Category: Tax

Proposed Senate Bill Would Deny Deductions for NIL Contributions

On September 28, 2022, U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Taxation and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Oversight, and John Thune (R-S.D.), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act, which seeks to deny charitable deductions for any contribution used by the donee to compensate college athletes for the use of their name, image, or likeness (“NIL”) by reason of their status as athletes.

One entity type that is impacted by the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act are “NIL collectives” that have been established as 501(c)(3) organizations.  These types of NIL collectives have been used to allow donors to make tax deductible contributions that are then used to fund NIL opportunities for college athletes, for example, by having a college athlete provide services to a separate charity in exchange for payment from the NIL collective.  A press release from Senator Cardin noted that “[s]uch activity is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the charitable tax deduction, and it forces taxpayers to subsidize the potential recruitment of – or payment to – college athletes based on their NIL status.”

Notably, the Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act would only apply to charitable deductions.  A person engaged in a trade or business would still be able to deduct payments to college athletes for the use of their name, image, or likeness if such payments qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Although it is not clear at this time whether the Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act will pass, it does indicate increased scrutiny over nonprofit NIL collectives and possibly other NIL arrangements.

Article By Richard T. Hewlett, Shawn A. Strand, and Jessica E. Visser of Varnum LLP

For more election law and legislative news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Varnum LLP

Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act Aim to Build a More Equitable EV Market

In February of this year, it was high time for me to buy a new car. I had driven the same car since 2008, and getting this-or-that replaced was costing more and more every year. As a first-time car buyer, I had two criteria: I wanted to go fast, and I wanted the car to plug in.

Like many prospective purchasers, I started my search online and by speaking with friends and who drove electric vehicles, or EVs for short. I settled on a plug-in hybrid sedan, reasoning that a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) was the best of both worlds: the 20-mile electric range was perfect for my short commute and getting around Houston’s inner loop, and the 10-gallon gas tank offered freedom to roam. In the eight months since I’ve had the car, I’ve bought less than ten tanks of gas. As the price of a gallon in Texas soared to $4.69 in June, the timing of my purchase seemed miraculous.

When it was time to transact, the dealer made vague mention of rebates and tax credits, but didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the details. Enter Texas’s Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Purchase or Lease Incentive Program (LDPLIP). Administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the program grants rebates of up to $5,000 for consumers, businesses, and government entities who buy or lease new vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane), and up to $2,500 for those who buy or lease new EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Rebates are only available to purchasers who buy or lease from dealerships (so some of the most popular EVs in the U.S. don’t qualify). There is no vehicle price cap, nor is there an income limit for purchasers. In June of 2022, the average price for a new electric vehicle was over $66,000, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates. But the median Texan household income (in 2020 dollars) for 2016-2020 was $63,826.

According to the grant specialist to whom I initially sent my application, the TCEQ has received “a vigorous response” from applicants, however, the TCEQ is limited in the number of rebate grants that it can award: 2,000 grants for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and 1,000 grants for vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane).

The grant period in Texas ends on January 7, 2023, but on July 5, 2022, the TCEQ suspended acceptance of applications for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. As of the writing of this post, the total number of applications received and reservations pending on the program’s website is 2,480.

In comparison with Texas’s rebate program, the EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 demonstrate a commitment to building a more equitable EV market. While EVs may be cheaper to own than gas-powered vehicles—especially when gas prices are high—a lot of lower and middle-income families have historically been priced out of the EV market. The IRA takes several meaningful steps towards accessibility and sustainability for a more diverse swath of consumers:

  • Allows point-of-sale incentives starting in 2024. Purchasers will be able to apply the credit (up to $7,500) at the dealership, and because sticker price is such an important factor for so many purchasers, this incentive will make buying an EV more attractive up front.
  • Removes 200,000 vehicle-per-manufacturer cap. Some American manufacturers are already past the maximum. Eliminating the cap means bringing back the tax credit for many popular and affordable EVs, which should attract new buyers.
  • Creates income and purchase price limits. SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks under $80,000, and all other vehicles (e.g. sedans) under $55,000, will qualify for the EV tax credit. For new vehicles, purchaser income will be subject to an AGI cap: $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for a joint filers.
  • Extends the tax credit to pre-owned EVs. As long as the purchase price does not exceed $25,000, purchasers of pre-owned EVs (EVs whose model year is at least two years earlier than the calendar year in which the purchase occurs) will receive a tax credit for 30% of the sale price up to $4,000. The income cap for pre-owned EVs is $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a joint filers.

A purchaser who qualifies under both programs can get both incentives. Comparing Texas’s state government-level incentives and those soon to be offered at the federal level reveals a few telling differences—new vs. used, income caps, purchase price caps, post-purchase rebates vs. up-front point-of-sale incentives—but the differences all fall under the same umbrella: equity. The IRA’s tax credits are designed, among other things, to make purchasing an EV more attractive to a wider audience.

Of course, the EV incentive landscape has greatly changed since the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 first granted tax credits for new, qualified EVs. The LDPLIP wasn’t approved by the TCEQ until late 2013, so the U.S. government has arguably had more time to get it right. Some might say that the fact that Texas’s program offers the purchaser of the $150,000+ PHEV the same opportunity to access grant funds as the purchaser of the $30,000 EV means that the LDPLIP is even more “equal.”

It is worth noting that the IRA also sets a handful of production and assembly requirements. For instance, to qualify for the credit, a vehicle’s final assembly must occur in North America. Further, at least 40% the value of the critical minerals contained in the vehicle’s battery must be “extracted or processed in any country with which the United States has a free trade agreement in effect” or be “recycled in North America”—and this percentage increases each year, topping out at 80% in 2027. There is also a rising requirement that 50% of the vehicle’s battery components be manufactured or assembled in North America, with the requirement set to hit 100% in 2029. It is unclear whether automotive manufacturers and the U.S. critical mineral supply chains will be able to meet these targets—and that uncertainty may cause a potential limiting effect on the options a purchaser would have for EVs that qualify for the tax credit.

Time will tell whether the intentions behind the EV tax credits in the IRA have the effect that this particular blogger and PHEV owner is hoping for. While we wait to see whether this bid at creating an equitable EV market bears fruit, we can at least admire this attempt at, as the saying goes, “giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits.”

Article By Dania Abbasi of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Your Horse May Be Subject to IRS Seizure

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has broad powers to seize assets in payment of outstanding taxes including income tax, excise tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Assets the IRS can seize in exercise of its levy power are those that constitute “property or rights to property” of the taxpayer as defined under local law. Equine industry assets that could be subject to seizure include real estate, equipment, and the horses themselves, although horses valued below $10,090 are exempt from levy. For example, in 2012 the IRS seized hundreds of horses to collect a tax debt from a defendant convicted of stealing millions of dollars in city funds. The defendant used the funds to finance the breeding and showing of American quarter horses. The government auctioned off more than 400 of the seized horses to pay the defendant’s outstanding federal tax obligation.

But because animals require food and veterinary care and could die, the IRS has specific procedures relating to the seizure of livestock, such as horses. If the horses are considered “perishable goods,” section 6336 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), which provides the statutory requirements for disposing of perishable goods, will apply. Under section 6336, if it is determined that the seized property is liable to perish, the IRS must appraise the value of the property and either return it to the owner or put it up for immediate sale. The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provides further guidance on what constitutes perishable property. IRM 5.10.1.7 (12-20-2019) says that the property must be tangible personal property and have a short life expectancy or limited shelf life.

Prior to July 1, 2019, the definition of perishable goods included property that may “become greatly reduced in price or value by keeping, or that such property cannot be kept without great expense.” Horses would seem to fit within either or both of these categories. Now, under the revised definition of perishable goods, a collection officer would have to show that the horse had a short life expectancy.

A revenue officer seeking to seize perishable property must determine that the property cannot be kept and sold at a public sale under normal sale time frames set forth in section 6335 of the Code. Despite the change in the definition of perishable goods in 2019, the IRM suggests that examples of property likely to perish “may be food, flowers, plants or livestock [emphasis added].” Once the revenue officer determines that the property is perishable, he must secure approval of this finding. The determination is subject to high-level IRS review and planning, including an estimate of the expected net sale proceeds to be received from a forced sale. If the revenue officer concludes that the property is not perishable, sale of the seized property must proceed under normal procedures and within the time frames set forth in the Code.

A recent Bloomberg news article reported that the U.S. government had seized a 15-year-old Holsteiner that had been purchased for $750,000. The horse was a champion show jumper. As might be expected, the cost of maintaining the horse was high. IRS agents determined it would cost $45,000-$50,000 a year to feed the horse, not including the medical costs it might incur. The IRS also learned the value of the horse had dropped sharply from its $750,000 purchase price. Thus, in an unusual deal, the government sold the horse to the taxpayer’s daughter (for whom it had been purchased originally) for $25,000.

The considerations, planning, coordination, documentation, and approval of these types of sales may discourage a revenue officer from seizing perishable property like horses where other assets may be levied more easily. Nonetheless, sometimes the IRS will take action to seize a horse perceived to be valuable, like with the Holsteiner, even if it is not deemed perishable under the Code definition.

Article By Barbara T. Kaplan and Scott E. Fink of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

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

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

A Summary of Inflation Reduction Act’s Main Energy Tax Proposals

On August 7, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”). The IRA contains a significant number of climate and energy tax proposals, many of which were previously proposed in substantially similar form by the House of Representatives in November 2021 (in the “Build Back Better Act”).

Extension and expansion of production tax credit

Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a tax credit for renewable electricity production. To be eligible for the credit, a taxpayer must (i) produce electricity from renewable energy resources at certain facilities during a ten-year period beginning on the date the facility was placed in service and (ii) sell that renewable electricity to an unrelated person.[1] Under current law, the credit is not available for renewable electricity produced at facilities whose construction began after December 31, 2021.

The IRA would extend the credit for renewable electricity produced at facilities whose construction begins before January 1, 2025. The credit for electricity produced by solar power –which expired in 2016—would be reinstated, as extended by the IRA.

The IRA would also increase the credit from 1.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.

A taxpayer would be entitled to increase its production tax credit by 500% if (i) its facility’s maximum net output is less than 1 megawatt, (ii) it meets the IRA’s prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements,[2] and (iii) the construction of its facility begins within fifty-nine days after the Secretary publishes guidance on these requirements.

In addition, the IRA would add a 10% bonus credit for a taxpayer (i) that certifies that any steel, iron, or manufactured product that is a component of its facility was produced in the United States (the “domestic content bonus credit”) or (ii) whose facility is in an energy community (the “energy community bonus credit”).[3]

Extension, expansion, and reduction of investment tax credit

Section 48(a) provides an investment tax credit for the installation of renewable energy property. The amount of the credit is equal to a certain percentage (described below) of the property’s tax basis. Under current law, the credit is limited to property whose construction began before January 1, 2024.

The IRA would extend the credit to property whose construction begins before January 1, 2025. This period would be extended to January 1, 2035 for geothermal property projects. The IRA would also allow the investment tax credit for energy storage technology, qualified biogas property, and microgrid controllers.

The IRA would reduce the base credit from 30% to 6% for qualified fuel cell property; energy property whose construction begins before January 1, 2025; qualified small wind energy property; waste energy recovery property; energy storage technology; qualified biogas property; microgrid controllers; and qualified facilities that a taxpayer elects to treat as energy property. For all other types of energy property, the base credit would be reduced from 10% to 2%.

A taxpayer would be entitled to increase this base credit by 500% (for a total investment tax credit of 30%) if (i) its facility’s maximum net output is less than 1 megawatt of electrical or thermal energy, (ii) it meets the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, and (iii) its facility begins construction within fifty-nine days after the Secretary publishes guidance on these requirements.

In addition, a taxpayer would be entitled to a 10% domestic content bonus credit and 10% energy community bonus credit (subject to the same requirements as for bonus credits under section 45). The IRA would also add a (i) 10% bonus credit for projects undertaken in a facility with a maximum net output of 5 megawatts and is located in low-income communities or on Indian land, and (ii) 20% bonus credit if the facility is part of a qualified low-income building project or qualified low-income benefit project.

Section 45Q (Carbon Oxide Sequestration Credit)

Section 45Q provides a tax credit for each metric ton of qualified carbon oxide (“QCO”) captured using carbon capture equipment and either disposed of in secure geological storage or used as a tertiary injection in certain oil or natural gas recovery projects.  While eligibility for the section 45Q credit under current law requires that projects begin construction before January 1, 2026, the IRA would extend credit eligibility to those carbon sequestration projects that commence construction before January 1, 2033.

The IRA would increase the amount of tax credits for projects that meet certain wage and apprenticeship requirements. Specifically, the IRA would increase the amount of section 45Q credits for industrial facilities and power plants to $85/metric ton for QCO stored in geologic formations, $60/metric ton for the use of captured carbon emissions, and $60/metric ton for QCO stored in oil and gas fields.  With respect to direct air capture projects, the IRA would increase the credit to $180/metric ton for projects that store captured QCO in secure geologic formations, $130/metric ton for carbon utilization, and $130/metric ton for QCO stored in oil and gas fields.  The proposed changes in the amount of the credit would apply to facilities or equipment placed in service after December 31, 2022.

The IRA also would decrease the minimum annual QCO capture requirements for credit eligibility to 1,000 metric tons (from 100,000 metric tons) for direct air capture facilities, 18,750 metric tons (from 500,000 metric tons) of QCO for an electricity generating facility that has a minimum design capture capacity of 75% of “baseline carbon oxide” and 12,500 metric tons (from 100,000 metric tons) for all other facilities.  These changes to the minimum capture requirements would apply to facilities or equipment that begin construction after the date of enactment.

Introduction of zero-emission nuclear power production credit

The IRA would introduce, as new section 45U, a credit for zero-emission nuclear power production.

The credit for a taxable year would be the amount by which 3 cents multiplied by the kilowatt hours of electricity produced by a taxpayer at a qualified nuclear power facility and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year exceeds the “reduction amount” for that taxable year.[4]

In addition, a taxpayer would be entitled to increase this base credit by 500% if it meets the prevailing wage requirements.

New section 45U would not apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2032.

Biodiesel, Alternative Fuels, and Aviation Fuel Credit

The IRA would extend the existing tax credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel at $1.00/gallon and the existing tax credit for alternative fuels at $.50/gallon through the end of 2024.  Additionally, the IRA would create a new tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel of between $1.25/gallon and $1.75/gallon.  Eligibility for the aviation fuel credit would depend on whether the aviation fuel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%, which corresponds to a $1.25/gallon credit (with an additional $0.01/gallon for each percentage point above the 50% reduction, resulting in a maximum possible credit of $1.75/gallon). This credit would apply to sales or uses of qualified aviation fuel before the end of 2024.

Introduction of clean hydrogen credit

The IRA would introduce, as new section 45V, a clean hydrogen production tax credit. To be eligible, a taxpayer must produce the clean hydrogen after December 31, 2022 in facilities whose construction begins before January 1, 2033.

The credit for the taxable year would be equal to the kilograms of qualified clean hydrogen produced by the taxpayer during the taxable year at a qualified clean hydrogen production facility during the ten-year period beginning on the date the facility was originally placed in service, multiplied by the “applicable amount” with respect to such hydrogen.[5]

The “applicable amount” is equal to the “applicable percentage” of $0.60. The “applicable percentage” is equal to:

  • 20% for qualified clean hydrogen produced through a process that results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate between 2.5 and 4 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of hydrogen;

  • 25% for qualified clean hydrogen produced through a process that results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate between 1.5 and 2.5 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of hydrogen;

  • 4% for qualified clean hydrogen produced through a process that results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate between 0.45 and 1.5 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of hydrogen; and

  • 100% for qualified clean hydrogen produced through a process that results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of less than 0.45 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of hydrogen.

A taxpayer would be entitled to increase this base credit by 500% if (i) it meets the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements or (ii) it meets the prevailing wage requirements, and its facility begins construction within fifty-nine days after the Secretary publishes guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

FOOTNOTES

[1] All references to section are to the Internal Revenue Code.

[2] The IRA would require new prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements to be satisfied in order for a taxpayer to be eligible for increased credits. To satisfy the prevailing wage requirements, a taxpayer would be required to ensure that any laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to construct, alter or repair the taxpayer’s facility are paid at least prevailing local wages with respect to those activities. To satisfy the apprenticeship requirements, “qualified apprentices” would be required to construct a certain percentage of the taxpayer’s facilities (10% for facilities whose construction begins before January 1, 2023 and 15% for facilities whose construction begins on January 1, 2024 or after). A “qualified apprentice” is a person employed by a contractor or subcontractor to work on a taxpayer’s facilities and is participating in a registered apprenticeship program.

[3] An “energy community” is a brownfield site; an area which has (or had at any time after December 31, 1999) significant employment related to the extraction, processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas; and a census tract in which a coal mine closed or was retired after December 31, 1999 (or an adjoining census tract).

[4] A “qualified nuclear power facility” is any nuclear facility that is owned by the taxpayer, that uses nuclear energy to produce electricity, that is not an “advanced nuclear power facility” as described in section 45J(d)(1),  and is placed in service before the date that new section 45U is enacted.

“Reduction amount” is, for any taxable year, the amount equal to (x) the lesser of (i) the product of 3 cents multiplied by the kilowatt hours of electricity produced by a taxpayer at a qualified nuclear power facility and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year and (ii) the amount equal to 80% of the excess of the gross receipts from any electricity produced by the facility (excluding an advanced nuclear power facility) and sold to an unrelated person during the taxable year; (y) over the amount equal to the product of 2.5 cents multiplied by the kilowatt hours of electricity produced by the taxpayer at a qualified nuclear power facility and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year.

[5] “Qualified clean hydrogen” is hydrogen that is produced (i) through a process that results in a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of no more than 4 kilograms of CO₂e per kilogram of hydrogen, (ii) in the United States, (iii) in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s trade or business, (iv) for sale or use, and (v) whose production and sale or use is verified by an unrelated party. The IRA does not explain what “verified by an unrelated party” means.

Article By David S Miller, Amanda H Nussbaum, Martin T Hamilton, J. Tyler Moser, and Rita N. Halabi of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For A Limited Time Only – California Is Giving Away Corporations, LLCs And More!

As a result of the recent enactment of California’s 2022-2023 Budget Bill, the California Secretary of State’s office has announced a temporary waiver of many business entity filing fees.   This waiver will last until June 30, 2023, the end of the state’s current fiscal year.

Here is the Secretary of State’s list of filings for which no filing fee is currently being imposed:

  • Articles of Organization – CA LLC

  • Registration – Out-of-State LLC

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Benefit

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Close

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – General Stock

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Insurer

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Professional

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Social Purpose

  • Registration – Out-of-State Corporation – Accountancy or Law (Professional)

  • Registration – Out-of-State Corporation – Insurer

  • Registration – Out-of-State Corporation – Stock

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Mutual Benefit

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Mutual Benefit – Common Interest Development

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Mutual Benefit – Credit Union

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Public Benefit

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Public Benefit – Common Interest Development

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Nonprofit Corporation – Religious

  • Registration – Out-of-State Corporation – Nonprofit

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Agricultural Cooperative Association

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – Cannabis Cooperative Association

  • Articles of Incorporation – CA Corporation – General Cooperative

  • Certificate of Limited Partnership – CA LP

  • Registration – Out-of-State LP

Note that the Secretary of State will continue to impose other fees not listed above.

It is unlikely that this temporary suspension of fees will have any significant impact on the number of business entities being formed under California law.  Historically, these fees have been relatively modest.  For example, the fee for filing articles of incorporation is $100.  Cal. Gov’t Code § 12186(c).  The real costs are the ongoing costs associated with the crushing tax and regulatory burdens placed on businesses by the state.  According to the Tax Foundation, California ranks 48th in business tax climate (just ahead of New York and New Jersey).

Article By Keith Paul Bishop of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

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

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Joint Trusts: A Useful Tool for Some Married Couples

Though not a silver bullet for every situation, in appropriate circumstances, a Joint Revocable Living Trust (“Joint Trust”) can provide a married couple with significant benefits and simplify the administration of assets upon death or incapacity.

The Probate and Estate Administration Process

In order to illustrate the benefits that can be achieved with a Joint Trust, it’s helpful to first understand the typical probate and estate administration process that occurs when a person dies.

When a person dies with a Will, the designated Executor in the Will typically submits the original Will for probate in the Estates Division of the Clerk of Superior Court in the county where the decedent resided at the time of death.  “Probate” is the legal process by which the court validates the submitted document as the legal Will of the decedent.  When offering the Will for probate, the designated Executor typically also files an application with the court to be appointed as Executor of the estate and granted Letters Testamentary, which is the legal document confirming the Executor’s authority to act for the decedent’s estate.

If a person dies without a Will, the decedent’s spouse or nearest relative typically files an application with the court in the county where the decedent resided at the time of death seeking to be appointed as Administrator of the estate and granted Letters of Administration which is the legal document confirming the Administrator’s authority to act for the decedent’s estate.

Once the court appoints an Executor or Administrator of the estate, as the case may be, that person is referred to as the “Personal Representative” of the estate and is charged with several duties and obligations.  Actions required of the Personal Representative include:

  • Taking control of the decedent’s assets;
  • Filing an inventory with the court identifying the value of all of the decedent’s assets to the penny;
  • Publishing a notice to creditors giving them three months to file claims with the estate;
  • Satisfying any creditors’ claims;
  • Distributing all remaining assets to the decedent’s beneficiaries; and,
  • Filing an accounting with the court to report to the penny what occurred with all of the assets.

The court supervises the process at every step along the way and must ultimately approve all actions taken in the course of the estate administration before the Personal Representative will be relieved of their appointment.

Movement Away from Probate

Over the last few decades, a trend has developed in the estate planning community to attempt to structure a person’s affairs so that no assets will pass through a probate estate supervised by the court.  That trend has developed in response to a public perception that the court supervised process is not only unnecessary but also yields additional costs.  For instance, additional fees must be paid to attorneys and other advisors to prepare the inventory, accountings, and other documentation necessary to satisfy a court that the estate was properly administered.  Also, in North Carolina, the court charges a fee of $4 per $1,000 of value that passes through the estate, excluding the value of any real estate.  Currently, there is a cap on this fee in the amount of $6,000, which is reached when the value of the estate assets equals $1,500,000.

Additionally, all reporting made to the court about the administration of an estate is public record, meaning that anyone can access the information.  The public nature of the process is why news organizations often are able to publish articles soon after a celebrity’s death detailing what assets the celebrity-owned and who received them.  Such publicity causes concern for many people because they fear that their heirs will become targets for gold-diggers.  This has further strengthened the trend away from court supervised estate administration.

Several techniques are available to avoid the court supervised estate administration process.  These include:

  • Registering financial accounts as joint with rights of survivorship;
  • Adding beneficiary designations to life insurance or retirement accounts; and,
  • Adding pay-on-death or transfer-on-death designations on financial accounts.

However, because it is rarely possible to utilize those techniques to fully exempt a person’s assets from the court supervised estate administration process, the most commonly used avoidance device is the Revocable Living Trust.

The Revocable Living Trust

A Revocable Living Trust is essentially a substitute for a Will.  To create a Revocable Living Trust, a person typically transfers the person’s assets to himself or herself as trustee and signs a written trust document that contains instructions as to what the trustee is to do with those assets while the person is alive as well as upon death.  The trust document also identifies who should take over as successor trustee when the person is no longer able to serve due to death or incapacity.

During life, the person’s assets in the trust may be used in any way the person, as trustee, directs, and the person may change the instructions in the trust document in a similar manner as one can change a Will.  If the person becomes incapacitated, the successor trustee is instructed to use the trust assets for the person’s care.

At death, the successor trustee wraps up the person’s affairs by utilizing the trust assets to satisfy all of the person’s liabilities and distributes the remaining assets to the beneficiaries identified in the trust document.  No court supervises the process, so no court fees are incurred.  Moreover, advisors’ fees related to preparing court filings are avoided.  Also, the administration of the trust is a private matter with nothing becoming public record.  This process often results in a much better outcome for the person’s beneficiaries as compared to having the assets pass through the court supervised estate administration process.

The Joint Trust

Typically, when a married couple utilizes a Revocable Living Trust-based estate plan, each spouse creates and funds his or her own separate Revocable Living Trust.  This results in two trusts.  However, in the right circumstances, a married couple may be better served by creating a single Joint Trust.

A Joint Trust tends to work best when a couple has the following characteristics:

  • The couple has a long, stable relationship;
  • Divorce is not a concern for either spouse;
  • The couple is willing to identify all assets as being owned one-half by each of them;
  • No creditors’ claims exist, whether current or contingent, for which the creditor could seek to collect from only one spouse and not the other;
  • Neither spouse has children from a prior relationship;
  • Each spouse is comfortable with the surviving spouse having full control over all of the assets after the death of one of the spouses; and,
  • The value of the couple’s assets is less than the federal estate tax exemption amount.  For deaths occurring in 2022, this amount is $12.06 million (or $24.12 million per couple) reduced by any taxable gifts made during life.

A couple who meets these criteria could establish a Joint Trust by transferring their assets to themselves as co-trustees and signing a trust document to provide instructions as to what the co-trustees are to do with the assets.  Typically, while both spouses are alive and competent, they retain full control over the trust assets and can change the trust document at any time.  If one of the spouses becomes incapacitated, the other spouse continues to control the trust and can use the trust assets for the couple’s care.

After the death of one of the spouses, the Joint Trust will continue.  The surviving spouse would continue serving as trustee and have full control over the trust assets.  No transfers of assets are required at the first death because all assets are already in the Joint Trust.

Upon the death of the surviving spouse, the designated successor trustee wraps up the surviving spouse’s affairs by utilizing the Joint Trust assets to satisfy any liabilities and distributes the remaining assets as directed in the trust document.

The following are some of the benefits afforded by a Joint Trust:

  • Throughout this entire process, there is no court involvement.  This minimizes costs and promotes privacy.
  • The couple no longer has to worry about whether a particular asset is owned by one of the spouses or by one of the spouses’ separate Revocable Living Trusts.  All assets are simply owned by the Joint Trust.
  • Since only one trust is ever created, no transfers need to be made after the death of the first spouse to die.  This simplification in the administration process minimizes advisors’ fees and other costs and is a key advantage of using a Joint Trust.

A Joint Trust can possibly yield even more benefits in certain situations.  For instance, it may be possible to characterize some or all of the assets in a Joint Trust as community property.  The benefit of having assets characterized as community property is that such property will receive a full basis adjustment for income tax purposes (commonly referred to as a “step-up” in basis) at the death of the first spouse to die as opposed to only one-half of the property receiving such a basis step-up.

Additionally, it may be possible to include asset protection features in the Joint Trust so that any real property owned by the trust would be afforded the same protection as real property owned by a married couple as tenants by the entireties.  Such protection prevents a creditor of just one spouse from enforcing the liability against the real property owned by the couple.  Though the details of these benefits are beyond the scope of this article, they demonstrate that a Joint Trust potentially can provide additional advantages beyond those listed above.

Conclusion

In the right circumstances, utilizing an estate plan that involves a Joint Trust can simplify a married couple’s affairs and, as a result, make the administration process easier after death and ultimately lower costs.  Any couple interested in a Joint Trust should contact competent counsel to assist them in evaluating whether the technique is appropriate for them.

Article By Zachary F. Lamb of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more family, estates and trusts legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

Are You Ready for the UK Plastic Packaging Tax?

The plastic packaging tax (the ‘Tax’) came into force on 1 April 2022, with UK businesses that produce or import plastic packaging components in quantities of 10 or more tonnes per year affected. However, despite already being in force, research conducted by YouGov, on behalf of Veolia, has found that a high proportion of retail and manufacturing businesses (77% of those surveyed) are still not aware of the Tax.

As businesses gain increased awareness, the Tax is likely to receive a mixed reception. Whilst most would support the Government’s aim of increasing the use of recycled content in plastic packaging components, the Tax comes at a time when 92% of manufacturers and 90% of importers are reporting increased costs. With the introduction of the Tax, those businesses that have not already passed these increased costs on to customers will likely do so, meaning that the Tax may unintentionally add to the cost of living in the UK. This is compounded when one considers that the Tax came into force just five days before the controversial increase in national insurance contributions.

To manage increased costs and to ensure compliance with the law, businesses should pay close attention to the rules of the Tax.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on international laws, visit the NLR Global section.

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.