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.

SBA Paycheck Protection Program

The last couple of weeks here at Command Center have been … unprecedented.

We have sent employees home, although we have not let anyone go.

Critical personnel (including me somehow) are still coming in, although we are instituting a policy of one-person-in-the-office-at-a-time.  

I understand working at home, but a typical accounting firm is not geared to work from home indefinitely. For one thing, it takes administrative staff to keep the information and document flow going to the at-homers, and there is no administrative staff.

Fortunately, the IRS and many (if not most) states have acknowledged the reality of the situation and are allowing extensions of time to file and pay. There was probably no choice: preparers were not going to be able to get the work done anyway. It is likely that your return will be extended this year, even if you have never extended before.

Some of our clients have shut down. One, for example, works with product promotion at Kroger’s. Have you been to a Kroger’s recently? The last problem they have is moving merchandise.

Let’s talk about something. There is a brand-new SBA program for emergency funding. It may be that you have never considered government assistance before, but these are extreme times.

We are talking about the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Congress took an existing SBA loan program and sweetened the pot. Its purpose is – flat out – to encourage employers to retain employees and – if the employer has already furloughed employees -to hire them back.

Here are the general features of the program:

(1)  It expires June 30, 2020.

(2)  Think businesses with less 500 employees, but there are exceptions.

(3)  In a bit of a surprise for the SBA, the program includes nonprofits (again, with less than 500 employees)

(4)  The maximum loan amount is 2.5 times average payroll during the one-year period before the date the loan is made.

a.    With adjustments for new businesses, of course.

(5)  That maximum caps out at $10 million.

(6)  The loan is principally to fund payroll (with some limitations), but it will also cover health insurance, rent, utilities and some interest expense.

(7)  Now think math:

A times B

A is the sum of those expenses described in (6) for the 8 weeks after you get the loan.

(8)  Let’s talk B.

B is a fraction. The government wants to know whether your workforce has gone up or down in number.

The numerator is going to be the number of employees between February 15 and June 30, 2020.

The denominator is the number of employees during the same period in 2019.

There are adjustments for real-life situations that do not fit the above periods.

There is also a test which substitutes payroll dollars for the number of employees. You fail the test if your payroll reduction (dollar-wise) exceeds 25%.

(9)  So what, you ask.

Let’s say you have 17 employees for the 2020 period.

Let’s say you had 16 employees for the 2019 period.

Fraction-wise, that is over 100%. Let’s round that down to 100%.

Let’s multiply that 100% by something.

What is the something?

The loan you took out.

Let’s say the loan was $125,000.

Multiply $125,000 by 100%.

You get $125,000.

The government will forgive 100 PERCENT of the loan! The entire $125,000 is gone, forgiven, paid-off, hasta luego, soyonara.

Wow.

(10)      Is there a follow-up to that?

Yep.

Generally, the forgiveness of debt results in income to the person whose debt was forgiven. It is why people get those 1099s in the mail from the credit card companies which have given up on collecting.

For purposes of this loan, the forgiveness will NOT count as income.

So let’s get this straight. You keep your employees on board. The government loans you money for your payroll. The government forgives the money. You walk away scot-free.

What happens if you don’t get to 100%? Then a portion of the loan remains. You pay interest not to exceed 4% and repay that portion of the loan over a period of up to 10 years. Still … not bad.

Folks, if this is you – please check it out before the deadline or the funding runs out.

Trust Fund Penalty When Your Boss Is The U.S. Government

You may be aware that bad things can happen if an employer fails to remit payroll taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. There are generally three federal payroll taxes involved when discussing payroll and withholding:

(1)  Federal income taxes withheld

(2)  FICA taxes withheld

(3)  Employer’s share of FICA taxes

The first two are considered “trust fund” taxes. They are paid by the employee, and the employer is merely acting as agent in their eventual remittance to the IRS. The third is the employer’s own money, so it is not considered “trust fund.”

Let’s say that the employer is having a temporary (hopefully) cash crunch. It can be tempting to borrow these monies for more urgent needs, like meeting next week’s payroll (sans the taxes), paying rent and keeping the lights on.  Hopefully the company can catch-up before too long and that any damage is minimal.

I get it.

The IRS does not.

There is an excellent reason: the trust fund money does not belong to the employer. It is the employees’ money.  The IRS considers it theft.

Triggering one the biggest penalties in the Code: the trust fund penalty.

We have in the past referred to it as the “big boy” penalty, and you want nothing to do with it. It brings two nasty traits:

(1)  The rate is 100%. Yep, the penalty is equal to the trust fund taxes themselves.

(2)  The IRS can go after whoever is responsible, jointly or severally.

Let’s expand on the second point. Let’s say that there are three people at the company who can sign checks and decide who gets paid. The IRS will – as a generalization – consider all three responsible persons for purposes of the penalty. The IRS can go after one, two, or all three. Whoever they go after can be held responsible for all of the trust fund taxes – 100% - not just their 1/3 share. The IRS wants its money, and the person who just ponied 100% is going to have to separately sue the other two for their share. The IRS does not care about that part of the story.

How do you defend against this penalty?

It is tough if you have check-signing authority and can prioritize who gets paid. The IRS will want to know why you did not prioritize them, and there are very few acceptable responses to that question.

Let’s take a look at the Myers case.

Steven Myers was the CFO and co-president of two companies. The two were in turn owned by another company which was licensed by the Small Business Administration as a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC).  The downside to this structure is that the SBA can place the SBIC into receivership (think bankruptcy). The SBA did just that.

In 2009 the two companies Myers worked for failed to remit payroll taxes.

Oh oh.

However, it was an SBA representative – remember, the SBA is running the parent company – who told Myers to prioritize vendors other than the IRS.

Meyers did so.

And the IRS slapped him with the big boy penalty.

QUESTION: Do you think Myers has an escape, especially since he was following the orders of the SBA?

At first it seems that there is an argument, since it wasn’t just any boss who was telling him not to pay. It was a government agency.

However, precedence is a mile long where the Court has slapped down the my-boss-told-me-not-to-pay argument. Could there be a different answer when the boss is the government itself?

The Court did not take long in reaching its decision:

So, the narrow question before us is whether …. applies with equal force when a government agency receiver tells a taxpayer not to pay trust fund taxes. We hold that it does. We cannot apply different substantive law simply because the receiver in this case was the SBA."

Myers owed the penalty.

What do you do if you are in this position?

One possibility is to terminate your check-signing authority and relinquish decision-making authority over who gets paid.

And if you cannot?

You have to quit.

I am not being flippant. You really have to quit. Unless you are making crazy money, you are not making enough to take on the big-boy penalty.