Making A Comeback: Section 1202 Stock

We are going tax-geek for this post.

Let’s blame Daryl, a financial advisor with Wells Fargo. He has been studying and asking about a particular Code section.

Code Section 1202.

This section has been a dud since 1993, but last year’s changes to the tax Code have resurrected it. I suspect we will be reading more about Section 1202 in the future.

What sets up the tension is the ongoing debate whether it is better to do business as a “C” corporation (which pays its own tax) or an “S” corporation (whose income drops onto its owners’ individual returns, who pay tax on the business as well as their other personal income).

There are two compelling factors driving the debate:

(1) The difference between corporate and individual tax rates.

For most of my career, top-end individual tax rates have exceeded top-end corporate tax rates. Assuming one is pushing the pedal to the floor, this would be an argument to be a C corporation.

(2)  Prior to 1986, there was a way to liquidate (think “sell”) a C corporation and pay tax only once. The 1986 tax act did away with this option (except for highly specialized – and usually reorganization-type – transactions). Since 1986 a C corporation has to pay tax when it liquidates (because it sold or is considered to have sold its assets). Its assets then transfer to its shareholders, who again pay tax (because they are considered to have sold their stock).

Factor (2) has pretty much persuaded most non-Fortune-500 tax advisors to recommend S corporations, to the extent that most of the C corporations many tax practitioners have worked with since 1986 have been legacy C’s. LLC’s have also been competing keenly with S corporations, and advisors now debate which is preferable. I prefer the settled tax law of S corporations, whereas other advisors emphasize the flexibility that LLCs bring to the picture.

Section 1202 applies to C corporations, and it gives you a tax break when you sell the stock. There are hoops, of course:

(1)   It must be a domestic (that is, a U.S.) C corporation.

(2)   You must acquire the stock when initially issued.

a.     Meaning that you did not buy the stock from someone else.

b.    It does not mean only the first issuance of stock. It can be the second or third issuance, as long as one meets the $ threshold (discussed below) and you are the first owner.

(3)   Corporate assets did not exceed $50 million when the stock was issued.

a.     Section 1202 is more of a west-Coast than Midwest phenomenon. That $50 million makes sense when you consider Silicon Valley.

b.    If you get cute and use a series of related companies, none exceeding $50 million, the tax Code will combine you into one big company with assets over $50 million.

c.     By the way, the $50 million is tested when the stock is issued, not when you sell the stock. Sell to Google for a zillion dollars and you can still qualify for Section 1202.

(4)   You have owned the stock for at least five years.

(5)   Not every type of business will qualify.

a.     Generally speaking, professional service companies – think law, health, accounting and so on – will not qualify. There are other lines of businesses – like restaurants and motels - that are also disqualified.

(6)   Upon a qualifying sale, a shareholder can exclude the larger of (a) $10 million or (b) 10 times the shareholder’s adjusted basis in the stock.

Folks, a minimum $10 million exclusion? That is pretty sweet.

I mentioned earlier that Section 1202 has – for most of its existence – been a dud. How can $10 million be a dud?

Because it hasn’t always been $10 million. For a long time, the exclusion was 50% of the gain, and one was to use a 28% capital gains rate on the other 50%. Well, 50% of 28% is 14%. Consider that the long-term capital gains rate was 15%, and tax advisors were not exactly doing handstands over a 1% tax savings.

In 2010 the exclusion changed to 100%. Advisors became more interested.

But it takes five years to prime this pump, meaning that it was 2015 (and more likely 2016 or 2017) by the time one got to five years.

What did the 2017 tax bill do to resurrect Section 1202?

It lowered the “C” corporation tax rate to 21%.

Granted, it also added a “passthrough” deduction so that S corporations, LLCs and other non-C-corporation businesses remained competitive with C corporations. Not all passthrough businesses will qualify, however, and – in an instance of dark humor – the new law refers to (5)(a) above to identify those businesses not qualifying for the passthrough deduction.

COMMENT: And there is a second way that Section 1202 has become relevant. A tax advisor now has to consider Section 1202 – not only for the $10-million exclusion – but also in determining whether a non-C business will qualify for the new 20% passthrough deduction. Problem is, there is next to no guidance on Section 1202 because advisors for years DID NOT CARE about this provision. We were not going to plan a multiyear transaction for a mere 1% tax savings.

Nonetheless 21% is a pretty sweet rate, especially if one can avoid that second tax. Enter Section 1202.

If the deal is sweet enough I suppose the $10 million or 10-times-adjusted-basis might not cover it all.

Good problem to have.

A Sad Grandma Story

 You know a tax case is going to irritate when you read this sentence early on:

The Commissioner does not defend the justice of this result, but says the law requires it.”

The story involves a grandmother, a son and daughter-in-law and two grandkids. Grandma appears to be the only one working and that as a nursing assistant in Texas. She also collected social security, which was just enough to keep the household afloat.

          []’s job is hard, and it does not pay much.”

It was 2012. He son did not work. Her daughter-n-law…

          … stayed home and took care of the babies.”

She filed her 2012 tax return and claimed the two grandchildren as dependents. That made sense, as she was the only person there with a job.

This allowed her to claim head of household and the dependent exemptions. Much more important than that, however, it allowed her to claim the child and earned income credits. She got a refund of almost $5,300, almost half of which was those credits.

Good for grandma.

The IRS sent her a notice. They wanted the money from the credits back.

Being the warm, fuzzy IRS we have come to know, she was also assessed a $1,000 penalty.

She figured ID theft. Somebody else must have claimed the kids.

She was right, partially. Somebody else did claim the kids.

Their parents.

That would be her son, the one who …

… did not work, and he was into dealing with drugs.”

Sigh.

We all know what a child is, but in the tax Code must rise to the level of a “qualifying child” before the tax goodies flow. There are requirements, of course – such as age and where they live – and grandma easily met those.

But only one person can claim each qualifying child, which is why one is required to include dependent social security numbers on the return. The IRS tracks those numbers. If you are the second person to use a dependent’s number, the IRS will bounce (or at least hold up) your return.

Grandma was the second to file, so she got bounced.

Now, there are families where more than one person can say that a child was his/her qualifying child. Congress anticipated this and included tie-breaker rules. For example, if two people contest and have equal claim, then the tie-breaker goes to the person with more income.

Or if the parents and someone else claim, then the parents win the tie-breaker.

However, this can be sidestepped if the parents DO NOT claim the child.

In grandma’s case, her son and daughter-in-law filed and claimed.

Can this situation be saved?

You bet.

How?

Amend the return. Have the parents “unclaim” the kids.

To their credit, the son and daughter did amend. They handed the amended return to the IRS attorney.

And here we have the technicality that makes you cringe.

Filing a return means sending it on to a service center or handing it to “any person assigned the responsibility to receive hand-carried returns in the local Internal Revenue Service office.”

Problem: the IRS attorney is not “assigned the responsibility” to receive or handle returns. Handing him/her a return is the equivalent of giving your return to a convenience store clerk or a Starbucks barista.

I suppose the attorney could bail you out by filing the return on your behalf upon returning to the office, but that did not happen here.

The return was never filed. Without an amended return, the son and daughter never revoked their dependency claim.

As the parents, they took priority over grandma, who only supported everyone that year.

And grandma could not claim the kids a second time.

Which cost her the child and earned income credits.

She had to repay the IRS.

The Court did not like this, not even a little bit.

We are sympathetic to []’s position. She provided all the financial support for …, had been told by her son that she should claim the children as her dependents, and is now stuck with a hefty tax bill. It is difficult for us to explain to a hardworking taxpayer like [] why this should be so, except to say that we are bound by the law.”

Sad.

At least the Court reversed those blasted penalties.

Spotting A (Tax) Dependent

Let’s talk about claiming someone as a dependent.

There are several tax “breaks” that require you to have a dependent, for example:

·        Head of household (HoH) filing status

·        A dependent exemption

·        Child credit

·        Child care credit

·        Education credit

·        Earned income credit

Some of these breaks go only so far. The head of household (HoH) filing status, for example, can get you to zero tax, but it cannot “create” a tax refund. You have to have tax withholdings before HoH can get you a refund; even then, you are getting your own money back. Not so with the child credit or the earned income credit, however.  Meet all the triggers and the EIC can refund you over $6,000, irrespective of whether you have any withholdings or not. It is a transfer payment from the government.

So what is required to claim someone as a tax dependent?

There are two overall categories of dependents. The first is your own child (or stepchild, adopted child, or descendants of the same) and is referred to as a “qualifying child.” This is the workhorse test: think a child at home with his/her parents.

There are five requirements for a “qualifying child”:

1. Are they related to you? 
2. Are they under age 19 or – if a full-time student – under age 24? 
3. Do they live with you for more than half the year?
4. Do you support them financially? 
5. Are you the only person claiming the child?

Any other type of dependent is a referred to as a “qualifying relative.” The requirements are as follows:

1. Do they live with you for more than half the year?
2. Do they make less than $3,950?
3. Do you support them financially?
4. Are you the only person claiming the child?

The term “qualifying relative” is misleading, by the way. The person does not need to be related to you at all. For example, a girlfriend could be my dependent – assuming that all the other requirements were met AND my wife allowed me to have a girlfriend.

Did you notice the age thing? A qualifying child ends at age 24 (unless we are talking permanent disability, which is a different rule). Past age 23 and the child is your dependent under the qualifying relative rules.

Which also means that an income test kicks-in. That after-age-23 child would not qualify as a dependent if he/she earned more than $3,950 for the year. This can be a cruel surprise at tax time for parents whose kids have moved back.

That answer, by the way, is the same for an over-18-under-24 child who does not go on to college.

Let’s take a little quiz on dependents. We will use the Tax Court case of James Edward Roberts v Commissioner. Here are selected facts:

1. In January, 2012 Roberts’ daughter became homeless. 
2. She had two young kids. 
3. She was pregnant with the third.

Roberts was a decent soul, and worked out a deal with a Ms. Moody, whereby he and the two children (very soon three) moved in with her. He agreed to pay 75% of the rent and utilities. He also agreed to pay 100% of the meals.

Then he did something unexpected. He wrote down the agreement, and both he and Ms. Moody signed and dated it.

Roberts and his (now three) grandchildren lived in the apartment from January until October, 2012. His daughter also lived there on-and-off. When she was not there, Ms. Moody helped take care of the kids.

When Roberts filed his 2012 tax return, he claimed the following:

(1)  Head of household

(2)  Dependent exemption for three grandchildren

(3)  Child credit

(4)  Earned income credit

The IRS bounced his return, and they wound up in Tax Court.

The IRS had an issue whether the kids were his dependents.

What do you think?

Let’s walk through it.

·        The kids are related (grandchildren) to Roberts. CHECK

·        The kids are young. CHECK

·        They lived with him from January through October, which is more than half the year. CHECK

·        He paid 75% of the rent and utilities and 100% of the food. Sounds to me like that would be over half the support for the kids. CHECK

·        The Court tells us that their mom did not claim them. CHECK

Seems that Roberts met all the requirements to claim the grandchildren as dependents for 2012. Why did the IRS press on this?

I don’t know, and the Court did not explain why. I can guess, though.

I see a person who…

·        moved

·        put three dependents on his return who were not there the prior year

·        was not living with the kids by the time the IRS contacted him

·        lived in an apartment with someone who (perhaps, who knows) might have been his girlfriend. This would raise the issue of who actually paid the expenses for rent, utilities and food – you know, the same expenses that Roberts needed to show that he supported the kids.

Roberts won his day in Court.

I suspect that written – and contemporaneously signed - agreement with Ms. Moody carried a lot of weight with the Court.

I allow that the IRS had cause to look at this return. After that, however, they should have left Mr. Roberts alone.  The IRS made a mistake on this one.

The New InvestOhio State Tax Credit

The recent Ohio biennial budget bill included an income tax credit for investments in qualifying small businesses.  This was a late addition, and it was made in response to some rather depressing statistics about Ohio business over the last decade:

·         Ohio has lost more jobs than any state other than California and Michigan

·         Ohio has ranked in  the bottom 10 states for population growth

·         Ohio’s economy has ranked in the bottom 5 states

The new tax credit is referred to as “Invest Ohio.” The credit will run for two years (Ohio has biennial budgets), and the state estimates that the program will cost $100 million. The state hopes to stimulate at least 30,000 jobs, at which number the state anticipates to breakeven.

The credit is nonrefundable. You need to have an Ohio income tax to make this worthwhile.

Let’s go through the steps:

(1)    This is an income tax credit. More specifically, only taxpayers with income taxes will be able to use it. You may recall that Ohio C corporations pay a Commercial Activity Tax (or “CAT”) in lieu of income taxes, so this credit is not for C corporations. Rather it is for individuals, passthroughs, trusts and estates.

(2)    You have to be an eligible small business.

a.       Your total assets are $50 million or less OR your total sales are $10 million or less

                                                               i.      Because of the “or,” you must meet one of the two tests to qualify.

b.      You must have enough presence in Ohio to qualify. There are two alternative tests:

                                                               i.       More than half your employees are in Ohio.

1.       It doesn’t matter how many employees you have. Just one (yourself) is enough.

                                                             ii.      You have more than 50 full-time equivalent employees in Ohio.

1.       This does not need to be more than half.

NOTE: Let’s go over this, as it may not be clear. If you have 2 employees and both are in Ohio, you qualify. If you have 274 employees, of which more than 50 are in Ohio, you qualify. Technically, this second test is done by full-time equivalents rather than employees, but you get the idea.

(3)    Fresh money is going into the business as equity.

a.       This fresh money is going to acquire, increase or maintain an equity interest.

                                                               i.      You are not playing banker here. This is not a “Loan from Owner.”

                                                             ii.      You are receiving shares, units – something- that indicate ownership.

                                                            iii.      An easy example is someone who becomes a new shareholder in an S corporation by investing $25,000. This is fresh money and he/she has acquired an ownership interest.

1.       What is you already own 100%? You cannot go over 100%.

a.       Answer:  this will count.

(4)    You have to spend the money in an approved way.

a.       You have to buy tangible personal property.

                                                               i.      Desks, a copier, computer monitors or a business van will qualify.

b.      You can buy real property, as long as it is in Ohio. Ohio will not subsidize that Florida condo.

c.       You can buy intangibles, such as patents, copyrights or trademarks.

                                                               i.      The one that occurred to me was enterprise software or a website.

d.      Compensation for new or retrained employees for whom the business is required to withhold Ohio income tax.

                                                               i.      I am not sure my firm has clients that would incur employee “retraining.”

                                                             ii.      A new employee will count.

1.       There is a big EXCEPT here: the employee cannot be an owner, manager or officer.

                                                            iii.      The Ohio tax withholding becomes an issue for the border residents. For example, I live in northern Kentucky but work in Cincinnati. I do not have Ohio withholding because of the reciprocal tax agreement.  As I read this, I would not qualify.

(5)    You have to spend this new money within six months.

(6)    The credit is 10 percent.

a.       There is a maximum however.

                                                               i.      The maximum credit is $1,000,000 per taxpayer.

1.       If you are married, this becomes $2 million.

b.      My understanding is that this $1 million limit is for the first credit period, which is two years. If the credit is renewed, my understanding is that you will get a brand new $1 million limit.

(7)    Tax credit period

a.       The first period of the program runs from 7/1/2011 to 6/30/2013 (remember: biennial budget).

b.      The timing of this credit is odd.

                                                               i.      You have to wait until the period is up (6/30/13) before you can claim the credit.

1.       So an investment in 2011 gets no payoff until 2013.

2.       At least you can use it in the same year the period expires.

c.       You then get 7 years to use up the credit. More specifically, an investment in 2011 would get to use its credit in tax years 2013 to 2019.

d.      IF THE PROGRAM IS CONTINUED IN 2013 …

                                                               i.      Then the waiting period becomes five years rather than two. That is a long time to it for a credit to kick-in. An investment in 2014 would have to wait until 2019 before using the credit.

(8)    You have to keep the money invested for the credit qualifying period.

a.       That is, you cannot put money in and take it right back out.

b.      But, then again, the first period is only two years. This is not a long time.

(9)    Paperwork

a.       There is paperwork for …

                                                               i.      The application and qualification,

                                                             ii.      The certification, and

                                                            iii.      A pledge not to dispose of the investment before the end of the holding period

b.      In short, the business and its owner will have paperwork. This makes sense, as Ohio wants (at a minimum) to keep track of how many people are using the program.

c.       The program is being administered by the Ohio Department of Development. They are your contact, not the Department of Taxation.

(10) Owners of passthrough entities will claim the credit based on their distributive or proportionate share of the entity.

Rick Kruse and I agree that the key point to this credit is the fresh cash. Perhaps the cash is funded by savings, by borrowings, or perhaps by a circular transaction, but somehow new money has to enter the picture. The problem may be getting the fresh cash in the owner’s name.

Think about the following examples:

(1)               The S corporation buys a truck. There is a down payment and a term note for the balance. Even if the shareholders sign on the note, there has been no fresh cash into the business, so there would be no tax credit.

(2)               The LLC wants to buy shop equipment. There are three members. Only one of the members is willing (or able) to start the required “fresh cash” sequence.  Perhaps he/she is the only one with enough savings, enough credit or enough collateral to borrow.  Therefore, only one of the members can initiate the “fresh cash” cycle. This situation may be more about member dynamics than tax planning.

(3)               The partnership constructs a building. The construction loan is signed by the partners. Under this loan, the draws are disbursed directly by the bank to the contractors and suppliers.  Whereas one can argue “fresh cash,” there has been no increase in equity. There has been only an increase in debt.  

Here is one that intrigues me:

(4)               A key employee is awarded 50 shares under a stock bonus program. The stock vests, so the employee recognizes taxable income on his/her personal return. The business in turn purchases equipment within the requisite six month period. Do we have a "fresh cash” cycle?

BTW, the instructions and directions for this credit are virtually nonexistent as I write this. For the time being there are questions with no answers. For example, can one set up a new company in order to qualify as an “eligible small business” or will the new company being aggregated with an existing company?  This is a basic technique – and therefore a basic question - for any tax practitioner.

If your business qualifies as an Ohio eligible small business, you simply must consider this credit in your tax planning. If you will be buying equipment, or trucks, or software, or hiring ANYWAY, why not plan for the credit? If you can’t make it work then you can’t, but at least consider it.