Category: Tax

IRS Announces New Director of Whistleblower Office

On May 12, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that John W. Hinman will serve as the Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office. Hinman will oversee the agency’s highly successful whistleblower award program. Since 2007, the IRS has awarded whistleblowers over $1 billion based on the collection of over $6 billion in back taxes, interest, penalties, and criminal fines and sanctions.

“We hope that as the director Mr. Hinman will have an open door policy for whistleblowers and their advocates,” said leading whistleblower attorney Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. “We look forward to working with the new director to ensure that the incredibly important tax whistleblower program properly deters fraudsters and incentivizes whistleblowers to step forward. We hope that processes are put into place that speed-up the final determinations in reward cases,” added Kohn, who also serves as the Board of Directors of the National Whistleblower Center.

The IRS Whistleblower Program has been an immense success since it was established in 2006. For example, the program incentivized the whistleblowing of Bradley Birkenfeld, the UBS banker turned whistleblower whose disclosures helped lead to the dismantling of the Swiss banking system as it existed. However, the program has recently been plagued by a number of issues, including massive delays in the issuance of whistleblower awards. According to the IRS Whistleblower Office’s most recent annual report to Congress, the IRS currently takes 10.79 years to process a whistleblower case, leading to a backlog of over 23,000 cases.

Prior to his new appointment, Hinman served as Director of Field Operations for Transfer Pricing Practice in the IRS’s LB&I Division. According to the IRS, in this position, he “oversaw field operations of the Transfer Pricing Practice economists, revenue agents, and tax law specialists who focus on complex transfer pricing issues of multinational business enterprises.” Hinman will take over as Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office from Lee D. Martin, who left the agency on April 9 to serve as the Director of the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about whistleblowers, visit the NLR White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights section.

The Biden Administration Proposes Mark-to-Market Minimum Tax on Individuals With More than $100 Million in Assets

Summary and Background.  On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration proposed a 20% minimum tax on individuals who have more than $100 million in assets.  The minimum tax would be based on all economic income (which the proposal refers to as “total income”), including unrealized gain.  The tax would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.  The minimum tax would be fully phased in for taxpayers with assets of $200 million or more.

Under the proposal, an individual’s 2023 minimum tax liability would be payable in nine equal annual installments (e.g., in 2024-2032).  For 2024 and thereafter, the minimum tax liability would be payable in five annual installments.  The tax may be avoided by giving away assets to section 501(c)(3) organizations (including private foundations or donor-advised funds) or 501(c)(4) organizations before the effective date of the legislation so as to avoid the $100 million threshold.

The Biden proposal is an attempt to appeal to Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and address some criticisms of Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Or.) mark-to-market proposal.  Senator Manchin has expressed support for a minimum 15% tax on individuals, and this support was apparently an impetus for the proposal.  Senator Manchin has not, however, expressed support for a mark-to-market minimum tax, and the Biden Administration does not appear to have received any support from Senator Manchin before releasing its proposal.

The five-year payment period is an attempt to address concerns that Wyden’s proposal might overtax volatile assets, and to “smooth” taxpayers’ cash flows without the need for the IRS to issue refunds.  Under the Biden Administration’s proposal, installment payments of the minimum tax may be reduced to the extent of unrealized losses.

The minimum tax is being described as a “prepayment” that may be credited against subsequent taxes on realized income.  This description provides a backup argument on constitutionality: the minimum tax isn’t a tax on unrealized income but is merely a prepayment of tax on realized income.

Operation of the Minimum Tax.  The minimum tax would apply to taxpayers with wealth (assets less liabilities) in excess of $100 million.  The proposal does not define liabilities, and does not indicate whether a taxpayer would be deemed to own the assets of his or her children, or trusts.  Therefore it is unclear as to whether a taxpayer who is close to the $100 million threshold may avoid the tax by giving away assets to children.  As mentioned above, a taxpayer can give assets to section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organizations to avoid the threshold, and so, if the minimum tax is enacted, donations to charity would be expected to dramatically increase.

The proposal phases in for taxpayers with wealth between $100 million and $200 million.  The phase in is achieved mechanically by reducing the tax liability to the extent that the sum of (w) the minimum tax liability, and (x) the uncredited prepayments exceeds two times (y) the minimum tax rate, times (z) the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million.  Thus, for a taxpayer with $150 million of wealth and a zero basis and no prior prepayments, the $30 million of minimum tax liability would be reduced by $10 million to equal $20 million.  ($10 million is amount by which (x) $30 million exceeds (y) $20 million, which is 40% [two times the minimum tax rate] times $50 million [the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million].)

A taxpayer subject to the minimum tax would make two calculations:  Their “normal” tax liability under our current realization system, and the “minimum” tax under the proposal. Tax would be paid on the greater of the two.

For purposes of the 20% minimum tax, the taxpayer would include all unrealized gain on “tradeable assets.”  The proposal does not define tradeable assets.  Tradeable assets would be valued using end-of-year market prices.  The taxpayer would also include all unrealized gain on “non-tradeable assets.”  Non-tradeable assets would be valued using the greater of (i) the original or adjusted cost basis, (ii) the last valuation event from investment (i.e., a round of equity financing), (iii) borrowing (i.e., a lender’s appraisal), (iv) financial statements, or (v) other methods approved by the IRS.  Original or adjusted cost basis would be deemed to increase at a rate equal to the five-year Treasury rate plus two percentage points.  The five-year Treasury rate is currently 2.76% and so, at today’s rates, non-traded assets without a valuation event would deemed to increase in value at a 4.76% annual rate.  The proposal would not require valuations of non-tradeable assets.

While a taxpayer would be subject to the minimum tax if it exceeds the normal tax, as mentioned above, payment of the minimum tax would be made in equal annual installments (nine for the first year of minimum tax liability and five thereafter).

So, assume that a taxpayer purchases an equity interest in a non-traded C corporation on January 1, 2023 for $200 million.  The taxpayer has no realized income and no other assets.  The taxpayer would have zero “normal” tax.  Assume that the five-year Treasury rate is 2.76%.  The investment would be deemed to increase in value by 4.76% (to $209.5 million).  The minimum tax would be 20% of $9.5 million, or $1.9 million.  If this was the taxpayer’s first year subject to the minimum tax, the minimum tax liability would be $211,111 in each of years 2024-32, subject to the “illiquid exception” described below.  If the taxpayer subsequently sells the C corporation, it would credit the minimum tax prepayments against his or her income tax liability.

Payments of the minimum tax would be treated as a prepayment available to be credited against subsequent taxes on realized gains.

The Biden Administration has separately proposed that death would give rise to a realization event.  If a taxpayer’s prepayments in excess of tax liability exceed gains at death, the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund.  The refund would be included in a single decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes.  Net uncredited used prepayments of a married decedent would be transferred to the surviving spouse (or as otherwise provided in regulations).

In contrast to Senator Wyden’s proposal, which does not require that tax be paid on unrealized gain for non-traded assets, and instead imposes a deferral charge upon realization, the Biden Administration’s proposal generally requires that minimum tax be calculated with respect to all unrealized gain, including deemed appreciation on non-traded assets, subject to an “illiquid exception.”  If tradeable assets held directly or indirectly make up less than 20% of a taxpayer’s wealth, the taxpayer may elect to include only unrealized gain in tradeable assets in the calculation of their minimum tax liability.  A taxpayer that makes this election would be subject to a deferral charge upon realization to the extent of gain, but the deferral charge would not exceed 10% of unrealized gain.  The proposal does not indicate the rate of the deferral charge.

This aspect of the Biden Administration’s proposal provides a meaningful benefit to “illiquid” taxpayers and encourages taxpayers to become “illiquid” to qualify for the exception.  The proposal provides that tradeable assets held “indirectly” are treated as owned by the taxpayer for this purpose and therefore it is unclear whether and to what extent taxpayers can contribute tradeable assets into nontradeable vehicles to qualify for the illiquid exception.  The proposal would provide the IRS with specific authority to issue rules to prevent taxpayers from inappropriately converting tradeable assets to non-tradeable assets.

Estimated tax payments would not be required for minimum tax liability, and the minimum tax payments would be excluded from the prior year’s tax liability for purposes of computing estimated tax required to avoid the penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes.

The tax is expected to affect 20,000 taxpayers (in contrast to roughly 700 under Wyden’s plan) but to generate approximately the same amount of revenue as Wyden’s proposal: $360 billion over ten years as estimated by the Treasury Department (which is expected to be around $550 billion over 10 years under the Joint Committee on Taxation’s “scoring” methodology).

Article By Robert Gaut, Martin T Hamilton, and Colleen Hart at Proskauer Rose LLP

For more tax law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Cryptocurrency As Compensation: Beware Of The Risks

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

Form of Payment – Cash or Negotiable Instrument

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum and overtime wages in “cash or negotiable instrument payable at par.”  This has long been interpreted to include only fiat currencies—monies backed by a governmental authority.  As non-fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies therefore fall outside the FLSA’s definition of “cash or negotiable instrument.”  As a result, an employer who chooses to pay minimum and/or overtime wages in cryptocurrency may violate the FLSA by failing to pay workers with an accepted form of compensation.

In addition, various state laws make the form of wage payment question even more difficult.  For example, Maryland requires payment in United States currency or by check that “on demand is convertible at face value into United States currency.”  Pennsylvania requires that wages shall be made in “lawful money of the United States or check.”  And California prohibits compensation that is made through “coupon, cards or other thing[s] redeemable…otherwise than in money.”  It is largely unclear whether payment in cryptocurrency runs afoul of these state requirements.

Of note, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) allows employers to satisfy FLSA minimum wage and overtime regulations with foreign currencies as long as the conversion to U.S. dollars meets the required wage thresholds.  But neither the DOL nor courts have weighed in on whether certain cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are the equivalent, for FLSA purposes, of a foreign currency.

Volatility Concerns

When compared to the rather stable value of the U.S. dollar, the value of cryptocurrencies is subject to large fluctuations.  Bitcoin, for example, lost nearly 83% of its value in May 2013, approximately 50% of its value in March 2020, and recently lost and then gained 16% of its value in the span of approximately 15 minutes one day in February 2021.

Such volatility can give payroll vendors a nightmare and can, in some instances, lead to the under-payment of wages or violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA.

Tax and Benefits Considerations

Aside from wage and hour issues, the payment of cryptocurrency implicates a host of tax and benefits-related issues.  The IRS considers virtual currencies to be “property,” subject to capital gains tax rates.  It has also confirmed in guidance materials that any payment to employees in a virtual currency must be reported on a W-2 based upon the value of the currency in U.S. dollars at the time it was delivered to the employee.  This means that cryptocurrency wage payments are subject to Federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax.

For 401k plan fiduciaries, the Department of Labor recently issued guidance that should serve as a stern warning to any fiduciary looking to invest 401k funds into cryptocurrencies.  Specifically, the DOL wrote: “[a]t this early stage in the history of cryptocurrencies, the Department has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.”  Given the risks inherent in cryptocurrency speculation, the DOL stated that any fiduciary allowing such investment options “should expect to be questioned [by the DOL] about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks.”

Considerations for Employers

Given the combination of uncertain and untested legal risks, employers should consider limiting cryptocurrency compensation models to payments that do not implicate the FLSA or applicable state wage and hour laws.  For example, an employer might provide an exempt employee’s base salary in U.S. dollars and any annual discretionary bonus in cryptocurrency.

Whether investing in cryptocurrencies themselves to pay employees or utilizing a third-party to convert US dollars into cryptocurrency, employers should also stay abreast of the evolving tax and benefits guidance in this area.

Ultimately, the only thing that is clear about cryptocurrency compensation is that any decision to provide such compensation to employees should be made with a careful eye towards the unique wage, tax, and benefits-related issues implicated by these transactions.

Article By Daniel J. Butler and Kevin J. White of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Restaurant Businesses Entitled to Favorable Employee Retention Credit Treatment

Restaurant businesses have a new opportunity to take advantage of the employee retention tax credit under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, even though Congress terminated the credit Sept. 30, 2021, three months earlier than scheduled. Certain restaurant businesses that thought they were ineligible for this tax credit may be entitled to take advantage of it for wages paid up until this COVID-19 economic incentive ended. Such potential opportunity is a result of IRS guidance that was published in August 2021, the month before the credit ended.

The employee retention credit initially allowed a 50% credit for wages paid for the second through fourth quarters of 2020, and then a 70% credit for wages paid for the first through third quarters of 2021, if the business either had its operations suspended due to COVID-19-related government orders or had a significant decline in gross receipts. Wages paid with a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program were not eligible for the credit. The credit was limited to a maximum of $5,000 per employee for 2020, but this cap was increased to $7,000 per employee per quarter for the first through third quarters of 2021 (total maximum credit of $21,000 per employee for 2021). The credit is applied against the employer’s share of payroll taxes, and to the extent the credit exceeded the employer’s share of payroll taxes, the IRS refunds the difference to the employer.

Impact of PPP Loans and Restaurant Revitalization Grants on Gross Receipts

For 2020, a business satisfied the significant decline in gross receipts requirement for credit eligibility if it experienced a greater than 50% reduction in gross receipts compared to the same quarter in 2019. This test was eased for 2021 quarters to include reductions in gross receipts greater than 20%. When the IRS published its initial guidance, it said gross receipts included tax-exempt income. The assumption was that a PPP loan forgiven or a grant under the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), both treated as tax-exempt revenue, would nevertheless be treated as gross receipts for determining whether a restaurant business had a significant decline in gross receipts for credit eligibility. Therefore, it would have been understandable if a restaurant owner who had a PPP loan forgiven or received an RRF grant assumed that the amount of the forgiven loan or grant needed to be included in the restaurant’s gross receipts calculation, which may have resulted in not satisfying the decline in gross receipts test. However, the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2021-33 in August 2021, which provides that for purposes of determining whether a business has had a significant decline in gross receipts for a quarter, the business may exclude forgiven PPP loans and RRF grants from its gross receipts. This will increase the likelihood that a restaurant business can pass the decline in gross receipts test to allow the business to claim the credit. Even though this credit ended in September 2021, a company can still claim the credit for prior quarters by filing an amended payroll tax return.

Part-Time Employees

Another important factor in claiming the credit deals with the number of average full-time employees a company had in 2019. The critical thresholds to qualify as a “Small Employer” are 100 or fewer average full-time employees in 2019 for determining the credit for 2020 quarters, and 500 or fewer average full-time employees for 2021 quarters. If the conditions to claim the credit are satisfied – either because business operations were suspended by a government order or the company had a decline in gross receipts – a Small Employer gets the credit for wages paid even though the business is open and the employees are working. On the other hand, larger businesses that surpassed these 100- or 500-employee thresholds could take the credit only if it paid its employees even though they were not working. Note that these 100/500 employee thresholds are determined on a company-wide basis, not on a per-location basis that tested eligibility for PPP loan rules.

In August 2021, the IRS published Notice 2021-49, which states full-time equivalents in 2019 are not counted in determining this 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have thought they were not eligible to claim the credit because their part-time workers, when aggregated into full-time equivalents, caused the businesses to exceed the 100/500 average full-time employee threshold. However, as a result of this IRS notice, they now may be eligible to file an amended quarterly payroll tax returns to claim the credit.

Better yet, Notice 2021-49 states that wages paid to part-time employees are eligible for the credit – even though part-time employees are not counted toward the 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed the wages paid to part-time workers were not eligible for the credit, and may be able to file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit for part-time worker wages.

Cash Tips

Finally, Notice 2021-49 also states that an employee’s cash tips of more than $20 per month are wages eligible for the credit. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed that tips paid by customers were not eligible for the credit, and did not include tips in their claim for the credit. If so, they could file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit. Of course, to claim the credit for cash tips received by employees, a restaurant business must report the tips as income on the employee’s Form W-2.

In summary, restaurant businesses should revisit their employee retention credit analysis with their legal and tax advisors in light of Notice 2021-49. The benefits could be substantial.

This article was written by Riley Lagesen, Landes Taylor and Marvin Kirsner of Greenberg Traurig law firm. For more articles about employee retention credits, please click here.

Filing Tax Returns and Making Tax Payments: Best Practices During the Pandemic and Beyond

With staffing shortages and service center closures, it should come as no surprise that the IRS has faced a number of challenges during the pandemic. A couple of the biggest challenges have been in the opening and processing of taxpayer correspondence and in the processing of tax returns. As National Taxpayer Advocate, Erin Collins, stated in her Annual Report to Congress, “Paper is the IRS’s Kryptonite, and the IRS is buried in it.”

Going into 2022, the IRS has a significant backlog of unprocessed taxpayer correspondence and unprocessed returns. The estimates are staggering.

  • Five million pieces of unprocessed taxpayer correspondence
  • Over 11 million unprocessed tax returns, including:
    • Six million individual income tax returns
    • 2.3 million amended individual tax returns
    • 2.8 million business returns (income tax and employment tax returns)

The 2022 tax filing season, which opened on Thursday, January 24 for individual income tax returns, has the potential to create even more challenges for the IRS. Below is a list of best practices taxpayers can follow to ensure timely processing of their payments, tax returns, and claims for refund. These practices apply to individuals and required filing for businesses.

  • File returns and make payments electronically.
  • If you must file a paper return or mail in a payment to the IRS, send the return or payment to the proper address via USPS Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Using this method will assist in resolving timely filing and/or timely payment penalties assessed by the IRS.
  • Properly notate your tax payment and include the form number, tax period and your social security number or employer identification number.
  • Respond to notices from the IRS in a timely manner.

In addition to the above, the IRS has offered a few filing tips for individuals.

  • Fastest refunds by e-filing, avoiding paper returns: Filing electronically with direct deposit and avoiding a paper tax return is more important than ever to avoid refund delays. If you need a tax refund quickly, do not file on paper – use software, a trusted tax professional or IRS Free File.
  • Filing 2021 tax return with 2020 tax return still in process: For those whose tax returns from 2020 have not yet been processed, 2021 tax returns can still be filed. For those in this group filing electronically, here’s a critical point: taxpayers need their Adjusted Gross Income, or AGI, from their most recent tax return at time of filing. For those waiting on their 2020 tax return to be processed, make sure to enter $0 (zero dollars) for last year’s AGI on the 2021 tax return. Visit Validating Your Electronically Filed Tax Return for more details.

More individual filing tips from the IRS can be found here.

If you have unpaid taxes or unfiled returns, you need an experienced tax attorney to represent you in your dealings with the IRS or the Department of Justice. An accountant or enrolled agent is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

© 2022 Varnum LLP
For more articles about tax returns, visit the NLR Tax type of law section.

Maryland Comptroller Adopts Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax Regulations

On December 3, 2021, the Maryland Comptroller published notice of its adoption of the digital advertising gross revenues tax regulations (which was originally proposed on October 8, 2021). Per the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act, the final adopted regulations will go into effect in 10 calendar days, or December 13, 2021. (See Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 10-117(a)(1).)

The final regulations were adopted almost entirely as proposed, with just two minor changes that the Attorney General (AG) of Maryland certified as non-substantive. Specifically, the changes to the October 8 proposed regulations concern the information that may be used to determine the location of a device and are described by the AG as follows:

  • Regulation .02(C): The Comptroller is clarifying language regarding the allowable sources of information a taxpayer may use to determine the location of a device. Specifically, this final action amendment changes “both technical information and the terms of the underlying contract” to “both technical information and nontechnical information included in the contract.”
    • Regulation .02(C)(2): The Comptroller is amending the non-exhaustive list of technical information to include “industry standard metrics.”

    Practice Note: While “industry-standard metrics” is a nice addition to the list of sources that may be used to determine the location of devices for sourcing purposes, significant and fundamental questions and concerns submitted as part of the comments were not addressed by the Comptroller in adopting the final digital ad tax regulations. The tax is subject to multiple lawsuits (both state and federal court) and pending a court order to the contrary is scheduled to take effect beginning January 1, 2022, with the first filing obligation for large taxpayers in April 2022. Taxpayers grappling with how to comply with this new tax are encouraged to contact the authors.

    © 2021 McDermott Will & Emery

    Article by Stephen P. Kranz, Eric Carstens, and Jonathan C. Hague with McDermott Will & Emery.

For more updates on tax regulations, visit the NLR Tax section.

Wealth Planning in 2021: Preparing For a Changing Tax Landscape

Since President Biden took office at the beginning of this year, there has been much buzz and conjecture regarding what the tax policy under the Biden-Harris Administration would look like.  In light of the recently released Department of Treasury’s General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, commonly known as the “Green Book,” we now have a better idea of the proposed tax law changes that the Administration will focus on implementing in the coming year.

While the Green Book contains various tax proposals that could significantly affect estate planning, it interestingly does not include a proposal to decrease the estate and gift tax exemption, which was a major topic of discussion during last year’s election cycle (click here to review our advisory on Estate Planning and the 2020 Election).  However, some Democrats in Congress nonetheless continue to argue for this reduction.  For example, Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposed legislation, For the 99.5% Act, would reduce the gift tax exemption to $1 million per person and the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million per person and would also impose new progressive estate tax rates ranging from 45% to 65%.

In any event, the Green Book contains the proposed tax laws that reflect the Administration’s top priorities and are more likely to be enacted than those proposals not included in the Green Book.  The Green Book proposals seek to reverse many of the tax laws included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted under former President Trump, such as a proposed increase to individual income tax rates and an end to certain capital gains tax preferences, discussed in further detail below.

Green Book Proposals That Would Affect High Net Worth Clients:

Increase Top Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate for High-Income Earners.  The top marginal income tax rate would increase from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income in excess of the top bracket threshold.  For taxable years beginning January 1, 2022, this would apply to income in excess of $509,300 for married individuals filing jointly and $452,700 for single filers, and thereafter be indexed for inflation.

Tax Capital Gains for High-Income Earners at Ordinary Income Tax Rates.  For taxpayers with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends tax rates would increase to match the proposed ordinary income tax rates.  To the extent that a taxpayer’s income exceeds $1 million, rates would go from 20% (or 23.8% including the net investment income tax (“NIIT”)) to 39.6% (or 43.4% including NIIT).  This proposal currently includes a retroactive effective date of April 28, 2021.

Treat Transfers of Appreciated Property by Gift or at Death as Realization Events.  This proposal would eliminate the so called “step up in basis loophole,” which allows for an asset transferred at death to be “stepped up” to fair market value for cost basis purposes resulting in no capital gains tax imposed on the asset’s appreciation through date of death.  Instead, the transfer of an appreciated asset by gift or at death would be treated as sold for fair market value at the time of the transfer, creating a taxable gain realization event for the donor or deceased owner.  There would, however, be a $1 million per person (or $2 million per married couple) exemption from recognition of capital gains on property transferred by gift or at death, indexed for inflation.  In addition, certain exclusions would apply, including:

  • Residence.  $250,000 per person (or $500,000 per married couple) would be excluded from capital gain on the sale or transfer of any residence.
  • Surviving spouse.  Transfers by a decedent to a U.S. citizen spouse would carry over the basis of the decedent and capital gain recognition would be deferred until the surviving spouse dies or otherwise disposes of the asset.
  • Charity.  Appreciated property transferred to charity would not generate a taxable gain; however, the transfer of appreciated assets to a split-interest charitable trust would generate a taxable gain as to the share of the value transferred attributable to any non-charitable beneficiary.
  • Tangible personal property.  No capital gain would be recognized on transfers of tangible personal property (excluding collectibles).

Although the tax imposed on gains deemed realized at death would be deductible on the estate tax return of the decedent’s estate, deductions are not equivalent to tax credits and in high tax states such as New York, the additional tax could be substantial.

Impose Gain Recognition on Property Transferred to or Distributed from an Irrevocable Trust.  Any transfers of property into, and distributions in kind from, an irrevocable trust would be treated as deemed recognition events subject to capital gains tax.  In addition, while the generation-skipping transfer (“GST”) tax exempt status of a trust would not be affected, gain would automatically be recognized on property held in an irrevocable trust which has not otherwise been subject to a taxable recognition event within the prior 90 years.  The first possible recognition event would be December 31, 2030 for any trust in existence on January 1, 1940.  This proposal would also apply to transfers to, and distributions in kind from, partnerships and other non-corporate entities.  Elimination of Valuation Discounts.  The valuation of partial interests in property contributed to a trust would be equal to the proportional share of the fair market value of all of such property.  In other words, no discounts for lack of marketability or minority interests would be allowed in valuing transfers of partial interests in LLCs, corporations, partnerships or real property.

Summary

The legislative text of the Administration’s tax proposals will likely not be available until the fall.  It is important to note that any proposed tax law changes face a split 50-50 Senate, which means that the prospect of passing any tax reform at all is uncertain.  Commentators believe that the Green Book proposals will be the subject of extensive negotiation over the next several months, including significant opposition to large increases in capital gains tax rates.  In the meantime, we at Wiggin and Dana [link to PCS attorneys page] are available to discuss the Green Book proposals in more detail and to make proactive, tailored recommendations in light of the current changing tax law landscape.

© 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

Article by Michael T. Clear, Veronica R.S. Bauer, Robert W. Benjamin, Daniel L. Daniels, and Helen C. Heintz with Wiggin and Dana LLP.

For more articles on taxes, visit the NLR Tax section.

Snowy Owls and Constituted Authorities

On January 27, 2021, a snowy owl was seen in New York City’s Central Park for the first time in 130 years.  Nine days later, on February 5, 2021, something almost as rare occurred – the Internal Revenue Service released a private letter ruling dealing with Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code.[1]  In PLR 202105007, the IRS determined that a nonprofit corporation that amended its articles of incorporation to change its purposes and come under the control of a city became a “constituted authority,” within the meaning of Treas. Reg. 1.103-1(b), of the city that could issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the city.

The coincidence of these infrequent events involving ornithology and quasi-governmental entities calls to mind the field guide Johnny Hutchinson prepared on the tax classifications of various species of the latter, which was an homage to Roger Tory Peterson’s Field Guide to Birds, a seminal work in the canon of the former.  February is a good time to brush up on both.      

[1] of 1986, as amended.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

ARTICLE BY Michael A. Cullers of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more, visit the NLR Tax section.

Work from Anywhere? Telecommuting and Tax Obligations for Employers: Practical Considerations and Tips for Human Resources and Management

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sudden, widespread shift towards remote work arrangements. This shift has provided many benefits, including an increase in the employee talent pool and the ability to recruit without borders, cost savings, and a more flexible employee workday. In response, a number of employees have moved away, or plan to move away, from city centers or to a different state to find a better location in terms of cost of living and personal preference. However, this shift creates concerns for employers regarding labor and employment law compliance, tax compliance, and other business considerations when employees choose to permanently work remotely in a new location. Employers may not be aware of these considerations or even the fact that the employee has moved. It is important to understand these concerns and how they may affect the “workplace” as more businesses prepare for long-term policies on working remotely.

Labor & Employment Considerations

Wage and Hour Laws

 Different jurisdictions impose different wage and hour requirements, such as minimum wage, paid sick leave, overtime, exemptions, pay frequency, and pay statements. Multi-jurisdictional employers must understand these variations to make sure that they are complying with the various wage and hour laws in the states and localities where employees are working. For example, non-exempt employees working from home are still required to be paid based on actual hours worked, and are entitled to overtime. If an employer employs an employee who moves to a state where overtime must be paid for any work over eight hours per day instead of being paid for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, the employer would need to update its payroll system to ensure compliance.

Tracking Hours Worked

With remote work, employees’ actual hours worked can be difficult to track because of variable schedules necessitated by the competing demands of working from home. On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recognized this issue and published a field assistance bulletin that reminds employers of their obligation to track all hours worked by employees who are working remotely, including addressing authorized versus non-authorized hours of work, hours that the employer knows are being worked, and reminds employers that their processes and policies cannot prevent or discourage the reporting of hours worked.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Most employers are generally required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance in the states in which they employ workers. An injury that arises out of or in the course of employment will generally be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. This includes injuries that occur suddenly or over time as well as injuries that may occur when working remotely. For example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees are conducting business from home-office setups where they may sustain various injuries. Depending on the applicable state law, this may be deemed a work-related injury eligible for coverage under workers’ compensation insurance. An employer that does not abide by a state’s laws requiring workers’ compensation insurance may be liable for noncompliance, resulting in potential fines and penalties.

Unemployment Insurance

Similarly, employers are generally required to pay premiums for state unemployment insurance when at least one of their employees conducts business in the state. Employers must generally register for an account with the state unemployment agency within the states in which they have employees working. A failure to pay these premiums may create liability for the employer, including penalties for noncompliance.

Discrimination Laws

 As a general tenet, the federal and state employment discrimination laws in a particular state apply to employees working in that state and they apply to “workplace,” which includes remote work arrangement, online forums, etc. Employers must be prepared to comply with various local and state employment laws, keeping in mind that localities and states might include different protected characteristics in their laws. Employers also will need to be in compliance with state and federal disability discrimination laws, as employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations even when working remotely. Employers may wish to review and, if appropriate, update employee handbooks to ensure that their procedures for internal reporting are accessible and are reasonable as they relate to remote employees.

Posting Requirements

Employers may be required to display in the workplace posters that discuss employees’ employment rights, such as those granted under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as under other local, state, and federal laws. If employees are working remotely, employers may be required to send out the postings by mail or email or display the postings on an employee information website, depending on the applicable law. Employers may want to consider providing a manner for employees to acknowledge receipt of the posted information to ensure they are fulfilling their obligations.

State Tax & Registration Implications

The unplanned and exponential increase in the number of remote workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised state tax and registration questions for employers with employees now working in one or more states separate from the states(s) in which the employer normally conducts business. Generally speaking, the presence of an employee in a state may trigger a requirement that the employer register as an entity transacting business, establish nexus for income/franchise taxes and sales and use taxes, and require registration as an employer for purposes of state and local income tax withholding.

This analysis is further complicated by the lack of uniformity in guidance issued by state authorities. A number of state tax authorities have been noticeably silent, suggesting that pre-pandemic rules continue to apply to out-of-state employers. Even with regard to the states that have issued COVID-19 related guidance, that guidance varies, as some states provide relief (generally temporarily waiving registration and reporting issues relating to remote workers created as a result of the pandemic) while others have simply confirmed that their laws are not impacted by the pandemic. The state guidance may also draw a distinction between previously assigned remote workers and those forced to work from home due to the pandemic.

Business Registration

Employers may wish to consider whether the presence of these new remote workers creates a duty to obtain a certificate of authority in order to transact business in states in which employers previously did not have any employees or operations. Failure to comply with these rules can result in significant penalties.

Business Taxes

If an employee performs services in his/her state of residency, this may create substantial nexus between the employer and this state. As a result, employers may be obligated to pay state and local franchise, income, or other applicable business tax in such states solely as a result of their remote workers. For retailers, it would trigger a duty to collect, remit, and report state and local sales and use taxes.

Income Tax Withholding

In the majority of jurisdictions, employers attribute an employee’s wages for income tax withholding purposes to the state in which the employee performs services. These rules would require employers to register with state and local tax agencies and withhold the income taxes according to the laws of those jurisdictions. With regard to other states that utilize a “convenience of the employer” sourcing rule, employers are faced with unique and complex challenges in the current pandemic environment. Generally, in such states, wages are considered earned by a nonresident employee and are allocated to the office location the employee is assigned to, unless the employee performs work that, out of necessity and not convenience, requires the employee to perform work from another location other than their assigned office. Historically, what is considered to be at the “convenience of the employer” has been defined broadly with narrow exceptions, and it remains unclear whether alternative remote working arrangements due to the pandemic would constitute work conducted offsite for the “convenience of the employer.” This situation is further complicated by additional states (most notably Massachusetts) temporarily adopting “convenience of the employer” rules under the guise of limiting disruption to employers.

In many cases, employers are left without clear direction and have no choice other than to review state specific guidance as it applies to their remote workers, including those who may have relocated temporarily or have relocated without any advance notice to their employer. While enforcement activity may be limited at the current time, employers should consider whether states will look to enforcement of these tax rules against nonresident employers in order to balance state budgets deeply impacted by the pandemic.

Localized Compensation

Many employees who plan to work remotely on a permanent basis are moving to more affordable cities to reduce costs or for other personal reasons. Some employers have responded by adjusting pay for employees based on localized factors, including income tax rates and the cost of labor in the employee’s new location. Some of these employers have made pay adjustments based on a case-by-case basis, while others have implemented a set pay cut when an employee moves away from large city centers, such as New York or San Francisco. While companies have pointed out that it is standard practice for an employee’s location to be a factor considered in determining pay, there has been some push back by remote workers related to this decision.

Conclusion

Due to the legal risks associated with employees relocating while working remotely, employers may wish to consult with legal counsel for guidance on navigating applicable law.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on remote working, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

NY’s Gendered Pricing Law: Will It Curb the Pink Tax

Women often pay more than men for similar goods and services.  A shampoo for men may be nearly identical in chemical makeup to a shampoo for women, but the woman will pay more.  This phenomenon is referred to as the “pink tax” – products marketed to women cost more than their counterparts marketed to men.  Recent data analyzing toys, clothing, personal care products and home health products shows that: (1) products targeted at women are higher-priced than those targeted at men 42% of the time; and (2) of those items more expensive for women, the prices are an average of 7% higher.[1] The pink tax thus places a direct cost on individuals who purchase products marketed to women.

Some states are starting to enact laws aimed at curbing the pink tax.  On September 30, 2020, a New York ban on the pink tax took effect under a newly passed gendered pricing law, Section 391-U.[2]  The law prohibits sellers from charging different prices for any two goods or services that are “substantially similar” but are marketed to or intended for different genders.[3]  It applies to goods and services for personal, family, or household purposes.[4]

Where there is discriminatory pricing under the law, the NY attorney general may seek an injunction to enjoin and restrain the upcharges.[5]  The injunction can be issued without proof of injury in fact.[6]  The court may also tag on a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars for a first violation and five hundred dollars for a subsequent violation.[7]

Although the law is aimed at eliminating the pink tax, there are many loopholes and exclusions.

First, only the attorney general is granted a right of action – there is no private right of action.[8]  Individual consumers may, however, demand a complete written price list from service providers.[9]

Second, the law is limited to goods that are substantially similar.[10]  Substantially similar goods are only those that have no substantial differences in (1) the materials used in production, (2) the intended use, (3) the functional design and features and (4) the brand.[11]  This leaves open the possibility that one company, operating under two brands, can sell products to women at a higher price without violating the law.  For example, if a parent company operates under two gendered hair dye brands, could the brands sell similarly crafted dye for women at a higher price than for men, or would that constitute a violation by the company under Section 391-U?

Likewise, substantially similar services include only those that exhibit no substantial difference in (1) the amount of time needed to provide a service; (2) the difficulty in providing a service; and (3) the cost of providing a service.[12]  This creates further loopholes.  For example, a publisher of two magazines, one targeted at men, and the other targeted at women, could argue that providing subscription services and the content that accompanies those services is always more expensive for women readers.  Rebutting this argument could require extensive testimony from experts in the publishing field.

Third, even where substantially similar goods and services are at issue, the law permits price disparities in many situations.  The law specifically carves out an exemption for price disparities based on: “(a) the amount of time it took to manufacture such goods or provide such services; (b) the difficulty in manufacturing such goods or offering such services; (c) the cost incurred in manufacturing such goods or offering such services; (d) the labor used in manufacturing such goods or providing such services; (e) the materials used in manufacturing such goods or providing such services; or (f) any other gender-neutral reason for having increased the cost of such goods or services.”[13]

The personal care industry may rely on this broad list of exemptions to continue charging higher prices for products advertised to women.  Notably, the price disparity for gendered products in the personal care industry is higher than elsewhere – on average, up to 13% more for women.[14] One of the largest price discrepancies is in hair care – products cost women nearly 48% more, with an average difference of $2.71 per set of shampoo and conditioner.[15]

NY has paired this new law with a social media campaign centered around the hashtag #PinkTax to raise awareness, which at the time of this blog’s publish, has 10.8K posts.[16] With the buzzing publicity surrounding this legislation, the retail industry should be prepared for other states to pass similar laws.

FOOTNOTES

[1]https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-unveils-10th-proposal-20…, referencing https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-P…

[2] 26 N.Y. GBS § 391-U.

[3] 26 N.Y. GBS § 391-U(2)-(3).

[4] Id., at (1)(b)-(c).

[5] Id., at (6).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] See id.

[9] Id., at (5).

[10] Id., at (1)(d)(i).

[11] Id.

[12] Id., at (1)(d)(ii).

[13] Id., at (4)(a)-(f).

[14] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-P…

[15] Id.

[16] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-launches-campaign-elimin…

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more articles on the pink tax, visit the National Law Review Tax section.