Tag: unconstitutional

U.S. Corporate Transparency Act: CTA is Declared Unconstitutional in U.S. District Court Case

The Corporate Transparency Act has been declared unconstitutional. On March 1, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke issued a 53-page opinion[1] granting summary judgment for the National Small Business Association and held that the Corporate Transparency Act “exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”

As a result, Judge Burke found the CTA to be unconstitutional because it exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’ power, without even reaching a decision on whether it violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The Court then permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA against the named plaintiffs and ordered a further hearing on the award of costs of litigation.

While it is likely that this litigation will continue to play out in the federal court system, the initial victory has gone to small business and importantly that means that compliance with this now unconstitutional regulatory regime can be set aside for the current time being.

[1] Nat’l Small Bus. United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448-LCB (N.D. Ala. 2022)

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Illinois Trust Taxation Deemed Unconstitutional

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

In Linn v. Department of Revenue, the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court reviewed the state’s statutory framework for taxing trusts. Linn v. Department of Revenue, 2013 Il App (4th) 121055.  On constitutional grounds, the court limited Illinois’ power to impose taxes under its “once subject to tax, forever subject to tax” regime.

This case creates planning opportunities to minimize Illinois income taxes.  However, it should be noted that the Linn case applies to trusts that pay Illinois income tax on trust dividends, interest, capital gains or other income retained by the trust and not distributed to a beneficiary.  This case does not apply to income distributed to an Illinois beneficiary; that income clearly can be taxed by Illinois.

Illinois Trusts

Illinois trusts are subject to a 5 percent income tax plus a 1.5 percent personal property replacement tax.  A nonresident trust is subject to taxation only on income generated within Illinois or apportioned to the state.  Resident trusts, on the other hand, are subject to tax on all income, regardless of the source of that income.  For an individual, state income taxation on a resident basis generally requires domicile or residence within the taxing state.  With respect to a trust, one or more of the grantor, trustees and beneficiaries may have contacts with a state sufficient to uphold as constitutional a tax on all of the trust income.

Illinois defines a resident trust based solely on the domicile of the grantor. 35 ILCS 5/1501(a)(20).  A resident trust means:

  • A trust created by a will of a decedent who at death was domiciled in Illinois or
  • An irrevocable trust, the grantor of which was domiciled in Illinois at the time the trust became irrevocable.  For purposes of the statute, a trust is irrevocable when it’s no longer treated as a grantor trust under Sections 671 through 678 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Illinois statute would forever tax the income generated by the trust property, regardless of the trust’s continuing connection to Illinois.  One can analogize the Illinois statute to a hypothetical statute providing that any person born in Illinois to resident parents is deemed an Illinois resident and subject to Illinois taxation no matter where that person eventually resides or earns income.  Many lawyers believe that the Illinois statute is unconstitutional.

Linn

Linn involved a trust established in 1961 by A.N. Pritzker, an Illinois resident.  The trust was initially administered under Illinois law by trustees who lived in Illinois.  In 2002, the trustee exercised a power granted in the trust instrument to distribute the trust property to a new trust (the Texas Trust).  Although the Texas Trust generally provided for administration under Texas law, certain provisions of the trust instrument continued to be interpreted under Illinois law.  The Texas Trust was subsequently modified by a Texas court to eliminate all references to Illinois law, and the trustee filed the Texas Trust’s 2006 Illinois tax return as a nonresident.  At that time:

  • No current trust beneficiary resided in Illinois;
  • No trustee or other trust officeholder resided in Illinois;
  • All trust assets were located outside Illinois; and
  • Illinois law wasn’t referred to in the modified trust instrument

The Illinois Department of Revenue (the IDR) asserted that the trust was a resident trust for 2006 and that, as such, the trust pay Illinois income tax on all income.  The trustee countered that the imposition of Illinois tax under these circumstances was unconstitutional as a violation of the due process clause and the commerce clause.  The court held the statute was unconstitutional based on due process grounds (not reaching the commerce clause arguments), and stated that the following are the requirements for a statute to sustain a due process challenge:  (1) a minimum connection must exist between the state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax during the period in issue and (2) the income attributed to the state for tax purposes must be rationally related to values with the taxing state. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 306 (1992).

This was the first case in Illinois on this issue so the court cited cases from other jurisdictions, including Chase Manhattan Bank v. Gavin, 733 A. 2d 782 (Conn. 1999), McCulloch v. Franchise Tax Board, 390 P.2d 412 (Cal. 1964), Blue v. Department of Treasury, 462 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990) and Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Murphy, 242 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963).  Gavin, which upheld the application of the Connecticut income tax on the undistributed income of a lifetime trust created by a Connecticut grantor, was cited at length by the court.  A critical fact in that case was that the beneficiary resided within the state for the year in question and the court assumed that the beneficiary would receive all trust property shortly.  In Linn, the court noted, there were no Illinois beneficiaries.  Relying on Blue and Mercantile, the court found that a grantor’s residence within a state isn’t itself enough to satisfy due process.

The IDR argued that significant connections with Illinois existed, maintaining that the trust owed its existence to Illinois law and listing legal benefits Illinois provides to the trustees and beneficiaries. The IDR cited some cases that involved trusts created by a will (i.e.,testamentary trusts).  The Illinois court disagreed with the testamentary trust cases the IDR relied on, finding that a lifetime trust’s connections with a state are more attenuated than in the case of a testamentary trust.  Further, the court found that the Texas Trust wasn’t created under Illinois law, but rather by a power granted to the trustees under the original trust instrument.  The court proceeded to dismiss the trust’s historical connections to Illinois and focused on contemporaneous connections, finding that “what happened historically with the trust in Illinois courts and under Illinois law has no bearing on the 2006 tax year.”  Linn at ¶30.  For 2006, the court concluded that the trust received the benefits and protections of Texas law, not Illinois law.

Steps to Consider

The IDR did not appeal the Linn decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.  We anticipate that additional cases will test and define the boundaries of the Linn decision.  Of course, Illinois might change its statute. For the time being, however, the Linn decision is binding authority for trustees of trusts that can eliminate all contact with Illinois.

Trustees of resident trusts with limited contacts to Illinois (in particular, those trusts without trustees, assets or non-contingent beneficiaries in Illinois) should consider the following issues.

  • Review state taxation:  The trustee should review connections to Illinois and consider whether actions could be taken to fall within theLinn holding.  Contacts with other states and those states’ rules for taxing trusts should also be reviewed.
  • File Illinois return with no tax due:  Pending guidance from the IDR, the trustee could consider filing an IL Form 1041, referencing theLinn case and reporting no tax due.  For each tax year, a tax return must be filed in order to commence the running of the statute of limitations.  An Illinois appellate court decision that supports the taxpayer’s position will ordinarily provide a basis for the abatement of tax penalties. 86 Ill. Admin Code Section 700.400(e)(8). However, if the facts are not exactly like those in Linn, a penalty cold be imposed on the trustee.  A safer method for trusts when the facts are not the same as in Linn would be to file and pay the Illinois tax in full but then file a claim for refund.  This should eliminate penalties but likely will result in a dispute with the IDR.
  • Amend prior tax returns:  The trustee could consider filing amended tax returns for prior years and claim a refund.  A trustee that has timely filed prior year tax returns may file an amended tax return at any time prior to the third anniversary of the due date of the tax return, including extensions.  For example, the 2010 tax year return may be amended at any time prior to October 15, 2014.

Other Considerations

Given the holding in Linn and uncertainty regarding trust tax law, trusts that offer flexibility and can adapt to changing circumstances may have a distinct advantage.

  • Officeholders:  Carefully consider the residency of trustees and other trust officeholders (such as investment advisers) and provisions regarding the appointment and removal of those officeholders.
  • Decanting provision:  Consider providing the trustee with broad authority to distribute trust property in further trust.
  • Lifetime trusts:  While the legal basis for the continued income taxation of a testamentary trust may also be questionable, testamentary trusts can be avoided by creating lifetime trusts.
  • Situs and administration:  Consider establishing and administering the trust in a state that doesn’t assess an income tax against trust income.
  • Governing law:  Consider including trust provisions that allow the trustee to elect the laws of another state to govern the trust.
  • Discretionary dispositive provisions:  Consider including discretionary rather than mandatory trust distribution provisions, as some states may tax a trust based on the residence of beneficiaries with non-contingent trust interests.
  • Division provisions:  Consider including provisions authorizing a trustee to divide a trust without altering trust dispositive provisions.  This type of provision may allow a trustee to divide a trust into separate trusts and isolate the elements of a trust attracting state taxation.  For example, a trust may simply be divided into two separate trusts, one trust for the benefit of a child and his descendants that live in Illinois and a second trust that might not be subject to Illinois taxation, for a child and his descendants that don’t live in Illinois.
Article By:

James H. Cundiff
L. Timothy Halleron
Of: 
McDermott Will & Emery

 

U.S. Supreme Court Finds Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contribution are Unconstitutional

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

On April 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that aggregate contribution limits, those limits placed on an individual’s overall direct contributions during a two-year election cycle, were unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536 (U.S. April 2, 2014), is the latest case in which the Supreme Court has loosened federal regulation of campaign contributions.

In a fractured decision, Chief Justice John Roberts authored a plurality opinion that struck down the aggregate limit as a “mismatch” between the government’s goal of curbing corruption and its chosen means of imposing an aggregate limit. Although the government has a valid interest in limiting quid pro quo corruption between contributors and elected officials, the Court explained, an aggregate limit imposed across all candidates does not limit the risk of corruption enough to justify the way it significantly limits the right to support candidates in an election. In the face of core First Amendment guarantees, the aggregate limit could not survive because it was not “closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.” Slip opinion at 30 (citation omitted).

The Chief Justice was joined by three of his colleagues: Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say that he would both strike down aggregate limits and overturn key Supreme Court precedent sanctioning a wide array of campaign finance restrictions.

The Dissent

Writing for the four Justices in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that aggregate campaign contribution limits had been previously held to be constitutional and that the reversal of existing precedent will come at a grave cost to the U.S. political system. In his view, the decision of the plurality “undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.” Slip opinion at 30 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Justice Breyer was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Unchanged Rules

Prior to today’s decision in McCutcheon, campaign contributions were subject to two key limitations. The first limit, which remains intact, is the base limit on individual contributions to a single campaign, party committee, or political action committee. That limit remains unchanged, thus there is still a limit of $2,600 that an individual may contribute to a candidate for each election in the two year election cycle. As a result, one may contribute $2,600 for a primary election, $2,600 for a general election, and an additional $2,600 if there is a runoff election. Limits on contributions to other committees may be seen on the below chart.

In addition, the decision has no impact on the operation of a Super PAC, otherwise known as an “independent expenditure-only committee.” Nor does the decision permit corporations to make contributions to federal candidate committees.

New Rule

The limit that was struck down today restricted the overall amount individuals can contribute to election campaigns during a given two-year election cycle. Those aggregate limits were most recently set at $48,600 for federal candidates and $74,600 for other political committees, including national and state party committees, for an overall limit of $123,200 per two-year cycle. As such, prior to this decision a person could give the maximum base contribution of $5,200, for both a primary and a general election, to a maximum of nine federal candidates, whereas now a person can contribute to all federal candidates if she so desires. Similarly, an individual may now contribute to as many PACs as desired, including state and federal committees, such as the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, as long as each contribution is within the base limit currently set at $32,400 for the national party committees.

In viewing the below chart from the Federal Election Commission, the box in the upper right corner, under Special Limits, has been eliminated. All the other listed limits continue to be the federal legal limits.

Kedar Bhatia contributed to this article.

Article By:

Laurence A. Levy
Of:
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP