All posts by admin

Year-end Tax Planning for High Net Worth Individuals

We are approaching the year-end rather quickly, and we need to make sure we understand how some of the tax laws changes may impact your tax liability for the year and seek for opportunity for any planning to minimize tax cost and maximize tax benefit.  Here are some of the key provisions high net worth individuals should pay attention to:

 

Excess Business Loss Limitation

In addition to the tax basis limitation, at-risk limitation and passive activity loss limitation, non-corporate taxpayers are now subject to a new limitation on the deductibility of business losses from pass-through entities (such as partnership, S-corporation and sole-proprietorship).  A taxpayer’s loss from trade or business in total is now limited to $500,000 for joint filers (or $250,000 for single filer) for the tax years 2018 through 2026.  Disallowed excess business losses will be treated as net operating loss and carried forward.

 

The following example can demonstrate this provision’s detrimental impact.  Tom and Jessica, a married couple, have wage income of $2,000,000 and ordinary loss of $3,000,000 from an S-corporation.  Tom and Jessica also invested in a rental real estate partnership and received a K-1 showing a $500,000 of passive loss.  Let us assume that Tom and Jessica have sufficient tax basis and no at-risk limitation issue for the S-corporation flow through loss.  Under the new tax law, Tom and Jessica would report $­­­­­­­­­1,500,000 of taxable income, as opposed to $0 taxable income under the old tax law.  See the computation below.

 

 2018 Income (Loss)  Under New Tax Law  Under Old Tax Law
 Wage income               2,000,000            2,000,000            2,000,000
 S-Corporation loss            (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)         (3,000,000)
 Excess business loss disallowed            2,500,000
 Passive loss                (500,000)             (500,000)             (500,000)
 Net passive loss disallowed               500,000               500,000
 Total income (loss)            (1,500,000)            1,500,000         (1,000,000)

 

The provision would have a severe impact to the tax computation for 2018, as demonstrated above.  Accordingly, taxpayers who previously sheltered his/her tax from the trade or business loss may need to do a thorough year-end planning to minimize the provision’s adverse impact.

 

Excess Business Interest Deduction Limitation

Generally, under the new tax law, business interest deduction is limited to 30% of taxable income before interest, depreciation and amortization.  This provision may adversely impact heavily debt-financed businesses, such as real estate investment companies and private equity fund owned entities.  An exception is provided if average annual gross receipt for the three previous tax years is lesser than $25M.  For purpose of applying this exception, certain aggregation rules apply.  Therefore, we advise that you consult with your tax advisor regarding the implications.

 

Rethink Entity Choice

With the reduced corporate income tax rate, to a flat 21%, and the 20% deduction allowed to a qualified business income from pass-through entities (such as S-corporation, partnership and sole-proprietorship), choosing an entity type for a business is less obvious from tax perspective.  Provided that a business you own through a pass-thru entity qualifies for the 20% qualified business income deduction, your effective tax rate is reduced from 37% to 29.6% on the business income.  In contrast, if your business is held under a C-corporation, the income would be subject to 21% corporate tax and the after-tax income would be subject to 20% dividend tax.  This effectively yields 37 tax rate in total.

 

As demonstrated above, the rate difference of structing business under pass-through or C-corporation became insignificant, and one needs to consider other factors in deciding to invest or operate through a corporate or pass-through entity.

 

Tax Incentive for US Exporters

Starting in 2018, a domestic C-corporation that export goods or services may benefit from a special deduction on income earned from non-US markets.  This provision may reduce the corporation’s tax rate from 21% to 13% on qualifying income.  If your business exports goods or provide services outside of US, please consult with your tax advisor regarding this incentive.

 

Subpart F Provisions

US shareholders of a controlled foreign company (CFC) may be subject to various deemed dividend inclusion provisions under Subpart F.  The new tax law expanded the definition of US shareholders subject to Subpart F inclusion.  Prior to the change, US shareholder was defined as an US shareholder of a foreign company who owns 10% or more of its voting stock.  However, under the new law, US shareholder who owns 10% or more of voting or value of stock is subject to the Subpart F inclusion.  Additionally, the new tax law added a new category of Subpart F income, known as Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).  Please see our tax newsletter http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/gilti-beat-in-plain-language/ for further detail.

 

Bonus Depreciation

As previously discussed in our tax newsletter http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/proposed-regulations-under-sections-168k-bonus-depreciation/, the new tax law extended and modified bonus depreciation, allowing businesses to immediately deduct 100% of the cost of qualified property.  The qualified property now includes used properties and assets with tax life of 20 years or less.  A financed acquisition prior to the year end may provide immediate deduction of the full cost of the acquired asset in the year of acquisition and provide a tool to manage cash flow.

Deductibility of Business Meal Expenses (한국어 version)

비즈니스 용도 식사 비용 공제 여부

2018년 5월 1일자 KYJ Tax Update Newsletter (http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/no-more-government-subsidy-for-conducting-business-on-the-golf-course/)에서 언급된 바와 같이, 2018년부터는 엔터테인먼트, 오락 또는 레크리에이션 비용을공제 할수 없다. 하지만 새로운 세법은 이전에 제한적으로 50% 공제를 허용했던 엔터테인먼트 행사 중 제공되는 식사에 대한 공제 여부는 구체적으로 언급하지 않았다.

이에 대응해서 미국 국세청(IRS)은 Notice 2018-76 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-18-76.pdf)을 발행했는데, 이는 엔터테인먼트 활동에서 제공되는 음식 및 음료, 엔터테인먼트 활동과 별도로 구매한 음식 및 음료, 그리고 엔터테인먼트 계산서, 청구서, 혹은 영수증에 별도로 기재된 음식 및 음료에 대한 세금 공제 관련 지침을 제공한다. 납세자들은 제안된 규정이 발표되기 전까지 이 지침에 따라 비용 공제 여부를 판단할수 있다. 이 지침은 다음과 같은 세 가지 예를 들어 이를 설명하고 있다:

예 1. 납세자 A는 사업 관계자인 B를 야구 경기에 초대한다. A는 경기를 관람하기 위해 A와 B의 입장권을 구매하고 게임을 하는 동안 A는 A와 B를 위해 핫도그와 음료수를 산다. 야구 경기는 §1.274-2(b)(1)(i)조에 정의된 엔터테인먼트이며, 따라서 게임 티켓의 비용은 A의 사업 비용으로 공제할수 없다. 게임 티켓과 별도로 구입하는 핫도그와 음료의 비용은 엔터테인먼트 비용이 아니며, § 274(a)(1)의 금지 대상이 아니다. 따라서, A는 이 게임에서 구입한 핫도그와 음료 비용의 50%를 공제할 수 있다.

예 2. 납세자 C는 사업 관계자인 D를 농구 경기에 초대한다. C는 C와 D가 음식 및 음료가  제공되는 스위트룸에서 경기를 관람하기 위해 표를 구입한다. 청구서에 명시된 바와 같이 농구 경기 티켓의 비용은 음식 및 음료를 포함한다. 농구 경기는 § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i)조에 정의된 엔터테인먼트이며, 따라서 게임 티켓의 비용은 C의 사업 비용으로 공제할수 없다. 게임 티켓에 포함되어 있는 음식 및 음료의 비용은 청구서에 별도로 기재되어 있지 않다. 따라서, 식품 및 음료의 비용 또한 § 274(a)(1)의 금지 대상이 되는 엔터테인먼트 비용이다. 따라서 C는 농구경기와 관련된 비용을 모두 공제 할 수 없다.

예3. 예2와 동일한 사실을 가정하되, 농구 경기 티켓에 대한 청구서가 음식 및 음료 비용을 별도로 명시하고 있다고 생각하자 . 예 2에서와 같이, 농구 경기는 § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i)에 정의된 엔터테인먼트이며, 따라서, 식품 및 음료 비용을 제외한 게임 티켓 비용은 공제를 할수 없다. 그러나, 게임 티켓의 청구서에 별도로 명시된 음식 및 음료의 비용은 엔터테인먼트 비용이 아니며, § 274(a)(1)의 금지 조항에 적용 받지 않는다. 따라서 C는 게임에서 제공되는 음식 및 음료에 관련된 비용의 50%를 공제할 수 있다.

Deductibility of Business Meal Expenses

As discussed in our tax update newsletter dated May 1, 2018   http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/no-more-government-subsidy-for-conducting-business-on-the-golf-course/ , starting in 2018, no deduction is allowed for entertainment, amusement, or recreation expenditures.  However, the new tax law did not specifically address whether the meals provided during an entertainment event is deductible (subject to 50% limitation).

In response, IRS issued Notice 2018-76 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-18-76.pdf  which provides a guidance in the case of food and beverages provided during or at an entertainment activity, the food and beverages are purchased separately from the entertainment, or the cost of food and beverages is stated separately from the cost of the entrainment on one or more bills, invoices, or receipts.  The Notice provides the following three examples to illustrate the application of this guidance:

Example 1.  Taxpayer A invites B, a business contact, to a baseball game. A purchases tickets for A and B to attend the game. While at the game, A buys hot dogs and drinks for A and B. The baseball game is entertainment as defined in § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i) and, thus, the cost of the game tickets is an entertainment expense and is not deductible by A. The cost of the hot dogs and drinks, which are purchased separately from the game tickets, is not an entertainment expense and is not subject to the § 274(a)(1) disallowance. Therefore, A may deduct 50 percent of the expenses associated with the hot dogs and drinks purchased at the game.

 

Example 2. Taxpayer C invites D, a business contact, to a basketball game. C purchases tickets for C and D to attend the game in a suite, where they have access to food and beverages. The cost of the basketball game tickets, as stated on the invoice, includes the food and beverages. The basketball game is entertainment as defined in § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i) and, thus, the cost of the game tickets is an entertainment expense and is not deductible by C. The cost of the food and beverages, which are not purchased separately from the game tickets, is not stated separately on the invoice. Thus, the cost of the food and beverages also is an entertainment expense that is subject to the § 274(a)(1) disallowance. Therefore, C may not deduct any of the expenses associated with the basketball game.

Example 3. Assume the same facts as in Example 2, except that the invoice for the basketball game tickets separately states the cost of the food and beverages. As in Example 2, the basketball game is entertainment as defined in § 1.274-2(b)(1)(i) and, thus, the cost of the game tickets, other than the cost of the food and beverages, is an entertainment expense and is not deductible by C. However, the cost of the food and beverages, which is stated separately on the invoice for the game tickets, is not an entertainment expense and is not subject to the § 274(a)(1) disallowance. Therefore, C may deduct 50 percent of the expenses associated with the food and beverages provided at the game.

 

Taxpayers may rely on this guidance until the proposed regulations are issued.

Sales Tax Update (한국어 version)

KYJ tax 뉴스레터에 나와있듯이 (http://www.kyjcpa.com/newsupdates/supreme_court_overturns_quill/), Wayfair에서,  미국 대법원이 타주에 있는 판매자 (remote sellers)가 판매가 이루어지는 주의 sales tax를 걷어야하는가의 유무에 대해 물리적 실재 (physical presence)기준을 사용하는 것을 무효화하였다. Wayfair 의 판례에 따라, 많은 주들은 타주에 있는 판매자들(remote sellers)로부터 해당 주의 물리적 실재 (physical presence)와는 상관없이 sales tax  를 걷도록 하는 법안을 이미 채택하거나 입법중에 있다.

2018년 10월 1일부터, 아래와 같은 주에 물건을 판매하는 타주에 있는 판매자 (remote sellers)들은  해당 주의economic nexus 한계를 만족한다면 sales tax를 걷어야한다.

  • Alabama
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Jersey
  • North Dakota
  • Washington State
  • Wisconsin

위에 있는 주들 외에도 더 많은 주들이 Wayfair의 판례를 따라, sales tax nexus 기준을 새로 도입하거나 기존 법안을 수정할 것으로 보인다. 여러 주로 물건을 판매하는 판매자들은 각 주에서의 자신들의  상태를 확인하고, 각각의sales tax법안에 잘 준수하고 있는지를 평가해볼 필요가 있다. 아울러, 각 주의 sales tax 법안의 현황과 변화에 대해서도 주목해야할 것이다.

Sales Tax Update

As discussed in our newsletter http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/supreme_court_overturns_quill/ in Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the physical presence nexus standard in requiring remote sellers to collect sales tax.   Following the Wayfair, many states have adopted or are in process of adopting law that would require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on their in-state sales without regard to physical presence in the state.

Effective October 1, 2018, remote sellers making sales to the following states are required to collect sales tax if they meet the state’s economic nexus threshold:

  • Alabama
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Jersey
  • North Dakota
  • Washington State
  • Wisconsin

We expect more states will adopt or amend sales tax nexus standard in response to the Wayfair case. Multi-state retailers are recommended to assess its in-state footprint and assess the compliance requirement, and closely monitor legislative changes and current statutes.

Proposed Regulations under Sections 168(k) Bonus Depreciation

 

The IRS issued proposed regulations regarding the first-year bonus depreciation under Section 168(k). Section 168(k) extends and modifies bonus depreciation, allowing businesses to immediately deduct 100% of the cost of qualified property in the year it is acquired and placed in services through 2022, generally.  The regulations address definition of qualified property, eligibility of used property for bonus deprecation, placed in service definition, and time and manner of making elections.

 

Qualified Property:   Property may be qualified property for bonus depreciation if it is of a specified type.  Property is of a specified type if it is a Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) asset which had a recovery period of 20 years or less, generally.

 

Used Property:  Property may be qualified property if the original use of the property begins with the taxpayer or the taxpayer acquires used property that meets certain requirements.  An acquisition of property meets the requirements of the provision if the property was not used by the taxpayer at any time before the acquisition, and the acquisition is not between the related parties, among controlled group members, or where the nonrecognition provisions apply.

 

Acquired and Please-In-Service Date:  With an exception to long term contract, to be eligible for 100% bonus depreciation, the property must be acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017 and before 2022.

 

Elections:  Consistent with prior law, taxpayers may make an annual election to elect out of bonus depreciation on a class-by-class basis, and it is irrevocable.  Additionally, taxpayers can elect to claim 50% bonus depreciation in lieu of 100% bonus deprecation

 

Additionally, the regulations provide that Section 754 optional basis adjustment related to 743(b) transactions allocated to qualified property of a partnership may qualify for the bonus depreciation.

Proposed Regulations under Sections 199A Qualified Business Income Deduction

The IRS issued proposed regulations regarding the qualified business income deduction under Section 199A.  Below is a quick summary of the provision and certain items contained in the proposed regulations that stand out.

 

Section 199A allows owners of partnerships, S-Corporations, trust, and sole proprietorships to deduct 20% of their qualified business income (QBI) starting in 2018.  The deduction is equal to the lesser of 20% of taxpayer’s QBI or 20% of taxable income minus capital gains.  Deductions for taxpayers with taxable income above $315,000 for joint returns and $157,500 for other taxpayers (the Threshold Amount) may be subject to the two limitations (Wage & Capital Limitation and Specified Services Limitation).

 

Limitation Based on Wages & Capital:  The deduction attributable to 20% of QBI is limited to the greater of (1) 50% of the taxpayer’s share of W-2 Wages paid with respect to the QBI or (2) the sum of 25% of the taxpayer’s share of W-2 Wages plus 2.5% of the unadjusted basis of qualified property.  The Wage & Capital limitation does not apply to taxpayers with taxable income not exceeding the Threshold Amount.

 

Specified Services Limitation:  The deduction attributable to 20% of QBI may be subject to the Specified Services Limitation if the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the Threshold Amount and derives income from specified service trade or business, as defined below.  In computing the QBI with respect to a specified service trade or business, the taxpayer takes into account only the applicable percentage of qualified items of income, gain, deduction, or loss, and of allocable W-2 Wages and qualified property. The applicable percentage with respect to any taxable year is 100 percent reduced by the percentage equal to the ratio of the taxable income of the taxpayer in excess of the threshold amount, bears to $50,000 ($100,000 in the case of a joint return).  A specified service trade or business means any trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial, sciences, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services, or any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners.

 

Additionally, regulations contain aggregation rules allowing separate trades or businesses to be grouped when applying the Sec. 199A rules. The regulations impose a duty of consistency that requires that once multiple trades or businesses are aggregated into a single aggregated trade or business under Sec. 199A, taxpayers must consistently report the aggregated group in subsequent tax years.

해외유보이익 강제송환 법안 관련 집중 세무조사 (campaign) 항목 공시

해외유보이익 강제송환 법안 관련 집중 세무조사 (campaign) 항목 공시

 2018년 7월 2일IRS의 대기업 및 국제기업을 담당하는 LB&I(Large Business & International)에서 세법 965에 대한 내용을 포함하는 5개의 집중 세무조사 (campaign) 항목을 추가 공시하였다.  IRS는 한정된 인적/물적 자원을 보다 효과적으로 사용하기 위하여 납세자들의 철저한 검토가 필요한 부분 및 규정불이행의 리스크가 있는 부분을 집중 세무조사 항목으로 지정한 바가 있다. 이를 기반으로, LB&I는 세무쟁점 중심의 감사 (issue-based examination)을 진행하게 되며, 이에 맞추어서 IRS 직원들을 훈련하고 감사 대상 선정 및 납세불순응을 선별하는 절차를 발전시켜, 납세자들의 보다 향상된 세법준수를 유도하는 것이다.

미국세법 965항에 따라, 미국투자자들은 2017년도 세금보고를 할 시에 특정조건을 충족하는 해외법인들의 유보이익에 대해서 미국으로 배당을 받은것으로 간주하여 세금을 납부하여야 한다. 이 항목에 대한 세수입이 상당할 것으로 예상되며, 이에 맞추어서 IRS에서는 이 내용을 IRS 집중 세무조사 항목에 추가하는 한편, 관련 세법조항에 대해서 여러가지 가이드를 제공하였다 (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/section-965-transition-tax 참조). IRS에서 발표한 내용에 따르면 납세자들은 세법 조항 965에 맞게 세금이 계산되었음을 증명할 적절한 자료를 보관하여야 하며, IRS는 이 자료를 기반으로 하여 초기 감사를 진행하며, 추후에 추가 자료를 요청하여 세법준수의 여부를 확인할 예정이다.

IRS에서 추가로 965에 대한 내용을 발표하는 등 이 이슈에 대해서 집중적인 관심이 쏠릴것으로 보임에 따라 이에 맞추어 납세자들의 세법준수 및 이를 증명할수 있는 자료를 준비해 두어야 할 것으로 보인다.

 

IRS 링크 참조:  https://www.irs.gov/businesses/irs-announces-the-identification-and-selection-of-five-large-business-and-international-compliance-campaigns

IRS Audit Campaigns – Section 965 Transition Tax

IRS Audit Campaigns - Section 965 Transition Tax

The IRS Large Business and International division (LB&I) updated list of audit “campaigns” on July 2, 2018, which now includes the Section 965 Transition Tax.  These campaigns are part of the IRS’s strategy to focus limited resources on areas in which the IRS believes scrutiny is needed or present risk of noncompliance.  LB&I ’s compliance campaigns have been implemented in an effort to move toward issue-based examination, train its agents and implement process to improve return selection, identify issues representing a risk of non-compliance and drive taxpayers’ behavior.

Section 965 requires United States shareholders to pay a transition tax by due date of 2017 tax return on the untaxed foreign earnings of certain specified foreign corporations as if those earnings had been repatriated to the United States.  As this provision is considered to be the single most largest revenue generator for the government, IRS has issued many guidance related to the provision, including External Communication https://www.irs.gov/businesses/section-965-transition-tax, and added the provision to its audit campaigns.   In its external communication, it stated that “taxpayers must keep adequate records to support the calculation of tax pursuant to section 956.  The IRS plans to monitor compliance with the provision of section 965.  Follow-up inquires may occur if the IRS determines that the required filings and/or payments are not made.”

As we expect increased scrutiny related to section 965 compliance, as evidenced by launched audit campaigns and many guidance and communications issued, we advise that you retain adequate records to support the section 965 tax computation.

 

Link to July 2 IRS announcement:  https://www.irs.gov/businesses/irs-announces-the-identification-and-selection-of-five-large-business-and-international-compliance-campaigns

States React to the Wayfair Supreme Court Case

States React to the Wayfair Supreme Court Case

In response to the Supreme Court Case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., which now frees up states to levy taxes on sales of goods and services regardless of whether the seller has a physical presence in state, many states have already implemented state legislatures or issued guidance, and here is what know so far:

Idaho

The Tax Commission stated that it will adopt a new law that would require out-of-state retailers to collect Idaho sales tax on their in-state sales when the total in-state sales exceeds $10,000 in the previous year effective July 1, 2018.

Iowa

The state enacted economic nexus standard effective January 1, 2019.  Under the economic nexus standard, remote sellers are required to collect the state sales tax if it has in-state annual gross sale of $100,000 or more, or completed more than 200 in-state sales.

North Dakota

The Office of State Tax Commissioner issued a notice stating that unless the seller meets the small seller exception, the remote seller is required to register and begin collecting the tax in the state on October 1, 2018.

Rhode Island

The Department of Revenue issued a statement confirming that the economic nexus standard (that is similar to that of South Dakota) enacted in 2017 will be enforced.

Texas

The Texas Comptroller stated that it will evaluate the outcome of the Supreme Court case and may need to update its rules, however it does not intend to retroactively apply the new law to remote sellers.

Vermont

The Department of Taxes stated that remote sellers meeting the economic nexus thresholds during any preceding 12-month period are required to register to collect and remit sales tax beginning July 1, 2018.

Mississippi

The Department of Revenue stated that the state requires any remote sellers who has annual gross sales greater than $250,000 to register and collect the tax from the in-state customers.

New Jersey

The state introduced to adopt an economic nexus rule (that is similar to that under South Dakota law).

Louisiana

Economic nexus rules similar to that of South Dakota was quickly introduced, if passed, would be effective August 1, 2018.

North Dakota

The Department of Revenue issued a statement confirming that the economic nexus standard (that is similar to that of South Dakota) enacted in 2017 will be enforced.

 

We expect more states will likely act quickly to amend their sales tax statutes to reflect the decision of the Supreme Court case and begin levying sales and use tax on any interstate sales that has substantial sales in the state without regard to the physical presence.  Multi-state retailers or service providers are recommended to closely monitor state legislative changes and current statutes to be compliance.

 

For additional detail on the Supreme Court Case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., please refer to our newsletter dated June 28, 2018.  http://www.kyjcpa.com/news-updates/supreme_court_overturns_quill/