Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Back to the future: Business activity taxes!

06.21.19

Proposed House bill brings state income tax standards to the digital age

On June 3, 2019, the US House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3063, also known as the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2019, which seeks to modernize tax laws for the sale of personal property, and clarify physical presence standards for state income tax nexus as it applies to services and intangible goods. But before we can catch up on today, we need to go back in time—great Scott!

Fly your DeLorean back 60 years (you’ve got one, right?) and you’ll arrive at the signing of Public Law 86-272: the Interstate Income Act of 1959. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, P.L. 86-272 allows a business to enter a state, or send representatives, for the purposes of soliciting orders for the sale of tangible personal property without being subject to a net income tax.

But now, in 2019, personal property is increasingly intangible—eBooks, computer software, electronic data and research, digital music, movies, and games, and the list goes on. To catch up, H.R. 3063 seeks to expand on 86-272’s protection and adds “all other forms of property, services, and other transactions” to that exemption. It also redefines business activities of independent contractors to include transactions for all forms of property, as well as events and gathering of information.

Under the proposed bill, taxpayers meet the standards for physical presence in a taxing jurisdiction, if they:

  1.  Are an individual physically located in or have employees located in a given state; 
  2. Use the services of an agent to establish or maintain a market in a given state, provided such agent does not perform the same services in the same state for any other person or taxpayer during the taxable year; or
  3. Lease or own tangible personal property or real property in a given state.

The proposed bill excludes a taxpayer from the above criteria who have presence in a state for less than 15 days, or whose presence is established in order to conduct “limited or transient business activity.”

In addition, H.R. 3063 also expands the definition of “net income tax” to include “other business activity taxes”. This would provide protection from tax in states such as Texas, Ohio and others that impose an alternate method of taxing the profits of businesses.

H.R. 3063, a measure that would only apply to state income and business activity tax, is in direct contrast to the recent overturn of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a sales and use tax standard. Quill required a physical presence but was overturned by the decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Since the Wayfair decision, dozens of states have passed legislation to impose their sales tax regime on out of state taxpayers without a physical presence in the state.

If enacted, the changes made via H.R. 3063 would apply to taxable periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020. For more information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3063/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3063%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
 

Topics: tax

Related Professionals

Read this if you are a business with employees working in states other than their primary work location.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many of us to leave our offices to work remotely. For many businesses, that means having employees working from home in another state. As telecommuting become much more prevalent, due to both the pandemic and technological advances, state income tax implications have come to the forefront for businesses that now have a remote workforce and employees that may be working in a state other than their primary work location. 

Bipartisan legislation known as the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act of 2020 (S.3995) was introduced in the US Senate on June 18, 2020 to address the state and local tax implications of a temporary or permanent remote workforce. The legislation addresses both income tax nexus for business owners and employer-employee payroll tax responsibilities for a remote workforce. Here are some highlights:

Business income tax responsibility

The legislation would provide a temporary income tax nexus exception for businesses with remote employees in other states due to COVID-19. The exception would relieve companies from having nexus for a covered period, provided they have no other economic connection to the state in question. The covered period begins the date employees began working remotely and ends on either December 31, 2020 or the date on which the employer allows 90% of its permanent workforce to return to their primary work location, whichever date comes first.

The temporary tax nexus exception is welcome news for many business owners and employers, as a recent survey by Bloomberg indicated that three dozen states would normally consider a remote employee as a nexus trigger. Additional nexus would certainly add further income tax compliance requirements and potentially additional tax liabilities, complications that no businesses need in this already challenging environment.

Employee and employer tax responsibility

The tax implications for telecommuting vary wildly from state to state and most have not addressed how current laws would be adjusted or enforced due to the current environment. For example, New York implements a “convenience of the employer” rule. So if an out-of-state business has an employee working from home in New York, whether or not those wages are subject to New York state income tax depends on the purpose for the telecommuting arrangement. 

New York’s policy is problematic in the current environment. Arguments could be made that the employee is working for home at their convenience, at the employer’s convenience, or due to a government mandate. It is unclear which circumstance would prevail and as of this writing, New York has not addressed how this rule would apply.

If enacted, the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would restrict a state’s authority to tax wage income earned by employees for performing duties in other states. The legislation would create a 90-day threshold for determining nonresident income tax liability for calendar year 2020, enhancing a bill in the House which proposes a 30-day threshold.

The 90-day threshold applies specifically to instances where the employee work arrangement is different due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For future years, the bill would put in place a standardized 30-day bright-line test, making it easier for employees to know when they are liable for non-resident state income taxes and for employers to know which states they need to withhold payroll taxes. 

What do you need to do?

With or without legislation, the year-end income tax filings and information gathering will be very different for tax year 2020. It’s more important than ever for business owners to have proper record keeping on where their employees are working on a day-to-day basis. This information is crucial in determining potential tax exposure and identifying a strategy to mitigate it. The Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would provide needed guidance and restore some sense of tax compliance normalcy.

If you would like more information, or have a question about your specific situation, please contact your BerryDunn tax consultant. We’re here to help.
 

Article
The remote worker during COVID-19: Tax nexus and the new normal

Editor’s note: read this if you are a Maine business owner or officer.

New state law aligns with federal rules for partnership audits

On June 18, 2019, the State of Maine enacted Legislative Document 1819, House Paper 1296, An Act to Harmonize State Income Tax Law and the Centralized Partnership Audit Rules of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Just like it says, LD 1819 harmonizes Maine with updated federal rules for partnership audits by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself. It also establishes new rules for who can—and can’t—represent a partnership in audit proceedings, and what that representative’s powers are.

Classic tunes—The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

Until recently, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) set federal standards for IRS audits of partnerships and those entities treated as partnerships for income tax purposes (LLCs, etc.). Those rules changed, however, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Changes made by the BBA and PATH Act included:

  • Replacing the Tax Matters Partner (TMP) with a Partnership Representative (PR);
  • Generally establishing the partnership, and not individual partners, as liable for any imputed underpayment resulting from an audit, meaning current partners can be held responsible for the tax liabilities of past partners; and
  • Imputing tax on the net audit adjustments at the highest individual or corporate tax rates.

Unlike TEFRA, the BBA and PATH Act granted Partnership Representatives sole authority to act on behalf of a partnership for a given tax year. Individual partners, who previously held limited notification and participation rights, were now bound by their PR’s actions.

Fresh beats—new tax liability laws under LD 1819

LD 1819 echoes key provisions of the BBA and PATH Act by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself and replacing the Tax Matters Partner with a Partnership Representative.

Eligibility requirements for PRs are also less than those for TMPs. PRs need only demonstrate “substantial presence in the US” and don’t need to be a partner in the partnership, e.g., a CFO or other person involved in the business. Additionally, partnerships may have different PRs at the federal and state level, provided they establish reasonable qualifications and procedures for designating someone other than the partnership’s federal-level PR to be its state-level PR.

LD 1819 applies to Maine partnerships for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Any additional tax, penalties, and/or interest arising from audit are due no later than 180 days after the IRS’ final determination date, though some partnerships may be eligible for a 60-day extension. In addition, LD 1819 requires Maine partnerships to file a completed federal adjustments report.

Partnerships should review their partnership agreements in light of these changes to ensure the goals of the partnership and the individual partners are reflected in the case of an audit. 

Remix―Significant changes coming to the Maine Capital Investment Credit 

Passage of LD 1671 on July 2, 2019 will usher in a significant change to the Maine Capital Investment Credit, a popular credit which allows businesses to claim a tax credit for qualifying depreciable assets placed in service in Maine on which federal bonus depreciation is claimed on the taxpayer's federal income tax return. 

Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, the credit is reduced to a rate of 1.2%. This is a significant reduction in the current credit percentages, which are 9% and 7% for corporate and all other taxpayers, respectively. The change intends to provide fairness to companies conducting business in-state over out-of-state counterparts. Taxpayers continue to have the option to waive the credit and claim depreciation recapture in a future year for the portion of accelerated federal bonus depreciation disallowed by Maine in the year the asset is placed in service. 

As a result of this meaningful reduction in the credit, taxpayers who have historically claimed the credit will want to discuss with their tax advisors whether it makes sense to continue claiming the credit for 2020 and beyond.
 

Article
Maine tax law changes: Music to the ears, or not so much?

Read this is you are a business owner or an advisor to business owners.

With continued uncertainty in the business environment stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, now may be a good time to utilize trust, gift, and estate strategies in the transfer of privately held business interests. 

As discussed in our May 26, 2020 blog post 2020 estate strategies in times of uncertainty for privately held business owners, there may be opportunity to free up considerable portions of lifetime gift and estate tax exemption amounts through transfers due to suppressed values of privately held businesses, and the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the 2020 presidential election on tax rates and future exemption and exclusion thresholds. 

An element to consider when building on this opportunity is the ability to transfer non-controlling interests in a business. These interests are potentially subject to discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability. This may further reduce the overall value transferred through a given strategy, potentially offloading a larger percentage of ownership in a business while retaining large portions of the gift and estate lifetime exemption. Let’s focus on the discount for lack of control (DLOC).

Discount for lack of control

In the context of a hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller, the buyer may place a greater value on an ownership interest with the ability to make changes at their discretion, compared to an alternative ownership interest lacking control. Simply put, buyers like to be in control, and they will pay less for the investment if the interest lacks these characteristics. 

When valuing non-controlling business interests there is an inherent discount to full value recognized to reflect the fact that the subject interest does not hold a controlling position. As a result of this discount, the value of a non-controlling interest in a company will differ from the pro-rata value per share of the entire company. DLOCs alone commonly reduce the value of the transferred interest by 5% to 15%.

All else being equal, a non-controlling ownership position is less desirable (valuable) than a controlling position. This is because of the majority owner’s right to control any or all of the following activities: managing the assets or selecting agents for this purpose, controlling major business decisions, asset allocation choices, setting salary levels, admitting new investors, acquiring assets, selling the company, and declaring/paying distributions.
 
Market-based evidence of proxies for DLOCs can be found within the following subscription-based databases (including, but not limited to): 

  • Control premium studies published in the Mergerstat® Review series by FactSet Mergerstat/Business Valuation Resources
  • Closed-end fund data
  • The Partnership Profiles, Inc. Minority Interest Database and Executive Summary Report on Re-Sale Discounts for applicable entity types

In addition to these resources, to fully assess the degree of discount applicable to a subject interest, consider company-specific factors when estimating the DLOC. The degree of control for a subject interest may be impacted by relevant state statutes and the governing documents of the subject company. These factors are analyzed in conjunction with the current operational and financial policies established and implemented in practice by management to establish a comprehensive view on the applicable degree of discount.

Conclusion

Hypothetical business owners are knowledgeable of the facts and circumstances surrounding a business interest. They take a close look at what they are buying before they make an offer. Like most people, they like to be in charge, and are therefore generally not willing to pay the pro-rata value for a minority interest in a business when the interest lacks control. To assess an appropriate discount for lack of control, consider resources such as those referred to above, then ensure the selected discounts are appropriate based on the factors specific to the company and interest being valued. 

Our mission at BerryDunn remains constant in helping each client create, grow, and protect value. If you have questions about your unique situation, or would like more information, please contact the business valuation consulting team.

Article
Discounts for lack of control and marketability in business valuations

Read this if you are a solar developer or investor.

One of the most frequent questions we get from solar project developers is: “Will my investors be able to use the tax credits and the depreciation losses?” The answer, as with many things related to taxes, is “it depends.” One of the biggest hurdles is navigating the passive activity loss rules. While this is a fairly complicated topic, and includes a lot more of “it depends,” we’ll hit some of the major highlights here.

Passive or active?

For tax purposes, activities are grouped as either passive or active activities. Income from these activities are generally treated the same, aggregated as part of the taxpayer’s total taxable income and taxed according to the applicable tax bracket. Losses from these activities are treated very differently, though. Losses from active activities can be used to offset all taxable income, whereas losses from passive activities can only offset passive income. If there is not enough passive income in a given year to fully offset passive losses, the losses become suspended and carried forward. The losses carry forward until either there is passive income to offset or the activity is disposed of (sold or otherwise no longer owned), in which case the suspended losses release in full in that year.

Similarly, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) takes on the attributes of the activity in which it is being generated. So if the solar project is determined to be an active activity for the investor, the ITC would be active and available to offset tax on all sources of income. But if the activity is determined to be passive, the ITC would be limited to use against tax on passive income. For an investor that has not considered this prior to purchasing a stake in a solar project, a limitation on the credit the investor can use could mean a reduction of the expected return on investment, and an unwelcome surprise.

Portfolio income

It is also important to point out here that a third type of income, portfolio income, is a very common type of taxed income comprised of interest, dividends, and gains from investments. This falls into a separate category from the active/passive analysis, which is often misunderstood. A taxpayer with lots of dividend income who thinks it is passive income ends up with a rude awakening as that is actually portfolio income and does not allow for the offset of passive activity losses.

Material participation test

IRS Publication 925 details all of the rules surrounding passive activities and includes a set of seven tests to determine material participation. If the taxpayer satisfies at least one of the material participation tests, the taxpayer’s share of the activity is considered active and not passive. The tests are: 

  1. You participated in the activity for more than 500 hours. 
  2. Your participation was substantially all the participation in the activity of all individuals for the tax year, including the participation of individuals who didn’t own any interest in the activity.
  3. You participated in the activity for more than 100 hours during the tax year, and you participated at least as much as any other individual (including individuals who didn’t own any interest in the activity) for the year.
  4. The activity is a significant participation activity, and you participated in all significant participation activities for more than 500 hours. A significant participation activity is any trade or business activity in which you participated for more than 100 hours during the year and in which you didn’t materially participate under any of the material participation tests, other than this test.
  5. You materially participated in the activity (other than by meeting this fifth test) for any five (whether or not consecutive) of the 10 immediately preceding tax years.
  6. The activity is a personal service activity in which you materially participated for any three (whether or not consecutive) preceding tax years.
  7. Based on all the facts and circumstances, you participated in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during the year.

Tests one through six are pretty cut and dry, but the totality of the circumstances test presented in number seven is very open to interpretation. While this allows you to make an argument in your favor, it also gives the IRS more latitude to disagree with you, making it the riskiest test to rely on.

The IRS defines “participation” as “[i]n general, any work you do in connection with an activity in which you own an interest.” This does not include work that would be considered work only done by an investor – such as reviewing operations, preparing reports for your own use, or monitoring the finances or operations of the activity. The work in consideration must also not be work that is customarily done by the owner of that type of activity, nor your only reason for doing the work being to avoid treatment of the activity as passive.

While a contemporaneous log is not required to prove material participation, it is always a good idea to keep track of the work and hours you are performing on behalf of the activity in order to substantiate material participation. This is typically the first thing the IRS asks for in the event of an audit. 

As you can see from the seven tests, there is also room to switch between active and passive treatment in any applicable year. So it is important that you take the ITC in the year the project goes in service and the ITC is generated. If you are passive in year one and end up with suspended credits and or losses, a subsequent switch to active status would not change the attributes of those suspended items―they would remain passive.

Lastly, and important to note, this determination is made at the individual taxpayer level. Project investors need to work with their tax advisors and legal counsel to understand their personal tax situation before investing in a project. Depending on the individual situation, an active or a passive treatment may be more beneficial, as everyone’s tax situation is different. The most important thing is knowing ahead of time so that planning can be done and expectations can be set. No one likes a tax surprise!

If you have any questions about your specific situation or would like to know more, please contact the team. We’re here to help. 

Article
Passive activity loss limitation rules and solar project investment

Read this if you are an employer.

Note: The tax deferral situation is very fluid, and information may change frequently. Please check back for updates.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service released Notice 2020-65 on August 28th, addressing the following questions highlighted in our earlier payroll tax deferral article.

Does the employer or the employee elect to defer taxes?

Notice 2020-65 provides that Affected Taxpayers are defined for purposes of the Notice as the employer, not employee. Therefore, employers will have to choose whether or not to opt-in and defer taxes. Important to note: while the notice doesn’t specifically state that deferral is optional, the IRS press release implies that it is. 

It is unclear if an employee can elect out of the payroll tax deferral, if their employer elects to defer taxes. Absent guidance, it seems that an employer who elects to defer the payroll tax should apply the payroll tax deferral to all employees and not permit an employee to elect out of the deferral. 

The other question for an employer is whether the payroll software will be able to accommodate the deferral feature as of September 1st. It seems highly unlikely that payroll software will be ready for the September 1st effective date. Employers should reach out to their payroll vendor to determine when the system/software will be ready.

How do bonuses, commissions, or other irregular payroll items impact the $4,000/biweekly compensation limit?

Per the Notice, Applicable Wages include wages as defined in Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 3121(a) (i.e., wages for withholding FICA taxes) or compensation as defined in Code Section 3231(e) (i.e., wages for the Railroad Retirement tax) only if the amount of such wages or compensation paid for a bi-weekly pay period is less than the threshold amount of $4,000, or the equivalent threshold amount with respect to other pay periods. Additionally, the Notice states that the determination of Applicable Wages is made on a "pay-period-by-pay period" basis. Therefore, Applicable Wages would include items such as bonuses and commissions. For example, if a bonus of $2,000 caused an employee’s total Applicable Wages to exceed the $4,000 bi-weekly threshold for the respective pay period to which it relates, deferral would not be required for that pay period. In other words, payroll tax deferral applies to Applicable Wages of $4,000 or less for any bi-weekly pay period (or the equivalent threshold for other pay periods) irrespective of amounts paid in other pay periods.

Based on the guidance, an employer’s payroll system will need to be programmed to automatically monitor the $4,000 bi-weekly threshold and accumulate the tax deferral for each employee.

When and how are amounts deferred due to be paid by the employee?

An employer must withhold and pay the deferred taxes ratably from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021 with respect to any unpaid taxes.

This means that employers who elect to initiate the payroll tax deferral will double the Social Security tax withholding during the first four months of 2021. The President’s memorandum issued on August 8th states that Secretary of the Treasury shall explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate the obligation to pay the taxes deferred pursuant to the implementation of this memorandum. However, only Congress can pass legislation to forgive the uncollected taxes, and has thus far been unwilling to do so.

What happens if an employee who is deferring taxes stops working for the employer? Is the employer responsible for collecting the taxes that were deferred?

This question is not addressed; however, the Notice does provide that an employer may make arrangements to otherwise collect the total taxes from the employee, if other than ratably from wages and compensation.

Employers electing to implement the payroll tax deferral may be assuming unnecessary financial risk related to employees who terminate employment during the period of deferral or during the period of repayment. Prior to initiating the payroll tax deferral, an employer will need to determine (and communicate to employees) how it will collect any unpaid tax deferrals when an employee terminates employment. For example, an employer could decide to withhold the deferred taxes from the employee’s final paycheck, if it can do so legally. Further guidance is necessary so an employer can determine the appropriate way to receive payment from employees who terminate employment.

Notice 2020-65 leaves many questions still unanswered.

Most notably, who is responsible for the taxes if an employer is unable to withhold due to an employee terminating employment? The IRS issued a draft version of a revised Form 941 to take into account the deferred payroll taxes.

Additional guidance will hopefully be forthcoming. Until further guidance is issued and payroll systems are updated, it is difficult for an employer to initiate the payroll tax deferral. 
 
 

Article
Payroll tax deferral update

Read this if you are an employer.

President Trump signed a memorandum on August 8 (hereinafter the “Memorandum”) ordering the Treasury Department to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the Social Security portion of the payroll taxes during the period September 1 through December 31, 2020. 

We have heard from a few employers who have employees asking them when the tax withholding will stop since September 1st is right around the corner. The short answer for employers and employees is the withholding deferral will begin “when Treasury and/or the IRS issues guidance”.

“Defer” and “deferral” are underlined for a reason. Employees must understand that the Memorandum provides for a “deferral” of the Social Security tax. The tax is not eliminated for the period September 1st through December 31st. This means that while an employee may enjoy some additional take-home pay during the period of deferral, the amounts deferred must still be paid to the IRS at some point. Only Congress can eliminate the payroll tax.

This is what we know so far:

  • The deferral only applies to the employee’s share of the Social Security taxes. It does not apply to the employee’s share of the Medicare taxes.
  • The deferral is only available to an employee with biweekly income of $4,000 or less, which translates to annual income of $104,000. 
  • Amounts deferred pursuant to the Memorandum shall be deferred without any penalties or interest.
  • For example, an employee earning $40,000 annually could potentially defer approximately $825 in payroll taxes and would need to pay that amount at a future date.

There are many open questions for both employees and employers to consider. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to move forward with the tax deferral guidance outlined in the memorandum. 

So, what are the operations questions that employers and employees need answers to before any deferrals can begin? Here are some that come to mind:

  • Does the employer or the employee elect to defer taxes?
  • If it is an employee election, how is that election made?
  • How do bonuses, commissions, or other irregular payroll items impact the $4,000/biweekly compensation limit?
  • When and how are amounts deferred due to be paid by the employee?
  • Are the amounts deferred repaid in a lump sum or in installments?
  • How does an employer report the deferred taxes to the IRS?
  • What happens if an employee who is deferring taxes stops working for the employer? Is the employer responsible for collecting the taxes that were deferred?
  • How quickly can payroll systems be set up to accommodate the payroll deferral?

At the moment, all employees and employers can do is wait for the relevant guidance. Hopefully, guidance is issued soon but it is unlikely any employees can begin the tax deferral on September 1st. 

As soon as guidance is issued, we will be sure to communicate the requirements and timing.

Article
To withhold or not to withhold payroll taxes―The dilemma facing employers

Read this if you are a Maine business or organization that has been affected by COVID-19. 

The State of Maine has released a $200 million Maine Economic Recovery Grant Program for companies and organizations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a brief outline of the program from the state, and a list of eligibility requirements. 

“The State of Maine plans to use CARES Act relief funding to help our economy recover from the impacts of the global pandemic by supporting Maine-based businesses and non-profit organizations through an Economic Recovery Grant Program. The funding originates from the federal Coronavirus Relief Fund and will be awarded in the form of grants to directly alleviate the disruption of operations suffered by Maine’s small businesses and non-profits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Maine Department of Economic & Community Development has been working closely with affected Maine organizations since the beginning of this crisis and has gathered feedback from all sectors on the current challenges.”

Eligibility requirements for the program from the state

To qualify for a Maine Economic Recovery Grant your business/organization must: 

  • Demonstrate a need for financial relief based on lost revenues minus expenses incurred since March 1, 2020 due to COVID-19 impacts or related public health response; 
  • Employ a combined total of 50 or fewer employees and contract employees;
  • Have significant operations in Maine (business/organization headquartered in Maine or have a minimum of 50% of employees and contract employees based in Maine); 
  • Have been in operation for at least one year before August 1, 2020; 
  • Be in good standing with the Maine Department of Labor; 
  • Be current and in good standing with all Maine state payroll taxes, sales taxes, and state income taxes (as applicable) through July 31, 2020;
  • Not be in bankruptcy; 
  • Not have permanently ceased all operations; 
  • Be in consistent compliance and not be under any current or past enforcement action with COVID-19 Prevention Checklist Requirements; and 
  • Be a for-profit business or non-profit organization, except
    • Professional services 
    • 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6) organizations that lobby 
    • K-12 schools, including charter, public and private
    • Municipalities, municipal subdivisions, and other government agencies 
    • Assisted living and retirement communities 
    • Nursing homes
    • Foundations and charitable trusts 
    • Trade associations 
    • Credit unions
    • Insurance trusts
    • Scholarship funds and programs 
    • Gambling 
    • Adult entertainment 
    • Country clubs, golf clubs, other private clubs 
    • Cemetery trusts and associations 
    • Fraternal orders 
    • Hospitals, nursing facilities, institutions of higher education, and child care organizations (Alternate funding available through the Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services for hospitals, nursing facilities, child care organizations, and institutions of higher education.)

For more information

If you feel you qualify, you can find more details and the application here. If you have questions about your eligibility, please contact us. We’re here to help. 

Article
$200 Million Maine Economic Recovery Grant Program released

Read this if you are an engineering or architecture firm working with government agencies reimbursing overhead established in an overhead rate schedule based on direct labor.

It seems everyone is both anxious to gain forgiveness of their PPP loans and worried about the ramifications of requesting and being granted forgiveness. There is so much you need to consider to understand the potential impact forgiveness may have on your future cash flow and revenues. Let’s focus, though, on your overhead rate.

Some things to consider:

  • PPP loan forgiveness may significantly reduce your overhead rate. As a result, future contracts and related revenues from federal, state, or local government agencies will be impacted. 

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.201-5 dictates that the applicable portion of any income, rebate, allowance, or other credit relating to any allowable cost and received by the contractor shall be credited to the government. If the credit will be used to reduce the indirect labor costs and rent, some of the largest costs of A/E firms, the overhead rate might be reduced by as much as 25% to 30%. 
  • Guidance on the timing of credit offset is still unclear.

    Do you offset 2020 expenses for forgiveness not settled until 2021 to better match cash flows and credit expenses relevant to forgiveness? Or reflect the forgiveness in the Schedule during the period forgiveness was formally received?
  • The IRS is currently communicating that the costs incurred to gain PPP loan forgiveness will not be deductible expenses, thus increasing 2020 taxable income.

    If your company is in a taxable position, federal income taxes will increase as a result and impact cash flows. And remember, federal income taxes are unallowable costs in overhead rate schedules under FAR Part 31.201-41.

Depending on the concentration of your contracts with federal agencies, the significance of overhead rate reimbursement on contract revenues and expectations for growth, it may actually be more beneficial to pay the loan back instead of asking for forgiveness.

The Department of Defense (DOD) weighs in:

Often the first agency to establish policy or make changes, the DOD has issued guidance in the form of answers to FAQs about CARES Act impacts on DOD pricing and contracting. Q23 specifically addresses the issue of PPP loan forgiveness. It states, “to the extent that PPP credits are allocable to costs allowable under contract, the Government should receive a credit or a reduction in billing for any PPP loans or loan payments that are forgiven.” You can read that and other CARES Act credit guidance here. Even if you don’t directly work with DoD, other federal agencies and state DOT’s generally adopt DoD’s guidance. 

What if we apply forgiveness credit against direct labor? 

You might wonder, why not just apply the credit against direct and indirect labor in proportion to the actual payroll paid during the PPP loan covered period? If this was possible, the overhead rate might actually increase. Unfortunately, billing the government for direct labor costs offset on the overhead rate schedule with the credit of PPP loan forgiveness would violate FAR Part 31 cost principles. Since you can’t bill for credited costs, revenues for contracts with government agencies would be further reduced. 

We advise a wait and see approach.

The best action plan to do right now is to wait for better and clearer guidance. Industry associations such as ACEC are advocating for more favorable PPP loan forgiveness treatment. Furthermore, there are still quite a few unanswered questions by the SBA. 

If you have any questions related to your overhead rate and the impact of PPP loan forgiveness on your revenue from contracts with government agencies, please contact us. We’re here to help. 


 

Article
PPP loan forgiveness will likely impact your overhead rate!