The Stealth Tax On Your Social Security

Social security benefits first became taxable in 1983.

The law was relatively straightforward:

·        Half of one’s social security became taxable as adjusted gross income exceeded

o   $32,000 for marrieds filing jointly,

o   $25,000 for everyone else, except for

o   Marrieds filing separately, whose threshold was zero (-0-)

Clearly the tax law frowned on married social security recipients filing separately.

The Senate Finance Committee Report commented on why any social security was being taxed at all:

… by taxing social security benefits and appropriating these revenues to the appropriate trust funds, the financial solvency of the social security trust funds will be strengthened.”

Uh, sure.

In 1993 Congress laid a second grid on top of the 1983 law:

·        85% of one’s social security as adjusted gross income exceeded

o   $44,000 for marrieds filing jointly

o   $34,000 for everyone else, except for

o   Marrieds filing separately, whose threshold remained at zero (-0-)

Depending on where one is income-wise, part of one’s social security can be taxed at 50% and another part at 85%. Make enough and a clawback kicks-in: all your social security will be taxable at 85%.

Seems a bit complicated for a tax provision that snags ordinary people.

So in 1983, if you were married, filing joint and your income was less than $32 grand, your social security was not taxed.

I was curious: what is the equivalent of $32,000 of 1983 dollars in 2019?

Approximately $82 grand.

Wow!

I was also curious: how have the income thresholds for social security changed over three-plus decades?

Here are the thresholds for 2018:

·        $32,000/$25,000

·        $44,000/$34,000

They have not changed at all.

Meanwhile you need almost three 2019 dollars to equal one dollar from 1983.

So let me get this right.

IRA deductions are indexed for inflation. Gift taxes are indexed for inflation. The income thresholds for the new 20% passthrough deduction are indexed for inflation.

But the tax on social security is not.

What a nice gimmick. Even if you started out below the tax threshold, inflation over time would probably put you above the tax threshold.

The cynicism from our politicians is stunning.

The Kiddie Tax Problem

You may have heard that there are issues with the new kiddie tax.

There are.

The kiddie tax has been around for decades.

Standard tax planning includes carving out highly-taxed parental or grandparental income and dropping it down to a child/young adult. The income of choice is investment income: interest, dividends, royalties and the like. The child starts his/her own tax bracket climb, providing tax savings because the parents or grandparents had presumably maxed out their own brackets.

Congress thought this was an imminent threat to the Union.

Which beggars the question of how many trust fund babies are out there anyway. I have met a few over the decades – not enough to create a tax just for them, mind you - but I am only a tax CPA. It is not like I would run into them at work or anything.

The rules used to be relatively straightforward but hard to work with in practice.

(1)  The rules would apply to unearned income. They did not apply if your child starred in a Hollywood movie. It would apply to the stocks and bonds that you purchased for the child with the paycheck from that movie.

(2)  The rules applied to a dependent child under 19.

(3)  The rules applied to dependents age 19 to 23 if they were in college.

(4)  The child’s first $1,050 of taxable unearned income was tax-free.

(5)  The child’s next $1,050 of taxable unearned income was taxed at the child’s tax rate.

(6)  Unearned income above that threshold was taxed at the parent’s tax rate.

It was a pain for practitioners because it required one to have all the returns prepared except for the tax because of the interdependency of the calculation.

For example, let’s say that you combined the parents and child’s income, resulting in $185,000 of combined taxable income. The child had $3,500 of taxable interest. The joint marginal tax rate (let’s assume the parents were married) at $185,000 was 28%. The $3,500 interest income times 28% tax rate meant the child owed $980.

Not as good as the child having his/her own tax rates, but there was some rationale. As a family unit, little had been accomplished by shifting the investment income to the child or children.

Then Congress decided that the kiddie tax would stop using this piggy-back arithmetic and use trust tax rates instead.

Problem: have you seen the trust tax rates? 

Here they are for 2018:

          Taxable Income                         The Tax Is

Not over $2,550                         10%

$2,551 to $9,150         $ 255 plus 24% of excess

$9,151 to $12,500       $1,839 plus 35% of excess

Over $12,500              $3,011.50 plus 37% of excess

Egad.

Ahh, but it is just rich kids, right?

Not quite.

How much of a college scholarship is taxable, as an example?

None of it, you say.

Wrong, padawan. To the extent not used for tuition, fees and books, that scholarship is taxable.

So you have a kid from a limited-means background who gets a full ride to a school. To the extent the ride includes room and board, Congress thinks that they should pay tax. At trust tax rates.

Where is that kid supposed to come up with the money?

What about a child receiving benefits because he/she lost a parent serving in the military? These are the “Gold Star” kids, and the issue arises because the surviving parent cannot receive both Department of Defense and Department of Veteran Affairs benefits. It is common to assign one to the child or children.

Bam! Trust tax rates.

Can Congress fix this?

Sure. They caused the problem.

What sets up the kiddie tax is “unearned” income. Congress can pass a law that says that college room and board is not unearned income or that Gold Star family benefits are not unearned income.

However, Congress would have started a list, and someone has to remember to update the list. Is this a reasonable expectation from the same crew who forgot to link leasehold improvements to the new depreciation rules? Talk to the fast food industry. They will burn your ear off on that topic.

Congress should have just left the kiddie tax alone.

The Nick Saban Tax

Have you heard about the “Nick Saban” tax?

Let’s set it up.

There has been a longstanding tax provision limiting the deduction for public company executive compensation to $1 million. Mind you, this is not a restriction on how much you can pay an executive; the restriction only applies to how much you can deduct on a tax return. The restriction does not apply to all executives, either; it applies to the CEO, CFO and three other most-highly-paids.

But there was an exception large enough for the Fortune 500 to drive through. The exception was for “performance.” Magically and almost overnight, virtually all executive compensation packages became based on “performance.” Options were considered performance-based, and eventually options came to be passed around like candy. Realistically, one had to refuse to do any tax planning for this provision to actually apply.

This changed with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December, 2017. Congress tightened up this code Section (162(m)) by taking away the performance exception. The $1 million cap now has a real bite.

But Congress was still looking for money.

Congress decided to put the same $1 million compensation limit on nonprofits.

This creates a quandary, as nonprofits (generally) do not pay tax. If I were a nonprofit executive and Congress threatened to disallow my deduction, I would not be feeling the tremulous fear of my for-profit peers.

Congress thought of that. They decided that the nonprofit would pay a 21% tax on my behalf.

Whoa. Now you have my attention. Granted, the tax is not on me, but we all know how this works in the real world. Only small children and Congress believes in free. The rest of us have to pay.

Congress passed a tax provision applying the $1 million cap to the five highest- paid employees of a 501(a), which includes a 501(c)(3). Think nonprofits, certain hospitals, colleges and universities and the like.

BTW medical professors were excluded from this, so it appears clear that Congress was trying to reach the athletics programs and their coaches.

But there is a problem.

Here is Code section 4960 imposing the tax:

       (c)  Definitions and special rules.

For purposes of this section-

(1)  Applicable tax-exempt organization.

The term "applicable tax-exempt organization" means any organization which for the taxable year-

(A)  is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ,

(B)  is a farmers' cooperative organization described in section 521(b)(1) ,

(C)  has income excluded from taxation under section 115(1) , or

(D)  is a political organization described in section 527(e)(1) .

What is that Section 115(1)?

         § 115 Income of states, municipalities, etc.

Gross income does not include-

(1)  income derived from any public utility or the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or …

What does this mean?

Congress thought that – by extending Section 4960 to reference Section 115(1) – it would reach those entities exempt via Section 115(1).

Entities such as Alabama.

Or the University of Alabama.

Why?

Because the University of Alabama is an instrumentality of the state of Alabama.

And here the tax law goes wonky.

The Courts have looked at the interaction of Sections 115(1) and 511(which is the unrelated business income tax which applies to a nonprofit). Can a state instrumentality (say a university) run a business – say a farm-to-table restaurant chain – and avoid the unrelated business income tax because of Section 115(1)? If that were the case, then Illinois could start a chain called Outfront Steakhouse, make a zillion dollars and never pay tax because of Section 115(1).

The Courts have clarified that is not the case. There is a limit to Section 115(1).

According to that reasoning, it seems to me that Congress should be able to tax those university salaries.

But there is another argument – the doctrine of implied statutory immunity. This arises from our federalist system of government: the federal government has to respect the state government. Under this theory, if the federal government wants to tax a state, it has to say so in an unambiguous manner – that is, it cannot be “implied.”

Continuing our example, if the federal government wanted to tax Illinois for opening a steakhouse chain and locating them adjacent to every Outback Steakhouse location throughout the land, it would have to say something like:

… the [] tax will apply to an entity relying upon Section 115(1) for nontaxability of their [] business activity should that activity be the same or substantially similar to a business activity conducted by a for-profit restaurant chain.”

That is explicit. That breaches implied statutory immunity. The tax would then stick.

Is that what Congress did with the new Section 4960(c) tax?

Nowhere close, it appears.

Under that reasoning the University of Alabama will not pay the Nick Saban tax, as the tax does not reach the University of Alabama.

There are universities clearly affected by this new law: Duke, for example, or Northwestern. They have to pay up. Think of it as the difference between a “public” university and a “tax-exempt” university.

But having the state name in the university’s name, however, does not mean that the university is exempt as “public.” It depends on how the university was organized and chartered. Texas A&M will be affected by the new tax provision, but the University of Texas - Austin will not. It is enough to give one a headache.

What happens next?

The easiest path is for Congress to revise Code section 4960 and clean up the language. Without Congressional action, you can be certain the “public” universities will litigate this matter. They have to.

But the likelihood of the present Congress accomplishing anything seems unlikely, at best.

The Parking Lot Tax

Last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a 21% tax on transportation-related fringe benefits provided by nonprofits.

That does not sound so bad until you consider that qualified transportation fringe benefits include:

1.    Transit passes or reimbursement for the same

2.    Use of a commuter highway vehicle or reimbursement for the same

3.    Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement

4.    Qualified parking expenses or reimbursement for the same

That last one proved to be a shocker.

What started the issue was the new deduction disallowance for qualified transportation fringe benefits paid by taxable employers. For example, if the employer pays for employee parking, up to $260 per month can be excluded from the employee’s 2018 W-2. In the past the employer could deduct that $260 on its tax return. Now it could not. Congress felt that – if taxable employers were to be affected – then nonprofit employers should also be affected.

But how does a nonprofit even pay tax?

It can happen, and it is called unrelated business income. In general, it means that the nonprofit is veering away from its charitable mission and is conducting an activity that is virtually indistinguishable from a for-profit business next door.

The nonprofit has to separately account for this activity. The IRS then spots it a $1,000 exemption. If it has more than a $1,000 in profit then it has to pay tax at the corporate rate – which is now 21%.

This change entered the tax Code in December, 2017 via Code Section 512(a)(7):

      (7)  Increase in unrelated business taxable income by disallowed fringe.

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under this chapter by reason of section 274 and which is paid or incurred by such organization for any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in section 132(f) ), any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking (as defined in section 132(f)(5)(C) ), or any on-premises athletic facility (as defined in section 132(j)(4)(B) ).

There are three things to note here:

(1)  Congress is treating these disallowed deductions as if they were income to the nonprofit.

(2)  We have to track down the meaning of “qualified parking,” and

(3)  The phrase “deduction is not allowable” has a meaning that is not immediately apparent.

Let’s start with qualified parking, defined as:

… parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work …. 

Qualified parking does not include parking provided near the employee’s residence. 

Employer-provided parking includes parking on property an employer owns or leases, parking for which the employer pays, or parking for which an employer reimburses an employee.

So we know that qualified parking is provided near the employer and the employer pays for, reimburses, leases or owns the parking facility.

This makes sense if there is a public garage across the street and the employer pays the garage directly or reimburses an employee who paid the garage. However, how does this work if the employer owns the parking lot?  More specifically, how does this work if the parking lot is available to employees, customers – that is, to everyone and for free?

There is (what appears to be) a Congressional mistake when drafting Code Section 512(a)(7).

In 1994 the IRS published a rule in Notice 94-3, conveniently titled “IRS Explains Rules For Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits.” Here is Question 10 and its example:

EXAMPLE. Employer Z operates an industrial plant in a rural area in which no commercial parking is available. Z furnishes ample parking for its employees on the business premises, free of charge. The parking provided by Z has a fair market value of $0 because an individual other than an employee ordinarily would not pay to park there.

The answer makes sense. Anyone can park on that lot for free. If an employee parks there, it seems reasonable that the value of the parking would be zero (-0-).

That is not what Code Section 512(a)(7) did:

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable ….

There is no reference here to value. To the contrary, the reference is to a deduction – which to an accountant means cost. Parking may be free to the user, but it will cost something to maintain that parking facility. The cost may be a lot or a little, but there is a cost.

The Notice 94-3 rule that tax practitioners had gotten used to was overturned.

Needless to say, there were many questions on what the new rules meant and how to apply them. Consider that a nonprofit is supposed to make quarterly estimated tax payments against any expected unrelated-business-income tax, and guidance was needed sooner rather than later. On December 10, 2018 the IRS published interim guidance (Notice 2018-99) on qualified transportation fringe benefits. 

It started with the easiest example:

A taxable employer pays a garage $12,000 annually so that its employees can park. None of this exceeds the $260 monthly threshold per employee for 2018. The entire $12,000 is non-deductible by the employer.

Introduce any complexity and there are steps to the calculation:   

(1)  Calculate the cost for reserved employee spots.

a.     These costs are disallowed.

(2)  Calculate the primary use of the remaining spots.

a.     If more than 50% is for customers, clients and the general public, the calculation ends.

                                                             i.     Any remaining cost is fully deductible.

b.    If more than 50% is for employees, there is math:

                                                             i.     Calculate the cost for reserved nonemployee parking; these costs are allowed.

                                                           ii.     Calculate the cost for nonreserved employee parking; these costs are disallowed.

Let’s go through an example from the Notice.

An accounting firm leases a parking lot for $10,000 next to its office. The lot has 100 spaces, used by clients and employees. The firm has 60 employees.

(1)  There are no reserved employee parking spaces

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(2)  The primary use is for employees (60/100).

a.     We have math.

(3)  There are no reserved nonemployee parking spaces (think visitor parking).

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(4)  One must use a reasonable allocation method. The accounting firm determines that employee use constitutes 60% (60/100) of parking lot use during business days, with no adjustment for evenings, weekends or holidays. The disallowance is $6,000 ($10,000 times 60%).

An accounting firm is a taxable entity, so the $6,000 is not deductible on its return.

What if we were talking about a nonprofit? Then the $6,000 magically “transforms” into unrelated business taxable income. The IRS spots $1,000 exemption, so the taxable amount is $5,000. Apply a 21% tax rate and the tax on the parking lot is $1,050.

What if the employer owns the parking lot? What costs could there be to a parking lot?

The IRS thought of this:

For purposes of this notice, “total parking expenses” include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, utility costs, insurance, property taxes, interest, snow and ice removal, leaf removal, trash removal, cleaning, landscape costs, parking lot attendant expenses, security, and rent or lease payments or a portion of a rent or lease payment (if not broken out separately). A deduction for an allowance for depreciation on a parking structure owned by a taxpayer and used for parking by the taxpayer’s employees is an allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence of property, and not a parking expense for purposes of this notice.

At a minimum, I anticipate that one is allocating insurance and taxes.

So a nonprofit can have tax because it provides parking to its employees. You may have heard this referred to as the “church parking lot tax.” Yes, churches are 501(c)(3)s, meaning they are nonprofits just like the March of Dimes. Granted, there are additional tax breaks to being a church, such as not having to file a Form 990. The unrelated business income tax is not filed on a Form 990, however; it is filed on a Form 990-T. They both have “990” in their name, but they are separate tax forms. Who knows how many churches will have to file a Form 990-T for the first time for 2018, even though their board has never filed – or even seen - a Form 990.

How can a church have income from its parking lot?

If it charges for parking, obviously. That however is a low probability event.

Another way would be to have reserved employee parking spaces. Those are allocated cost (which morphs into income) immediately.

A third way is the employee:nonemployee calculation. That calculation would be tricky because of the uneven use of a church over an average week. One would somehow weight the use of the parking lot. Church employees are there Monday through Friday. The congregation is there on Sunday and (maybe) one night during the week. Perhaps employee parking is weighted using a factor of eight (hours) and congregational use is weighted using a factor of 2.5 (hours). Hopefully the result is to get congregational use above 50%. Why?

Remember: if nonemployee use at step (2) is more than 50%, the calculation ends. All the church would have to pay tax on is income from reserved employee parking. If that is below $1,000, there is no tax.

There is an effort to include a repeal of Code Section 512(a)(7) on any extender or other bill that Congress may pass, but that would require Congress to be able to pass a bill – any bill – in the near future.

The Notice also has one of the more unusual “make-up” provisions I have seen. Say that you want to do away reserved employee parking (that is, step (1)) because the tax gets expensive. It is way too late to do anything for 2018, as the guidance came out in December. The Notice allows you to make the change by March 31, 2019 and consider it retroactive to January 1, 2018.

Our church would have no step (1) income as long as it did away with reserved employee parking by March 31, 2019. That would mean taking down the sign saying “Pastor Parking Only,” but that may be the best alternative until Congress can correct this mess.

“Destination-Based” “Border Adjustment” “Indirect Tax” … What?

The destination-based border adjustment tax.

I  have been reading about it recently.

If you cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.

Let’s talk about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income statement numbers are as follows:

Sales			10,000,000
Cost of sales			(3,500,000)
Operating expenses			(4,000,000)
Net profit			2,500,000

How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).

Cue the crazy stuff….

A new tax will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster, Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.

One way to do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an operating expense would be wages.

As a CPA by training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.

Our tax base becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out operating expenses.

Not feeling so good about this development, are we?

Well, to have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?

I see $6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.

Well, this is stinking up the joint.

VATs normally allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year, What do the numbers now look like? 

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

I am seeing $5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% =  $1,000,000 tax.

Still not in like with this thing.

Let’s jump on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.

Here are some updated numbers:

• Sales                                        10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
• Cost of Sales                             3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                  4,000,000
• Capital Additions                        1,500,000 

I see a tax of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 * 20% = $400,000 federal tax.

Looks like Mortimer does OK in this scenario.

What if Mortimer buys some of its products from overseas?

Oh oh.

Here are some updated, updated numbers:

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000 (import $875,000)
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

This border thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a deduction for what you import.

I see a tax of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% = $1,175,000 federal tax.

Mortimer is not doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just leave things as they are.

Substitute “Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to what degree.

By the way, the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.

We’ll be hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.

And the elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor, for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.