Repaying a COVID-Related Distribution

Do you remember a tax break in 2020 that allowed you to take (up to) $100,000 from your IRA or your employer retirement plan? These were called “coronavirus-related distributions,” or CRDs in the lingo. In and of itself, the provision was not remarkable. What was remarkable is that one was allowed three years to return some, all, or none of the money to the IRA or employer plan, as one wished.

I was thinking recently that I do not remember seeing 2021 individual returns where someone returned the money.

Granted, we have a flotilla of returns on extension here at Galactic Command. I may yet see this beast in its natural state.

Let’s go over how this provision works.

To make it easy, let’s say that you took $100,000 from your 401(k) in 2020 for qualifying COVID-related reasons.

You had an immediate binary decision:

·      Report the entire $100,000 as income in 2020 and pay the taxes immediately.

·      Spread the reporting of the $100 grand over three years – 2020, 2021 and 2022 - and pay taxes over three years.

There was no early-distribution penalty on this distribution, which was good.

You might wonder how paying the tax immediately could be preferable to paying over three years. It could happen. How? Say that you had a business and it got decimated by COVID lockdowns. Your 2020 income might be very low – heck, you might even have an overall tax loss. If that were the case, reporting the income and paying the tax in 2020 might make sense, especially if you expected your subsequent years’ income to return to normal levels.

What was a COVID-related reason for a distribution?

The easy ones are:

·      You, a spouse or dependent were diagnosed (and possibly quarantined) with COVID;

·      You had childcare issues because of COVID;

·      You were furloughed, laid-off or had work hours reduced because of COVID.

Makes sense. There is one more:

·      You experienced other “adverse financial consequences” because of COVID.

That last one has an open-gate feel to me. I’ll give you an example:

·      You own rental cabins in Aspen. No one was renting your cabins in 2020. Did you experience “adverse financial consequences” triggering this tax provision?

You have – should you choose to do so – three years to put the money back. The three-year period starts with the date of distribution, so it does not automatically mean (in fact, it is unlikely to be) December 31^st three years later.

The money doesn’t have to return to the same IRA or employer plan. Any qualifying IRA or employer plan will work. Makes sense, as there is a more-than-incidental chance that someone no longer works for the same employer.

 Let’s say that you decide to return $50 grand of the $100 grand.

The tax reporting depends on how you reported the $100 grand in 2020.

Remember that there were two ways to go:

·      Report all of it in 2020

This is easy.

You reported $100 grand in 2020.

When you return $50 grand you … amend 2020 and reduce income by $50 grand.

What if you return $50 grand over two payments – one in 2021 and again in 2022?

Easy: you amend 2020 for the 2021 and amend 2020 again for the 2022.

Question: can you keep amending like that – that is, amending an amended?

Answer: you bet.

·       Report the $100 grand over three years.

This is not so easy.

The reporting depends on how much of the $100 grand you have left to report.

Let’s say that you are in the second year of the three-year spread and repay $30,000 to your IRA or employer plan.

The test here is: did you repay the includable amount (or less) for that year?

If yes, just subtract the repayment from the includable amount and report the difference on that year’s return.

In our example, the math would be $33,333 - 30,000 = $3,333. You would report $3,333 for the second year of the spread.

If no, then it gets ugly.

Let’s revise our example to say that you repaid $40,000 rather than $30,000.

First step: You would offset the current-year includable amount entirely. There is nothing to report the second year, and you still have $6,667 ($40,000 – 33,333) remaining.

You have a decision.

You have a year left on the three-year spread. You could elect to carryforward the $6,667 to that year. You would report $26,666 ($33,333 – 6,667) in income for that third and final year.

You could alternatively choose to amend a prior year for the $6,667. For example, you already reported $33,333 in 2020, so you could amend 2020, reduce income by $6,666 and get an immediate tax refund.

Which is better? Neither is inherently better, at least to my thinking. It depends on your situation.

There is a specific tax form to use with spreads and repayments of CRDs. I will spare us the details for this discussion.

There you have it: the ropes to repaying a coronavirus-related distribution (CRD).

If you reflect, do you see the complexity Congress added to the tax Code? Multiply this provision by however many times Congress alters the Code every year, and you can see how we have gotten to the point where an average person is probably unable to prepare his/her own tax return.

 

Deducting Expenses Paid With Paycheck Protection Loans

There was a case in 1931 that is influencing a public controversy today.

Let’s talk about it.

The taxpayer (Slayton) was in the business of buying, holding and selling tax-exempt bonds. He would at times borrow money to buy or to carry tax-exempt bonds he already owned.

Slayton had tax-exempt interest income coming in. That amount was approximately $65 thousand.

Slayton was also paying interest. That amount was approximately $78 thousand.

COMMENT: On first read it does not appear that dear old Slayton was the Warren Buffett of his day.

Time came to file his tax return. He omitted the $65 grand in interest received because … well, it was tax-exempt.

He deducted the $78 grand that he was paying to carry those tax-exempt securities.

The IRS said no dice.

Off to Court they went.

Slayton was hot. He made several arguments:

(1)  The government was discriminating against owners of tax-exempt securities and – in effect – nullifying their exemption from taxation.

(2)  The government was discriminating against dealers in tax-exempt bonds that had to borrow money to carry an inventory of such bonds.

(3)  The government was discriminating in favor of dealers of tax-exempt bonds who did not have to borrow to carry an inventory of such bonds.

I admit: he had a point.

The government had a point too.

(1)  The income remained tax-exempt. The issue at hand was not the interest income; rather it was the interest expense.

(2)  Slayton borrowed money for the express purpose of carrying tax-exempt securities. This was not an instance where someone owned an insubstantial amount of tax-exempts within a larger portfolio or where a business owning tax-exempts borrowed money to meet normal business needs.

The link between the bonds and the loans to buy them was too strong in this case. The Court disallowed the interest expense. Since then, tax practitioners refer to the Slayton issue as the “double-dip.”  The dip even has its own Code section:

        § 265 Expenses and interest relating to tax-exempt income.

(a)  General rule.

No deduction shall be allowed for-

(1)  Expenses.

Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, or any amount otherwise allowable under section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income) which is allocable to interest (whether or not any amount of such interest is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Over the years the dip has evolved to include income other than tax-exempt interest, but the core concept remains: one cannot deduct expenses with too strong a tie to nontaxable income.

Let’s fast forward almost 90 years and IRS Notice 2020-32.

To the extent that section 1106(i) of the CARES Act operates to exclude from gross income the amount of a covered loan forgiven under section 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the application of section 1106(i) results in a “class of exempt income” under §1.265- 1(b)(1) of the Regulations. Accordingly, section 265(a)(1) of the Code disallows any otherwise allowable deduction under any provision of the Code, including sections 162 and 163, for the amount of any payment of an eligible section 1106 expense to the extent of the resulting covered loan forgiveness (up to the aggregate amount forgiven) because such payment is allocable to tax-exempt income. Consistent with the purpose of section 265, this treatment prevents a double tax benefit.

I admit, it is not friendly reading.

The CARES Act is a reference to the Paycheck Protection loans. These are SBA loans created in response to COVID-19 to help businesses pay salaries and rent. If the business uses the monies for their intended purpose, the government will forgive the loan.

Generally speaking, forgiveness of a loan results in taxable income, with exceptions for extreme cases such as bankruptcy. The tax reasoning is that one is “wealthier” than before, and the government can tax that accession to wealth as income.

However, the CARES Act specifically stated that forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection loan would not result in taxable income.

So we have:

(1)  A loan that should be taxable – but isn’t - when it is forgiven.

(2)  A loan whose proceeds are used to pay salaries and rent, which are routine deductible expenses.

This sets up the question:

Are the salaries, rent and other qualified expenses paid with a Paycheck Protection loan deductible?

You see how we got to this question, with Section 265, Slayton and subsequent cases that expanded on the double dip.

The IRS said No.

This answer makes sense from a tax perspective.

This answer does not make sense from a political perspective, with Senators Wyden and Grassley and Representative Neal writing to Secretary Mnuchin that this result was not the intent of Congress.

I believe them.

I have a suggestion.

Change the tax law.

Changes to 2020 Federal Payroll Taxes

There were two bills passed in March that significantly impacted payroll taxes for 2020. The first – Families First Coronavirus Response Act – expanded employee paid leave, with the intent that the cost of the leave be shifted to the government via refundable payroll tax credits. The second – The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act - allows employers to defer the deposit of (some) payroll taxes, while also providing a payroll tax credit to encourage employers directly affected by the virus (either through government order or decline in business) to retain employees.

Following is a recap to aid as you work through this new minefield. As always, remember that no recap is exhaustive. Please be advised to review the underlying guidance for specific issues and questions.

The President signed the CARES Act on March 27, 2020.

The CARES act brought us the Employee Retention Credit (ERC).

(1)  Eligible employers include tax-exempt organizations but not government agencies.

(2)  Eligible employers have a refundable credit equal to 50% of qualified wages (including allocable health care expenses) paid employees if the employer …

(a)  Fully or partially suspends operations during 2020 due to orders from an appropriate governmental authority due to COVID-19; or

(b)  Experiences a significant decline in gross receipts during a calendar quarter.

a.    The period begins with the first quarter in which gross 2020 receipts are less than 50% of gross receipts for the same quarter in 2019.

b.    The period ends the quarter after the quarter whose gross receipts exceed 80% for the same quarter in 2019.

(3)  Qualified wages mean wages paid after March 12, 2020 and before January 1, 2021.

NOTE: This means that an eligible employer may claim the credit for qualified wages paid as early as March 13, 2020.

(4) Qualified wages include allocable health care expenses and are limited to $10,000 per employee for 2020.

(5) Qualified wages vary significantly depending on the size of the employer.

(a)   If the employer had 100 or fewer full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 2019, then qualified wages include wages paid all employees.

(b)  If the employer had more than 100 FTEs in 2019, then qualified wages mean wages paid an employee not working because of (a) government orders or (b) a significant decline in gross receipts.

(6) The credit is 50% of qualified wages, meaning the maximum credit is $5,000 ($10,000 times 50%).

(7) Technically, the credit is allowed only against the employer share of social security tax (that is 6.2%), but this is misleading. The credit is fully refundable, so it will continue offsetting employee payroll withholdings and employer payroll taxes until the credit exhausted. If there is still a credit remaining, then the remaining credit is refundable to the employer.

EXAMPLE: CTG Command Center pays $10,000 in qualifying wages in quarter 2, 2020. Employee federal income tax, social security and Medicare withholdings are $4,000. The employer social security is $620 ($10,000 times 6.2%), for a required total payroll tax deposit of $4,620. The retention credit is $5,000. The retention credit will offset all the required payroll tax deposits – employee and employer – and result in a $380 refund to CTG Command Center.

(8) The IRS realized that having an employer make payroll tax deposits, only to have those deposits later refunded, is not prudent cash flow management. The IRS will therefore allow an employer to offset otherwise required payroll tax deposits by anticipated payroll tax credits. The amounts otherwise due or credited are to be accounted for with the filing of the quarterly Form 941. If payroll tax credits are expected to exceed payroll tax deposits otherwise required, there is also a procedure to obtain an advance refund (that is, before filing Form 941) from the IRS.

(9) There is an unusual interaction with the CARES deferral of employer payroll taxes:

·      An employer can defer and still receive the employee retention credit, resulting in, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government.

(10) There is no equivalent of the retention credit for self-employeds.

(11) This credit does not play well with the emergency sick or expanded family leave provisions. In short, one cannot use the same wages for more than one credit.

(12) This credit is not available if the employer receives a Paycheck Protection loan.

 The CARES Act also brought us the deferral of employer social security taxes.

(1) An employer’s payroll tax liability has two parts: social security tax at 6.2% and Medicare tax at 1.45%. The deferral is solely for the employer share of social security taxes (that is, 6.2%).

(2) Unlike the ERC, the deferral applies to deposits (rather than wages paid) otherwise required beginning March 27, 2020 and through December 31, 2020.

COMMENT:  Therefore, payroll taxes accrued before March 27, 2020 would qualify as long as the payroll tax deposit was due on or after March 27, 2020.

(3) All employers are eligible. Unlike the ERC, there is no employer size limitations.

(4) Unlike the ERC, there is no requirement that the employer be affected by COVID-19.

(5) The deferral is as follows:

(a)  50% of taxes deferred are due December 31, 2021

(b)  The remaining 50% is due December 31, 2022

(6) The deferral also applies to self-employeds. The amount deferred is 6.2% of the total 15.3% self-employment tax rate. The is no deferral once the self-employed exceeds the maximum social security wage base.

(7) There is an unusual interaction with the Families First emergency sick and expanded family leave credits.

·      An employer can defer and still receive the emergency sick and expanded family leave credits, resulting in, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government.

(8) There is an unusual interaction with the employee retention credit (ERC).

·      An employer can defer and still receive the employee retention credit, resulting in, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government.

(9) There is an unusual interaction with a Paycheck Protection loan.

·      No further deferrals are allowed after an employer receives notice of Paycheck Protection Loan forgiveness.

·      However, deferrals up to that date remain eligible for deferral and are due December 31, 2021 and 2022.

(10) Note that the deferral affects payroll taxes due on or after March 27, 2020, meaning that one would expect the deferral to be accounted for on the first quarter employer Form 941.

The IRS has clarified that the credit for this stub period will NOT be accounted for on the first quarter Form 941. Rather they will be added to any credits arising during the quarter two and reported on the second quarter Form 941.

The President signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act on March 18, 2020, introducing two new (and temporary) paid-leave benefits.

Emergency Sick Leave

(1)  Applies to businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees 

(2)  Applies immediately to employees of the above employers

(3)  The tax credit is based on qualifying leave provided employees between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

·      Note that emergency sick leave wages paid in 2021 will qualify if paid for leave taken between April 1 and December 31,2020. 

(4)  Full-time employees can receive up to 80 hours of sick leave. Part-time employees can receive leave based on the average number of hours worked over a two-week period of time.  

(5)  If …

a.     The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;

b.    The employee has been directed by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;

c.     The employee is seeking to obtain medical diagnosis when experiencing symptoms of COVID-19

… then the maximum (creditable) paid leave is the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $511 per day and limited to $5,110 per employee.

(6)  If the employee takes time-off …

a.     To care for a family member who is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;

b.    To care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school has been closed or paid childcare provider is unavailable due to COVID-19; or

c.     Because the employee is experiencing any other substantially similar conditions as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services

… then the maximum (creditable) paid leave is 2/3 of the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day and limited to $2,000 per employee.

(7)  For both (5) and (6), the employer is allowed to increase the credit amount by the allocable cost of the employee’s health insurance coverage.

(8)  Employers are still required to withhold employee federal income taxes and the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. 

·      The intent is that this will be covered by the $511/$200 per day allowance.

(9)  Wages paid under the emergency sick leave provision ….

a.     Are NOT be subject to employer social security (6.2%), and

b.    ARE subject to employer Medicare (1.45%)

                                                      i.     However, this employer Medicare requirement is misleading because the credit will be increased by the amount of

1.    The employer Medicare tax, and

2.    The allocable cost of health insurance coverage

EXAMPLE: CTG Command Center pays one employee $200 per day for 10 days. It also pays $100 in health care costs. Employee withholdings are $300 for federal income tax, $124 for social security and $29 for Medicare – a total of $453.Net pay is therefore $1,547 ($2,000 – $453) and total compensation (including health care and employer Medicare) is $2,129. CTG Command Center will receive credit on its payroll tax return for $2,000 + $100 (allocable health care) + $29 (employer Medicare) = $2,129. This means that the cost of the employee (excluding unemployment insurance and workers compensation) has been shifted from CTG Command to the federal government for the covered period.  

(10)        The credit can be offset against all employee withholdings and employer payroll taxes.

·      Any excess is refundable to the employer.

(11)       Any credits utilized will constitute taxable income to the employer.

·      Offsetting the employer payroll tax expense on wages paid emergency leave employees.

(12)       There is a comparable provision for self-employeds

a.     However, the “average daily self-employment income” will not be calculable until year-end, as it refers to 2020 net earnings from self-employment divided by 260 days.

EXAMPLE. Rocket Man is self-employed. He earned $185,000 for 2020, and he spent 10 days taking care of his mom during the crisis. His daily self-employment income is $712 ($185,000 divided by 260). That however exceeds $200, so his allowable paid sick leave is $2,000. His 2020 net earnings from self-employment are reduced by $2,000. He is also allowed to reduce his otherwise-required quarterly estimated tax payments accordingly. 

(13)       There is an unusual interaction with the emergency sick leave credit and the employer payroll tax deferral.

·      An employer can defer and still receive the emergency sick leave credit, resulting, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government.

(14) This credit does not play well with the employee retention credit. In short, one cannot use the same wages for more than one credit.

Expanded Family Leave

(1)  Applies to businesses and tax-exempt organizations with fewer than 500 employees 

(2)  This is a narrow expansion of FMLA to include

… employees unable to perform services (including telework) because of need to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed or whose childcare provider is unavailable due to COVID-19. 

(3)  The employee must have worked for the employer for at least 30 day to qualify.

(4)  The credit is based on qualifying leave provided employees between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020

·      Note that emergency sick leave wages paid in 2021 will qualify if paid for leave taken between April 1 and December 31,2020. 

(5)  The provision allows up to 12 weeks of employer-provided protected leave, 10 of which is creditable to the employer.

(6) The maximum (creditable) emergency family leave is the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day and limited to $10,000 per employee.

(7) The employer is allowed to increase the credit amount by the allocable cost of the employee’s health insurance coverage.

(8)  Employers are still required to withhold employee federal income taxes and the employee’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

·      The intention is that this will be covered by the $200 per day allowance.

(9)  Wages paid under the expanded family leave provision ….

a.     Are NOT be subject to employer social security (6.2%), and

b.    ARE subject to employer Medicare (1.45%)

                                                      i.     However, this employer Medicare requirement is misleading because the credit will be increased by the amount of

1.    The employer Medicare tax, and

2.    The allocable cost of health insurance coverage

(10)       The credit can be offset against all employee withholdings and employer payroll taxes.

·      Any excess is refundable to the employer.

(11)       Any credits utilized will constitute taxable income to the employer.

·      Offsetting the employer payroll tax expense on wages paid emergency leave employees.

(12)       The example given above for emergency sick leave also covers expanded family leave.

(13)       The discussion about self-employeds given above also covers expanded family leave.

(14)       There is an unusual interaction with the expanded family leave credit and the employer payroll tax deferral.

·      An employer can defer and still receive the expanded family leave credit, resulting in, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government.

(15)       This credit does not play well with the employee retention credit. In short, one cannot use the same wages for more than one credit.

(16)       The FMLA “restoration to position” provision under FMLA does not apply to employers with fewer than 25 employees and meeting certain other requirements.