TRUMPWATCH 2017: Border Patrol

trumpwatch2017-blueAlthough the attention has been on who will build the border between the U.S. and Mexico this past year, an even hotter topic in the coming months may be the potential border, both figurative and literal, between the Republican-led House of Representatives and Trump.

The Border Adjustment Tax is being discussed vehemently these days, both in Congress and in the White House. House Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP are strong advocates for it, while President Trump has been outspoken against it (although, in recent weeks, has started to warm up to the idea. Tremendous!).

Before delving into the minutiae, let’s start with the basics: as touched on in prior TrumpWatch columns, the current U.S. corporation tax rate is 35%.

cosmo_kramer
Wikipedia

 

Under current law, corporations are taxed on their net profits, meaning the tax is based on the company’s gross income minus expenses. These expenses are made up of direct cost of goods sold, various operating costs (general administrative expenses, interest expense, advertising, etc.), as well as depreciation, which allows you to write off the cost of a fixed asset over several years, depending on the asset type. To quote Kramer from Seinfeld:

“Jerry, these big companies, they write off everything! … I don’t know what that means, but they do, and they’re the ones writing it off!”

As discussed in our most recent TrumpWatch on international taxation, U.S. corporations are taxed on profits earned overseas and repatriated back to the U.S.

The proposed GOP plan, backed by House Speaker Ryan and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, would create a destination-based-cash-flow-tax-with-a-border-adjustment, aka DBCFT (maaaaaybe we’ll just stick with “Border Adjustment Tax” for short).

This proposal indicates that a U.S. company would pay tax on where the goods are sold (i.e., where they end up), not where they are produced. In other words, the proposal would push towards the “consumption tax” concept instead of the “income tax” concept. In addition, the proposal would look to reduce the corporate rate and tax domestic revenue minus domestic costs from 35% to 20% (although Trump’s still proposing a reduction to 15%).

As much as I love to bold and underline words, there actually is a reason for the emphasis on “domestic.” Current law allows for companies to be able to deduct the cost of imported costs and materials from their revenues. The proposal would eliminate this concept: since we’d be shifting to a “consumption tax” (again, taxation on where the goods are consumed), import costs would not be an allowable deduction. Contrarily, exports and other foreign sales would be made tax-free (remember, tax only on where the goods were consumed). The goal: keep businesses, production, and manufacturing within the U.S.

While losing deductions for imported materials may be detrimental to several companies (like retailers, who derive a bulk of their goods from imports), several economists have noted that this shift in taxation may increase the value of the dollar; thus, if the dollar were to increase, those same imported goods would be less expensive. In simple terms: the increase of the dollar may offset the tax increase to importers. Importantly, consumers will most likely pay more for those products.

Just for comparison’s sake, most other countries use what’s referred to as the Value Added Tax (VAT) system. This is, for all intent and purpose, the same as the proposed Border Adjustment Tax, the only difference being under the VAT, a company cannot deduct wages, while under the proposed plan, wage-deduction would be fair game.

As things stand, there still is that figurative border between the House’s proposal and Trump’s own corporate tax reform proposal (despite Trump warming up to the concept). Either way, the months ahead should prove to be very interesting as to what ultimate corporate tax reform the U.S. will be adopting in the near future.

Stay tuned to the REM Cycle for further TrumpWatch updates.


roer_david-8-1David Roer is a Tax Manager in Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP’s New York City office. David specializes in high net worth individuals, as well as closely-held corporations, S-Corporations, and small businesses.
Contact David at
droer@rem-co.com or (212) 944-4433.

TRUMPWATCH 2017: Re-Patriots Day

trumpwatch2017-blueWith inauguration day finally behind us, all of the political talk that’s taken over 2016 and 2017 can finally come to an end, right? Wrong. Sad.

Since President Trump has now officially taken office, further details regarding the (probable) tax reform are sure to emerge. One of the key terms you may hear a lot about in the next few weeks is ‘repatriation.’

While many may assume this has to do with the New England Patriots winning yet another Super Bowl title (as a lifelong Seattle Seahawk fan, I am not pleased about that!), it actually has to do with the upcoming proposal to repatriate money from overseas to the United States.

As alluded to in our first Trump Watch post, President Trump’s tax proposal is looking to offer a one-time amnesty to help bring business back from overseas.

repatriation2As a general rule, the US has a worldwide taxation system. Effectively, this means that if you’re a US citizen, you pay tax on your worldwide income. This concept is similar for corporations: multi-national corporations (think Apple, Microsoft, or GE) must first pay tax to the foreign country in which the foreign subsidiary does business and earns the profit and then to the IRS, once those profits have been properly repatriated back to the US.

Under current law, if these multi-national companies repatriated money back to the US, they would be subject to the top rate of 35%. To give an idea, based on a recent forecast study done by Capital Economics, there is approximately $2.5 trillion of profits from US multi-national companies currently abroad – at the 35% rate, that’s approximately $875 billion in tax dollars!

As you can imagine, major companies are leaving those profits overseas to avoid paying such a tax burden. That is, unless a proper incentive were put in place.

In the hope of increasing jobs (as well as general economic growth), President Trump is pushing for a repatriation ‘tax holiday:’ US firms could repatriate their overseas profits to the US and pay only a one-time 10% amnesty tax, instead of the current 35% rate. Important notes regarding repatriation:

  1. President Trump is proposing a reduction in tax rates from 35% to 15%. If both the tax reduction and amnesty tax proposals pass, the repatriation of profits would save 5% in taxes, not 25% (nonetheless, 5% savings would still be a significant draw).
  2. Per the proposal, this tax would be payable over a ten-year span. This, in addition to the potential low 10% rate, could act as significant incentive to bring cash from overseas.
  3. The Trump proposal also includes a revision to the current international taxation system. As mentioned above, US corporations with foreign subsidiaries do not pay US tax until the money has been repatriated. Under President Trump’s proposal, any future profits of foreign subsidiaries of US companies would be taxed each year as the profits are earned. This would effectively eliminate the repatriation tax concept prospectively, without affecting any of the prior accumulation of profits (that is, the aforementioned ‘tax holiday’ would also apply to prior profits).
  4. Finally, and this is more food-for-thought: it’s important to note that just because a company brings cash domestically, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll use it towards job growth and/or domestic investments (domestic economic growth).

A similar repatriation ‘tax holiday’ was offered in 2004 under President Bush, which included specific language that prohibited the repurchase of stock with repatriated funds. Unfortunately, studies show that companies found loopholes to work around this, thereby allowing for corporate stock buybacks and dividends. With that in mind, I’m curious if the repatriate proposal would contain verbiage with caveats as to specifically how such money would need to be used.

With Trump’s presidency officially underway, we can surely expect to hear and see a push towards an ultimate tax proposal. While the above analysis is based only on President Trump’s proposal, it is likely that repatriation will be a hot-topic issue in the months to come.

Stay tuned to the REM Cycle for further Trump Watch updates.


roer_david-8-1David Roer is a Tax Manager in Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP’s New York City office. David specializes in high net worth individuals, as well as closely-held corporations, S-Corporations, and small businesses.
Contact David at
droer@rem-co.com or (212) 944-4433.

TRUMPWATCH 2017: WE ARE THE 15%

trumpwatch2017-blueThere’s been an abundance of 2016 headlines you’ve no doubt heard on loop this year and are probably sick of listening to – Brexit! Zika! ISIS! The election! Star Wars!

One headline that we at REM Cycle can’t get enough of is the Trump Tax proposal. Last month, we broke down some of the key talking points within President-Elect Trump’s proposal. Since this tax proposal seems like one of the more likely policies to be enacted within Trump’s first year of presidency, we felt it important to offer a continued look, providing updates throughout the coming months as news develops in a recurring feature aptly named “TrumpWatch 2017.”

Our first TrumpWatch tackles the newly proposed corporate tax rate.

As you know, President-Elect Trump is proposing a significant decrease in individual rates (reduction to three rates of 12%, 25%, and 33%) as well as the corporate tax rate: a reduction from 35% to 15%. This is a substantial tax cut for C Corporations, who already have the burden of double taxation (in the form of taxation at the C Corporation level, as well as dividend taxation to the individual shareholder). This corporate reduction proposal has mass implications.

“But I don’t have a C Corporation! How could this possibly affect me?”

It may affect you more than you think. Trump’s proposal would allow pass-through entities (such as S Corporations and Partnerships) to elect to have their pass-through income taxed at the same 15%.

Under current law, pass-through entities pay no corporate-level tax, but report all their pass-through income/loss to the individual at their respective individual rate, which is a current top rate of 39.6%. Even with the potential new Trump individual rates, this means that most individuals from small businesses and closely-held corporations would be able to reduce their tax rate by 18% (i.e., top individual rate of 33% compared to 15% pass-through income rate).

The ramifications of this potential reduction in pass-through income are provocative, to say the least.

We may see an uptick in individuals seeking to establish themselves as independent contractors: by becoming a contractor (i.e. a non-salaried individual), an individual could create their own pass-through entity, receive payment in the form of 1099s instead of a W-2, and as such, elect to have the pass-through income be taxed at the 15% potential rate. The Department of Labor already keeps a watchful eye on ensuring that businesses classify employees correctly – in light of this situation, that eye will be even more watchful.

It’s important to remember that partnership income would still be subject to self-employment tax, and S-Corporations would still have a requirement to pay shareholders their respective reasonable compensation.

This leads to another potential ramification: an increase in IRS scrutiny of reasonable compensation. S-Corporations have a requirement to pay “reasonable compensation” to a shareholder-employee in return for services that said employee provides to the business (e.g., the employee-shareholder will receive a K-1 with all pass-through income/loss, as well as a W-2 reflecting reasonable compensation).

Due to its vagueness, the term “reasonable compensation” has brought on ample amounts of court cases, all attempting to add clarity to the definition of “reasonable” (as a general rule, each case must be looked at independently on a facts-and-circumstance basis).

Be cautious. While this 15% seems enticing, it may not always be the right tax strategy to go with. If the 15% proposal for pass-through is an election by the entity (which, although still unclear in the proposal, it appears to be), it may be in the individual’s best interest to not elect: for instance, in the case of substantial (and deductible) losses, which the individual could offset against other forms of ordinary income (essentially, utilize pass-through losses at a potential max 33% individual rate).

As a similar caveat to our prior Trump blog post, it’s yet to be seen whether any or all of the proposals will become enacted. While there’s still speculation regarding the Trump tax proposal (as well as the above 15% pass-through concept), the best we as practitioners and taxpayers can do is stay up to date!

Stay tuned to the REM Cycle for further TrumpWatch updates.


roer_david-8-1David Roer is a Tax Manager in Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP’s New York City office. David specializes in high net worth individuals, as well as closely-held corporations, S-Corporations, and small businesses.
Contact David at
droer@rem-co.com or (212) 944-4433.

Trumping the Tax Code

New president street sign
iStock

I’m not sure if you heard, but a Presidential election happened this past year!

As with every inaugural year, there’s an expectation that the President will push certain talking-points into action sooner vs. later. This year is no different.

A big talking point within the Trump administration has been the urgency regarding tax reform and an indication that the reform could happen within 2017. With the Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, the expectation for tax reform to rapidly occur seems all the more likely.

With that in mind, it’s important to remember that the following is not fact, but rather a ‘guesstimate’ as to what President-elect Trump may push through as reform, as it is solely based on his stated agenda throughout the election process.

Individual Income Tax

As it’s referred to on President-elect Trump’s website (donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan), the ‘Trump Plan’ calls for reducing the individual income tax brackets from the current seven to three (the following are for married-filing-joint):

  1. < $75,000 – 12%
  2. $75,000 – $225,000 – 25%
  3. > $225,000 – 33%

Most notably, the Trump Plan would look to repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as well as the 3.8% Net Investment Income tax (which was created to help with Obamacare).

But, as we’ve all been taught, if there’s a yin, there must be a yang: while the Trump Plan aims to reduce individual income tax rates, several deductions will be lost as well; most notably, itemized deductions will be capped at $200,000 for married-filing-joint filers or $100,000 for single filers.

Corporate Tax

The Trump Plan also seeks to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% (and, similar to the individual plan, eliminate the corporate AMT).

In an effort to bring business from overseas, the Plan also calls for a one-time “amnesty” 10% tax on repatriation of corporate profits held offshore. This repatriation would be a significant draw for US corporations that own foreign corporations that conduct at least 25% of the group’s total business activity.

On the deduction side, the Plan would eliminate several business tax credits, most notably the domestic production activities deduction (Section 199 ‘DPAD’). Carried interest would be taxed as ordinary income, and the Research & Development credit would remain intact.

Additionally, the Plan would look to allow firms engaged in manufacturing within the US to elect to expense (rather than capitalize) capital assets, but lose the deductibility of corporate interest expense. The election could be revoked within the first three years of election; however, after three years, the election would be irrevocable.

Estate Tax

The Trump Plan seeks to repeal the ‘death’ tax entirely. However, any capital gains held until death and valued over $10 million would be subject to tax.

Since this could leave room for asset-shifting abuse, contributions of appreciated assets into a private charity established by the decedent (or their relatives) would be disallowed.

Childcare

The Plan also would allow an above-the-line deduction for children under 13 up to $5,000 of child care expenses (this deduction would be eliminated for married-filing-joint filers of $500,000 or a single individual of $250,000).

In addition, the Plan would propose Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs), which would allow parents to make annual contributions of up to $2,000 per year. All deposits and earnings would be free from taxation, with unused balances available to be rolled over from year-to-year.

As further incentive for the DCSA, the Trump administration would provide a 50% match on contributions (i.e. a $1,000 contribution by the government).

While it’s yet to be seen whether any or all of the above proposals become enacted, it is safe to say that some form of tax reform is headed our way. As tax practitioners and taxpayers, it’s important to stay updated on these issues, so as best to prepare and plan for the coming years ahead.

Our REMcycle team will keep you updated as developments unfold.


roer_david-8-1David Roer is a Tax Manager in Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP’s New York City office. David specializes in high net worth individuals, as well as closely-held corporations, S-Corporations, and small businesses.
Contact David at
droer@rem-co.com or (212) 944-4433.

IC-DISCS 101

The subject of Interest-Charge Domestic International Sales Corporations (commonly known as an IC-DISC) is complex, but often worth exploring. The IC-DISC is a corporate tax remedy – one that provides U.S. exporters and manufacturers large tax incentives in order to mitigate potentially significant tax burdens. With international economic growth on the rise, it’s crucial for exporters and manufacturers to be privy to the IC-DISC concepts.

Congress created the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC) in 1971 to encourage U.S. exporters to help economic growth by engaging in activities. In simple terms, a U.S. exporter was allowed to allocate a portion of its export profits to a domestic subsidiary – a DISC, which per IRC Section 991 is not subject to US Corporate tax – to reduce its U.S. taxes.

How does this tax advantage work and do you qualify? First, the exporting company pays a commission to the IC-DISC based on foreign sales of products manufactured or produced within the United States (please consult your tax advisor regarding determination of the commission amount). This commission is then deducted from ordinary business income by the exporting company and acts as commission receipts received by the IC-DISC. From a kneejerk perspective, the IC-DISC receives and reports the commission income tax-free, while the exporting corporation receives a deduction at ordinary rates, at a maximum rate of 39.6%.

According to IRC section 995(b), a shareholder of an IC-DISC will treat any distributions as taxable dividend income at the favorable qualified dividend tax rate (maximum rate of 23.8% comprising qualified dividend rates and the net investment income tax). Effectively, the export company receives a deduction at the ordinary tax rate and the identical amount is paid out as a dividend, flowing through to the owners at qualified dividend rates.  It is important to remember that if the IC-DISC chooses to not pay dividends to its shareholders, an interest charge – these are interest-charged DISCS – will apply to the deferred tax, usually based on Treasury Bill Rates.

To attain IC-DISC status, four criteria must be met by the Corporation – it is important that you consult your tax advisor regarding whether or not your Corporation’s facts and circumstances are applicable.

Bottom line: The IC-DISC concept is a way to secure a 15.8% direct tax benefit by merely setting up a separate corporation and adhering to the necessary rules and restrictions. While this introduction hits the highlights, the remaining IRC rules and regulations are more complex. Proactive measures such as these can result in significant tax savings.


David RoerDavid Roer is a Tax Manager in Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP’s New York City office. David specializes in high net worth individuals, as well as closely-held corporations, S-Corporations, and small businesses.
Contact David at
droer@rem-co.com or (212) 944-4433.