Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

IRS releases Form 7200: Advance payment of employer credits due to
COVID-
19

04.02.20

Read this if your company would like to request an advance payment of the tax credits.

In response to the paid sick and family medical leave credit provisions enacted by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the employee retention credit enacted by the CARES Act, the IRS has issued Form 7200 to request an advance payment of the tax credits.

Who may file Form 7200?

Employers that file Form(s) 941, 943, 944, or CT-1 may file Form 7200 to request an advance payment of the tax credit for qualified sick and family leave wages and the employee retention credit.

Eligible employers who pay qualified sick and family leave wages or qualified wages eligible for the employee retention credit should retain the amounts qualified for either credit rather than depositing these amounts with the IRS.

With respect to the sick and family leave payments, the credit includes amounts paid for qualified sick and family leave wages, related health plan expenses, and the employer’s share of the Medicare taxes on the qualified wages.

With respect to the employee retention credit, the credit equals 50% of the qualified wages, including certain health plan expense allocable to the wages, and may not exceed $5,000 per qualifying employee. Of note:

  • Employment taxes available for the credits include withheld federal income tax, the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes with respect to all employees.
  • If there aren’t sufficient employment taxes to cover the cost of qualified sick and family leave wages (plus the qualified health expenses and the employer share of Medicare tax on the qualified leave wages) and the employee retention credit, employers can file Form 7200 to request an advance payment from the IRS.
  • The IRS instructs employers not to reduce their deposits and request advance credit payments for the same expected credit. Rather, an employer will need to reconcile any advance credit payments and reduced deposits on its applicable employment tax return.

Examples

If an employer is entitled to a credit of $5,000 for qualified sick leave, certain related health plan expenses, and the employer’s share of Medicare tax on the leave wages and is otherwise required to deposit $8,000 in employment taxes, the employer could reduce its federal employment tax deposits by $5,000. The employer would only be required to deposit the remaining $3,000 on its next regular deposit date.

If an employer is entitled to an employee retention credit of $10,000 and was required to deposit $8,000 in employment taxes, the employer could retain the entire $8,000 of taxes as a portion of the refundable tax credit it is entitled to and file a request for an advance payment for the remaining $2,000 using Form 7200.

When to file

Form 7200 can be filed at any time before the end of the month following the quarter in which qualified wages were paid, and may be filed several times during each quarter, if needed. The form cannot be filed after an employer has filed its last employment tax return for 2020.

Please note that Form 7200 cannot be corrected. Any error made on Form 7200 will be corrected when the employer files its employment tax form.

How to file

Fax Form 7200, which you can access here, to 855-248-0552. Form 7200 instructions.

If you need more information, or have any questions, please contact a BerryDunn tax professional. We’re here to help.

Related Professionals

  • William Enck
    Principal
    Financial Services, Insurance Agencies
    P 207.541.2300
  • David Erb
    Principal
    Manufacturing, Technology
    P 207.541.2255

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 a bank.

On October 20, 2020, the FDIC Board of Directors voted to issue an interim final rule (the Rule) to provide temporary relief from the Part 363 Audit and Reporting requirements. Banks have experienced increases to their consolidated total assets as a result of large cash inflows resulting from participation in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the effects of other government stimulus efforts. 

Since these inflows may be temporary, but are significant and unpredictable, the Rule allows banks to determine the applicability of Part 363 of the FDIC’s regulations, Annual Independent Audits and Reporting Requirements, for fiscal years ending in 2021 based on the lesser of the bank’s:

  1. consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2019, or
  2. consolidated total assets as of the beginning of its fiscal year ending in 2021.

This Rule provides relief to banks that were going to meet the $1 billion FDICIA internal control audit requirement, or the $500 million management report and independence requirements, for 2021 due to asset growth from PPP loan activity and deposit liquidity. 

Note, a bank may be required to comply with one or more requirements of Part 363 if the FDIC determines that asset growth was related to a merger or acquisition. 

Planning tip

Despite the temporary relief, based on pre-COVID total assets and organic growth, banks could meet the requirements in 2022. Therefore, we recommend banks continue preparing internal control over financial reporting documentation and conduct preliminary testing to ensure a comfortable project timeline and smooth implementation. 

If any questions arise, please contact the BerryDunn FDICIA compliance team. We're here to help.
 

Article
FDIC grants some banks temporary regulatory relief of Part 363 Audit and Reporting requirements

Read this if you are a renewable energy producer, investor, or installer.

As Election Day approaches, much if not all of the nation’s attention is focused on the global COVID-19 pandemic, the millions of people it has affected, and its effect on the global economy. What haven’t been prominent in presidential election news are the different policy approaches of the two candidates. In the renewable energy sector, the differences are stark. Here is a brief look at those differences and tax approaches of the candidates.

General tax information: Trump 

Traditionally at this time in an election year we’re presented with tax plans from both candidates. While these are campaign promises and may not fully come to fruition after the election, they can shed light on what each candidate plans to prioritize if elected. As the incumbent candidate in this election, Donald Trump has not provided much detail on his tax plans for the next four years, as noted by the Tax Foundation’s Erica York:

“While light on detail, the agenda includes a few tax policy items like expanding existing tax breaks, creating credits for specific industries and activities, and unspecified tax cuts for individuals. The president has also expressed support for other policy changes related to capital gains and middle-class tax cuts. Of note, none of the campaign documents so far have detailed a plan for the expiring provisions under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).”

The president’s main priorities have been growing the economy and creating jobs, both of which have taken a massive hit in 2020 due to the pandemic. President Trump has had little else to say on his plans for a second term other than extending the sunset of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 to 2025, or the end of this coming term. One of the items that could be considered is an expansion of the Opportunity Zone program, providing a tax deferral for investment in specified economically distressed areas.

Another item is how Net Operating Losses (see our prior blog post on this topic) will be treated and whether or not the TCJA or the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act rules will be the ones used in the future. With the recent New York Times article detailing the president’s tax filings and showing how he took advantage of the NOL rules, it’s still a guess as to how that could impact the tax policy around NOLs going forward.  

Trump energy plan: fossil fuels first

In the energy sector, Trump’s focus has been on bolstering the oil and gas industry, while also trying to revive the flagging coal industry, and it appears his focus will continue in that vein. His proposed budget continues to provide tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, while planning to repeal renewable energy tax credits. Prior to his election in 2016, the renewable energy sector was somewhat hopeful that the benefits of increased jobs provided by the industry would be appealing to the President. This hasn’t played out over the last four years and with current energy credits scheduled to phase out and unprecedented unemployment, the jobs being provided by this sector may be part of the formula to help sway the administration to extending or expanding these programs.

General tax information: Biden 

Biden, as the challenger, has a much more detailed tax plan laid out. As expected, it is very different from the direction the Trump presidency has taken regarding taxes. A brief summary of his plan:

Raise taxes on individuals with income above $400,000, including:

  • Raising the top individual income tax bracket from 37% back to 39.6%
  • Removing the preferential treatment of long-term capital gains for taxpayers with income over $1 million
  • Creating additional phase outs of itemized and other deductions 
  • Instituting additional payroll taxes related to funding social security
  • Expanding the Child Tax Credit up to $8,000 for two or more children

Biden’s plan would also raise taxes on corporations:

  • Raising the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28% 
  • Imposing a corporate minimum tax on corporations with book profits of $100 million or higher.

According to the Tax Foundation’s analysis of Biden’s tax plan:  

“[Expectations are that it] would raise tax revenue by $3.05 trillion over the next decade on a conventional basis. When accounting for macroeconomic feedback effects, the plan would collect about $2.65 trillion the next decade. This is lower than we originally estimated due to the revenue effects of the coronavirus pandemic and economic downturn.”…“On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.

Taxpayers earning more than $400,000 a year, and investors who have enjoyed preferential treatment and lower tax rates on capital gains will certainly pause at this proposal. While Trump’s tax policy has been to lower taxes in these areas to spur investment in the economy, Biden’s plan shows the need to generate tax revenue in order to cover the massive amounts spent during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Biden energy plan: renewables first

Joe Biden’s energy policy is focused on climate change and renewable energy. In addition to ending tax subsidies for fossil fuels, his platform proposes investing $2 trillion over four years for clean energy across sectors, recommit to the Paris agreement, and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035.

Other Biden initiatives include:

  • Improving energy efficiency of four million existing buildings
  • Building one and a half million energy-efficient homes and public housing
  • Expanding several renewable-energy-related tax credits
  • Installing 500 million solar panels within five years 
  • Restoring the Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Electric Vehicle Tax Credit

Indeed, over the past decade the Democratic Party has been a proponent of investment in and expansion of renewable energy technologies. While increased taxes will certainly cause many business owners and investors to pause, and any changes will need to be passed by Congress, it is encouraging to the renewable energy sector that Biden’s policy platform states goals related to increasing renewable energy in the United States.

As one might expect during this era of the two main political parties being so far apart from each other on policy, the proposed tax plans of both candidates also stand in fairly stark contrast, as does their approach to the United States’ energy sources in the coming decade. There are benefits and consequences to both plans, which will have an impact beyond the 2020 election.  
 

Article
The presidential election: two different approaches to energy

Read this if you administer a 401(k) plan.

On December 20, 2019, the Setting Every Community up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act was signed into law. The SECURE Act makes several changes to 401(k) plan requirements. Among those changes is a change to the permissible minimum service requirements.  
 
Many 401(k) retirement plan sponsors have elected to set up minimum service requirements for their plan. Such requirements help eliminate administrative burden of offering participation to part-time employees who may then participate in the plan for a short period of time and then keep their balance within the plan. Although plan sponsors do have the ability to process force-out distributions for smaller account balances, a minimum service requirement, such as one year of service, can help eliminate this situation altogether.  

Long-term part-time employees now eligible

The SECURE Act will now require that long-term part-time employees be offered participation in 401(k) plans if they are over the age of 21. The idea behind the requirement is that 401(k) plans are responsible for an increasingly larger amount of employees’ retirement income. Therefore, it is essential that part-time employees, some of which may not have a full-time job, have the ability to save for retirement.  
 
Long-term is defined as any employee who works three consecutive years with 500 or more hours worked each year. This new secondary service requirement becomes effective January 1, 2021. Previous employment will not count towards the three-year requirement. Therefore, the earliest a long-term part-time employee may become eligible to participate in a plan under the secondary service requirement is January 1, 2024.  

403(b) plans not affected 

Please note this provision is only applicable for 401(k) plans and does not impact 403(b) plans, which are subject to universal availability. Furthermore, although long-term part-time employees will be allowed to make elective deferrals into 401(k) plans, management may choose whether to provide non-elective or matching contributions to such participants. These participants also may be excluded from nondiscrimination and top-heavy requirements.  
 
This requirement will create unique tracking challenges as plans will need to track hours worked for recurring part-time employees over multiple years. For instance, seasonal employees who elect to work multiple seasons may inadvertently become eligible. We recommend plans work with their record keepers and/or third-party administrators to implement a tracking system to ensure participation is offered to those who meet this new secondary service requirement. If a feasible tracking solution does not exist, or plans do not want to deal with the burden of tracking such information, plans may also consider amending their minimum service requirements by reducing the hours of service requirement from 1,000 hours to 500 hours or less. However, this may allow more employees to participate than under the three-year, 500-hour requirement and may increase the employer contributions each year. 

If you have questions regarding your particular situation, please contact our Employee Benefit Audits team. We’re here to help.

Article
New permissible minimum service requirements for 401(k) plans

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 article 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. This is possible 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 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. The discounts 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. Part I of this series focused on the discount for lack of control. In Part II, let’s focus on the discount for lack of marketability.

Discount for lack of marketability

In the context of a hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller, the buyer may place a greater value on an ownership interest of an investment that is “marketable.” Marketable investments can be bought and sold easily and offer the ability to extract liquidity compared to an interest where transferability and marketability are limited. 

Simply put, buyers would rather own investments they can sell easily, and will pay less for the investment if it lacks this ability. Non-controlling interests in private businesses lack marketability—few people are interested in investing in a business where control rests in someone else’s hands. Discounts for lack of control commonly reduce the value of the transferred interest by 5% to 15%, discounts for lack of marketability can drop value of the business by 25% to 35%.

Market-based evidence of proxies for discounts for lack of marketability can be found within the following resources, studies, and methods (including, but not limited to):

  • Various restricted stock studies
  • The Quantitative Marketability Discount Model (QMDM) developed by Z. Christopher Mercer
  • Various pre-initial public offering studies
  • Option pricing models
  • Other discounted cash flow models

In addition to these resources, to fully assess the degree of discount applicable to a subject interest, consider company-specific factors when estimating the discount for lack of marketability. The degree of marketability is dependent upon a wide range of factors, such as the payment of dividends, the existence of a pool of prospective buyers, the size of the interest, any restrictions on transfer, and other factors. 

To establish a comprehensive view on the applicable degree of discount, here are more things go consider. In a ruling on the case Mandelbaum v. Commissioner1, Judge David Laro outlined the primary company-specific factors affecting the discount for lack of marketability, including:

  1. Restrictions on transferability and withdrawal
  2. Financial statement analysis
  3. Dividend policy
  4. The size and nature of the interest
  5. Management decisions
  6. Amount of control in the transferred shares

Conclusion

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 prefer investments they can readily convert into cash, and are therefore generally not willing to pay the pro-rata value for a minority interest in a business when the interest lacks marketability. To assess an appropriate discount for lack of marketability, consider resources such as those referred to above, then ensure 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.

Part III of this series will focus on the application of DLOC and DLOM to a subject interest.

1Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-255 (June 13, 1995).

Article
Discounts for lack of control and marketability in business valuations (Part II)

Read this if you are a bank with over $1 billion in assets.

It’s no secret COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on the economy. As unemployment soared and the economy teetered on the edge of collapse, unprecedented government stimulus attempted to stymie the COVID-19 tidal wave. One tool used by the government was the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the PPP initially authorized the lending of $349 billion to encourage businesses to keep workers employed and cover certain operating expenses during the coronavirus pandemic. The PPP was then extended through August 8, 2020 with an additional $310 billion authorized.

Many financial institutions scrambled to free up resources and implement processes to handle the processing of PPP loan applications. However, such underwriting poses unique challenges for financial institutions. PPP loans are 100% guaranteed by the US Small Business Administration (SBA) if the borrowers meet certain criteria. Establishing appropriate controls over the loan approval and underwriting process is more a matter of ensuring compliance with the PPP, rather than ensuring the borrower can repay their loan.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 compliance 

Banks with total assets over $1 billion as of the beginning of their fiscal year must comply with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA). Amongst other things, FDICIA requires management perform an assessment and provide a resulting attestation on the operating effectiveness of the bank’s internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) as of the bank’s fiscal year-end. Although this attestation is as of year-end, management must perform testing of the bank’s ICFR throughout the bank’s fiscal year to obtain sufficient evidence regarding the operating effectiveness of ICFR as of year-end. Key controls over various transaction cycles are typically housed in a matrix, making it easy for management and other users, such as independent auditors, to review a bank’s key ICFR. 

Internal control documentation

If the process for originating PPP loans is different from the bank’s process for traditional loan products, it’s likely the internal controls surrounding this process is also different. Given that $659 billion in PPP loans have been granted to date, it is possible PPP loans may be material to individual banks’ balance sheets. If PPP loans are material to your bank’s balance sheet, you should consider the controls that were put in place. If the controls are deemed to be different from those already documented for other types of loans, you should document such controls as new controls in your FDICIA matrix and test accordingly.

As noted earlier, the risks a financial institution faces with PPP loans are likely different from traditional underwriting. If these unique risks could impact amounts reported in the financial statements, it’s smart to address them through the development of internal controls. Banks should assess their individual situations to identify any risks that may have not previously existed. For instance, given the volume of PPP loans originated in such a short period of time, quality control processes may have been stretched to their limits. The result could be PPP loans inaccurately set up in the loan accounting system or loan files missing key information. Depending on the segregation of duties, the risk could even be the creation of fictitious PPP loans. A detective internal control that could address inaccurate loan setup would be to scan a list of PPP loans for payment terms, maturity dates, or interest rates that appear to be outliers. Given the relatively uniform terms for PPP loans, any anomalies should be easily identifiable. 

Paycheck Protection Program loan fees

Aside from internal controls surrounding the origination of PPP loans, banks may also need to consider documenting internal controls surrounding PPP loan fees received by the SBA. Although the accounting for such fees is not unique, given the potential materiality to the income statement, documenting such a control, even if it is merely addressing the fees in an already existing control, exhibits that management has considered the impact PPP loan fees may have on their ICFR. 

The level of risk associated with PPP loan fees may differ from institution to institution. For instance, a bank that is calculating its PPP loan fees manually rather than relying on the loan accounting system to record and subsequently recognize income on these fees, inherently has more risk. This additional level of risk will need to be addressed in the development and documentation of internal controls. In this example, a periodic recalculation of PPP loan fees on a sample basis, including income recognition, may prove to be a sufficient internal control.

With the calendar year-end fast approaching, it is time to take a hard look at those FDICIA matrices, if you haven’t already done so:

  • Consider what has changed at your bank during the fiscal year and how those changes have impacted the design and operation of your internal controls. 
  • Ensure that what is happening in practice agrees to what is documented within your FDICIA matrix. 
  • Ensure that new activities, such as the origination of PPP loans, are adequately documented in your FDICIA matrix. 

With Congress considering another round of PPP loans, there is no time like the present to make sure your bank is ready from an ICFR perspective. If you have questions about your specific situation, or would like more information, please contact the FDICIA compliance team

Article
Do your FDICIA controls "CARES" about the Paycheck Protection Program?

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