NJ - ACH credit banking information update New Jersey has issued notices to certain taxpayers regarding ACH (Automated Clearing House) banking information used for tax and employer payments. The New Jersey Division of Revenue and Enterprise Se...
PA - Philadelphia amends cell tower U&O tax Philadelphia has approved a budget that includes changes to the Use & Occupancy (U&O) Tax calculation for properties with cell towers. The new calculation method is intended to ensure that cel...
In light of a recent Tax Court ruling, we are currently reviewing the files of our clients who are S corporation officers. It is possible that the decisions of the Tax Court may affect your corporation in the future.
In light of a recent Tax Court ruling, we are currently reviewing the files of our clients who are S corporation officers. It is possible that the decisions of the Tax Court may affect your corporation in the future. In their ruling, the Tax Court held that the sole shareholder and president of an S corporation performed duties similar to those an employee would perform and, therefore, had the status of employee for employment tax purposes. The IRS held the taxpayer liable for FICA and FUTA taxes that it failed to pay because of misclassification of the officer as an independent contractor.
Shareholder distributions versus salary payments may raise similar issues. For federal employment tax purposes, a corporate officer is considered an employee, unless the officer performs no services or only minor services to the corporation and neither receives nor is entitled to payment for these services. The form of payment is immaterial, the only relevant factor being whether the payments were actually received as compensation for employment. Distributions to shareholders may be reclassified as wages subject to FICA and FUTA taxes where compensation appears to be insufficient. Determining the range of reasonableness of compensation for your business where shareholder compensation should fall within that range depends upon many variables. With proper planning, we hope that you and your business can avoid similar scrutiny.
Please contact our office to review and discuss your corporation’s compensation structure.
The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.
The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.
As part of the development, the committee held a June 9, 2026,hearingto solicit commentary from industry on the bills, during which committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) called the “digital asset status quo is untenable. America needs clear tax rules of the road to remain the crypto capital of the world.”
Smith stated that cryptocurrency has “a market capitalization of over $2 trillion. That’s a massive industry by any measure, and nearly all other industries of a similar size enjoy clear tax policies.”
Chairman Smith noted that more and more people own cryptocurrency and “nearly a quarter of cryptocurrency holders earn less than $75,000 and the average crypto holder is nearly as likely to work in construction, manufacturing, or food service as tech or finance.”
The bills and discussion draft include:
The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9172)
The Charitable Deductions for Digital Donations Act (H.R. 9173)
The Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act (H.R. 9174)
The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act (H.R. 9175)
The Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9176)
The Less Tax Paperwork for Digital Asset Owners Act (H.R. 9178)
The proposed legislation address “three key gaps in the current tax regime that make it harder for Americans to fully participate in the digital asset ecosystem,”
First, he said, “common digital transactions like mining and staking do not fit clearly into existing tax law. In other places, the tax code is silent as to the treatment of digital assets. The ambiguity creates an opening for taxpayers to exploit the law and avoid paying taxes in some circumstances and creates unfair tax burdens on others.
Second, Smith stated that “digital assets do not receive the tax benefit nor the protection from anti-abuse rules long granted to traditional financial assets. The imbalance between digital assets and traditional financial assets creates a two-tier system that unintentionally favor certain assets over others.”
Third, “crypto owners face burdensome tax compliance that makes using digital assets in ordinary commerce almost impossible.” Smith noted that “31 percent of crypto owners would like to buy a cup of coffee at the local shop, yet each $5 cup of coffee bought with a digital asset generates two new pieces of tax paperwork,” which adds a significant burden to both the IRS and the taxpayer.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (R-Mass.) had mixed reviews on the bills. He described his initial observation as some of the bills being “quite sensible, providing clear rules of the road for taxpayers looking to comply with the law. Other provisions sought the common sense goal of alleviating burdensome paperwork requirements, especially in situations where it’s highly unlikely that there would be any tax associated with those transactions, and indeed there are provisions that would close loopholes that are specific to the digital asset industry.”
However, Neal also noted that “it appears there are some provisions that deviate substantially from general tax principles, providing a distinct advantage that are beyond some other investments. We want to be careful about putting a thumb on the scale, and as we all know, it’s much easier to put something into the tax code than it is to take it out.”
Lawrence Zlatkin, Coinbase vice president of tax, testified during the hearing that the bills “represent the most comprehensive effort to modernize digital asset taxation that we have seen to date. Most importantly, this legislation recognized a fundamental reality: market structure and tax policy go hand-in-hand.”
In particular, Zlatkin highlighted H.R. 9178, which he testified “is an important step forward towards making stablecoin payments practical while reducing unnecessary reporting noise,” as well as H.R. 9173, which “provides long-needed clarity for mining and staking rewards, helping ensure taxpayers are not forced into tax obligations before they’ve generated liquidity though an actual sale.”
Mike Kaercher, deputy director of the Tax Law Center at New York University, cautioned that as the bills move through the process, “I encourage policymakers to consider three tax policy principles most closely: parity, administrability, and guardrails to prevent abuse. Some of the provisions in these bills would make improvements consistent with these principles.”
Among those, Kaercher testified that for example, “one of the bills would extend anti-abuse regimes, like wash sale rules and constructive sale rules, to digital assets. That’s a good idea. Another example is the de minimis provision on qualifying stablecoins – a targeted approach with guardrails can reduce paperwork and compliance burdens without creating substantial hidden tax subsidies for digital assets, but the rule should remain targeted because a broader de minimis provision risks abuse and would favor investments in digital assets over those in traditional finance.”
On the provision of deferring tax on mining and staking rewards, Kaercher testified that deferral “isn’t just the distortive subsidy, it could also undermine administrability. Deferral increases complexity for taxpayers and makes it harder for the IRS to do its job.”
He also warned about the possibility of government bailouts if guardrails and policy are not correctly developed.
“I think one thing for policymakers to consider on this is that if digital assets become a larger part of retirement accounts and the assets remain highly volatile, or in a worst-case scenario, crash, that would have an enormous impact on households’ retirement savings, and if that were to happen, I think policymakers would have to think about whether to respond with something like a bailout.”
The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.
The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.
The final rules require plans and issuers to use claim adjustment reason codes (CARCs) and remittance advice remark codes (RARCs), as specified in guidance, when providing any paper or electronic remittance advice to an entity that does not have a contractual relationship with the plan or issuer. These disclosures must be included along with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment for certain items and services subject to the surprise billing protections in the No Surprises Act.
The regulations also make several procedural updates to the federal IDR process. These include refinements to the open negotiation period, the formal initiation of the IDR process, and the dispute eligibility review procedures. Further, the rules address the payment and collection of administrative fees as well as certified IDR entity fees.
The agencies also finalized the definition of bundled payment arrangements, amended requirements related to batched items and services, and amended the rules for extensions of timeframes due to extenuating circumstances. Additionally, the regulation finalizes provisions that require plans and issuers to register in the federal IDR portal.
The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.
The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.
The inflation adjustment factor for qualified energy resources is 2.0570. The reference price for facilities producing electricity from wind is 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour. The reference prices for facilities producing electricity from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy have not been determined for calendar year 2026.
Phaseout Limits
For electricity sold during the calendar year 2026, the renewable electricity production credit is not subject to a phaseout underCode Sec. 45(b)(1)for electricity produced from wind. This is because the 2026 reference price for electricity produced from wind, 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour, does not exceed 8 cents multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor (2.0570). The phase-out of the credit also does not apply to electricity sold in 2026 and produced from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
Credit Amount Adjustments
The credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 underCode Sec. 45(a)is 3.1 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced from the qualified energy resources of wind, closed-loop biomass and geothermal energy. The credit is 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced in open-loop biomass facilities, landfill gas facilities, trash facilities, qualified hydropower facilities and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities.
The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisionsin:
Code Sec. 45production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
— the resource-neutralCode Sec. 45Yclean electricity production credit that largely replaces theCode Sec. 45credit for property placed in service after 2024;
— theCode Sec. 48business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
— the resource-neutralCode Sec. 48Eclean energy investment credit that largely replaces theCode Sec. 48credit for property placed in service after 2024.
The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisions in:
— theCode Sec. 45production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
— the resource-neutralCode Sec. 45Yclean electricity production credit that largely replaces theCode Sec. 45credit for property placed in service after 2024;
— theCode Sec. 48business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
— the resource-neutralCode Sec. 48Eclean energy investment credit that largely replaces theCode Sec. 48credit for property placed in service after 2024.
Annual Statistical Area Category and Coal Closure Category Update
Notice 2026-39publishes information taxpayers may use to determine whether they meet certain requirements under the Statistical Area Category or the Coal Closure Category for purposes of qualifying for energy community bonus credit amounts or rates.
(1) Appendix 1 lists counties and county-equivalents that qualify as energy communities because they meet the Fossil Fuel Employment threshold and the unemployment rate requirement for calendar year 2025.
(2) Appendix 2 lists newly identified census tracts with either a coal mine closure or a coal-fired electric generating unit retirement, and census tracts directly adjoining those tracts.
(3) Appendix 3 lists census tracts that newly qualify as coal closure census tracts because of location-data corrections issued since the publication ofNotice 2025-31.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations underCode Sec. 4960expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Before the legislative change, a covered employee generally was one of an ATEO’s five highest-compensated employees for the tax year at issue or an individual who previously held that status. The amended law broadens the definition to include any employee of an ATEO and certain former employees for taxable years beginning after 2025. However, individuals who were not covered employees under the pre-2026 rules will not become covered employees solely because they worked for an ATEO before 2026.
The forthcoming regulations are expected to eliminate references to the five highest-compensated employees standard and make conforming changes. The agencies intend to retain exceptions similar to the current limited-hours and non-exempt funds exceptions, but discontinue the limited-services exception because its rationale no longer applies. Until proposed regulations are issued, ATEOs may rely onNotice 2026-36. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments on the proposed rules by August 4, 2026.
The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.
The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.
“Fiscal Year 2025 was a pivotal year, as we began the process of implementing tax relief for hardworking Americans enacted as part of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTC),” said IRS CEO Frank J. Bisignano. “The numbers in the Data Book tell the story of an organization that serves as a key partner in the administration’s mission,” he added. The CEO also highlighted efforts to transform the IRS into a digital-first agency. These efforts would reduce paper processing through the “zero paper” initiative.
During the 2026 filing season, around 45 percent of individual tax returns claimed one or more of the new tax benefits from the WFTC. The average refund on a return claiming one of these deductions was over $3,200, as of May 27.
Further, online tools, including the IRS Online Account were upgraded to expand access and add new features. Expanded technology and advanced analytics would allow the Service to identify high-risk areas of non-compliance and tax fraud. Finally, more information can be foundhere.
The IRS announced the release of a new calculator to determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.
The IRS announced the release of a newcalculatorto determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.
“The IRS is focused on improving and enhancing how we serve taxpayers,” said IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano. “We are transforming the IRS into a digital-first agency that provides the best possible experience for taxpayers, and tools like this calculator are an important step in that effort,” he added.
The look-back interest is determined using a three-step process:
Hypothetically reallocating income to prior tax year based on actual revenues and costs;
Computing hypothetical tax overpayments or underpayments of tax; and
Calculating interest on tax underpayments or overpayments.
Taxpayers and tax practitioners may submit feedback about the calculator, by emailingStakeholder Liaisonand including "Look-Back Interest Workbook Feedback" in the subject line. More information can be foundhere.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.
June 4 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 28-30.
June 6 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 31-June 3.
June 10 Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during May must report them to their employer using Form 4070.
June 11 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 4-6.
June 13 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 7-10.
June 16 Individuals. Individuals, partnerships, passthrough entities and corporations make the second installment of 2014 estimated quarterly tax payments.
Individuals. U.S. citizens or resident aliens living and working (or on military duty) outside the United States and Puerto Rico must file Form 1040 and pay any tax, interest, and penalties due.
June 18 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 11-13.
June 20 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 14-17.
June 25 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 18-20.
June 27 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 21-24.
June 30 Foreign Assets. FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) (formerly Form TD F 90-22.1) due. FinCEN Notice 2013-1 extended the due date for filing FBARs by certain individuals with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, foreign financial accounts of their employer or a closely related entity, to June 30, 2015.
July 2 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 25-27.
July 7 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 28-30.
Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.
Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.
The government has found that most employees want at least a partial lump sum payment at retirement, so that some cash is currently available for living expenses. However, under current rules, most employer plans do not offer a partial lump sum coupled with a partial annuity. Employees often are faced with an “all or nothing” decision, where they would have to take their entire retirement benefit either as a lump sum payment when they retire, or as an annuity that does not make available any immediate lump-sum cash cushion. For retirees who live longer, it becomes difficult to stretch their lump sum benefits.
Longevity solution
To address this dilemma, the government is proposing new retirement plan rules to allow plans to make available a partial lump sum payment while allowing participants to take an annuity with the other portion of their benefits. Furthermore, to address the problem of employees outliving their benefits, the government would also encourage plans to offer “longevity” annuities. These annuities would not begin paying benefits until ages 80 or 85. They would provide you a larger annual payment for the same funds than would an annuity starting at age 70 ½. Of course, one reason for the better buy-in price is that you or your heirs would receive nothing if you die before the age 80 or 85 starting date. But many experts believe that it is worth the cost to have the security of knowing that this will help prevent you from “outliving your money.”
To streamline the calculation of partial annuities, the government would allow employees receiving lump-sum payouts from their 401(k) plans to transfer assets into the employer’s existing defined benefit (DB) plan and to purchase an annuity through the DB plan. This would give employees access to the DB plans low-cost annuity purchase rates.
According to the government, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are a deterrent to longevity annuities. Because of the minimum distribution rules, plan benefits that could otherwise be deferred until ages 80 or 85 have to start being distributed to a retired employee at age 70 ½. These rules can affect distributions from 401(k) plans, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts under Code Sec. 408, and eligible governmental deferred compensation plans under Code Sec. 457.
Tentative limitations
The IRS proposes to modify the RMD rules to allow a portion of a participant’s retirement account to be set aside to fund the purchase of a deferred annuity. Participants would be able to exclude the value of this qualified longevity annuity contract (QLAC) from the account balance used to calculate RMDs. Under this approach, up to 25 percent of the account balance could be excluded. The amount is limited to 25 percent to deter the use of longevity annuities as an estate planning device to pass on assets to descendants.
Coming soon
Many of these changes are in proposed regulations and would not take effect until the government issues final regulations. The changes would apply to distributions with annuity starting dates in plan years beginning after final regulations are published, which could be before the end of 2012. Our office will continue to monitor the progress of this important development.
A consequence of the economic downturn for many investors has been significant losses on their investments in retirement accounts, including traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs). This article discusses when and how taxpayers can deduct losses suffered in Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs ...and when no deduction will be allowed.
A consequence of the economic downturn for many investors has been significant losses on their investments in retirement accounts, including traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs). This article discusses when and how taxpayers can deduct losses suffered in Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs ...and when no deduction will be allowed.
Traditional IRAs
Losses on investments held in a traditional IRA, funded only by contributions that you deducted when you made them, are never deductible. Even when you cash out the IRA after retirement, losses cannot be deducted. The theory behind this rule is that you already received a tax benefit in your deduction for making contributions and any loss lowers the amount of taxable income you must realize when you make retirement withdrawals. The technical explanation is that you are presumed to have a zero basis in your account.
On the other hand, if you make nondeductible traditional IRA contributions, and liquidate all of the investments in your traditional IRA, a loss can be recognized if the amounts distributed are less than the remaining unrecovered basis in the traditional IRA. You claim a loss in a traditional IRA on Schedule A, Form 1040, as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent AGI floor.
Example. During 2008, you made $2,000 in nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA. Your basis in the IRA at the end of 2008 is $2,000. During 2008, the IRA earned $400 in dividend income and you withdrew $600 from the account. As a result, at the end of 2008 the value of your IRA was $1,800 ($2,000 contributed plus $400 dividends minus $600 withdrawal). You compute and report the taxable portion of your $600 withdrawal and your remaining basis on Form 8606, Nondeductible IRA.
In 2009, the year you retired, your IRA lost $500 in value. At the end of 2009, your IRA balance was $1,300 ($1,800 balance at the end of 2008 minus the $500 loss). Your remaining basis at that time in your IRA is $1,500 ($2,000 nondeductible contributions minus the $500 basis in the prior withdrawal). You withdraw the $1,300 balance remaining in the IRA. You can claim a loss of $200 (your $1,500 basis minus the $1,300 withdrawn) on Form 1040, Schedule A. The allowable loss is further subject to the two percent adjusted gross income (AGI) floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions.
If you made significant nondeductible contributions to an IRA over the last few years, and may be considering withdrawing the entire balance in all of your traditional IRAs before the end of the year in order to recognize a loss, keep in mind doing so will mean losing the opportunity to defer gain if the value of your investments in the accounts increases. Those withdrawn amounts cannot be recontributed at a later date.
Roth IRA losses
When you experience losses on Roth IRA investments, you can only recognize the loss for income tax purposes, if and when all the amounts in the Roth IRA accounts have been distributed and the total distributions are less than your basis (e.g. regular and conversion contributions).
To report a loss in a Roth IRA, all the investments held in your Roth IRA (but not traditional IRAs) must be liquidated. Moreover, the loss is an ordinary loss for income tax purposes, not a capital loss, and can only be claimed as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent of AGI floor that applies to miscellaneous itemized deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A.
Since all Roth IRAs must be completely liquidated to generate a loss deduction, it generally provides only a small comfort to investments gone sour. Closing all your Roth IRAs generally forgoes future appreciation on that amount.
If you are considering liquidating your Roth IRA or traditional IRA to take the loss, please contact our office and we can discuss the tax and financial consequences before finalizing any plans.
In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.
In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.
Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.
Why IRS Is Interested
A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.
Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.
Factors Examined
The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:
The salary history of the individual employee
Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
The salary history of other employees of the company
Special employee expertise or efforts
Year-end payments
Independent inactive investor analysis
Deferred compensation plan contributions
Independence of the board of directors
Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.
Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.
Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)
The S Corp Enigma
The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.
Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.
Conclusions
Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.
Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.
