Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Physician Time Studies during the
COVID-
19 Public Health Emergency

05.21.20

Read this if your organization is required to perform physician time studies.

Currently hospitals allocate physician compensation costs to Part A (provider) and Part B (professional/patient) time based on either time studies or allocation agreements. The basic instructions for periodic time studies are that they must be based on the following criteria:

  1. One full week per month of the cost reporting period
  2. Based on a full work week
  3. Use three weeks from the first week of the month, three weeks from the second week of the month, three weeks from the third week of the month and three weeks from the fourth week of the month
  4. Consecutive months cannot use the same week of the month

Per a CMS Special Edition of mlnconnects published May 15, 2020, during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) CMS has made the following time study options available to hospitals as follows:

  • A one-week time study every six months (two weeks per year);
  • Time studies completed prior to January 27, 2020 (the PHE effective date) for the applicable cost report period can be used with no time studies needed for 1/27/2020 – 6/30/2020; or
  • Time studies for the same period in CY 2019 (e.g., if unable to complete time studies during February through July 2020, use time studies completed February through July 2019)

If you have any questions regarding the information in this article please contact Ellen Donahue.

Related Industries

Related Professionals

The COVID-19 emergency has caused CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) to expand eligibility for expedited payments to Medicare providers and suppliers for the duration of the public health emergency.

Accelerated payments have been available to providers/suppliers in the past due to a disruption in claims submission or claims processing, mainly due to natural disasters. Because of the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS has expanded the accelerated payment program to provide necessary funds to eligible providers/suppliers who submit a request to their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) and meet the required qualifications.

Eligibility requirements―Providers/suppliers who:

  1. Have billed Medicare for claims within 180 days immediately prior to the date of signature on the provider’s/supplier’s request form,
  2. Are not in bankruptcy,
  3. Are not under active medical review or program integrity investigation, and
  4. Do not have any outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayments.

Amount of payment:
Eligible providers/suppliers will request a specific amount for an accelerated payment. Most providers can request up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount for a three-month period. Inpatient acute care hospitals and certain other hospitals can request up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount for a six-month period. Critical access hospitals (CAHs) can request up to 125% of the Medicare payment for a six-month period.

Processing time:
CMS has indicated that MACs will work to review and issue payment within seven calendar days of receiving the request.

Repayment, recoupment, and reconciliation:
Repayment of the accelerated payment begins 120 days after the date of the issuance of the payment.

  • Inpatient acute care hospitals, certain other hospitals, and CAHs have up to one year from the payment date to repay the balance.
  • All other Part A providers and Part B suppliers will have 210 days from the payment date to repay the balance.
  • Providers/suppliers should continue to submit claims as usual after the issuance of the accelerated payment, but recoupment will not begin for 120 days. Full payment will be made on claims during the 120-day period. At the end of the 120-day period, the recoupment process automatically begins. Every claim submitted will be offset from the new claims to repay the accelerated payment. No payment will be made on newly submitted claims and repayment will begin.
  • The majority of hospitals will have up to one year from the date of the accelerated payment to repay the balance. One year after the accelerated payment is made, the MAC will check to determine if there is a remaining balance. If there is an un-recouped balance, the MAC will send a request for repayment which is to be made by direct payment. Part A and Part B providers not subject to the one-year recoupment plan will have up to 210 days for the reconciliation process to begin.
  • For Part A providers who receive Periodic Interim Payments, the accelerated payment reconciliation process will happen at the final cost report process (180 days after the fiscal period closes).

Application:
The MAC for Jurisdiction 6 and Jurisdiction K is NGS (National Government Services). The NGS application for accelerated payment can be found here.

The NGS Hotline telephone number is 1.888.802.3898. Per NGSMedicare.com, representatives are available Monday through Friday during regular business hours.

The MAC will review the application to ensure the eligibility requirements are met. The provider/supplier will be notified of approval or denial by mail or email. If the request is approved, the MAC will issue the accelerated payment within seven calendar days from the request.

Tips for filing the Request for Accelerated/Advance Payment:
The key to determining whether a provider should apply under Part A or Part B is the Medicare Identification number. For hospitals, the majority of funding would originate under Part A based on the CMS Certification Number (CCN) also known as the Provider Transaction Access Number (PTAN). As an example, Maine hospitals have CCN / PTAN numbers that use the following numbering convention "20-XXXX". Part B requests would originate when the provider differs from this convention. In short, everything reported on a cost report or Provider Statistical and Reimbursement report  (PS&R) would fall under Part A for the purpose of this funding. 
 
When funding is approved, the requested amount is compared to a database with amounts calculated by Medicare and provides funding at the lessor of the two amounts. The current form allows the provider to request the maximum payment amount as calculated by CMS or a lesser specified amount.
 
A representative from National Government Services indicated the preference was to receive one request for Part A per hospital. The form provides for attachment of a listing of multiple PTAN and NPI numbers that fall under the organization.

Interest after recoupment period:
On Monday, April 6, 2020, the American Hospital Association (AHA) wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services and CMS requesting the interest rate applied to the repayment of the accelerated/advanced payments be waived or substantially reduced. AHA received clarification from CMS that any remaining balance at the end of the recoupment period is subject to interest. Currently that interest rate is set at 10.25% or the “prevailing rate set by the Treasury Department”. Without relief from CMS, interest will accrue as of the 31st day after the hospital has received a demand letter for the repayment of the remaining balance. The hospital does have 30 days to pay the balance without incurring interest.  

We are here to help
If you have questions or need more information about your specific situation, please contact the hospital consulting team. We’re here to help.

Article
Medicare Accelerated Payment Program

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

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

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

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

Discount for lack of control

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Article
Discounts for lack of control and marketability in business valuations

Read this if you are a home health agency (HHA).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule, CY2021, was published on June 30, 2020. The proposed rule indicates that the Request for Advance Payment (RAP) currently permitted will be eliminated for all 30-day home health periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021. If adopted, this proposed rule will impact the timing of cash flow for HHAs. HHAs will no longer receive an advanced payment, but rather will not be paid until approximately 45-60 days after the period of care has begun. The change in timing of the payment should be considered as part of your HHA’s cash flow forecasting.

Note: Although the RAP payment has been eliminated, HHAs will still be required to submit a zero dollar RAP bill at the beginning of each 30-day period to establish home health services. 

Also included in the proposed rule is a transition from a RAP to a Notice of Admission (NOA) in 2022. This is similar to the Notice of Election under the hospice benefit, since there will no longer be a RAP. It is proposed that HHAs would submit a one-time NOA that establishes care in place of the RAP for the patient until discharged. 

There will be a payment penalty if either the zero dollar RAP in CY2021 or NOA in 2022 is not submitted within five calendar days from the start of care. The penalty is proposed to be a payment reduction of 1/30th to the wage and case-mix adjusted 30-day period of care reimbursement for each day late until submitted, reducing the total reimbursement for patient care. HHAs should be monitoring the timeliness of RAP submissions to be prepared for this proposed change and avoid potential reimbursement reduction if this proposed rule is passed. Read the entire proposed rule.

Please contact a BerryDunn Home Health team member to assist you with evaluating the cash flow impact these proposed changes may have to your organization. 

Article
Medicare Home Health Notice of Admission Proposed Rule CY2021 and its cash flow impact

Read this if you are a solar developer or investor.

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

Passive or active?

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

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

Portfolio income

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

Material participation test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article
Passive activity loss limitation rules and solar project investment

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

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

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

Eligibility requirements for the program from the state

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

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

For more information

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

Article
$200 Million Maine Economic Recovery Grant Program released