could deduct interest on home equity loans up to $100,000, as noted in the report. However, the TCJA, enacted last December, retroactively prohibits homeowners from deducting interest on loans of any amount if used for any purpose other than home improvement. According to Cummings’ staff, many homeowners use home equity loans for a variety of reasons, such as medical emergencies or college education.

Real Estate Tax Breaks

The staff report highlights several TCJA provisions that could benefit real estate developers. Among these tax breaks includes the 20-percent deduction for passthrough business income for certain qualifying real estate companies. Additionally, the report notes that under the TCJA, real estate developers are exempt from the new 30-percent limitation on interest deducted by large businesses. Further, the report notes that TCJA exempts real estate from the repeal of favorable tax treatment of like-kind exchanges of business assets and provides a 20-percent deduction for dividends from qualified real estate investment trusts.

"For the first time, this new report shows how big the payoffs were to wealthy real estate developers – more than $66 billion over the next ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation," Cummings said in a statement. "They [Republicans] chose to take away a longstanding tax deduction that American families have relied on for decades while at the same time creating $66 billion in new tax breaks for real estate developers," he added.

In response to an inquiry about the report, a House Ways and Means Committee majority spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on July 6 that the Democratic staff report is a "partisan exercise." "Multiple reports from nonpartisan organizations show strong housing numbers for this year...tax reform allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on what is important to them. This all is good news for homeowners and those seeking to buy a home," the spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer.

Close

The IRS has issued final regulations that target tax-motivated inversion transactions and certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. The final regulations retain the thresholds and substantiation requirements of the 2016 final, temporary and proposed regulations (the 2016 regulations), but make limited changes to the 2016 regulations to improve clarity and reduce unnecessary complexity and burdens on taxpayers. These changes also ensure that the final regulations do not impact cross-border transactions that are economically beneficial and not tax-motivated.

Background

Generally, in an inversion transaction, a U.S.-based multinational expatriates by changing its tax residence from the United States to another country in an effort to avoid or reduce U.S. taxes.

Comment. Subject to certain limitations, the transaction allows the inverted company to reduce future taxes on U.S.-source earnings, such as by deducting interest paid on loans from the new foreign parent. In addition to U.S. tax base erosion, inversions may have other effects on the U.S. economy, such as reduced employment when the headquarters are moved overseas.

Code Sec. 7874 limits inversions that are tax-motivated, by generally targeting transactions in which the following occur:

a foreign corporation acquires substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation (domestic entity acquisition);
immediately after the transaction, the former shareholders of the domestic corporation make up a significant portion of the shareholders of the acquiring foreign corporation; and
after the domestic entity acquisition, the expanded affiliated group (EAG) that includes the foreign acquiring corporation does not have substantial business activities in the foreign country in which, or under the law of which, the foreign acquiring corporation is created or organized when compared to the total business activities of the EAG.

Under (2) above, if the former shareholders of the domestic corporation hold 80 percent or more of the stock of the foreign corporation after the transaction, the foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation for U.S. tax purposes. If the former shareholders hold at least 60 percent but less than 80 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation after the transaction, then the transaction is respected but use of tax attributes is limited. Transactions where the former shareholders of the domestic corporation hold less than 60 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation are generally not limited. The percentage of stock is referred to as the ownership percentage, and the fraction used to calculate the ownership percentage is referred to as the ownership fraction.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) reduced, but did not completely eliminate, the incentives for tax-motivated inversions.

Changes Made by the Final Regulations in General

Similar to the 2016 regulations, the final regulations under Code Sec. 7874 provide rules for:

identifying domestic entity acquisitions and foreign acquiring corporations in certain multiple-step transactions;
calculating the ownership percentage and, more specifically, disregarding certain stock of the foreign acquiring corporation for purposes of computing the denominator of the ownership fraction and, in addition, taking into account certain non-ordinary course distributions (NOCDs) made by a domestic entity for purposes of computing the numerator of the ownership fraction;
determining when certain stock of a foreign acquiring corporation is treated as held by a member of the EAG; and
determining when an EAG has substantial business activities in a relevant foreign country.

However, the final regulations clarify the prior rules, provide additional exceptions to their application, and reduce complexity and unnecessary burdens on taxpayers, including by providing guidance on how to apply particular mechanical rules. Specifically, the final regulations make clarifying changes to some of the stock exclusion rules: the passive assets rule, the serial acquisition rule, and the third country rule. Clarifying changes are also made to the substantial business activities test.

In addition, the final regulations add additional exceptions to the serial acquisition rule and the third country rule to narrow their scope. To reduce complexity and ambiguity, changes are made to the passive assets rule, the NOCD rule, and the rules coordinating the application of the stock exclusion rules with the EAG rules.

The final regulations further provide rules under Code Sec. 7874 and other provisions to reduce the tax benefits of certain post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. Such rules generally prevent the post-inversion dilution of U.S. shareholders’ interests in expatriated foreign subsidiaries.

Passive Assets Rule

The final regulations apply the passive assets rule only for purposes of determining the ownership percentage by value. The passive assets rule is also modified so that stock excluded under any of the stock exclusion rules is not taken into account. In addition, property that gives rise to stock excluded under any of the stock exclusion rules is not taken into account for purposes of this rule.

Serial Acquisitions of Domestic Entities

The final regulations retain the 36-month look-back period for the serial acquisition rule, but make three technical clarifications or modifications to this rule. Specifically, the final regulations:

clarify that the determination of the foreign acquiring corporation’s stock attributable to a prior domestic entity acquisition does not take into account stock of the foreign acquiring corporation deemed to have been received under the NOCD rule or Code Sec. 7874(c)(4) in the prior domestic entity acquisition;
provide an additional exception to the definition of the term "prior domestic entity acquisition" to exclude a domestic entity acquisition that occurs within a foreign-parented group and qualifies for the internal group restructuring exception; and
define a predecessor of a foreign acquiring corporation for purposes of the serial acquisition rule.

Other Matters

The final regulations also:

provide exceptions to the third-country rule in certain cases where transactions are not driven by tax planning;
include several clarifications or modifications to the NOCD rule;
modify one of the requirements of the de minimis exception applicable to the disqualified stock rule, the passive assets rule, and the NOCD rule;
broaden the coordination of the stock exclusion rules with the EAG rules; and
for purposes of the substantial business activities test, define a "tax resident" as a body corporate liable to tax under the laws of the country as a resident.

Applicability Dates

The applicability dates of the rules in the final regulations are generally the same as the applicability dates of the rules as set forth in the 2016 regulations. However, differences between the final regulations and the 2016 regulations generally apply on a prospective basis, with an option for taxpayers to apply the differences retroactively. Since taxpayers may have relied on the 2016 regulations, the modifications to the final regulations generally apply prospectively. However, domestic entity acquisitions completed before July 12, 2018, continue to be subject to those rules as set forth in the 2016 regulations, but generally with an option for taxpayers to apply the differences retroactively.

Close

The Fifth Circuit vacated a tax preparer’s conviction for obstructing tax administration. The conviction was no longer valid in light of C.J. Marinello, SCt., 2018-1 ustc ¶50,192.

Marinello

Under Code Sec. 7212, it is a crime to corruptly or by force or threats obstruct the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code. In Marinello, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a conviction for this crime requires that:

a relationship ( "nexus") exists between the defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative proceeding; and
the proceeding was either pending when the defendant engaged in the conduct or reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.

A "particular administrative proceeding" includes an investigation, audit or other targeted administrative action. It does not include routine, day-to-day work carried out in the ordinary course by the IRS, such as the review of tax returns.

Obstruction Conviction

Here, a jury convicted the tax preparer on one count of obstructing the tax laws. One of the obstruction allegations was that the preparer had provided false testimony at a show cause hearing in federal court. This met the Marinello requirements, because the hearing was held to assess her compliance with an IRS tax records subpoena.

However, most of the other alleged obstruction did not satisfy Marinello, because it focused on the preparer paying her employees in cash and on failing to keep adequate records.

The court vacated the obstruction conviction, because the jury believed it could consider all of the preparer’s conduct as part of the obstruction count. The court did not know which of the allegations the jury had found to be proven by the government.

False Returns Conviction

The jury also convicted the preparer for preparing false returns. The preparer claimed the improper obstruction count tainted the false return counts. However, the court rejected this "spill-over prejudice" claim, and did not vacate the false returns conviction. The invalid obstruction count did not allow the jury to consider evidence that would not have been allowed at a trial focused on just the false return counts.

On remand from SCt. Unpublished opinion vacating and remanding, per curiam, an unpublished DC Tex. decision. Related decision at CA-5 2017-1 ustc ¶50,241.

Close

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson has released her mid-year report to Congress. The report contains a review of the 2018 filing season, and identifies the priority issues the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) will address during the upcoming fiscal year. It also includes the IRS’s responses to each of the 100 administrative recommendations made in the 2017 Annual Report to Congress.

The report identifies and discusses 12 priority issues the TAS plans to focus on during the upcoming fiscal year. The top five include implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the effectiveness of IRS service channels in meeting taxpayer needs, the development of an integrated case management system, the impact of high false-positive rates on legitimate taxpayers and the protection of taxpayers facing financial hardship from IRS and private debt collection activities. The most significant challenge the IRS faces in the upcoming year is implementing the TCJA, which, among other things, requires programming an estimated 140 systems, writing or revising some 450 forms and publications and issuing guidance on dozens of TCJA provisions. The TAS has launched a new website that lists key tax return items under current law (2017), shows which ones have been impacted by the TCJA and illustrates how the changes will be reflected on tax year 2018 returns filed in 2019.

In her preface to the report, Ms. Olson focuses on the IRS’s customer service challenges. The report says the IRS uses narrow performance measures that suggest the agency is performing well but do not reflect the taxpayer experience. Recommendations to improve customer service include: (1) adopting robust performance measures that more accurately reflect the taxpayer experience; (2) providing taxpayers with modernized "omnichannel"services so that taxpayers can obtain assistance online, by phone or in-person; (3) accelerating the development of an integrated case management system; and (4) using "big data" to help taxpayers as well as to bolster enforcement. Further, Ms. Olson reiterated her longstanding concern that IRS funding reductions have undermined the agency’s ability to provide high-quality taxpayer service and to modernize its aging information technology infrastructure.

Close

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

Scope

Under the proposed regulations, to which Congress left many details to be filled in, the new audit regime covers any adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership and any partner’s distributive share of those adjusted items. Further, any income tax resulting from an adjustment to items under the centralized partnership audit regime is assessed and collected at the partnership level. The applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to any such item or share is also determined at the partnership level.

Immediate Impact

Although perhaps streamlined and eventually destined to simplify partnership audits for the IRS, the new centralized audit regime may prove more complicated in several respects for many partnerships. Of immediate concern for most partnerships, whether benefiting or not, is how to reflect this new centralized audit regime within partnership agreements, especially when some of the procedural issues within the new regime are yet to be ironed out.

Issues for many partnerships that have either been generated or heightened by the new regulations include:

Selecting a method of satisfying an imputed underpayment;
Designation of a partnership representative;
Allocating economic responsibility for an imputed underpayment among partners including situations in which partners’ interests change between a reviewed year and the adjustment year; and
Indemnifications between partnerships and partnership representatives, as well as among current partners and those who were partners during the tax year under audit.

Election out

Starting for tax year 2018, virtually all partnerships will be subject to the new partnership audit regime …unless an “election out” option is affirmatively elected. Only an eligible partnership may elect out of the centralized partnership audit regime. A partnership is an eligible partnership if it has 100 or fewer partners during the year and, if at all times during the tax year, all partners are eligible partners. A special rule applies to partnerships that have S corporation partners.

Consistent returns

A partner’s treatment of each item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership must be consistent with the treatment of those items on the partnership return, including treatment with respect to the amount, timing, and characterization of those items. Under the new rules, the IRS may assess and collect any underpayment of tax that results from adjusting a partner’s inconsistently reported item to conform that item with the treatment on the partnership return as if the resulting underpayment of tax were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. A partner may not request an abatement of that assessment.

Partnership representative

The new regulations require a partnership to designate a partnership representative, as well as provide rules describing the eligibility requirements for a partnership representative, the designation of the partnership representative, and the representative’s authority. Actions by the partnership representative bind all the partners as far as the IRS is concerned. Indemnification agreements among partners may ameliorate some, but not all, of the liability triggered by this rule.

Imputed underpayment, alternatives and "push-outs"

Generally, if a partnership adjustment results in an imputed underpayment, the partnership must pay the imputed underpayment in the adjustment year. The partnership may request modification with respect to an imputed underpayment only under the procedures described in the new rules.

In multi-tiered partnership arrangements, the new rules provide that a partnership may elect to "push out" adjustments to its reviewed year partners. If a partnership makes a valid election, the partnership is no longer liable for the imputed underpayment. Rather, the reviewed year partners of the partnership are liable for tax, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts plus interest, after taking into account their share of the partnership adjustments determined in the final partnership adjustment (FPA). The new regulations provide rules for making the election, the requirements for partners to file statements with the IRS and furnish statements to reviewed year partners, and the computation of tax resulting from taking adjustments into account.

Retiring, disappearing partners

Partnership agreements that reflect the new partnership audit regime must especially consider the problems that may be created by partners that have withdrawn, and partnerships that have since dissolved, between the tax year being audited and the year in which a deficiency involving that tax year is to be resolved. Collection of prior-year taxes due from a former partner, especially as time lapses, becomes more difficult as a practical matter unless specific remedies are set forth in the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement might specify that if any partner withdraws and disposes of their interest, they must keep the partnership advised of their contact information until released by the partnership in writing.

If you have any questions about how your partnership may be impacted by these new rules, please feel free to call our office.

Close

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Nontax considerations

State law and nontax considerations are an important consideration in choosing the form of the business and may play a decisive role. A general partner of a partnership has unlimited liability for the debts of the business. This can be modified by using a limited partnership (LP), which must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. The general partner still have unlimited liability, but a limited partner's liability is limited to its contribution to the partnership. A corporation has limited liability; shareholders generally are not responsible for the liabilities of the corporation beyond their contributions to the entity.

Federal tax considerations

At the same time, it is crucial to consider federal tax requirements and consequences when choosing the form of business entity. A primary federal tax consideration is avoiding a double layer of tax on business income. This can be accomplished by operating as a passthrough entity, such as a partnership or S corporation. Income is not taxed at the entity level. It passes through to partners and shareholders and is taxed at their rates.

In contrast, C corporations are taxable entities. Furthermore, when a C corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, this generally is taxable to the shareholder. It must be noted that income of a passthrough entity is allocable and taxable to its owners, whether or not the income is actually distributed to the partner or shareholder. Dividends are not taxed unless there is an actual distribution.

While a partnership is organized under state law, an S corporation is a creature of the federal tax system. The S corporation is a regular corporation for state law purposes.

Advantages of partnerships

Unlike an S corporation shareholder, anyone or any entity can be a partner. S corporations are limited to 100 shareholders; only certain individuals, estates and trusts are eligible to be shareholders. C corporations and nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders of an S corporation.

S corporations are limited to a single class of stock; income and losses must be allocated on the same basis to each shareholder. Having only one class of stock may affect the corporation's ability to raise capital. A partnership can have different classes of partners and has more flexibility for allocating income and losses to different types of partners.

Partnership liabilities can increase a partner's basis in the partnership, offsetting distributions of cash and reducing their taxation. The increased basis allowed partners to use losses generated by the partnership. Liabilities of an S corporation do not create stock basis; separate bases in stock and debt must be calculated. This lack of basis may limit the use of losses generated by the S corporation.

Contributions of appreciated property by a partner to the partnership generally are not taxable, even if the partner is not part of a group controlling the partnership. Contributions by a shareholder to a corporation are tax-free only if the shareholders are part of a group controlling 80 percent of the corporation after the contribution. However, a partnership must follow special allocation rules for handling built-in gain on contributed property, whereas S corporations do not have special allocation rules in this circumstance.

Conclusion

In general, a partnership offers more flexibility than an S corporation in the treatment of taxes. However, S corporation shareholders do have limited legal liability, while general partners are not insulated from the partnership's debts and liabilities.

Close

Since 2009, the IRS has operated an Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for U.S. taxpayers who have failed to disclose foreign assets or report foreign income from those assets to the IRS or Treasury. The program provides reduced penalties and other benefits, thus giving taxpayers an opportunity to address their past noncompliance and "become right" with the government.

The IRS reports that 45,000 taxpayers have made voluntary disclosures since 2009 and have paid $6.5 billion in back taxes, interest, and penalties. In 2014, the IRS made important changes to the OVDP, with the expectation that the revised program will lead to a significant increase in the number of U.S. taxpayers who participate in the OVDP and report their undisclosed foreign assets.

Reporting obligations

U.S. taxpayers, including U.S. citizens living abroad, must report and pay taxes on their worldwide income, including income from foreign assets. Taxpayers must report foreign accounts on Form 1040, Schedule B; if their value exceeds certain thresholds, they must report on Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Accounts. Taxpayers with accounts worth more than $10,000 must report the accounts on the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), which is filed with Treasury (not the IRS).

The IRS provided temporary OVDPs in 2009 and 2011. In 2012, it opened another OVDP that it continues to offer. Under the 2012 program, taxpayers must enter into a closing agreement with the IRS, provide updated returns for the prior eight years, and pay a penalty as high as 27.5 percent. In return, the IRS agrees not to pursue criminal penalties against taxpayers who may have willfully failed to report their foreign assets and/or income. In 2012, the IRS also unveiled a "streamlined procedures" program, with lighter penalties for U.S. taxpayers residing abroad who were nonwillful evaders.

2014 revisions

The revised streamlined procedures program has been expanded to taxpayers living in the United States. Participants are no longer required to have an unpaid tax balance of $1,500 or less per year. Participants self-certify that their noncompliance was not willful; the IRS will review their circumstances. Taxpayers must pay taxes on any unreported income from the past three years and must file required FBAR reports for the previous six years. Participants living abroad pay no penalty, while U.S. residents pay a miscellaneous offshore penalty of five percent.

The OVDP program for potentially willful evaders has been tightened. Taxpayers must provide increased information and must pay the 27.5 percent penalty at the time of application. In light of the expanded streamlined program, the IRS eliminated reduced penalties (five and 12.5 percent) that had been offered to nonwillful OVDP participants. To increase the pressure on nonfilers, the IRS increased the penalty from 27.5 percent to 50 percent for taxpayers who used a foreign financial institution or a facilitator that the IRS or Justice Department publicly acknowledges to be under investigation.

Taxpayers are advised to consult with their tax adviser about these programs and choose carefully. A taxpayer cannot participate in both the streamlined and the OVDP programs; it is an either/or proposition. If a taxpayer is confident that his or her noncompliance was not willful, the streamlined program is a reasonable choice. However, this program provides no protection from criminal prosecution, further audits, or proposed tax increases, if the IRS decides that the taxpayer acted willfully.

Close

No, taxpayers may destroy the original hardcopy of books and records and the original computerized records detailing the expenses of a business if they use an electronic storage system.

Business often maintain their books and records by scanning hardcopies of their documents onto a computer hard drive, burning them onto compact disc, or saving them to a portable storage device. The IRS classifies records stored in this manner as an "electronic storage system." Businesses using an electronic storage system are considered to have fulfilled IRS records requirements for all taxpayers, should they meet certain requirements. And, they have the freedom to reduce the amount of paperwork their enterprise must manage.

Record-keeping requirements

Code Sec. 6001 requires all persons liable for tax to keep records as the IRS requires. In addition to persons liable for tax, those who file informational returns must file such returns and make use of their records to prove their gross income, deductions, credits, and other matters. For example, businesses must substantiate deductions for business expenses with appropriate records and they must file informational returns showing salaries and benefits paid to employees.

It is possible for businesses using an electronic storage system to satisfy these requirements under Code Sec. 6001. However, they must fulfill certain obligations.

Paperwork reduction

In addition, using an electronic storage system may allow businesses to destroy the original hardcopy of their books and records, as well as the original computerized records used to fulfill the record-keeping requirements of code Sec. 6001. To take advantage of this option, taxpayers must:

(1) Test their electronic storage system to establish that hardcopy and computerized books and records are being reproduced according to certain requirements, and

(2) Implement procedures to assure that its electronic storage system is compliant with IRS requirements into the future.

Our firm would be glad to work with you to meet the IRS's specifications, should you want to establish a computerized recordkeeping system for your business. The time spent now can be worth considerable time and money saved by a streamlined and organized system of receipts and records.

Close

The decision to start your own business comes with many other important decisions. One of the first tasks you will encounter is choosing the legal form of your new business. There are quite a few choices of legal entities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration along with your own personal tax situation.

The decision to start your own business comes with many other important decisions. One of the first tasks you will encounter is choosing the legal form of your new business. There are quite a few choices of legal entities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration along with your own personal tax situation.

Sole proprietorships. By far the simplest and least expensive business form to set up, a sole proprietorship can be maintained with few formalities. However, this type of entity offers no personal liability protection and doesn't allow you to take advantage of many of the tax benefits that are available to corporate employees. Income and expenses from the business are reported on Schedule C of the owner's individual income tax return. Net income is subject to both social security and income taxes.

Partnerships. Similar to a sole proprietorship, a partnership is owned and operated by more than one person. A partnership can resolve the personal liability issue to a certain extent by operating as a limited partnership, but partners whose liability is limited cannot be involved in actively managing the business. In addition, the passive activity loss rules may apply and can reduce the amount of loss deductible from these partnerships. Partners receive a Schedule K-1 with their share of the partnership's income or loss, which is then reported on the partner's individual income tax return.

S corporations. This type of legal entity is somewhat of a hybrid between a partnership and a C corporation. Owners of an S corporation have the same liability protection that is available from a C corporation but business income and expenses are passed through to the owner's (as with a partnership). Like partners and sole proprietors, however, more-than 2% S corporation shareholders are ineligible for tax-favored fringe benefits. Another disadvantage of S corporations is the limitations on the number and kind of permissible shareholders, which can limit an S corporation's growth potential and access to capital. As with a partnership, shareholders receive a Schedule K-1 with their share of the S corporation's income or loss, which is then reported on the shareholder's individual income tax return.

C corporations. Although they do not have the shareholder restrictions that apply to S corporations, the biggest disadvantage of a C corporation is double taxation. Double taxation means that the profits are subject to income tax at the corporate level, and are also taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends. This negative tax effect can be minimized, however, by investing the profits back into the business to support the company's growth. An advantage to this form of operation is that shareholder-employees are entitled to tax-advantaged corporate-type fringe benefits, such as medical coverage, disability insurance, and group-term life.

Limited liability company. A relatively new form of legal entity, a limited liability company can be set up to be taxed as a partnership, avoiding the corporate income tax, while limiting the personal liability of the managing members to their investment in the company. A LLC is not subject to tax at the corporate level. However, some states may impose a fee. Like a partnership, the business income and expenses flow through to the owners for inclusion on their individual returns.

Limited liability partnership. An LLP is similar to an LLC, except that an LLP does not offer all of the liability limitations that are available in an LLC structure. Generally, partners are liable for their own actions; however, individual partners are not completely liable for the actions of other partners.

There are more detailed differences and reasons for your choice of an entity, however, these discussions are beyond the scope of this article. Please contact the office for more information.

Please contact the office for more information on this subject and how it pertains to your specific tax or financial situation.

Close

Newsletters