7 ms·

H.R. 4213 - Payroll Tax for S-Corp Dividends

23 points by euroclydon 16y ago

hga 16y ago
"The bill slowly poisons many s corporations." [...] "I’m not alone in my concern over the scope of this bill and what it means for our economy. We keep pushing a little bit at the edges of some pretty sweeping changes at an alarming speed – so fast, in fact, that many taxpayers haven’t had time to digest them, much less, react to them." A general term for this is "regime uncertainty." People continually complain about a corporate focus on the next quarter while not noticing that major tax and other business law (e.g. SarBox) changes every couple of years makes it well neigh impossible to do long range planning. Things have been quite a bit worse lately and as long as Team Obama and the Congress continue to move at ramming speed a lot of economic activity is going to be suppressed until many months, probably more than a year, pass so that people can digest the changes and their implications.
- tptacek 16y ago
  If you were playing the S-Corp distro game, my understanding is that you were already living in a world of uncertainty, because (a) paying out distros that are large relative to your wages is an audit flag, and (b) the IRS already has the authority to retroactively decide what fair market value for your company role is and then whack you for the money you tried to stash in distros. People do it anyways because everyone is unlikely to get audited almost no matter what they do. That doesn't mean that closing the loophole is going to throw people's tax planning in to chaos. You opt for chaos when you decide to cheat.
  - apowell 16y ago
    Playing the "S-Corp distro game" is not cheating. If an S-corp brings in, say, several hundred thousand dollars in net profit and the principal pays themselves a fair wage for an employee in that role (perhaps it's in the neighborhood of $80k - $150k), then that is completely legitimate under current law. Aggressive but correct tax planning is not cheating, and for a responsible business owner who wants to maximize personal income (and ability to reinvest in the business), it's the way the game should be played.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I agree, but what's your point? If you're getting ~90k in wages, the rest of your income isn't subject to FICA anyways. (That may soon change, with talks of lifting the caps on payroll taxes, and that's a change I'll be far more ambivalent about).
      - apowell 16y ago
        I admit, that point had not occurred to me. Nevertheless, the Medicare portion isn't subject to a cap. My main issue was this: "You opt for chaos when you decide to cheat." Aggressive tax planning within the bounds of the law is not cheating, and I think it's unfair to characterize it that way. The wage/distro setup is an advantage unique to S-Corp owners, and I understand why some want to see it eliminated. But to use it today is not cheating.
        tptacek 16y ago
        The courts appear to disagree with you. "Aggressively" characterizing a portion of your income as a distribution when it is really just disguised wages appears to be a losing proposition, except for the fact that you're probably not going to get audited (as long as you pay yourself a relatively significant amount as bona fide wages). A tax planning strategy that relies on never getting audited, and that fails spectacularly when you do get audited, I think can reasonably called "cheating". I get that reasonable people can disagree on this, and I'm fine with reasonably disagreeing with you.
        apowell 16y ago
        By "aggressively within the bounds of the law", I was suggesting that the IRS's position and court's position was already taken into consideration (not just the low chance of being audited). Regardless, surely it's possible to have situations where distributions are legitimately greater than zero. If I'm an absentee owner who pays a manager to operate my business, my distributions shouldn't be treated as wages. I see it as a continuum -- on one end, you have cheaters who are paying themselves $10k annually and taking the rest as distributions. On the other end, you have absentee owners who should legitimately be able to claim distributions. In the middle there are many shades of gray.
toddh 16y ago
Also http://biztaxtalk.com/node/1576 http://biztaxtalk.com/node/1576
- tptacek 16y ago
  The main advantage of forming an S-Corp should be that it allows you to have a formalized corporate structure with shareholders (including employees with bona fide ISOs or restricted stock) without incurring the rather large overhead of maintaining a C-Corp. An S-Corp should simply be the corporate version of an LLC. It doesn't seem to me that the intent of the S-Corp structure was to allow a small number of people at the top of the company to exempt half their income from taxes that virtually everyone else in the country has to pay.
  - sfbrando 16y ago
    I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am a CPA and there isn't any larger overhead expenses for one owner C-Corps vs. S-Corps. The main difference is that owners/employees of C-Corps usually just take money out by way of wages only. If they also take dividends they have to pay income tax on the dividends on their personal return, but get no deduction on their corporate income tax return. Thus "double taxation" is the result. S-Corps make it simpler to take distributions and make more sense and are more fair and equitable. Most S-Corps take money out in wages and shareholder distributions. The wages need to be reasonable and the shareholder distributions are a distribution of profit of which you pay income tax on, but there is no double taxation since the income flows through to your personal tax return anyway. I don't know what you mean about small number of people at the top of the company get to exempt half their income from taxes that virtually everyone else in the country has to pay. Our income is not exempt in any way. You might want to know your facts before spouting off stuff you don't know.
tptacek 16y ago
GOOD. The dividend/payroll split trick that S-Corps play is a huge scam. Normal people in normal jobs --- hell, ace (non-founder) devs at startups taking W2 wages --- have most of their income subject to payroll taxes (most notably FICA). These taxes are a significant chunk of all your withholdings. However, if you and your partners own an S-Corp, you can choose to pay yourself not only in direct wages but also as cash distributions (think "profit sharing"). Unlike wages, distros are not subject to payroll taxes. You can skip out on your FICA payments for all the income you elect to pay as a distro. In an LLC, all of a company principal's income is paid as distros (you can't formally be an LLC principal and take W2 wages). But that income is all subject to self-employment tax. It's only in the weird little blip between LLC and C-Corp that this tax avoidance trick exists. There is no legitimate reason why an LLC principal should have to fully fund Medicare and Social Security, and a C-Corp director should have to fully fund Medicare and Social Security, but an S-Corp shareholder should be able to carve out some (or even most) of their income to avoid those taxes. To my eyes, this is a loophole in the purest sense of the word, and I'd be happy to see them kill it.
- alex1 16y ago
  The big reason people do an S-Corp is to avoid double taxation (and to be a corporation rather than LLC while not having the complex structures of a C-Corp). Better than being a sole proprietor. Keep in mind that S-Corps can only have a certain number of shares and shareholders (100?) in one class of stock, so a startup or large corporation can't be an S-Corp and take advantage of the tax benefits. Also, here in California, all corporations (S and C and even LLC) owe tax even if the company's net income is zero.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Um, I'm not a CPA, and I definitely don't know how California taxes work, but at the federal level, isn't that (taxation at the corporate level) pretty much the opposite of how an S-Corp works?
    - alex1 16y ago
      An S-Corp just avoids double taxation. Salaries paid out are subject to FICA. As for the remaining business income, each shareholder would still owe taxes based on how much of the business they own. This is different than a C-Corp where the business income would be taxed at the corporate level in addition to the owners paying income tax on their salaries. And if the owners of a C-Corp decided to pay themselves huge dividends to avoid normal income taxation, that would raise red flags. In California, S-Corps pay a 1.5% franchise tax on net income (minimum $800). You pay this even if your net income is zero or negative. You pay this no matter what. Disclosure: I'm also not a CPA.
credo 16y ago
Today, an s-corp founder does benefit by being able to split his/her income between W2 wages and distributions (on which payroll taxes don't need to be paid). Besides increasing tax burden, this bill will also make the tax-filing process a bit more cumbersome for s-corp founders. If HR 4123 goes through, the tax-benefit will be removed for S-corp founders. However, venture capitalists (with carried interest income), perhaps some LLC founders (who don't take W2 salaries) will still be exempted from payroll taxes. Unfortunately, as part of payroll taxes, s-corp founders are required to pay unemployment insurance taxes that they can never benefit from. For example, I'm required to pay FUTA taxes when I get W2 wages, yet I cannot claim unemployment allowances if my company doesn't make money in a given month. If they're talking about closing loopholes, I think they should close the reverse-loophole that lets the fed govt collect unemployment taxes without providing any unemployment benefits. My state (WA) exempts corporate officers from paying unemployment taxes, but that just means that I pay even higher FUTA taxes to the the federal govt.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You have in reality no such benefit. From my cursory research, taxpayers have consistently lost every case in which they attempted to hide wages as distros. Courts have held that "wages" is a term that describes all remuneration for services rendered in any form. Even loans from the company to shareholders can, under the tax code, be reclassified by the IRS as FICA-eligible wages. The only benefit S-Corp shareholders have under the present system is that they can force the IRS to audit to recover this money, which is a game that entrepreneurs often win because very few people really get audited anyways. So, two things. First, the loophole doesn't really simplify your life. For many years after filing one of these bogus returns, you can still be levied for the hidden wages, plus penalties (including a huge extra negligence penalty). Second, there's nothing fair or sensible about the exemption S-Corp shareholders are taking; people with exactly the same skin in the economy have to pay FICA, so why shouldn't S-Corp owners?
  - credo 16y ago
    You're making the assumption that all S-corp distributions amount to "hiding wages". Most accountants will tell you that IRS regulations disagree with you on that point. I see that you didn't respond to the reverse-loophole point on FUTA taxes. Why should a company pay unemployment insurance taxes for founder-employees when these employees can never claim unemployment allowances ?
sfbrando 16y ago
First of all let me point out that employees who are not business owners do NOT have to pay in the full 15.3% (SS & Medicare) to the government. Only 1/2 of that gets taken out of their paychecks. The other 1/2 is paid by the employer (social security wage base is $106,800 and unlimited for medicare). Also, in most states employees do not have to pay into unemployment. The employer pays into that for them. They also usually get vacation/sick pay and health insurance benefits. A one owner S Corporation has to pay in the full 15.3% on their wages plus $434 into FUTA that he/she cannot use. In addition they have to pay for their own health insurance and obviously no vacation/sick pay. Please do not compare employees to business owners. Employees have NO idea. This HR 4213 bill is another attack on the small businesses probably because the politicians cannot control us since most of us are free thinkers and usually not tied to one party. The S Corporation has been around for 50 plus years and has been a blessing to us small one-owner firms. I pay myself a reasonable wage (what I would expect if I work for someone else in my line of work) and then I usually leave a good chunk of money in the company savings account and take a small amount in shareholder distribution. With this new bill even amounts I don't take out will be subject to SECA. I usually save about $3,000 per year in SECA because of the S Corporation. This might not seem like alot to most people but an extra $3000 to my family seems harsh. Why am I being penalized when bigger firms won't be? Why are they picking on the little guy who works hard?????

23 points by euroclydon 16y ago

hga 16y ago

"The bill slowly poisons many s corporations." [...] "I’m not alone in my concern over the scope of this bill and what it means for our economy. We keep pushing a little bit at the edges of some pretty sweeping changes at an alarming speed – so fast, in fact, that many taxpayers haven’t had time to digest them, much less, react to them." A general term for this is "regime uncertainty." People continually complain about a corporate focus on the next quarter while not noticing that major tax and other business law (e.g. SarBox) changes every couple of years makes it well neigh impossible to do long range planning. Things have been quite a bit worse lately and as long as Team Obama and the Congress continue to move at ramming speed a lot of economic activity is going to be suppressed until many months, probably more than a year, pass so that people can digest the changes and their implications.

tptacek 16y ago
If you were playing the S-Corp distro game, my understanding is that you were already living in a world of uncertainty, because (a) paying out distros that are large relative to your wages is an audit flag, and (b) the IRS already has the authority to retroactively decide what fair market value for your company role is and then whack you for the money you tried to stash in distros. People do it anyways because everyone is unlikely to get audited almost no matter what they do. That doesn't mean that closing the loophole is going to throw people's tax planning in to chaos. You opt for chaos when you decide to cheat.
- apowell 16y ago
  Playing the "S-Corp distro game" is not cheating. If an S-corp brings in, say, several hundred thousand dollars in net profit and the principal pays themselves a fair wage for an employee in that role (perhaps it's in the neighborhood of $80k - $150k), then that is completely legitimate under current law. Aggressive but correct tax planning is not cheating, and for a responsible business owner who wants to maximize personal income (and ability to reinvest in the business), it's the way the game should be played.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I agree, but what's your point? If you're getting ~90k in wages, the rest of your income isn't subject to FICA anyways. (That may soon change, with talks of lifting the caps on payroll taxes, and that's a change I'll be far more ambivalent about).
    - apowell 16y ago
      I admit, that point had not occurred to me. Nevertheless, the Medicare portion isn't subject to a cap. My main issue was this: "You opt for chaos when you decide to cheat." Aggressive tax planning within the bounds of the law is not cheating, and I think it's unfair to characterize it that way. The wage/distro setup is an advantage unique to S-Corp owners, and I understand why some want to see it eliminated. But to use it today is not cheating.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        The courts appear to disagree with you. "Aggressively" characterizing a portion of your income as a distribution when it is really just disguised wages appears to be a losing proposition, except for the fact that you're probably not going to get audited (as long as you pay yourself a relatively significant amount as bona fide wages). A tax planning strategy that relies on never getting audited, and that fails spectacularly when you do get audited, I think can reasonably called "cheating". I get that reasonable people can disagree on this, and I'm fine with reasonably disagreeing with you.
        apowell 16y ago
        By "aggressively within the bounds of the law", I was suggesting that the IRS's position and court's position was already taken into consideration (not just the low chance of being audited). Regardless, surely it's possible to have situations where distributions are legitimately greater than zero. If I'm an absentee owner who pays a manager to operate my business, my distributions shouldn't be treated as wages. I see it as a continuum -- on one end, you have cheaters who are paying themselves $10k annually and taking the rest as distributions. On the other end, you have absentee owners who should legitimately be able to claim distributions. In the middle there are many shades of gray.

toddh 16y ago

Also http://biztaxtalk.com/node/1576 http://biztaxtalk.com/node/1576

tptacek 16y ago
The main advantage of forming an S-Corp should be that it allows you to have a formalized corporate structure with shareholders (including employees with bona fide ISOs or restricted stock) without incurring the rather large overhead of maintaining a C-Corp. An S-Corp should simply be the corporate version of an LLC. It doesn't seem to me that the intent of the S-Corp structure was to allow a small number of people at the top of the company to exempt half their income from taxes that virtually everyone else in the country has to pay.
- sfbrando 16y ago
  I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am a CPA and there isn't any larger overhead expenses for one owner C-Corps vs. S-Corps. The main difference is that owners/employees of C-Corps usually just take money out by way of wages only. If they also take dividends they have to pay income tax on the dividends on their personal return, but get no deduction on their corporate income tax return. Thus "double taxation" is the result. S-Corps make it simpler to take distributions and make more sense and are more fair and equitable. Most S-Corps take money out in wages and shareholder distributions. The wages need to be reasonable and the shareholder distributions are a distribution of profit of which you pay income tax on, but there is no double taxation since the income flows through to your personal tax return anyway. I don't know what you mean about small number of people at the top of the company get to exempt half their income from taxes that virtually everyone else in the country has to pay. Our income is not exempt in any way. You might want to know your facts before spouting off stuff you don't know.

tptacek 16y ago

GOOD. The dividend/payroll split trick that S-Corps play is a huge scam. Normal people in normal jobs --- hell, ace (non-founder) devs at startups taking W2 wages --- have most of their income subject to payroll taxes (most notably FICA). These taxes are a significant chunk of all your withholdings. However, if you and your partners own an S-Corp, you can choose to pay yourself not only in direct wages but also as cash distributions (think "profit sharing"). Unlike wages, distros are not subject to payroll taxes. You can skip out on your FICA payments for all the income you elect to pay as a distro. In an LLC, all of a company principal's income is paid as distros (you can't formally be an LLC principal and take W2 wages). But that income is all subject to self-employment tax. It's only in the weird little blip between LLC and C-Corp that this tax avoidance trick exists. There is no legitimate reason why an LLC principal should have to fully fund Medicare and Social Security, and a C-Corp director should have to fully fund Medicare and Social Security, but an S-Corp shareholder should be able to carve out some (or even most) of their income to avoid those taxes. To my eyes, this is a loophole in the purest sense of the word, and I'd be happy to see them kill it.

alex1 16y ago
The big reason people do an S-Corp is to avoid double taxation (and to be a corporation rather than LLC while not having the complex structures of a C-Corp). Better than being a sole proprietor. Keep in mind that S-Corps can only have a certain number of shares and shareholders (100?) in one class of stock, so a startup or large corporation can't be an S-Corp and take advantage of the tax benefits. Also, here in California, all corporations (S and C and even LLC) owe tax even if the company's net income is zero.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Um, I'm not a CPA, and I definitely don't know how California taxes work, but at the federal level, isn't that (taxation at the corporate level) pretty much the opposite of how an S-Corp works?
  - alex1 16y ago
    An S-Corp just avoids double taxation. Salaries paid out are subject to FICA. As for the remaining business income, each shareholder would still owe taxes based on how much of the business they own. This is different than a C-Corp where the business income would be taxed at the corporate level in addition to the owners paying income tax on their salaries. And if the owners of a C-Corp decided to pay themselves huge dividends to avoid normal income taxation, that would raise red flags. In California, S-Corps pay a 1.5% franchise tax on net income (minimum $800). You pay this even if your net income is zero or negative. You pay this no matter what. Disclosure: I'm also not a CPA.

credo 16y ago

Today, an s-corp founder does benefit by being able to split his/her income between W2 wages and distributions (on which payroll taxes don't need to be paid). Besides increasing tax burden, this bill will also make the tax-filing process a bit more cumbersome for s-corp founders. If HR 4123 goes through, the tax-benefit will be removed for S-corp founders. However, venture capitalists (with carried interest income), perhaps some LLC founders (who don't take W2 salaries) will still be exempted from payroll taxes. Unfortunately, as part of payroll taxes, s-corp founders are required to pay unemployment insurance taxes that they can never benefit from. For example, I'm required to pay FUTA taxes when I get W2 wages, yet I cannot claim unemployment allowances if my company doesn't make money in a given month. If they're talking about closing loopholes, I think they should close the reverse-loophole that lets the fed govt collect unemployment taxes without providing any unemployment benefits. My state (WA) exempts corporate officers from paying unemployment taxes, but that just means that I pay even higher FUTA taxes to the the federal govt.

tptacek 16y ago
You have in reality no such benefit. From my cursory research, taxpayers have consistently lost every case in which they attempted to hide wages as distros. Courts have held that "wages" is a term that describes all remuneration for services rendered in any form. Even loans from the company to shareholders can, under the tax code, be reclassified by the IRS as FICA-eligible wages. The only benefit S-Corp shareholders have under the present system is that they can force the IRS to audit to recover this money, which is a game that entrepreneurs often win because very few people really get audited anyways. So, two things. First, the loophole doesn't really simplify your life. For many years after filing one of these bogus returns, you can still be levied for the hidden wages, plus penalties (including a huge extra negligence penalty). Second, there's nothing fair or sensible about the exemption S-Corp shareholders are taking; people with exactly the same skin in the economy have to pay FICA, so why shouldn't S-Corp owners?
- credo 16y ago
  You're making the assumption that all S-corp distributions amount to "hiding wages". Most accountants will tell you that IRS regulations disagree with you on that point. I see that you didn't respond to the reverse-loophole point on FUTA taxes. Why should a company pay unemployment insurance taxes for founder-employees when these employees can never claim unemployment allowances ?

sfbrando 16y ago

First of all let me point out that employees who are not business owners do NOT have to pay in the full 15.3% (SS & Medicare) to the government. Only 1/2 of that gets taken out of their paychecks. The other 1/2 is paid by the employer (social security wage base is $106,800 and unlimited for medicare). Also, in most states employees do not have to pay into unemployment. The employer pays into that for them. They also usually get vacation/sick pay and health insurance benefits. A one owner S Corporation has to pay in the full 15.3% on their wages plus $434 into FUTA that he/she cannot use. In addition they have to pay for their own health insurance and obviously no vacation/sick pay. Please do not compare employees to business owners. Employees have NO idea. This HR 4213 bill is another attack on the small businesses probably because the politicians cannot control us since most of us are free thinkers and usually not tied to one party. The S Corporation has been around for 50 plus years and has been a blessing to us small one-owner firms. I pay myself a reasonable wage (what I would expect if I work for someone else in my line of work) and then I usually leave a good chunk of money in the company savings account and take a small amount in shareholder distribution. With this new bill even amounts I don't take out will be subject to SECA. I usually save about $3,000 per year in SECA because of the S Corporation. This might not seem like alot to most people but an extra $3000 to my family seems harsh. Why am I being penalized when bigger firms won't be? Why are they picking on the little guy who works hard?????