Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

New Hampshire v. Massachusetts: Sovereignty or status quo?

02.11.21

Read this if you are a New Hampshire resident, or a business owner or manager with telecommuting employees (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

In late January, the Supreme Court asked the Biden Administration for its views on a not-so-friendly neighborly dispute between the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is famous amongst its neighboring states for its lack of sales tax and personal income tax. Because of the tax rules and other alluring features, thousands of employees commute daily from New Hampshire to Massachusetts. Overnight, like so many of us, those commuters were working at home and not crossing state boundaries.

As a result of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders, Massachusetts issued temporary and early guidance, directing employers to maintain the status quo. Keep withholding on your employees in the same manner that you were, even though they may not be physically coming into the state. New Hampshire was against this directive from day one, but the nail in the coffin was an extension of the guidance in October. Within days, New Hampshire filed suit in the Supreme Court.

New Hampshire’s position

In its brief, New Hampshire asserts that the Massachusetts regulations are unconstitutional—in violation of the both the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Each clause has historically prohibited a state from taxing outside its borders and limits tax on non-residents. For Massachusetts employers to continue withholding on New Hampshire resident’s wage earnings, New Hampshire argues, Massachusetts is imposing a tax within New Hampshire, contrary to the Constitution. 

What makes the New Hampshire situation unique is that it does not impose an income tax on individuals, a “defining feature of its sovereignty”, the state argues. New Hampshire would say that its tax regime creates a competitive advantage in attracting new business and residents. Maine residents, subject to the same Massachusetts rules, would receive a corresponding tax credit on their Maine tax return, making them close to whole between the two states. Because there is no New Hampshire individual income tax, their residents are out of pocket for a tax that they wouldn’t be subject to, but for these regulations. 

Massachusetts’ position

Massachusetts' intention behind the temporary regulations was to maintain pre-pandemic status quo to avoid uncertainty for employees and additional compliance burden on employers. This would ensure employers would not be responsible for determining when an employee was working, for example, at their Lake Winnipesaukee camp for a few weeks, or their relative’s home in Rhode Island. 

Additionally, states like New York and Connecticut have long had “convenience of the employer” laws on the books which imposed New York tax on telecommuting non-residents. Additionally, Massachusetts provided that a parallel treatment will be given to resident employees with income tax liabilities in other states who have adopted similar sourcing rules, i.e., a Massachusetts resident working for a Maine employer.

Other voices

The U.S. Supreme Court has requested a brief from the Biden administration with no deadline given. It’s assumed, however, to be received in time for the court to makes its decision before the end of term in June. Since the original filing, the States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, and others have filed briefs, imploring the Court to hear the case due to similar circumstances in their states and the wide ranging precedent Massachusetts and others may be effectuating. Additionally, Pennsylvania and others have released their own status quo guidance, following Massachusetts.

What now?

Right now, it’s wait and see what the Supreme Court decides. For Massachusetts employers specifically, you should review current withholdings and ensure compliance with the temporary regulations. The regulations for non-resident wages and withholding are in effect until 90 days after the state of emergency has lifted. Given that that date keeps moving further away, the rules may still be in effect when the Supreme Court delivers their decision in June. For all employers, it’s important that you review the rules in each state of operation and confirm that the proper withholding is made. 

Unwinding from the pandemic is going to be a long road, regardless of what decision the Supreme Court makes. If New Hampshire prevails, it’ll be a long compliance burden for both employers and employees to unwind the withholding and receive refunds. If Massachusetts wins, employers that weren’t following the regulations will have a costly tax exposure to correct.  

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

Related Professionals

Read this if you are a construction company.

I am pleased to introduce 2020 Tax Planning Opportunities: CARES Act, published in conjunction with CICPAC (Construction Industry CPAs-Consultants Association) by a national group of tax professionals focused on the construction industry. BerryDunn is proud to be one of CICPAC’s 65 member firms across the US, and one of only two in New England.

Within the document you’ll find an abundance of useful insights on the following topics and more related to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act:

  • Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans
  • Net operating losses and excess business loss limitations
  • Qualified Improvement Property (QIP)
  • Payroll cash flow opportunities and employer tax credits

Every business has been impacted by COVID-19 in some form. The CARES Act offers opportunities galore for virtually every business. Now, perhaps more than ever, it’s time to work closely with your BerryDunn tax professional to ensure recovery through this difficult time. 

Read the entire document

Article
2020 tax planning opportunities: CARES Act whitepaper available now

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?

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
 

Article
Back to the future: Business activity taxes!

Read this if you are a community bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued its fourth quarter 2020 Quarterly Banking Profile. The report provides financial information based on call reports filed by 5,001 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The report also contains a section specific to community bank performance. In fourth quarter 2020, this includes the financial information of 4,559 FDIC-insured community banks. Here are our key takeaways from the community bank section of the report:

  • There was a $1.3 billion increase in quarterly net income from a year prior despite a 38.1% increase in provision expense and continued net interest margin (NIM) compression. This increase was mainly due to loan sales, which were up 159.2% from 2019. Year-over-year, net income is up 3.6%. However, the percentage of unprofitable community banks rose from 3.7% in 2019 to 4.4% in 2020.
  • Provision expense for the year increased $4.1 billion (a 141.6% increase) from 2019.
  • Year-over-year NIM declined 27 basis points to 3.39%. The average yield on earning assets fell 61 basis points to 4.00%.
  • Net operating revenue increased by $3.4 billion from fourth quarter 2019, a 14.5% increase. This increase is attributable to higher revenue from loan sales (increased $1.8 billion, or 159.2%) and an increase in net interest income.
  • Non-interest expenses increased 10.4% from fourth quarter 2019. This increase was mainly attributable to salary and benefit expenses, which saw an increase of $1.1 billion (12.6%). That being said, average assets per employee increased 16% from fourth quarter 2019.
  • Trends in loans and leases showed a moderate contraction from third quarter 2020, decreasing by 1.6%. This contraction was mainly seen in the C&I loan category, which was driven by a reduction in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan balances. However, total loans and leases increased by 10.3% from fourth quarter 2019. Although all major loan categories expanded in 2020, the majority of growth was seen in C&I loans, which accounted for approximately two-thirds of the year-over-year increase in loans and leases. However, keep in mind, C&I loans include PPP loans that were originated in the first half of 2020.
  • Nearly all community banks reported an increase in deposit volume during the year. Growth in deposits above the insurance limit drove the annual increase while alternative funding sources, such as brokered deposits, declined.
  • Average funding costs fell 33 basis points to 61 basis points for 2020.
  • Noncurrent loans (loans 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) increased $1.5 billion (12.8%) from fourth quarter 2019 as noncurrent balances in all major loan categories grew. However, the noncurrent rate remained relatively stable compared to fourth quarter 2019 at 77 basis points, partly due to strong year-over-year loan growth.
  • Net charge-offs decreased 4 basis points from fourth quarter 2019 to 15 basis points. The net charge-off rate for C&I loans declined most among major loan categories having decreased 24 basis points.
  • The average community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) for the 1,844 banks that elected to use the CBLR framework was 11.2%.
  • The number of community banks declined by 31 to 4,559 from third quarter 2020. This change includes two new community banks, four banks transitioning from non-community to community banks, three banks transitioning from community to non-community banks, 30 community bank mergers or consolidations, two community bank self-liquidations, and two community bank failures.

2020 was a strong year for community banks, as evidenced by the increase in year-over-year net income of 3.6%. However, tightening NIMs will force community banks to either find creative ways to increase their NIM, grow their earning asset bases, or find ways to continue to increase non-interest income to maintain current net income levels. Some community banks have already started dedicating more time to non-traditional income streams, as evidenced by the 40.1% year-over-year increase in non-interest income.

Furthermore, much uncertainty still exists. For instance, although significant charge-offs have not yet materialized, the financial picture for many borrowers remains uncertain. And payment deferrals have made some credit quality indicators, such as past due status, less reliable. The ability of community banks to maintain relationships with their borrowers and remain apprised of the results of their borrowers’ operations has never been more important.

As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team if you have any questions. We're here to help.
 

Article
FDIC issues its fourth quarter 2020 Quarterly Banking Profile

Read this if you are an employee benefit plan fiduciary.

This article is the second in a series to help employee benefit plan fiduciaries better understand their responsibilities and manage the risks of non-compliance with Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements. In our last article, we looked into the background of ERISA, which established important standards for the sound operation of employee benefit plans, as well as who is and isn’t a plan fiduciary, and what their responsibilities are. 

One important ERISA provision, found in Section 406(a), covers the types of transactions a plan fiduciary can and can’t engage in. ERISA terms the latter prohibited transactions, and they’re a lot like traffic lights—when it comes to avoiding conflicts of interest in business dealings, they’re your guide for when to stop and when to go. By knowing and abiding by these rules of the road, plan fiduciaries can steer clear of tickets, fines, and other damaging mishaps. 

Parties-in-interest—keep them out of the passenger seat 

Much like driver’s ed., fiduciary responsibility boils down to knowing the rules—plan fiduciaries need to have a strong working knowledge of what constitutes a prohibited transaction in order to ensure their compliance with ERISA. The full criteria are too detailed for this article, but one sure sign is the presence of a party-in-interest.

ERISA’s definition of a party-in-interest

The definition includes any plan fiduciary, the plan sponsor, its affiliates, employees, and paid and unpaid plan service providers, and 50%-or-more owners of stock in the plan sponsor. If you’d like to take a deeper dive into ERISA’s definition of parties-in-interest, see “ERISA's definition of parties-in-interest" at right.

Prohibited transactions—red lights on fiduciary road 

Now that we know who fiduciaries shouldn’t transact with, let’s look at what they shouldn’t transact on. ERISA’s definition of a prohibited transaction includes: 

  • Sale, exchange, and lease of property 
  • Lending money and extending credit 
  • Furnishing goods, services, and facilities 
  • Transferring plan assets 
  • Acquiring certain securities and real property using plan assets to benefit the plan fiduciary 
  • Transacting on behalf of any party whose interests are adverse to the plan’s or its participants’ 

Transacting in any of the above is akin to running a red light—serious penalties are unlikely, but there are other consequences you want to avoid. Offenders are subject to a 15% IRS-imposed excise tax that applies for as long as the prohibited transaction remains uncorrected. That tax applies regardless of the transaction’s intent and even if found to have benefited the plan. 

The IRS provides a 14-day period for plan fiduciaries to correct prohibited transactions and avoid associated penalties. 

Much like owning a car, regular preventative maintenance can help you avoid the need for costly repairs. Plan fiduciaries should periodically refresh their understanding of ERISA requirements and re-evaluate their current and future business activities on an ongoing basis. Need help navigating the fiduciary road? Reach out to the BerryDunn employee benefit consulting team today. 
 

Article
Prohibited transactions: Rules of the road for benefit plan fiduciaries

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. 

Now that the Democrats have control of the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate, many in Washington, DC and around the country are asking “What is going to happen with business taxes?” 

While candidate Biden expressed interest in raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, it is best to think of that as a framework for where the new administration intends to go, rather than a set-in-stone inevitability. We know his administration is likely to favor a paring back of some of the tax cuts made by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Biden has indicated his administration may consider changes to the corporate tax rate, capital gains rate, individual income tax rates, and the estate and gift tax exemption amount.

Procedurally, it is unclear how tax legislation would be formulated under the Biden administration. A tax package could be included as part of another COVID-19 relief bill. The TCJA could be modified, repealed, or replaced. It is also unclear how any package would proceed through Congress. Under current Senate rules, the legislative filibuster can limit the Senate’s ability to pass standalone tax legislation, thus leaving any such legislation to the budget reconciliation process, as was the case in 2017. It also remains unclear if the two parties will come together to work on any bill. Finally, it will be important to note who fills key Treasury tax positions in the Biden administration, as these individuals will have a strategic role in the development of administration priorities and the negotiation with Congress of any tax bill. Here are three ways tax changes could take shape:

  1. Part of a COVID-19 relief package
    With the Biden administration eager to provide immediate relief to individuals and small- and medium-sized businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic, some tax changes could be included as part of an additional relief bill on which the administration is likely to seek bipartisan support. Such changes could take the form of tax cuts for some businesses and individuals, tax credits, expanded retirement contributions, and/or other measures. If attached to a COVID-19 relief bill, these changes would likely go into effect immediately and would provide rapid relief to businesses and individuals that have been particularly hard hit during the pandemic and economic downturn.
  2. Repeal and replace TCJA
    Another possibility is for Biden to pursue a full rollback of the TCJA and replace it with his own tax bill. This would be a challenge since the Democrats only have a slim majority in the Senate, meaning that Republicans could filibuster the bill unless Senate Democrats take steps to repeal the filibuster.

    Given that the Biden administration’s immediate priorities will be delivering financial assistance to individuals and businesses, ensuring the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, and flattening the curve of cases, a repeal and replacement of the TCJA might not be voted on until at least late 2021 and likely would not go into effect until 2022 at the earliest.
  3. Pare back or modify the TCJA
    An overall theme of Biden’s campaign was not sweeping, radical change but making incremental shifts that he views as improvements. This theme may come into play in Biden’s approach to tax legislation. He may choose not to repeal the TCJA completely (prompting a return to 2016 taxation levels), but instead pare back some of the tax changes enacted in 2017. In practice, this could mean raising the corporate tax rate by a few percentage points, which could garner bipartisan support. Again, this likely would not be a legislative priority until after the country has passed through the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors that will influence potential tax changes

Senate legislative filibuster

Currently, the minority party in the Senate can delay a vote on an issue if fewer than 60 senators support bringing a measure to a vote. Thus, Republicans would be likely to filibuster any bill that contains more ambitious tax rate increases. The uptick in the use of the filibuster in recent decades is perhaps a symptom of congressional deadlock, and there are calls from many Democrats to eliminate the filibuster in order to pass more ambitious legislation without bipartisan support (in fact, in recent years, the filibuster has been removed for appointments and confirmations). While President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may be open to ending or further limiting the filibuster, every Democratic senator would have to agree. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has said repeatedly that he will not vote to end the legislative filibuster.

If the filibuster remains in place as it appears it will, tax legislation would likely be passed as part of the budget reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority to pass. However, the tradeoff is that any changes generally would have to expire at the end of the budget window, which typically is 10 years. This is how both the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the TCJA were passed.

Appetite for bipartisanship

President Biden has signaled that he wants to work for all Americans and seek to heal the partisan divides in the country. He may be looking to reach across the aisle on certain legislation and seek bipartisan support, even if such support is not necessary to pass a bill. Biden stated during his campaign that he wants to increase the corporate tax rate—not to the 2017 rate of 35%—but to 28%. Achieving this middle ground rate might be viewed as a compromise approach.

As the new government takes office, it remains to be seen how much bipartisanship is desired, or even possible.

What this may mean for your business

It is important to note that sweeping tax changes probably are not an immediate priority for the incoming Biden administration. The new administration’s immediate focus likely will be on addressing the current fragmented approach to COVID-19 vaccinations, accelerating the distribution of the vaccines, taking steps to bring the spread of COVID-19 under control, and providing much needed economic relief. As noted above, there could be some tax changes and impacts resulting from future COVID-19 relief bills.

Those will be the bills to watch for any early tax changes, including cuts or credits, that businesses may be able to take advantage of. Larger scale tax changes, particularly any tax increases, may not go into effect until 2022 at the earliest. Here are some of the current rules and how Biden is proposing to deal with them.

If you have questions about your particular situation, please contact our team. We’re here to help. 

Article
Biden's tax plan: Tax reform details remain unclear