Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Maine's Climate Action Plan unveiled: Renewable energy to play a big role

12.16.20

Read this if you are a renewable energy company, investor, or related business.

Maine recently released a Climate Action Plan to address Maine’s climate future. Titled Maine Won’t Wait, the extensive plan tapped experts from across industries and professions to create a comprehensive blueprint for Maine’s climate future. BerryDunn is one of many Maine businesses to sign on in support of the plan, and will endeavor to help make it become a reality in the years, and decades to come. The far-reaching, ambitious plan covers many areas to address climate change, and renewable energy takes center stage. 

From the plan: In June 2019, Governor Janet Mills signed LD 1679 into law, with strong support from the Maine Legislature, to create the Maine Climate Council. The Council—an assembly of scientists, industry leaders, bipartisan local and state officials, and engaged citizens—was charged with developing this four-year Climate Action Plan to put Maine on a trajectory to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Highlighted strategies of Maine's Climate Action Plan include:

  • Embrace the future of transportation in Maine 
  • Modernize Maine’s buildings: Energy-efficient, smart and cost-effective homes and businesses
  • Reduce carbon emissions in Maine’s energy and industrial sectors through clean energy
  • Grow Maine’s clean-energy economy and protect our natural resource industries 

Renewable energy opportunities

These strategies provide many opportunities for renewable energy companies to grow their businesses, increase the renewable workforce in Maine, and have a major impact on the success of Maine’s climate future. The plan also states that Maine will: 

  • Achieve an electricity grid where 80% of Maine’s usage comes from renewable generation by 2030
  • Launch a workforce initiative by 2022 that establishes ongoing stakeholder coordination between industry, educational, and training organizations to support current and future workforce needs
  • Establish programs and partnerships by 2022 for clean-tech innovation support to encourage the creation of clean-energy and climate solutions
  • More than double the number of Maine’s clean-energy and energy-efficiency jobs by 2030 

The plan recommends that Maine commit to increasing its current clean-energy workforce, while establishing new supply chains for Maine-based manufacturers to create sustained, good-paying skilled-labor jobs across the state.

As Maine heads toward a cleaner energy future, the plan sets up strong opportunities for renewable companies to play a large role in creating a sustainable renewable energy economy. You can read the full plan here. If you have any questions about the potential for your renewable energy business, contact the team. We’re here to help.

Related Industries

Related Professionals

Principals

  • Matthew Litz
    Principal
    Natural Resources, Renewable Energy
    T 207.541.2361
  • Kathy Parker
    Principal
    Real Estate, Renewable Energy, Technology
    T 857.255.2035

BerryDunn experts and consultants

  • Scott Davis
    Senior Manager
    Real Estate, Renewable Energy
    T 857.255.2027

Read this if you are interested in tax policy and infrastructure.

The Biden Administration has made tax policy a legislative priority, and the Treasury Department’s Green Book released in May provides additional details on these tax policy proposals. Congressional Democrats have also indicated their interest in tax legislation. The question is: Will we see federal tax legislation in the near future? To answer this question, we need to look at the Administration’s and Congress’ infrastructure legislative plans.

Infrastructure one

President Biden has been negotiating an infrastructure package with members of both parties. Although a bipartisan agreement fizzled in July, new life seems to have been breathed into a new agreement. During the week of July 26, 2021, the Senate reached bipartisan agreement on a $1 trillion package that includes roads, bridges, rail, airports, electric vehicles, clean water, and broadband internet, with revenue offsets such as new cryptocurrency information reporting requirements and an excise tax on chemicals. On August 10, 2021, the Senate voted 69 to 30 to pass the bill.

House consideration of the package is expected in coming weeks. Some progressive Democratic members of the House, however, have indicated that they may not vote in favor of this package unless a far larger second infrastructure package is ultimately approved.

This first infrastructure package is reportedly “paid for” outside income tax increases, which means that this infrastructure bill generally would not include the Administration’s tax proposals. There would likely be little to no Republican support for the package if the Administration’s tax priorities were included.

There does, however, continue to be strong interest by the Administration in moving forward with its tax policy priorities. That’s where a second infrastructure package comes in.

Infrastructure two

A second infrastructure package, referred to in the press as “human infrastructure,” is intended to address more intangible priorities, such as extension of the child care tax credit, healthcare, immigration and climate change. It is expected that the Administration’s and Congress’ tax policy priorities would be included in this bill. At this time, this estimated $3.5 trillion package does not enjoy bipartisan support. The package would be expected to pass the House, as House rules require only a simple majority for passage. Its path through the Senate, however, remains unclear.

In general, legislation needs only a simple majority to pass the Senate. Under current Senate rules, any senator may filibuster a piece of legislation, which amounts to unlimited speech and debate and, if unstopped, can effectively derail legislation. However, if 60 senators agree, they may vote to invoke “cloture,” which will end the filibuster and move the legislation to a substantive vote. (Cloture was invoked for Infrastructure One by a 67-33 vote.) It is expected that a second infrastructure bill would not pick up any Republican Senate votes, and there likely would be a Republican filibuster. Without any Republican support, cloture would be virtually impossible. 

There is, though, a procedural option available in the Senate to bypass the filibuster/cloture rules. Under the “budget reconciliation” process, legislation can pass the Senate with a simple majority without the threat of filibuster. While the budget reconciliation process also applies in the House, because there is no filibuster threat, the House does not need the procedure to advance legislation to a simple majority vote. 

Reconciliation bills must involve spending, revenue, or debt. There is a limit to the number of bills that may pass the Senate under budget reconciliation each year. The American Rescue Plan enacted in March 2021 utilized the budget reconciliation process to pass the Senate. The Senate parliamentarian has indicated that additional reconciliation bills may pass the Senate this year. Despite further availability of the budget reconciliation process in the Senate this year, passage of Infrastructure two is not a foregone conclusion. 

For a bill to pass the Senate under the budget reconciliation process, it needs only to garner a simple majority of votes, which, with the current Senate makeup, means 50 Democrats voting in favor, plus a 51st vote cast by Vice President Harris. There are, however, moderate Democratic senators who have indicated in recent weeks that they may not be willing to use the budget reconciliation process to advance any further legislation, at least in the short term.  

Nonetheless, on August 11, 2021, the Senate approved a budget resolution on party lines; this budget resolution will serve as the framework with which Infrastructure two will be considered on its merits. House Speaker Pelosi previously indicated that the House will not vote on a first infrastructure bill until the Senate takes procedural steps regarding Infrastructure two, so this crucial step makes the future of both packages brighter in both chambers of Congress.

Likelihood of a 2021 tax bill?

Infrastructure two is expected to be the vehicle in which tax policy priorities are included. With passage of the budget resolution in the Senate, this step certainly makes the prospects of ultimate passage much better. What remains unclear is what the underlying provisions will look like, as there remains some discomfort on the part of some moderate senators with its $3.5 trillion price tag.

All eyes are focused on two moderate Democratic senators: Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. While Sinema has been instrumental in helping to reach a bipartisan deal on Infrastructure one, she indicated the week of July 26, 2021 that she does not currently support the price tag of the second bill. Manchin has also indicated displeasure with the bill’s cost. Without the support of both senators, a second bill would likely stall.

There is still plenty of time on the legislative calendar for negotiation and minds to change. Some issues members of Congress will consider are the price tag of any second infrastructure bill, whether they want to be the sole detractor within their party and whether there may be opportunity to address the policy issues in future legislation. 

Timing of a possible tax bill?

Although Congress is expected to take up consideration of Infrastructure two in the fall, whether it ultimately passes and what provisions it will contain is unclear. Senators Sinema and Manchin are two to watch over the coming weeks. 

What would be included?

The Green Book is a good starting point to understand the Administration’s tax policy priorities. Congress will have its priorities as well. If we do see tax legislation, some major provisions that can be expected to be included in a bill include increases in the corporate tax rate, individual tax rates, and capital gains rates, as well as estate tax changes and changes to international tax policy.

Article
2021 federal tax legislation? A review of the state of play

Read this if you are a timber harvester, hauler, or timberland owner.

The USDA recently announced its Pandemic Assistance for Timber Harvesters and Haulers (PATHH) initiative to provide financial assistance to timber harvesting and hauling businesses as a result of the pandemic. Businesses may be eligible for up to $125,000 in financial assistance through this initiative. 

Who qualifies for the assistance?

To qualify for assistance under PATHH, the business must have experienced a loss of at least 10% of gross revenue from January, 1, 2020 through December 1, 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019. Also, individuals or legal entities must be a timber harvesting or timber hauling businesses where 50% or more of its revenue is derived from one of the following:

  • Cutting timber
  • Transporting timber
  • Processing wood on-site on the forest land

What is the timeline for applying for the assistance?

Timber harvesting or timber hauling businesses can apply for financial assistance through the USDA from July 22, 2021 through October 15, 2021

Visit the USDA website for more information on the program, requirements, and how to apply.
If you have any questions about your specific situation, please contact our Natural Resources team. We’re here to help. 

Article
Temporary USDA assistance program for timber harvesters and haulers

Read this if your company does business in the EU.

Major changes are coming to the EU VAT laws on the online supply of goods and services. The rules, which apply as from July 1, 2021, will affect U.S.-based businesses selling or facilitating sales to private individuals in EU member states. With just over a month remaining before the rules become effective, such businesses should begin immediately to prepare for their new VAT registration and collection responsibilities.

What are the new EU VAT rules?

The EU VAT rules applicable to cross-border B2C e-commerce activities are undergoing a major “refresh”—or modernization—as from July 1, 2021 (postponed six months from the originally planned effective date of January 1, 2021). From July, updated VAT rules will apply to online sales (including online marketplaces) to EU private consumers and to the import of low value goods. (The European Commission published explanatory notes on the rules on September 20, 2020, which include clarifications, FAQs and examples.)

The objectives of the new EU VAT rules are to: (i) simplify compliance obligations for vendors that potentially have to comply with the VAT rules in the 27 EU member states; (ii) increase VAT revenue for the individual member states by bringing more transactions within the scope of the EU VAT net; and (iii) reduce VAT fraud.

Any business making or facilitating online sales or deliveries of goods to consumers in the EU will likely be impacted in some way by the changes.

The EU VAT law changes are as follows:

Intra-EU sales to consumers

All B2C sales of goods will be taxed in the country of destination, meaning that sellers will need to collect VAT in the EU member state to which the goods are shipped.

The existing thresholds for distance sales in the EU will be abolished and replaced by an EU-wide registration threshold of €10,000 (approximately $12,000). This is an important change and potentially could create considerable EU VAT registration and reporting obligations for U.S.-based businesses selling goods from warehouses located in the EU if not proactively addressed.

To reduce the administrative burden and simplify VAT reporting, a new reporting system, called the One-Stop Shop (OSS) will be expanded to include the distance sale of goods. U.S. businesses can register for the OSS scheme in the EU member state of dispatch and can report and remit the VAT due via a pan-EU VAT return instead of having to VAT register in each EU member state.

Sales via online marketplaces

In certain circumstances, businesses that operate an online marketplace, known as an “electronic interface” in the EU) or that facilitate the sale of third-party goods through an online marketplace will be considered the “deemed supplier” of the goods sold to EU customers and will be required to collect and pay VAT on such sales. As a result, businesses that sell via online marketplaces (e.g., Amazon, eBay, etc.) will not be required to account for VAT on such sales. 
Imports of low value goods

The VAT exemption for “low-value imports,” i.e., goods coming from outside the EU that do not exceed a value of €22 (approximately $26) will be abolished. Instead, the sale of low-value goods not exceeding €150 (approximately $180) to consumers in the EU through the business’ own website will be subject to VAT at the applicable rate in the destination country. The VAT due on low value goods can either be collected at the point of sale by the seller or collected from the consumer before the goods are released by the customer broker/delivery service. Where the seller opts to collect VAT at the point of sale, it can VAT register under the new Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) system to account for and remit the VAT due.

VAT registration under the IOSS has several benefits, including:

  • Transparency to consumers: The customer will not be faced with any unexpected VAT costs since the total amount paid for the goods is VAT-inclusive;
  • Reduced compliance burden: Sellers can use a single IOSS registration to report and pay the VAT due on all sales covered by IOSS. Otherwise, if the seller acts as the importer (e.g., sells goods under delivered duty paid terms), it may need to register for VAT in multiple EU member states;
  • Quick customs clearance: IOSS is designed to enable goods to be cleared through customs quickly as no VAT is due at the time of importation, thus facilitating the speedy delivery of goods; and
  • Flexible logistics: IOSS simplifies logistics since goods can be imported into the EU in any EU member state. If IOSS is not used, goods can only be imported and cleared for customs in the destination EU member state, which may result in delays and additional costs.

How will the changes impact nonresident sellers?

As noted above, the EU rule changes will significantly affect U.S.-based businesses selling or facilitating the sale of goods and services online to consumers located in the EU. With just over a month left before the rules become effective, any U.S.-based business that may be impacted should take immediate steps to:

  • Understand the EU rules and how they will apply;
  • Assess the impact of the rules on supply chains;
  • Consider the impact on pricing due to different VAT rates applying in different jurisdictions;
  • Identify any adjustments that can be made (where possible) to mitigate the impact of the rules;
  • Be prepared to comply with new VAT obligations, including additional registrations, charging and collecting VAT, filing tax and/or information returns, etc.;
  • Update and adapt accounting and billing systems and master data records to identify when VAT should be applied and the appropriate rates in multiple jurisdictions; and
  • Cancel existing EU VAT registrations for distance sales that may be replaced by the OSS registration.

Failure to comply with the rules could result in the imposition of interest and penalties on the historic VAT liability. In addition to the EU VAT consequences, business selling goods that are imported into these jurisdictions must also take into account any customs implications because any compliance deficiencies could result in imported goods being delayed in customs, causing customers to be frustrated by shipping delays.

For questions about your specific situation, please contact the International Tax team. We’re here to help. 

Article
New VAT rules in the EU: What U.S. e-commerce businesses need to know 

Read this if your company does business in Canada. 

Major changes are coming to Canada’s Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Services Tax (GST/HST) on the online supply of goods and services. The rules, which apply as from July 1, 2021, will affect U.S.-based businesses selling or facilitating sales to private individuals in Canada. With just over a month remaining before the rules become effective, such businesses should begin immediately to prepare for their new GST/HST registration and collection responsibilities.

What are the GST/HST changes in Canada?

Currently, only nonresidents that carry on business in Canada are generally required to register for and collect GST/HST (levied at the federal level in Canada) on taxable supplies of goods and services made in Canada. If the nonresident does not conduct business in Canada, it need not register for or collect GST/HST.

The impending rules aim to level the playing field between Canadian businesses (which must charge GST/HST on the supply of goods and services) and foreign suppliers by ensuring that GST/HST applies to all goods and services used in Canada, regardless of how they are supplied or whether the supplier is Canadian or nonresident. The rules will significantly impact nonresident vendors and online platform operators, in that foreign businesses will be required to register for GST/HST, collect GST/HST from customers, and report and remit tax to the Canadian tax authorities. Three types of supplies by foreign businesses will be affected:

  • Supplies of digital services
  • Supplies of accommodation made through an accommodation platform (AP)
  • Online supplies of goods through a fulfilment warehouse

Digital services

Foreign businesses and platforms that do not have a physical place of business in Canada but that supply goods and services online to Canadian consumers and/or non-GST/HST-registered businesses (i.e., B2C transactions) will be required to register for GST/HST, resulting in an obligation to collect, remit and report tax. The tax rate will be the rate applicable in the province where the consumer is resident.

Nonresident businesses will have to register for GST/HST purposes when their sales exceed CAD 30,000 (approximately USD 25,000) over a 12-month period or they may register voluntarily where the threshold is not exceeded. A simplified online registration will be available for these businesses, but it will not be possible for the nonresident business to reclaim GST/HST incurred on its own purchases. If nonresident businesses wish to recover GST/HST paid on business expenses, they may be able to register under the regular GST/HST regime.

Accommodation platforms

An AP is a digital platform that facilitates the supply of short-term rental accommodations (i.e., rentals for less than one month) to private customers for a price of at least of CAD 20 (approximately USD 16) per day (e.g., Airbnb, VRBO, etc.).

Nonresident APs will be required to register for GST/HST, and to collect, remit and report tax on the rental charges in cases where the owner of the property is not GST/HST-registered. Where the property owner is GST/HST registered, the AP will not be responsible for GST/HST; instead, the property owner will be required to collect/remit GST/HST on the rental charges. The GST/HST rate will be the rate applicable in the province where the property is located.

APs subject to these changes should register for GST/HST under the simplified online registration.

Fulfilment warehouses and websites

GST/HST registration will be required for the following types of transactions in cases where the nonresident business’ sales to consumers exceed, or are expected to exceed, CAD 30,000 over a 12-month period:

  • Direct sales of goods by a nonresident business directly (i.e., not via a distribution platform) through its website to Canadian consumers: In this case, the nonresident business will have to register, charge and account for GST/HST. 
  • Sales of goods by a nonresident business through a distribution platform to consumers in Canada: The distribution platform operator will be required to register for GST/HST and account for GST/HST in Canada. It should be noted that no GST/HST will be due on the service fee charged by the distribution platform operator to nonresident businesses.
  • Online sales of goods by a nonresident business (but not through a distribution platform) to customers, where the goods are located in a Canadian fulfilment warehouse: The nonresident business will be required to register for GST/HST and will need to keep records on its foreign vendors and submit these to the Canadian tax authorities. These information returns will give the tax authorities insight into which nonresident businesses need to be GST/HST-registered.

Nonresident businesses that carry out the above transactions will have to register under the standard GST/HST rules rather than under the new simplified regime and will generally be able to reclaim GST/HST incurred on their purchases.

Potential Provincial Sales Tax (PST) implications

In addition to having GST/HST registration and collection obligations, nonresident vendors also may be required to register for PST. Currently, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan impose a PST, and three of these provinces (i.e., British Colombia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan) have introduced rules requiring nonresident vendors selling to customers in these provinces to register for PST purposes. The rules vary by province and will need to be considered in addition to the new GST/HST rules.

How will the changes impact nonresident sellers?

As noted above, the Canadian rule changes will significantly affect U.S.-based businesses selling or facilitating the sale of goods and services online to consumers located in Canada. With just over a month left before the rules become effective, any U.S.-based business that may be impacted should take immediate steps to:

  • Understand the Canadian rules and how they will apply;
  • Assess the impact of the rules on supply chains;
  • Consider the impact on pricing due to the GST/HST and the varying PST rates applied in in the aforementioned provinces;
  • Identify any adjustments that can be made (where possible) to mitigate the impact of the rules;
  • Be prepared to comply with new GST/HST obligations, including additional registrations, charging and collecting GST/HST, filing tax and/or information returns, etc.; and
  • Update and adapt accounting and billing systems and master data records to identify when GST/HST should be applied and the appropriate rates in multiple jurisdictions.

Failure to comply with the rules could result in the imposition of interest and penalties on the historic GST/HST liability. In addition to the GST/HST implications in Canada, business selling goods that are imported into these jurisdictions must also take into account any customs implications because any compliance deficiencies could result in imported goods being delayed in customs, causing customers to be frustrated by shipping delays.

For questions about your specific situation, please contact the International Tax team. We’re here to help. 

Article
New GST/HST rules in Canada: What U.S. e-commerce businesses need to know  

Read this if you are a residential living facility.

At the end of last year, Congress and the IRS brought about changes to the application of the business interest expense deduction limitation rules with regard to taxpayers that wish to make a real property trade or business (RPTOB) election. This change may benefit owners and operators of qualified residential living facilities. Here’s what we know.

Background

Section 163(j) generally limits the amount of a taxpayer’s business interest expense that can be deducted each year. The term “business interest” means any interest that is properly allocable to a “trade or business,” which could include an electing RPTOB. The term “trade or business” has not been separately defined for purposes of Section 163(j), however, it has been defined for purposes of the passive activity loss rules under Section 469(c)(7)(C) as any real property development, redevelopment, construction, reconstruction, acquisition, conversion, rental, operation, management, leasing or brokerage trade or business.

In general, a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business that manages or operates a “qualified residential living facility” may elect to be treated as an RPTOB solely for the purpose of applying the interest expense rules under Section 163(j). Taxpayers that make an RPTOB election to avoid being subject to the business interest deduction limitation under Section 163(j) must use the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to compute depreciation expense for property described in Section 168(g)(8), which includes residential rental property.

In Notice 2020-59, issued on July 28, 2020, the IRS and Treasury proposed a revenue procedure providing a safe harbor for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer meets the definition of a qualified residential living facility and is therefore eligible to make the RPTOB election. Following review of comments submitted in response to Notice 2020-59, the Treasury Department and IRS published Revenue Procedure 2021-9 (Rev. Proc. 2021-9) on December 29, 2020. Rev. Proc. 2021-9 modifies the proposed safe harbor under Notice 2020-59 to make it more broadly applicable and less administratively burdensome. 

Additionally, the emergency coronavirus relief package signed into law on December 27, 2020 contains a taxpayer-favorable provision that modifies the recovery period applicable to residential rental property (including retirement care facilities) placed in service before January 1, 2018 for taxpayers making the RPTOB election.

Modifications to the RPTOB safe harbor under Rev. Proc. 2021

Under Rev. Proc. 2021-9, a residential living facility will be eligible to make the RPTOB election providing the facility:

  1. Consists of multiple rental dwelling units within one or more buildings or structures that generally serve as primary residences on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to individual customers or patients;
  2. Provides supplemental assistive, nursing, or other routine medical services; and
  3. Has an average period of customer or patient use of individual rental dwelling units of 30 days or more.

Alternatively, if the residential living facility qualifies as residential rental property under Section 168(e)(2)(A), it will be treated as an RPTOB for purposes of the revenue procedure. Thus in response to comments submitted to the Treasury Department and the IRS, Rev. Proc. 2021-9 modified the proposed safe harbor published in Notice 2020-59 in several important ways, including the following:

  • The definition of a qualified residential living facility has been modified to reduce the required average period of customer or patient use from 90 to 30 days. Further, the average period of use may be determined by reference to either the number of days paid for by Medicare or Medicaid, or the number of days under a formal contract or other written agreement.

This modification is a welcome change from the proposed safe harbor contained in Notice 2020-59. Medicare and Medicaid frequently cover patient stays of less than 90 days. Consequently, reducing the required number of days of use and allowing for determination with reference to days paid by Medicare or Medicaid should allow a greater number of facilities to qualify under the safe harbor.

  • Rev. Proc. 2021-9 provides an alternative test for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer meets certain requirements of the definition of a qualified residential living facility. Under this alternative test, if a taxpayer operates or manages residential living facilities that qualify as residential rental property for depreciation purposes, then the facility will be considered a qualified residential living facility for purposes of Section 163(j).

The administrative burden on taxpayers should be significantly reduced by allowing reliance on separate determinations made for depreciation purposes. Taxpayers will not be required to consider two distinct tests.

  • Rev. Proc. 2021-9 clarifies that the determination of whether a facility meets the definition of a qualified residential living facility must be determined on an annual basis. 

Under general rules, once a taxpayer makes the RPTOB election, the election remains in effect for subsequent years. Taxpayers relying on this safe harbor cannot depart from these rules as there is a continuing requirement to evaluate qualification on an annual basis. To the extent a taxpayer fails to meet the safe harbor requirements, it may become subject to the business interest deduction limitations under Section 163(j). Unless otherwise provided in future guidance, this would not appear to constitute an accounting method change.

Important Considerations to apply the safe harbor under Rev. Proc. 2021-9

Qualifying taxpayers may rely on the safe harbor contained in Rev. Proc. 2021-9 for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Further, if a taxpayer relies on the safe harbor, the taxpayer must use the ADS of Section 168(g) to depreciate the property described in Section 168(g)(8), as discussed above.

The changes under Rev. Proc. 2021-9 could open the door for taxpayers who qualify in a previous year (i.e., 2018 and 2019) as a result of the new rules to amend prior returns (for example, taxpayers that now qualify for the RPTOB election using the 30-day threshold average use instead of the 90-day average).

For purposes of applying the safe harbor, for any taxable year subsequent to the taxable year in which a taxpayer relies on the safe harbor to make the RPTOB election in which a taxpayer does not satisfy the safe harbor requirements, the taxpayer is deemed to have ceased to engage in the electing RPTOB (i.e., the taxpayer will likely be subject to the business interest expense limitations of Section 163(j)). However, for any subsequent taxable year in which a taxpayer satisfies the safe harbor requirements after a deemed cessation of the electing trade or business, the taxpayer’s initial election will be automatically reinstated.

To rely on this safe harbor, a taxpayer must retain books and records to substantiate that all of the above requirements are met each year. Taxpayers are not eligible to rely on the safe harbor in this revenue procedure if a principal purpose of an arrangement or transaction is to avoid Section 163(j) and its regulations in its entirety, and in a manner that is contrary to the purpose of Rev. Proc. 2021-9.

If you have specific questions about your facility or tax situation, please contact Jason Favreau or Matthew Litz. We’re here to help.

Article
Taxpayer-friendly changes for qualified residential living facilities

Read this if you are a business owner or interested in upcoming changes to current tax law.

As Joe Biden prepares to be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States, and Congress is now controlled by Democrats, his tax policy takes center stage.

Although the Democrats hold the presidency and both houses of Congress for the next two years, any changes in tax law may still have to be passed through budget reconciliation, because 60 votes in the Senate generally are needed to avoid that process. Both in 2017 and 2001, passing tax legislation through reconciliation meant that most of the changes were not permanent; that is, they expired within the 10-year budget window. Here is a comparison of current tax law with Biden’s proposed tax plan.

Current Tax Law
(TCJA–present)
Biden’s stated goals
Corporate tax rates and AMT

Corporations have a flat 21% tax rate and no corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT), which were both changed by the TCJA.

These do not expire.

Biden would raise the flat rate to the pre-TCJA level of 28% and reinstate the corporate AMT, requiring corporations to pay the greater of their regular corporate income tax or the 15% minimum tax (while still allowing for net operating loss (NOL) and foreign tax credits).

Capital gains and Qualified Dividend Income

The top tax rate is 20% for income over $441,450 for individuals and $496,600 for married filing jointly. There is an additional 3.8% net investment income tax.

Biden would eliminate breaks for long-term capital gains and dividends for income above $1 million. Instead, these would be taxed at ordinary rates.

Payroll taxes

The 12.4% payroll tax is divided evenly between employers and employees and applies to the first $137,700 of an individual’s income (scheduled to go up to $142,400 in 2020). There is also a 2.9% Medicare Tax which is split equally between the employer and the employee with no income limit.

Biden would maintain the 12.4% tax split between employers and employees and keep the $142,400 cap but would institute the tax on earned income above $400,000. The gap between the two wage levels would gradually close with annual inflationary increases.

International taxes (GILTI, offshoring)

GILTI (Global Intangible Low-Tax Income): Established by the TCJA, U.S. multinationals are required to pay a foreign tax rate of between 10.5% and 13.125%.

A scheduled increase in the effective rate to 16.406% is scheduled to begin in 2026.

Offshoring taxes: The TCJA includes a tax deduction for corporations that manufacture in the U.S. and sell overseas.

GILTI: Biden would double the tax rate to 21% and assess a minimum tax on a country-by-country basis.

Offshoring taxes: Biden would establish a 10% penalty surtax on profits for goods and services manufactured offshore and a 10% advanceable “Made in America” tax credit to create U.S. manufacturing jobs. Biden would also close offshoring tax loopholes in the TCJA.

Estate taxes

The estate tax exemption for 2020 is $11,580,000. Transfers of appreciated property at death get a step-up in basis.

The exemption is scheduled to revert to pre-TCJA levels.

Biden would return the estate tax to 2009 levels, eliminate the current step-up in basis on inherited assets, and eliminate the step-up at death provision for inherited property passed along by the decedent.

Individual tax rates

The top marginal rate is 37% for income over $518,400 for individuals and $622,050 for married filing jointly. This was lowered from 39.6% pre-TCJA.

Biden would restore the 39.6% rate for taxable income above $400,000. This represents only the top rate.

Individual tax credits

Currently, individuals can claim a maximum of $2,000 Child Tax Credit (CTC) plus a $500 dependent credit.

Individuals may claim a maximum dependent care credit of $600 ($1,200 for two or more children).

The CTC is scheduled to revert to pre-TCJA levels ($1,000) after 2025.

Biden would expand the CTC to $3,000 for children age 17 and under and offer a $600 bonus for children age 6 and under. It would also be fully refundable.

He has also proposed increasing the child and dependent care tax credit to $8,000 ($16,000 for two or more children), and he has proposed a new tax credit of up to $5,000 for informal caregivers.

Separately, Biden has also proposed a $15,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers.

Qualified Business Income Deduction under Section 199A

As previously discussed, many businesses qualify for a 20% qualified business income tax deduction lowering the effective rate of tax for S corporation shareholders and partners in partnerships to 29.6% for qualifying businesses.

Biden would phase out the tax benefits associated with the qualified business income deduction for those making more than $400,000 annually.

Education

Forgiven student loan debt is included in taxable income.

There is no tax credit for contributions to state-authorized organizations that sponsor scholarships.

Biden would exclude forgiven student loan debt from taxable income.

Small businesses

There are current tax credits for some of the costs to start a retirement plan.

Biden would offer tax credits for businesses that adopt a retirement savings plan and offer most workers without a pension or 401(k) access to an “automatic 401(k)”.

Itemized deductions

For 2020, the standard deduction is $12,400 for single/married filing separately and $24,800 for married filing jointly.

After 2025, the standard deduction is scheduled to revert to pre-TCJA amounts, or $6,350 for single /married filing separately and $12,700 for married filing jointly.

The TCJA suspended the personal exemption and most individual deductions through 2025.

It also capped the SALT deduction at $10,000, which will remain in place until 2025, unless repealed.

Biden would enact a provision that would cap the tax benefit of itemized deductions at 28%.

SALT cap: Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has pledged to repeal the cap should Biden win in November (the House of Representatives has already passed legislation to repeal the SALT cap).

Opportunity Zones

Biden has proposed incentivizing - opportunity zone funds to partner with community organizations and have the Treasury Department review the program’s regulations of the tax incentives. He would also increase reporting and public disclosure requirements.
Alternative energy Biden would expand renewable energy tax credits and credits for residential energy efficiency and restore the Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Electric Vehicle Tax Credit.


If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Article
Biden's tax plan and what may change from current tax law

A common pitfall for inbound sellers is applying the same concepts used to adopt “no tax” positions made for federal income tax purposes to determinations concerning sales and use tax compliance. Although similar conceptually, separate analyses are required for each determination.

For federal income tax purposes, inbound sellers that are selling goods to customers in the U.S. and do not have a fixed place of business or dependent agent in the U.S. have, traditionally, been able to rely on their country’s income tax treaty with the U.S. for “no tax” positions. Provided that the non-U.S. entity did not have a “permanent establishment” in the U.S., it was shielded from federal income tax and would have a limited federal income tax compliance obligation.

States, however, are generally not bound by comprehensive income tax treaties made with the U.S. Thus, non-U.S. entities can find themselves unwittingly subject to state and local sales and use tax compliance obligations even though they are protected from a federal income tax perspective. With recent changes in U.S. tax law, the burden of complying with sales and use tax filing and collection requirements has increased significantly.

Does your company have a process in place to deal with these new state and local tax compliance obligations?

What has changed? Wayfair—it’s got what a state needs

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., non-U.S. entities that have sales to customers in the U.S. may have unexpected sales and use tax filing obligations on a go-forward basis. Historically, non-U.S. entities did not have a sales and use tax compliance obligation when they did not have a physical presence in states where the sales occurred.

In Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state is no longer bound by the physical presence standard in order for it to impose its sales and use tax regime on entities making sales within the state. The prior physical presence standard was set forth in precedent established by the Supreme Court and was used to determine if an entity had sufficient connection with a state (i.e., nexus) to necessitate a tax filing and collection requirement.

Before the Wayfair ruling, an entity had to have a physical presence (generally either through employees or property located in a state) in order to be deemed to have nexus with the state. The Wayfair ruling overturned this precedent, eliminating the physical presence requirement. Now, a state can deem an entity to have nexus with the state merely for exceeding a certain level of sales or transactions with in-state customers. This is a concept referred to as “economic nexus.”

The Court in Wayfair determined that the state law in South Dakota providing a threshold of $100,000 in sales or more than 200 sale transactions occurring within the state is sufficient for economic nexus to exist with the state. This is good news for hard-pressed states and municipalities in search of more revenue. Since this ruling, there has been a flurry of new state legislation across the country. Like South Dakota, states are actively passing tax laws with similar bright-line tests to determine when entities have economic nexus and, therefore, a sales and use tax collection and filing requirement.

How this impacts non-U.S. entities

This can be a trap for non-U.S. entities making sales to customers in the U.S. Historically, non-U.S. entities lacking a U.S. physical presence generally only needed to navigate federal income tax rules.

Inbound sellers without a physical presence in the U.S. may have very limited experience with state and local tax compliance obligations. When considering all of the state and local tax jurisdictions that exist in the U.S. (according to the Tax Foundation there are more than 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions), the number of sales and use tax filing obligations can be significant. Depending on the level of sales activity within the U.S., a non-U.S. entity can quickly become inundated with the time and cost of sales and use tax compliance.

Next steps

Going forward, non-U.S. entities selling to customers in the U.S. should be aware of those states that have economic nexus thresholds and adopt procedures so they are prepared for their sales and use tax compliance obligations in real time. These tax compliance obligations will generally require an entity to register to do business in the state, collect sales tax from customers, and file regular tax returns, usually monthly or quarterly.

It is important to note when an entity has an obligation to collect sales tax, it will be liable for any sales tax due to a state, regardless of whether the sales tax is actually collected from the customer. It is imperative to stay abreast of these complex legislative changes in order to be compliant.

At BerryDunn, our tax professionals work with a number of non-U.S. companies that face international, state, and local tax issues. If you would like to discuss your particular circumstances, contact one of the experienced professionals in our state and local tax (“SALT”) practice.

Article
Sales & use tax: A potential trap for non-U.S. entities

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, FINOP, or charged with governance of a broker-dealer.

The results of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) 2020 inspections are included in its 2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers. There were 65 audit firms inspected in 2020 by the PCAOB and, although deficiencies declined 11% from 2019, 51 firms still had deficiencies. This high level of deficiencies, as well as the nature of the deficiencies, provides insight into audit quality for broker-dealer stakeholders. Those charged with governance should be having conversations with their auditor to see how they are addressing these commonly found deficiencies and asking if the PCAOB identified any deficiencies in the auditor’s most recent examination. 

If there were deficiencies identified, what actions have been taken to eliminate these deficiencies going forward? Although the annual report on the Interim Inspection Program acts as an auditor report card, the results may have implications for the broker-dealer, as gaps in audit quality may mean internal control weaknesses or misstatements go undetected.

Attestation Standard (AT) No. 1 examination engagements test compliance with the financial responsibility rules and the internal controls surrounding compliance with the financial responsibility rules. The PCAOB examined 21 of these engagements and found 14 of them to have deficiencies. The PCAOB continued to find high deficiency rates in testing internal control over compliance (ICOC). They specifically found that many audit firms did not obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls important to the auditor’s conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ICOC. This insufficiency was widespread in all four areas of the financial responsibility rules: the Reserve Requirement rule, possession or control requirements of the Customer Protection Rule, Account Statement Rule, and the Quarterly Security Counts Rule.

The PCAOB also identified a firm that included a statement in its examination report that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that its ICOC was effective as of its fiscal year-end; however, the broker-dealer did not include that required assertion in its compliance report.

AT No. 2 review engagements test compliance with the broker-dealer’s exemption provisions. The PCAOB examined 83 AT No. 2 engagements and found 19 of them to have deficiencies. The most significant deficiencies were that audit firms:

  • Did not make required inquiries, including inquiries about controls in place to maintain compliance with the exemption provisions, and those involving the nature, frequency, and results of related monitoring activities.
  • Similar to AT No. 1 engagements, included a statement in their review reports that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that it met the identified exemption provisions throughout the most recent fiscal year without exception; however, the broker-dealers did not include that required assertion in their exemption reports.

The majority of the deficiencies found were in the audits of the financial statements. The PCAOB did not examine every aspect of the financial statement audit, but focused on key areas. These areas were: revenue, evaluating audit results, identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement, related party relationships and transactions, receivables and payables, consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, consideration of materiality in planning and performing an audit, leases, and fair value measurements. Of these areas, revenue and evaluating audit results had the most deficiencies, with 45 and 27 deficiencies, or 47% and 26% of engagements examined, respectively.

Auditing standards indicate there is a rebuttable presumption that improper revenue recognition is a fraud risk. In the PCAOB’s examinations, most audit firms either identified a fraud risk related to revenue or did not rebut the presumption of revenue recognition as a fraud risk. These firms should have addressed the risk of material misstatement through appropriate substantive procedures that included tests of details. The PCAOB noted there were instances of firms that did not perform any procedures for one or more significant revenue accounts, or did not perform procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement for one or more relevant assertions for revenue. The PCAOB also identified deficiencies related to revenue in audit firms’ sampling methodologies and substantive analytical procedures. Other deficiencies of note, that were not revenue related, included:

  • Incomplete qualitative and quantitative disclosure information, specifically in regards to revenue from contracts with customers and leases.
  • Missing required elements from the auditor’s report.
  • Missing auditor communications:
    • Not inquiring of the audit committee (or equivalent body) about whether it was aware of matters relevant to the audit.
    • Not communicating the audit strategy and results of the audit to the audit committee (or equivalent body).
  • Engagement quality reviews were not performed for some audit and attestation engagements.
  • Audit firms assisted in the preparation of broker-dealer financial statements and supplemental information.

Although there have been improvements in the amounts of deficiencies found in the PCAOB’s examinations, the 2020 annual report shows that there is still work to be done by audit firms. Just like auditors should be inquiring of broker-dealer clients about the results of their most recent FINRA examination, broker-dealers should be inquiring of auditors about the results of their most recent PCAOB examination. Doing so will help broker-dealers identify where their auditor may reside on the audit quality spectrum. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our broker-dealer services team.

Article
2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers