Deferred Tax and Tax Reform

This is going to be entertaining.

We have a few clients that have substantial deferred tax assets – mostly from net operating losses (NOL) carried forward during their start-up period.  Tax losses for corporations are typically carried back two years and carry forward 20.  The problem is that when the adjustment was made, the assumed tax rate was above 25%.

Why is this a problem?

Lets say that a company had a $400,000 loss in 2016.  The assumed tax rate for book purposes was 25% and so is carrying forward NOL of $100,000 from that loss.  the adjustment to initially record this was

Deferred tax asset           $100,000
Income tax benefit                               $100,000

The income tax benefit is part of the income tax expense (benefit) line on the P&L statement.

2017 was a breakeven year, no income or loss for book purposes so the tax expense (benefit) recorded is $0.

But there is a problem.

Congress is enacting sweeping tax reform which indicates that the new tax rates are going to be 20% for 2018 and beyond.

GAAP requires that assets be reviewed for impairment at least annually.  Well, this deferred tax of $100,000 is an asset.  So is it impaired?

Since the law has not been signed as of today, it is not set in stone.  So one argument is that, since you are not sure of the actual change, you shouldn’t reduce the asset value.  However, is it more than remotely possible that the tax law will change?  And if so, should the impairment be recorded?

Since both houses of congress have passed a corporate tax law which reduces taxes and the president has indicated that tax reform will be signed, all indications are that corporate tax law will change.  And since, in this case, the law is expected to be in force for 2018, it appears that new tax rates are more than remotely possible.  It is probably a near certainty.

So what do we do?

I think businesses need to look at their deferred tax accounts and ask if the carrying amounts are correct for their upcoming year ends, even if the tax law is not passed prior to 12/31/17.  Just as importantly, I think if your company has a September, October, or November year end you probably need to look at those accounts and determine if the amounts accurately reflect possible changes.

In this particular case the client should probably record an entry to reduce the deferred tax asset to $80,000.  The adjustment would be in the current year as the original adjustment was correct given the known fact patterns.  So an adjustment of the prior periods tax benefit would not be correct.

You will also want to make sure you either update your tax footnote or add one to explain the changes and how your company implemented them.

The good news is that this adjustment should not have a major impact on bank loan covenants as most base their covenants on EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.  No matter what the tax adjustment, EBITDA won’t change.

However, there may be still be a gotcha to this as it appears there is possibly going to be a limit to the deductibility of interest expense.  Latest read was that it was capped at 30% of profit before interest.  If this holds up, then it is possible that, in the example above, there might actually be taxes due.

Lets say that the Company made $50,000 before interest expense.  The interest expense was $50,000 which led to the breakeven.  If they cap interest, then for tax purposes, taxable income is $35,000 (50,000 X (1-30% cap)) which leads to income taxes due of $7,000.  But for book purposes, the tax effect was zero, leading to the $7,000 being added to the deferred tax asset – at the same time you are reducing it for the reduction in rates.

And you thought accounting was boring.

Like I said, entertaining.

Have a great day.

The Traveling Salesman

I love telling stories about the good, and not-so-good, things clients have done over the years.  Actually, to be honest, I like the not-so-good stories as they are educational and hopefully stop others from going down a path they might regret.

Part of my role is technical compliance and final reviewer of tax work.  My responsibility is to make sure that any significant tax position taken was backed up by adequate documentation and research.  I couldn’t stop clients from taking risky positions, but I could stop the firm from agreeing to dumb things that we couldn’t defend.

One tax return comes to mind.  It was a new client and I was having trouble getting my head around his small business.  It was on Schedule C and reported a loss of about $100,000.  He had a W2 for about $150,000 so was getting about 30K back in refunds.

What stood out most were two items.  Negative gross profit of $60,000 and an RV on the books which generated about $25,000 of depreciation.

Negative gross profit, by the way, comes from when you sell your product for less than the total cost of those products.  In this case, he had revenues of $12,000 and Cost of Goods sold of $72,000.

I wouldn’t sign off and the partner wanted to know what my concerns were.  I asked him if he talked to the client about his “business” and the answer was, “Not really.”

So, I was indulged and the client came in for a meeting.  I asked him to explain how his business worked.  He bought product, he told us and traveled up and down I-5 stopping at county fairs to sell his product.

Interesting.  We didn’t notice any fees for space rental at any events, though.

That’s because he parked his RV in the lot and sold on the outside.  Ok.

How many customers did the $12,000 represent?  We inquired.

One, he replied.  One client.  So what was the $4,000 of meals and entertainment?

He took this client out to dinner and to various ball games and other events because of their loyalty.

Who is this client? we asked dreading the answer.

His wife.

Yeah.  He and his wife took the summer off to travel and he bought stuff and he “sold” it to her.  Because she was such a loyal customer, he gave her a substantial discount on buying the stuff she “wanted”.  And he rewarded her loyalty with dinners and events.

Now, I know you are thinking BS, I am making this up.  I swear I am not.  Public accountants get some of the most entertaining and too-good-to-be-true stories out there.

Our main problem was that his prior accountant let him get away with it.  We suggested that he face the fact that on audit, the IRS would probably say this was a hobby (we didn’t bother to let him know it was probably outright tax fraud) and to protect the prior losses, he should shut down his business and maybe consider starting it up in 2 or more years after a cooling-down period.

He said no thank you but appreciated our advice.  He paid us for the work we did, took his “records” and went to find another tax preparer who wouldn’t be so nosey.

The moral of the story?  You may have heard the old saying that “Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered”.  Sometimes, it doesn’t pay to push the boundaries of acceptability.  He may never have been audited – hell he might have even been turned down by the next dozen tax preparers and decided he wasn’t going to win and dropped it – but it was still an extremely risky position to take and there was no real defense.

There are ways to make a business work while you travel.  But the odds are, the bigger the loss, the greater the risk, so documentation is vital to winning.  So, as you prepare for the end of the year and are looking to work with someone who wants to help you be successful, consider an accountant with integrity and who is willing to help you get everything right to protect you from major risks.  If you need the name of one, feel free to write me and I will send back the contact information for one or two to help you.

Have a great Tuesday.

 

The tangled web of pass-throughs

No doubt like many a tax-nerd, I spent part of the weekend trying to understand the senate and house tax bills and their impact on clients.  Obviously, it is a waste of time as there is no guarantee that either will become law as the tax acts are going to conference but, it is educational none-the-less.

I wrote the other day about how it works for individuals but now, what about someone who owns rental properties or other pass-through business?

Nothing I have read so far indicates that they are doing much in the way of changing the Passive Activity Loss (PAL) rules, so your investment in a rental property while probably still follow current law which means that you will likely not be able to take rental losses if you make more than $125K.  On the other hand, if your rental is a Passive Income Generator (PIG), you could see some tax savings… maybe.

What you should realize is that the very generous immediate write-off for business purchases does not include buildings.  You will still need to capitalize the purchase of rental property.  And it appears that the tax life will likely remain as it is today – 27.5 for residential and 39 for commercial.

If your rental is a PIG and throws off $10,000 of income, your tax liability would be no more $2,500 under the House’s version as this one taxes pass-through income at 25% maximum.  Obviously, if your total income puts you in a lower tax bracket, you would be taxed at that rate.  The senate version, on the other hand, provides a deduction of 23% of taxable income.  But as will all things tax-related, it isn’t quite that simple.  It limits the deduction to 50% of wages paid.

Since this is a rental property, you will likely not have employees.  Therefore 50% of zero is, of course, zero.  Since this is zero, you would pay tax at your regular tax rate.  Again, if you are in a lower tax bracket, it doesn’t really matter but, if you make more than $200,000, then you are in the 32% bracket and there really isn’t any savings.

The senate version is aimed at S Corporations and attempts to exert pressure on shareholder/employees to take “reasonable compensation”.  But take the following fact patterns.  Z Company has $1.0 Million of profits before taking into consideration officer wages.  Z Company employs 50 employees and has $2.0 Million in payroll.

50% of $2.0Million is $1.0 Million.  23% of $1.0 Million is $230,000.  Without the owner/officer taking payroll, they will get the full 23% deduction.  It doesn’t matter that the owner did not take wages.  For what it is worth, W2 wages could be as low as $560,000 in this example, with or without officer compensation, before the shareholder starts to lose the deduction.

Another problem is that both versions limit the types of businesses that can qualify.  Professional services businesses will not get to take advantage of the lower rates since it is assumed that professionals do not employ others.  So, take a doctors office: the doctor has a front desk person, an office manager, four nurses and the doctor.  Six employees.  Compared to a small contractor with a bookkeeper, a foreman and 4 laborers.  Also six employees.  If they both make the $1.0Million of profit and pay $600,000 in wages, the contractor gets the deduction of $230,000 and the doctor doesn’t.  This is true even if the contractor works more hours than the doctor.

It will be interesting to see how the pass-through entity issue plays out in conference.

Have a great day.

 

Clarity

Where to start.

Depending on which talking head you prefer, the republican control of the legislative, executive and possible the courts will either ruin our great country or propel it into an amazing future.  Just like when the democrats had control, your favorite pundit predicted the death of our great country or the beginning of a new era.

The truth, and clarity, always lies in the middle.

These are trying times for all of us, especially those of us who are not ideological purists.  I personally remain unmoved by the arguments put forth by either side in the current handwringing or jubilant flag waiving of the non-centrist.  But this is a time to take stock and carefully start preparing for things to unravel.

On tax reform.

The real problem is, when the legislative and executive branches change hands, as they inevitably will, do you think that these so-called tax reforms will stand? Will we keep a 20% tax on corporate earnings?  Probably not.  Will we keep the unnecessarily complex “pass-through” tax law?  Probably not. Will individual tax brackets go back to more progressive?  Most likely.

Within 10 years.

When I first started in public accounting a partner took me along to a lunch with a long-time client.  He harvested walnuts.  The most striking thing he said at this lunch was that the crops he is harvesting today comes from trees planted 15 or more years ago.  It takes that long to produce mature enough nuts to take to market.

Consider that.  Someone had to be willing to invest day 1 knowing that there would be no pay back for 15 years.  Believe it or not, that is what strong companies do, they plant, the tend, and then they harvest.  What they need is things to remain somewhat consistent and predictable.  But if tax laws are changing every few years, planning become impossible.  Businesses get whiplash and planning goes out the window.

On our current executive.

He is what we elected.  If you don’t like it, then think about how to address the problem.  But I will be honest, more people voting against him in 2020 in the states of California and New York will not get him voted out of office.  If he really bothers you, then you will need to move you, your family, and the 10,000 close friends you have to the mid-west.  The Elector College matters and yes, sometimes it gives us terrible results, but I think that is why it was put in place.

On jobs and economic growth.

Several years ago I read a paper on the correlation between economic growth and the increase to the labor pool.  Historically, countries tend to grow at the same pace as the participants in the labor force grows, otherwise, countries end up in either inflationary or recessionary cycles.  I believe that our labor force participation rate is growing about 2% a year.  This is the net of new entrants, retirees, immigration and emigration.  Cut immigration and the economy will grow at 1.5%.

This is a huge problem, and not just for meeting the projections in the tax bill.  Japan is a fascinating example of this.

Social security needs a certain minimum number of working adults paying into the system in order for it to receive sufficient funds to pay out claims for retirees.  If I remember my numbers, back in the 1930’s there were 8 working people for every retiree drawing social security.  Today I believe that number is about 3:1.  Again, if the ranks of retirees are growing faster than the ranks of new entrants to the labor market, we have to face the reality that this ratio could drop to 1.5:1.

Oh, and consider that wages are not growing.  That means that social security taxes, which are only on wages, is not growing.

Getting clarity is not hard.  It does, however, require a little effort to look beyond your belief system and ask hard questions.  The most effective answers always lie in the middle.  Let’s see if we can’t start having that conversation there instead of always arguing from the fringes.

Have a great day.