Category: Income Taxes

Agreements Matter

~ C.O.R.E. Beliefs by John ~ Leave a comment

I have been summoned to a meeting.

I was helping a developer client with a sticky problem.  Once of the LLC’s was showing unequal capital accounts and I was tasked with trying to figure out why and then work with the LLC’s tax advisor on getting it straight.  Now the members wanted to discuss the impact of the plan to correct the problem their not following the operating agreement created.

The capital accounts were all out of sorts with a low of about $4K and a high of $50K.  Now, it is important to realize that the LLC was owned equally, 20% each for five members.  Distributions were all over the place.  All distributions happened on the same day but for entirely different amounts.  There were no instructions in the operating agreement to allow for disparate distributions.

The LLC’s CPA and I set up a meeting to review what had been happening and why.  The concern is that at least one capital account will go negative in 2019 and there is a plan to sell the project in 2020.  Not surprisingly, there is no claw-back or capital restoration provision in the LLC operating agreement.  So, someone was getting a bunch of money upfront with no requirement to take less than their 20% of the net proceeds upon sale.

The stuff of lawsuits.

Here is the frustrating part.  The tax advisor knew what they were doing was going to cause a problem but what could he do?  It was why he had his team set up the first layer of reallocations – to try and address the shifting of cash without the shifting of income.  Clearly it wasn’t enough.

I give him credit, he had tried to address this matter repeatedly over the previous 3 years.  He shared with me all his emails and memos to the manager and members.  To the members, it wasn’t a problem, until it was; capital accounts are edging towards negative territory.  His efforts to get the Members to see reason wasn’t working and it was now becoming a serious problem as almost 20 individuals were involved in this LLC.

The basic issues:

82% of the space is occupied by tenants controlled by the members.  Each of these tenants pays the same lease rate / square foot.   This is so even though they do not occupy the same amount of space.  Tenant 1, which is controlled by Member A occupies 25% of the total SF while tenant 5, controlled by Member E occupies less than 8%.

This isn’t as irrational as it sounds.  I agree that the goal should be to charge market rates for the space being occupied.  The 5 controlled tenants are paying $32.00 / SF.  It is a class A office building in downtown.  Each of the controlled tenants is occupying and using all the space they are paying for.  Is $32/SF reasonable?

Or perhaps that is the wrong question.  If we determined that the rent was overpaid, wasn’t it logical to offer a rent rebate back to the tenant?  After all, the tenant is the one who paid the rent, not the member.  The ownership of the LLC members was not the same as the tenant.  And remember, none of the members actually leased space; their businesses did.

What the CPA and I agreed to was that none of the tenants were overpaying rent, even though they are controlled by a member.  A business with 20 employees (tenant A to a tee) would occupy 5,500 SF of class A space.  They would pay anywhere between $20 and $40 / SF.  A business with 6 employees (tenant E) would pay between $24 and $48 / SF.

What we want is the members to accept that certain tenants (the affiliated tenants) are occupying the space and paying the rate / SF they are, due to the superior negotiating strength of the respective Member.  In short, Tenant 1 management was convinced to pay fair rent in this building for the space occupied.  Neither tenant nor member used a leasing agent.  Tenant was unable to negotiate a lower rate due to the control.  If this is true, couldn’t the argument be that the Member who put the tenant into place should get the benefit of the premium paid to the LLC for the additional rents paid and costs avoided?

Naturally being accountant’s we had to make it a little more complex but we ran it by counsel and the lawyer felt it was reasonable.  We had economic substance – a rational reason to reallocate cash flows and we had a model which supported the calculation.  Our reasoning that larger spaces could command a discount is sound and the fact that the controlled tenant didn’t (or couldn’t) request lower rents was because of the control of the Member.

The calculation actually allowed us to document almost all the distributions.  Three tenants had been overdistributed during the prior 4 years and two received less than they should have.  The largest over distribution is about $37K and the Member with the largest deficit was only $27K.  These can be corrected in the last distribution of 2018.

The downfall of this plan is that we would be creating specific allocations of the revenue.  The only way to do this fairly was to treat the payments as guaranteed payments.  That means that the Members could potentially see a tax hit for the payments.  Naturally, no one is happy about that and this is the reason for the meeting next week.  Also, no one wants to amend the prior returns as the sheer number of returns involved amounts to almost 200 separate amended returns.

Since I don’t know the tax situation of any of the individual members I can’t say with certainty what the net effect would be when passed through to all the various owners.  My gut instinct is almost zero; which means the concern is overblown.  But people fear what they have been conditioned to fear; in this case, each Member has a different tax advisor who has considerable influence over the client and each tax advisor has a different take on taxes.  Me personally?  I think that taxes are an ordinary cost of being in business: Make money – pay taxes.  But like any business cost, there is no need to pay more than you should.

I happen to agree with the LLC’s tax advisor.  the net cash flow from the rents after debt service should be distributed only in relationship to the Members ownership, i.e. 20% each.  If they wanted it another way, the structure should have been different – that is, perhaps the tenants should have purchased their space similar to a condominium arrangement and then they could have redistributed the net back to the owners.  But, that isn’t the structure they wanted.  They wanted to keep it simple.

While I understand the argument from the Members, it doesn’t stand scrutiny.  The rents charged were within an expected range.  Yes, Member A has a point; in comparison to smaller spaces for the other tenants, his company is overpaying.  But in relationship to the rest of the market, the lease rate was reasonable.  I can see where the Member could say he was being forced to shift income and cash flow to the other members if they didn’t reallocate; so what? This could have been easily avoided by the Member owning a smaller building and leasing it to his business as the sole tenant.  That isn’t what they wanted.

All this simplicity created enormous complications.  So, it is extremely important to think through your organization and how you want to generate revenues and distribute profits because in many cases your options are limited by the structure of your agreement.   Agreements matter and trying to smash a complex arrangement into a simple business agreement will cause nothing but headaches.

 

An Uncomfortable Moment

~ C.O.R.E. Beliefs by John ~ Leave a comment

The other day I was speaking with another CPA firm’s leaders about opportunities to cross-refer – they don’t do audits or reviews and we don’t do taxes – and I was asked what one of my most uncomfortable professional issues was.  I dislike airing my dirty laundry but at the same time, I have found that being forthright about these things helps me heal as well as hopefully provide a lesson for other professionals.

In 2002 I was “interviewed” by a joint task force investigating abusive tax practices.  Even today I am upset with myself for having put myself in that position.

I was in my 7th year (2000) and was recently given responsibility for managing the tax team along with the accounting and auditing team.  Beyond knowing what was, and more importantly wasn’t, allowed, the owners felt I could apply some of our audit processes to tax.  It was fun redesigning the entire workflow to streamline the processes.  I was also part of the local chamber and about that time I was asked to give a presentation on tax planning for small businesses.

After my presentation, I was approached by two gentlemen who wanted to discuss an idea they had.  I am always game for a business conversation so I set an appointment with them.  They gave me some materials they put together and asked if I would read them to plan for the meeting.

As I read their stuff, I became concerned about what they were trying to do.  I made my notes, did lots of research and came to the conclusion that what they wanted to do wouldn’t fly.  But…

And this is where things went sideways for me.  I love a challenging problem.  So I decided to change the scenario, restructured how it should work, Identified potential pitfalls and even created the basic literature to help them with sales.  All told, I invested about 20 hours into this before we even met.  But I felt good – I took a problematic process and modified it to where it would work.

When we finally met, they appreciated the information but were disappointed that I felt their plan wouldn’t work as they had originally conceived it.  I walked them through my analysis and they seemed to have a response to every point.  This seemed odd, so I asked them about how they had come to so much knowledge about this… and they divulged that they had been to 3 other firms who each had found flaws in their plan: I was the only one to offer a full rebuttal and a new concept though.

They asked me how confident I was in my research and I told them very confident.  They then offered us $15,000 to help them formalize the documentation and issue a tax opinion on the plan.  That was a good sized engagement and I felt I had convinced them that my way was superior to theirs – even if they couldn’t offer a huge tax benefit to participants.

The next week I met with their in-house accountant and their attorney, along with the owners.  Once we got going they kept pushing to use their original plan as they felt it was bullet-proof.  I told them that if they felt it was bullet-proof then they didn’t need me.  I explained that their plan would never fly; they kept saying that it was being done by this firm on the east coast.  They got another lawyer on the phone from back east who allegedly represented the firm who was “killing it”. He agreed that it was a “gray area” but he was certain it could pass an IRS challenge.

I did a lot of soul searching on the matter.  They were certain they were right and I was certain they were too aggressive.  I felt our more conservative approach would survive a challenge, which was most likely to happen since they were targeting larger corporations with their plan.  In the end I wrote the opinion letter based upon the plan I outlined, not theirs.  I wrote them a separate letter stating why their plan would not work, quoting chapter and verse of the tax code.

They thanked me, paid our bill and I never heard from them again.  But I did hear from the task force about 2 years later in 2002.  It seemed they decided to use our tax opinion letter to support their more aggressive plan.  One of their customers used it to justify their participation, were audited, and showed the IRS auditor our opinion report who then pointed out that the plan they put in place was not the plan I wrote an opinion on.

Which led to my being interviewed.

I missed the warning signs.  I understood opinion shopping but hadn’t really faced it before.  I was quite proud of that research and how well we documented the situation.  It was complex and challenging.  But I failed to heed my own warning signs.  I saw the problem and thought they could see the elegance and superiority of my plan.  In the end they saw their greed and willingness to use people to get the results they wanted.

It was an uncomfortable experience and I don’t recommend it to any professional.  It did, however, give me great life, and business lessons that I still use to this day.

  • Go with your gut.  As a professional advisor, you have to trust your instincts.  Not every client is a perfect client and if you feel they are not a good fit, go with it.  There are other client opportunities out there.
  • Be wary when clients shop other advisors.  I think a client interviewing several potential firms is a smart move, especially for business clients.  I encourage it.  But it is entirely different when they seem to have paid several firms for advice they don’t seem interested in heeding.
  • If a client plans on using your work to stay out of trouble, make sure it is effectively documented.  We had an engagement letter and I kept copies of all our drafts and research.  We also kept all their correspondence which showed their thoughts and plans.
  • Finally – slow down.  I love a good juicy complex problem.  I enjoy research, writing and presenting.  But I jumped into it before I knew the client.  I inadvertently talked myself into this engagement by buying into the solution I presented.  Had I gotten to know them a little better, we would have likely turned down the work.  Yes, a good sized engagement is always hard to turn down, but having to sit for an interview with law enforcement is almost always going to be uncompensated.

Be selective.  I have come to understand me and my passion for problem solving.  But I have also learned that not everyone’s problem is worth the energy.  I like underdogs, I love winning.  I have learned to love learning (losing) by choosing the work I want to do for clients I am passionate about working with.  Having fewer, more engaging clients who value your input and expertise is much better than tons of clients who treat you as a commodity.  Quality over quantity every time will help you become healthy, wealthy, and wise.

 

Ingredients for Success

~ C.O.R.E. Beliefs by John ~ Leave a comment

In documenting your expenses.  Catchy title though right?

Don’t roll your eyes, this is one of those often overlooked areas in business – especially since a large number of receipts are sent to us via email these days.  The fact that some of these expenses are possibly limited as a tax deduction also diminishes the urgency behind providing sufficient documentation.  But, it is still essential that you always document your spending in business, no matter how tedious.  And the biggest headache of all is meals and entertainment.

It begins with the basis: Who; What; Where; When; and why.

Who did you eat with?

If you have invested in a simple expense tracking app, then this should be one of those mandatory fields.  Provide the names of the people and their businesses.  If you have a CRM, identify the participants there and add new contact information in they don’t exist.

What did you talk about?

You don’t need to record the meeting but provide your employer (or you if you own the company) with enough information about the meeting to decide if it is something worth pursuing.  If you discussed a sale opportunity or potential prospects, again, update your CRM for this, especially if it is a new opportunity.  Don’t wait until your lunch guest decides to call you.

Where did you discuss business and where did you eat?

Sometimes the meal is the meeting and others the meeting happens before or after.  For instance, I often go to a referral sources office to meet with the entire staff, but my conversation is with, say, their sales manager.  I like to document that we met at their office and then walked to the restaurant and name the restaurant.

When did you have the meeting and lunch?

Day and time of both are important but really it is about tracking how much time you spend in meeting with the other participants.  It is also good to track when you have to explain your day to your boss (or wife as the case may be).  And, it is also helpful in understanding how you use your time: was it a 3 hour meeting about a sales opportunity that never arises?  Is it your 3rd such meeting this month?

Why did you meet and decide to eat?

The why is oftentimes the most important issue to document for your business.  Was it a business opportunity?  Did you meet to discuss their new business line and how you might be able to share its benefits with your referral network?  Was it an intentional lunch meeting or was it because your meeting ran over and you felt it was an appropriate goodwill gesture?  Be clear.  I do many lunches with my referral network simple to stay in contact – especially those who take a clear interest in what we do.  And sometimes, especially with potential customers who could generate substantial fees, if a meeting runs long I think it is appropriate to recognize the value of their time by saying thank you over a burger and fries.

And for those who love the biggest question of all?  How?

How did the meeting and lunch benefit your company?

I love talking with people.  But the reality is, it is often more effective and efficient to have a video chat than to drive to someone’s office and then go to lunch.  It is a cost/benefit analysis which simply begins with you recognizing that your time is extremely valuable.  So, be honest with yourself when you document your lunch meeting by asking how your company benefitted.  Is it a lunch with your top referral source or a lunch with a friend that couldn’t care less what your company does but likes talking about his kids?  I am not saying that having a deep personal relationship isn’t worth it, but be clear that the business benefit is probably not there.

Tax deductibility should not change your overall business approach.  If you make money through lunch meetings I recommend continuing them.  But be ready to analyze how these meetings, and expenses, are working for you and make smart strategic choices that satisfy your needs and also your company’s.  You will be happy by possibly saving money, but more importantly, your very valuable time.

 

Complexity

~ C.O.R.E. Beliefs by John ~ Leave a comment

The past 10 days has seen us dealing with a lot of challenges which come about through complex entities trying to be simple.  Most of the challenges come from participants claiming they don’t understand but in reality it is they don’t want to pay the underlying cost of their organization structure.

The condominium association where the board didn’t want to address the interest charges to owners for financing a special assessment over 10 years.  Their stated argument was that they were trying to keep it simple.  The real issue was that they didn’t want to pay a manager or accountant money to track the owner accounts.  Eight years later, they need to perform a new special assessment to come up with the shortfall that is owed the bank.  This is going to be complex.

The investment partnership which wants to shift income between partners.  They crafted a simple partnership agreement and right from the beginning started doing this.  In the beginning they had lots of equity so the tax preparer was not worried about the unequal distributions.  Five years later six of eight members have negative capital accounts and it needs to be fixed.  They created a complex structure and thought a simple partnership agreement would allow them to do what they wanted.  They didn’t understand.   The truth is they didn’t want to pay someone to manage the complex modeling of the cash flow reallocation to ensure it was done correctly.  It is their profit after all.

The Corporation who borrows money from the bank and then retires their majority shareholder.  They write an agreement which says that the Company will repurchase 1/10th of the shares every year for the next 10 years.  At a stated price.  And then they fire the accountant who tells them they need to record a $5.0 Million debt – which of course puts them out of compliance with the bank.  They find a more accommodating CPA to prepare the financial statement.  Bank still finds out and calls the bank loans.  They didn’t understand GAAP.  No, the didn’t want to pay for effective advice.

Complexity has a price.  If you don’t want to pay higher prices, keep it simple.  There are no rules which say that profit can’t be distributed equally amongst all partners.  Shockingly  simple.  There is no rule which says you can’t buy back the owners shares.  But you should probably discuss that with the bank before you borrow money.  And then talk with someone who knows what GAAP might have to say about that kind of transaction.

The old adage is very true: Pay me now or pay me more later.  Alright I confess I added the more but it should have always been there.  It is never cheaper to fix the problem later.  NEVER.

There is another old saying: Accountants have the magic wand and attorneys have the way back machine.  Notice though that you have to go to the true wizards of Oz to fix the problem.  Accountant’s to create the numbers to correct the problem you created and the attorney to create the right paperwork at the right time.  In hindsight.

Today is about clichés apparently.  I believe it was Einstein who said, “A problem can never be solved by the same intellect which created it.” or something to that effect.  What this means, in my world, is that the client goes to one accountant and lawyer to “be simple” and then fires them to find someone to fix the “complexity”.  That means coming up to speed, understanding what you originally did, and then trying brainstorming for hours trying to come up with a plausible solution.

Yes, there is a better way.  Plan for complexity.  Accept that some modes of transacting business require new, or at least different, processes.  Maybe new software; perhaps a new department; perhaps a new legal structure.

The entities above each spent under $2,500 to create the original simple way they wanted.  Each has to be in excess of $20,000 to fix the problem.  I don’t think planning to deal with complexity right up front would have cost anywhere near the cost to fix it.

Complexity.  You will pay for it.  The smarter play is to accept it upfront and make it a cost of being in business.  Or don’t.  You simply pay more to fix it.

Have a great weekend.