No Soup For You!

“No soup for you!”

The reference of course is to the soup Nazi in the Seinfield television series. His name is Al Yegeneh. You can still buy his soup should you find yourself in New York or New Jersey.

However, it is not Al who we are interested in.

We instead are interested in Robert Bertrand, the CEO of Soupman, Inc, a company that licenses Al’s likeness and recipes. Think franchise and you are on the right track.

Bertrand however has drawn the ire of the IRS. He has been charged with disbursing approximately $3 million of unreported payroll, in the form of cash and stock.

The IRS says that $3 million of payroll is about $600,000 of unpaid federal payroll taxes.    

Payroll taxes – as we have discussed before – have some of the nastiest penalties going.

And that is just for paying the taxes late.

Do not pay the taxes – as Bertrand is charged – and the problem only escalates. He faces up to five years in prison. His daughter co-signed a $50,000 bond so he could get out of jail.

BTW the judge also ordered him to hire an attorney.

COMMENT: I don’t get it either. One of the first things I would have done was to hire a tax attorney.

I have not been able to discover which flavor of stock-as-compensation Soupman, Inc used, although I have a guess.

My guess is that Soupman Inc used nonqualified stock options.

COMMENT: There are multiple ways to incorporate stock into a compensation package. Nonqualified options (“nonquals” or “NSO’s”) are one, but qualified stock options (“ISO’s”) or restricted stock awards (“RSA’s”) are also available. Today we are talking only about nonquals.

Using nonquals, Soupman Inc would not grant stock immediately. The options would have a delay – such as requiring one to work there for a certain number of years before being able to exercise the option. Then there is the matter of price: will the option exercise for stock value at the time (not much of an incentive, if you ask me) or at some reduced price (zero, for example, would be a great incentive).

Let’s use some numbers to understand how nonquals work.

• Let’s start with a great key employee that we are very interested in retaining. We will call him Steve.
• Let’s grant Steve nonqualified options for 50,000 shares. Steve can buy stock at $10/share. As the stock is presently selling at $20/share, this is a good deal for Steve.
• But Steve cannot buy the stock right now. No, no, he has to wait at least 4 years, then he has six years after that to exercise. He can exercise once a year, after which he has to wait until next year. He can exercise as much of the stock as he likes, up to the 50,000-share maximum.
• There is a serious tax trap in here that we need to avoid, and it has to do with Steve having unfettered discretion over the option. For example, we cannot allow Steve to borrow against the option or allow him to sell the option to another person. The IRS could then argue that Steve is so close to actually having cash that he is taxable – right now. That would be bad.

Let’s fast forward six years and Steve exercises the option in full. The stock is worth $110 per share.

Steve has federal income tax withholding.

Steve has FICA withholding.

Steve has state tax withholding.

Where is the cash coming from for all this withholding?

The easiest solution is if Steve is still getting a regular paycheck. The employer would dip into that paycheck to take out all the withholdings on the option exercise.

OBSERVATION: Another way would be for Steve to sell enough stock to cover his withholdings. The nerd term for this is “cashless.”

It may be that the withholdings are so large they would swamp Steve’s regular paycheck. Maybe Steve writes a check to cover the withholdings.

COMMENT: If I know Steve, he is retiring when the checks clear.

Steve has income. It will show up on his W-2. He will include that option exercise (via his W-2) on his tax return for the year. The government got its vig.

How about the employer?

Steve’s employer has a tax deduction equal to the income included on Steve’s W-2.

The employer also has employer payroll taxes, such as:

·      Employer FICA

·      Federal unemployment

·      State unemployment

Let’s be honest, the employer payroll taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to Steve’s income from exercising the option.

Why would Steve’s employer do this?

There are two reasons. One is obvious; the second perhaps not as much.

One reason is that the employer wants to hold onto Steve. The stock option serves as a handcuff. There is enough there to entice Steve to stay, at least for a few years.

The second is that the employer manufactured a tax deduction almost out of thin air.

Huh?

How many shares did Steve exercise?

50,000.

What was the bargain element in the option exercise?

$110 - $10 = $100. Times 50,000 shares is $5,000,000 to Steve.

How much cash did the employer part with to pay Steve?

Whatever the employer FICA, federal and state unemployment taxes are – undoubtedly a lot less than $5,000,000.

Tax loophole! How Congress allow this? Unfair! Canadian football!

I disagree.

Why?

To my way of thinking, Steve is paying taxes on $5,000,000, so it is only fair that his employer gets to deduct the same $5,000,000. To argue otherwise is to wander into the-sound-of-one-hand-clapping territory.    

But, but … the employer did not actually pay $5,000,000.
   

COMMENT: Sometimes the numbers go exponential. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, had options to purchase 120 million shares for just 6 cents per share when Facebook went public at $38 per share. The “but, but …” crowd would want to see a $4,550,000,000 check.

I admit: so would I. I would frame the check. After I cashed it. It would also be my Christmas card every year.

You are starting to understand why Silicon Valley start-up companies like nonqualified stock options. Their cost right now is nada, but it can be a very nice tax deduction down the road when the company hits it big.

I suspect that Soupman, Inc did something like the above.

They just forgot to send in Steve’s withholdings.

An Attorney, A CPA and Confidentiality

Do you have privacy protection if you tell me something as your CPA?

Your first thought might be yes, as your CPA might be the financial doppelganger to an attorney.

Then again, the answer might be no, as your CPA is not in fact an attorney – unless he/she is one of those rare birds that pairs-up a JD/CPA.

What got me thinking along these lines is the recent case US v Galloway.

Let’s travel to 2006. The IRS notifies Galloway that his 2003 return has been pulled for audit.

Audit starts.

In the middle of the audit Galloway’s CPA fires him. Why? Galloway did not pay his fees.

In 2008 Galloway gets sent to CID (Criminal Investigation Division), the part of the IRS that carries badges and guns.

As a heads-up: you NEVER want to deal with CID. It is one thing to argue with regular IRS, appeal penalties, stretch out a payment plan and so on. All that crowd wants is your money. CID investigates criminal conduct and they have a different goal: to put you in jail.

CID agents went to his business offices in Bakersfield, California. Upon their approach, a man in the office locked the door and called the police.

The CID agents also called the police and informed them there were two plain clothed and armed federal agents waiting for them to arrive.

The man stepped out of the building and provided them with the name of an attorney. The CID agents cleared out before the police arrived.

Nothing. Suspicious. There.

Since that visit went so well, CID next issued a summons for production of documents to the former CPA.

The CPA met with them, explained his relationship with Galloway and answered questions on how he prepared Galloway’s 2003 return. No great surprise: Galloway had forwarded QuickBooks information; the CPA asked a few questions, massaged a few numbers and produced a tax return. Happens in a thousand CPA offices every day.

There was a smidgeon of a problem, though.

Remember that the CPA had started the Galloway audit. As part of the audit, Galloway had provided him more paperwork, including additional and replacement QuickBooks runs. No big deal - usually.

What was unusual was that the new QuickBooks runs did not match-up to the earlier run the CPA used for the tax return.  

Galloway was charged with four counts of attempting to evade tax.

What to do?

Galloway sought to suppress all evidence obtained from his prior CPA. Why? Code Section 7609. The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Equitable authority. Applebee’s 2 for $20 menu.

You get it: kitchen sink. Galloway was throwing everything he had.

And this brings us to the Couch case from 1973. It was a Supreme Court case, so it is big-time precedent.

Couch owned a restaurant. At issue was unreported income. Cash. Pocket. Wink. You understand.

The IRS issued a subpoena to Couch’s accountant for books, records, bank statements, cancelled checks, deposit ticket copies, Sunday newspaper coupons and unexpired S&H green stamps.

Couch said: hold up. She had provided all that stuff to her accountant, so subpoenaing her accountant rather than her personally was nonetheless a violation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

I like her argument.

Ultimately – as Captain Picard would say – her argument was futile.

The Court was short and swift: Couch had no “legitimate expectation of privacy” upon providing information to a third-party with the goal of processing, straining and compressing that same information onto a government tax return.

Back to Galloway.

As you can see, he was taking a low-probability swing on a high-and-tight fastball.

He struck out. He could not make enough separation between his situation and Couch to avoid the precedent.

How do tax CPAs handle situations like Galloway in practice?

First of all: interaction with CID is rare. One can have a long career and never see the criminal side of the IRS.  

I have run into CID once or twice over 30+ years, most recently in connection with a fraudulent tax preparer in northern Kentucky. I also recently (enough) represented a client whose file was submitted by Exam to CID, but CID rejected the matter. The client was eye-rollingly negligent, but Exam hyperventilated (I thought then and now) and started seeing intent where only stupidity abounded.  

Anyway, here is what the CPA should recommend:

(1) Have the client hire an attorney

(2) Have the attorney hire the CPA

Under this arrangement, the CPA works for the attorney. He/she is protected under the attorney’s confidentiality privilege and cannot be compelled to testify unless the attorney releases him/her. The attorney will not – of course -  do any such thing.

This set-up is called a “Kovel,” by the way. Not surprisingly, it refers to a case by the same name.

What did Galloway’s accountant do wrong?

To be fair: nothing. Galloway was no longer a client. He was under no obligation to chase Galloway down.

Galloway really should have thought of that before stiffing the CPA for his fee.

Let’s however say Galloway was still a client. 

Folks, at the first hint or whiff of a criminal investigation I am (1) firing you or (2) you are providing me with a Kovel. Those are the only two options.

But it requires the accountant to recognize the danger signs.

Like a combined civil-criminal IRS examination, for example. Those are borderline unfair, as the IRS will pretend there is no criminal side to it. They introduce an unsettling miasma of entrapment, and they require the tax practitioner to realize that he/she is being played.

But that is not what happened with Galloway. CID went to his office, for goodness’ sake.

There was not a lot of subtlety there.

How To Hack Off An IRS Auditor

Let’s discuss an excellent way to anger a revenue agent auditing your tax return.

Eric and Mary Kahmann have owned a jewelry business for 45 years. They report the business on their personal return as a proprietorship (that is, a Schedule C). they primarily sell at shows throughout the United States, although they also sell through Amazon and PayPal.

PayPal introduces a tax variable: Form 1099-K.

Yep, another blasted 1099. This time Congress was concerned that people were selling stuff (through Amazon, for example) and not correctly reporting their income. Amazon will sell your stuff, but the cash is likely going through Pay Pal or its equivalent. Do enough business and PayPal will send you a 1099-K at the end of the year.

Issue number one.

In addition, Mr. Kahmann’s two brothers were also in the jewelry business. Whereas they did not work with or for him, they would use his two merchant accounts to process payments.

Issue number two.

The IRS audited the Kahmann’s 2011 year.

Why? Who knows. What did not help were the following numbers:

Gross sales reported by the Kahmanns     $128,070

Gross sales reported on the 1099-Ks         $151,834

Guess what? This happens quite a bit, and it does not necessarily mean shenanigans. I will give you one example:

Customer refunds

If one accounts for customer refunds by subtracting them from sales, one can have the above discrepancy. The 1099-K does not – of course – know about any refunds.

The revenue agent asked for bank statements.

COMMENT: This has become standard IRS procedure for a Schedule C audit. It means nothing. You can however flame it into roaring meaningfulness by …

The Kahmanns refused to provide the bank statements.

Brilliant!  

I would seriously consider firing a client who did that to me. Is it a pain? Yes. Will the bank charge you for the copies? Yep. Is it fair? Fair is beside the point. It is what it is.

The revenue agent issued a summons to the bank for the three accounts she knew about. 

COMMENT: Yes, the IRS can get to those accounts. In addition, now the agent has to question whether she knows about all your accounts. Your chances of getting her to believe anything you say are falling fast.

Let’s grade the Kahmanns’ conduct during this audit so far:

                  F

The agent got the bank statements and added up all the deposits. The total was $169,603.

Wait, it gets better.

She could not trace one of the 1099-Ks into the bank statements, so she added that number ($15,745) to the $169,603. She now calculated gross receipts as $188,073.

The Kahmanns have a problem.

They have to show that some of those deposits were not income. Could be. Perhaps they borrowed money. Perhaps they transferred monies between accounts. Perhaps they received family gifts.

Perhaps Mr. Kahmann deposited his brothers’ PayPal transactions, given that they were using his merchant accounts.

There are two technical issues here that a tax nerd would recognize:

(1) There is recourse to having the IRS add-in $15,745 from a 1099-K just because the agent could not figure-out how it was deposited. A taxpayer can shift the burden of proof back to the IRS, meaning that the IRS is going to need something more than a piece of paper with “1099-K” printed somewhere on it.

There is a catch: you must cooperate with the IRS during the exam. Guess who did not cooperate by refusing to provide bank statements?

Bingo!

(2) Alternatively, a taxpayer can show that the deposits are not income.

Say that a deposit belonged to Kahmann’s brother. You can have the brother (or his accountant, more likely) show that the deposit was included in gross sales reported on the brother’s tax return.

It’s a pain, but it is not brain surgery.

The Kahmanns provided letters from the brothers.

The IRS wanted to meet with the brothers.

The brothers did not want to meet with the IRS.

The Kahmanns submitted books and records to support their tax return. The handwriting appeared to have been written all at once rather than over the year. The ink was also the same throughout.

Unlikely. Suspicious. Dumb.

You can guess how this wound up.

The Court agreed with the IRS recalculation of income. The Kahmanns owed big bucks. There were penalties too. 

Normally I am quite pro-taxpayer.  Am I sympathetic this time?

Not a bit.

Being Unemployed, Depressed And Owing The IRS

The case is 55 pages long.

Even a tax guy gets tired of marathon reading.

The story got me fired up, however, so let’s talk about it.

A frequent area of taxpayer request for IRS relief from penalties is rollovers of retirement monies, especially IRAs. Used to be that one filed for a Private Letter Ruling to obtain official absolution. Those bad boys are not cheap, as you will pay a tax CPA or attorney to draft the PLR, as well as pay the IRS filing fee. The filing fee alone can run you $10,000.

In 2016 the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2016-47 allowing for alternate means of absolution without requesting a PLR. Even the IRS got tired of taking your money.

Mr Trimmer was a retired cop with the New York Police Department. He was moving on after 20 years with the NPD, taking a security job with the New York Stock Exchange. He needed the job to supplement his pension, as he had two sons going through college. The new job however fell through. He was hosed, as the NYPD does not rehire.

And Trimmer went major depressive. He was antisocial, rarely left the house, neglected his hygiene and grooming – all the classic symptoms.

Somewhere in there he received two retirement checks: one for $99,990 and a second for $710. They lay on his dresser for weeks until he finally got around to depositing them into … his checking account.

COMMENT: If you were thinking a rollover, he flubbed because the roll did not go into an IRA account.

Months later Trimmer and his wife met with their accountant for their taxes. The accountant advised that he transfer the monies to an IRA immediately.

COMMENT: Trimmer was well outside the 60-day window at that point.

The IRS sent him a notice asserting that he failed to report over $100,000 of income and demanded taxes, penalties, interest, a Weimaraner puppy and a month’s pass to Planet Fitness.

It added up close to $40.000.

Yipes!

Trimmer wrote back to the IRS: 

    Dear Sirs:

I am contesting the amount of money said to be owed. Please allow me to explain the situation. In April 2011 I retired from my job and took a pension loan. After my retirement I went through a period of depression and was not managing my affairs. I received my check for the loan and deposited it into Santander bank on July 5, 2011. The money remained in this account until April of 2012 when it was switched to an I.R.A. in the same bank where it remains to this day.

A few points

- There was no deception or spending, investing of the money at all. I received the check and deposited it into the bank.

- My wife and I have been paying taxes for a combined 60 years and NEVER had the least bit a problem.

- There was no harm done to anyone with the money staying in the bank except me (I was receiving 0.25% interest.)

- I switched the money to an I.R.A. before I was notified by the I.R.S.

I am now employed again and am driving a school bus and have a son in college and another a year away. To pay $40,000 in taxes for money that is in an I.R.A. would absolutely cripple my family as it would be 3 years of my salary. Sir no harm was done to anyone. I went through a rough time upon separation from my job, causing me emotional hard times that caused this situation. Penalizing me and my family would not benefit anybody, only cause extreme duress and punish my children who played no part in this situation. I ask you to consider these facts and please come to a fair decision. Please contact me if you need at [phone number redacted].

Thank You,

John Trimmer

I feel sorry for the guy.

Here is the IRS reply:

“The law requires you to roll over your distribution within 60 days of the distribution date. If the roll over exceeds the time frame it becomes fully taxable.”

Nice folk over there.

Here is the tax issue: The IRS can issue waivers for this penalty, but they did not mention such fact to Mr Trimmer or how to apply for a waiver. Heck, they did not even reference Trimmer’s unfortunate circumstances. A reasonable person could question whether anyone even read his letter.

The IRS sent a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter.

Trimmer filed with the Tax Court.

The IRS went right for the throat:

•  Trimmer did not follow procedures (Rev Proc 2013-16 for the nerds).
• This made the hardship waiver provision “inapplicable.”
•  Since Trimmer had not pressed the point, there technically had been no “final administrative determination.”
• Without that “final,” the Tax Court had no authority over the case.
• In any event, Trimmer had never explained why he was unable to accomplish the two rollovers within 60 days.
• And where is that puppy?

Well, thank you Darth.

The Tax Court seemed to like Trimmer:

(1) OK, so he did not follow procedures.

(2) Not so quick, Sith Lord. How does the IRS reconcile 2003-16 with the following from the Internal Revenue Manual:

Examiners are given the authority to recommend the proper disposition of all identified issues, as well as any issued raised by the taxpayer.”

(3) The examiner’s authority to consider a hardship waiver “strongly implies” that the taxpayer may request the waiver.

COMMENT: 

(4) From the Court:

As might be expected from a self-represented taxpayer unversed in the technicalities of the tax law, he did not expressly cite section 402(c)(3)(B). But his letter leaves little doubt that he was seeking a hardship waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement….”

(5) The Court points out that the examiner 

… did not decline to consider Mr. Trimmer’ request, did not request that petitioners provide any additional information, and did not advise them that they were required to submit a private letter request or do anything else in particular to have their request considered.”

(6) If anything, the examiner wrote Mr. Trimmer that

… you do not need to do anything else for now. We will contact you within 60 days to let you know what action we are taking.”

(7) And 3 days later the examiner

… wrote petitioners again, denying requested relief, not on the basis that petitioners had requested it in the wrong manner or had provided insufficient information, but on the basis of cursory and incomplete legal analysis that failed to take into account the provision for hardship waivers under section 402(c)(3)(B).”

The Tax Court found in favor of Trimmer. He could do a late rollover. He was not subject to tax or penalty and could keep his Weimaraner puppy.

Good.

But it should not have gone this far. We are not in unexplored tax country here.

One could argue that our tax system is near-to breaking when you have to hire a professional to resolve near-routine tax problems. This man did not roll-over his money within 60 days. He was clinically depressed for a while. I can see requesting a doctor’s letter attesting to the taxpayer’s condition, but this is not cutting-edge tax practice.  

So why the HBO-level drama?

Here is one commentator’s remark:

We have a lazy revenue agent who probably just glances over the response. Is it the revenue agent’s fault? No, I don’t blame the revenue agent. With budget cuts, the caseloads of revenue agents are insane.”

I was listening until the “overworked” card. Seriously? I recommend this revenue agent not consider a career as a tax CPA, although – as a positive – it would probably be a short one.  

I do think our case highlights a disturbingly under-skilled IRS employee.

I also think it shows a trigger-happy IRS assessing penalties on anyone for anything. That examiners are throwing them around like sugar packets from a McDonalds drive-through indicates that they are under pressure to sweeten the take, irrespective of whether penalties are appropriate. Those penalties are under-the-table income to an IRS already facing a tight budget.

We have spoken before of a goose-and-gander bill, requiring the IRS to pay a taxpayer when the agency acts recklessly. The IRS already has people on payroll to pin your ears back, whereas you have to hire someone like me to fend them off. Their incremental cost to chase you is minimal, but your incremental cost to defend yourself can be significant if not ruinous.

Our goose-and-gander bill might or might not have protected Trimmer specifically, but eventually the IRS would lose enough cases to reconsider the automatic-tax-and-penalty-no-reasonable-cause-raised-middle-finger policy it has adopted. Cutting a check really focuses one’s attention.

The Qualified Small Business Stock Exemption

Let’s say that you are going to start your own company. You talk to me about different ways to organize:

(1) Sole proprietor – you wake up in the morning, get in your car and go out there and shake hands. There is no paperwork to file, unless you want to get a separate tax ID number. You and your proprietorship are alter-egos. If it gets sued, you get sued.

(2) Limited liability company – you stick that proprietorship in a single-member LLC, writing a check to your attorney and secretary of state for the privilege. You gain little to nothing tax-wise, but you may have helped your attorney (and yourself) if you ever get sued.

(3) Form a corporation - a corporation is the old-fashioned way to limit your liability. Once again there is a check to your attorney and secretary of state. Corporations have been out there long before LLCs walked the land.

You then have to make a decision as to the tax flavor of your corporation: 

a.    The “C” corporation – think Krogers, Proctor & Gamble and Macy’s. The C is a default for the big boys – and many non-bigs. There are some goodies here if you are into tax-free reorganizations, spin-offs and fancy whatnot.

Problem is that the C pays its own tax. You as the shareholder then pay tax a second time when you take money out (think a dividend) from the C.  This is not an issue when there are a million shareholders. It may be an issue when it is just you.

b.    The “S” corporation – geared more to the closely-held crowd. The S (normally) does not pay tax. Its income is instead included on your personal tax return. Own 65% of an S and you will pay tax on 65% of its income, along with your own W-2, interest, dividends and other income.

This makes your personal return somewhat a motley, as it will combine personal, investment and business income into one. Don’t be surprised if you are considered big-bucks by the business-illiterate crowd.

The S has been the go-to corporate choice for family-owned corporations since I have been in practice. A key reason is avoiding that double-tax.

But you can avoid the double tax by taking out all profits through salaries, right?

There is a nerdy issue here, but let’s say you are right.

Who cares then?

You will. When you sell your company.

Think about it. You spend years building a business. You are now age 65. You sell it for crazy money. The corporation pays tax. It distributes whatever cash it has left-over to you.

You pay taxes again.

And you vividly see the tax viciousness of the C corporation.

How many times are you going to flog this horse? Apple is a multinational corporation with a quarter of a trillion dollars in the bank. Your corporate office is your dining room.

The C stinks on the way out.

Except ….

Let’s talk Section 1202, which serves as a relief valve for many C corporation shareholders when they sell.

You are hosed on the first round of tax. That tax is on the corporation and Section 1202 will not touch it.

But it will touch the second round, which is the tax on you personally.

The idea is that a percentage of the gain will be excluded if you meet all the requirements.

What is the percentage?

Nowadays it is 100%. It has bounced around in prior years, however.

That 100% exclusion gets you back to S corporation territory. Sort of.

So what are the requirements?

There are several:

(1) You have to be a noncorporate shareholder. Apple is not invited to this soiree.

(2) You have owned the stock from day one … that is, when stock was issued (with minimal exceptions, such as a gift).

(3) The company can be only so big. Since big is described as $50 million, you can squeeze a good-sized business in there. BTW, this limit applies when you receive the stock, not when you sell it.

(4) The corporation and you consent to have Section 1202 apply.

(5) You have owned the stock for at least 5 years.

(6) Only certain active trades or businesses qualify.

Here are trades or businesses that will not qualify under requirement (5):

(1) A hotel, motel, restaurant or similar company.

(2) A farm.

(3) A bank, financing, leasing or similar company.

(4) Anything where depletion is involved.

(5) A service business, such as health, law, actuarial science or accounting.

A CPA firm cannot qualify as a Section 1202, for example.

Then there is a limit on the excludable gain. The maximum exclusion is the greater of:

(1) $10 million or

(2) 10 times your basis in the stock

Frankly, I do not see a lot of C’s – except maybe legacy C’s – anymore, so it appears that Section 1202 has been insufficient to sway many advisors, at least those outside Silicon Valley.

To be fair, however, this Code section has a manic history. It appears and disappears, its percentages change on a whim, and its neck-snapping interaction with the alternative minimum tax have soured many practitioners.  I am one of them.

I can give you a list of reasons why. Here are two:

(1) You and I start the company.

(2) I buy your stock when you retire.

(3) I sell the company.

I get Section 1202 treatment on my original stock but not on the stock I purchased from you.

Here is a second:

(1) You and I start the company.

(2) You and I sell the company for $30 million.

We can exclude $20 million, meaning we are back to ye-old-double-tax with the remaining $10 million.

Heck with that. Make it an S corporation and we get a break on all our stock.

What could make me change my mind?

Lower the C corporation tax rate from 35%.

Trump has mentioned 15%, although that sounds a bit low.

But it would mean that the corporate rate would be meaningfully lower than the individual rate. Remember that an S pays tax at an individual rate. That fact alone would make me consider a C over an S.

Section 1202 would then get my attention.