Browse » Home

Why You Shouldn’t Kill Your Rich Uncle Just Yet: Things You May Not Know About the Estate Tax Repeal

The day is finally here. After hearing about it for the past nine years, the estate tax is repealed as of January 1, 2010. Yet, many questions remain. For example, one may wonder what will happen next year when the estate tax (presumably) returns and one is puzzled why U.S. Congress did not address the “estate tax issue” during the 2009 tax year.

The one-year repeal of the “death tax” was a typical congressional compromise. It involved the gradual decrease in marginal tax rates and increase in tax free amount (unified credit) through 2009 and the repeal of the tax for just one year in 2010. The current law reads that in 2011 the rates from 2001 will apply again (P.L. 107-16, 115 Stat 38 (June 7, 2001)).

What does this mean for taxpayers? Let’s assume Uncle Joseph’s taxable estate is valued at $5 million. If he died in 2001, $675,000 of the estate would have been tax free and the rest would have been taxed with a top marginal rate of 55%. Tax liability would have been about 2.17 million and effective tax rate about 43%. Had Uncle Joseph died in 2009, his tax due would have been $675,000 and his effective tax rate around 14% while a 2010 death would mean zero liability (see Table).

Year	Top Marginal Tax Rate	Unified Credit (Exemption Equivalent)	Tax due after credit on $5 million estate	Effective Tax Rate
2001	55%	$220,550 ($675,000)	$ 2,170,250	43%
2002	50%	$345,800 ($1,000,000)	$ 1,930,000	39%
2003	49%	$345,800 ($1,000,000)	$ 1,905,000	38%
2004	48%	$555,800 ($1,500,000)	$ 1,665,000	33%
2005	47%	$555,800 ($1,500,000)	$ 1,635,000	33%
2006	46%	$780,800 ($2,000,000)	$ 1,380,000	28%
2007	45%	$780,800 ($2,000,000)	$ 1,350,000	27%
2008	45%	$780,800 ($2,000,000)	$ 1,350,000	27%
2009	45%	$1,455,800 ($3.5 million)	$    675,000	14%
2010	NA	NA	No tax	N/A
2011	55%	$220,550 ($675,000)	$ 2,170,250	43%

Questionable Policy Incentives

The stated policy reason for estate taxes has been that too much concentration of wealth is not good for a society. Aside from the fact that the estate tax has not done much in terms of reducing income and wealth inequality, the fact that Congress did not change the one-year repeal before January 1 of 2010, is an example of implementing quite questionable incentives. As the situation above shows, all else equal, the best year for Joseph to die is 2010. His heirs will receive the entire $5 million instead of only $4.3 million if he died in 2009 or $2.8 million if he dies in 2011. Of course, death of natural causes cannot be timed. What happens though if Joseph was in a serious accident in late 2009 without a DNR order in place? Would his heirs insist that he’d be kept alive until January 1 and then taken off life support? What if Joseph has an accident in December of 2010?

In order to prevent anybody of literally making life or death decisions in order to save taxes, Congress should have addressed the estate tax in 2009 before the repeal-year started. There were several proposals on the table. Considering the current budget shortfall and the Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate it is not unlikely that the legislators will pass a law retroactively changing the 2010 repeal. Since tax returns are not due until nine months after the decedent’s death, a retroactive change is possible. For example, it may be possible that a “patch” (i.e., keeping rates and credit like it was in 2009) will pass for 2010. Thus, contemplating death in light of a possible tax free year would be unwise considering the irreversibility of such action.

Other Negative Consequences

During 2001–2011 inflation was relatively low (around 2.3% on average). Using consumer price index measures, the value of a dollar in 2001 is about 1.25 more than in 2011. Given that in 2001, over 108,000 estate tax returns were filed, compared to only 38,000 in 2008 , we can assume that reverting back to 2001 law would mean that at least 130,000 returns will be due in 2011. This is good news to tax accountants but bad news for many individuals who did not expect to be subject to estate taxes.

In addition, the repeal of the estate tax for 2010 means that assets transferred at death during this year do not get a stepped-up basis. Thus, beneficiaries will have to pay larger amounts in income taxes when they sell the inheritance.

Last, the one-year repeal is also bad news for estates below the exemption equivalent. For these estates, the tax savings are zero while the elimination of the step-up in basis increases beneficiaries’ income tax when they sell the assets received. One can make the argument that this is a rule against the middle class and upper middle class since presumably most of these individuals would have never paid estate tax anyway but their heirs would benefit from the step-up in basis. If the law reverts back to 2001 law in 2011, the step-up will be back next year. Thus, while individuals with large estates have an incentive to die in 2010, others (most middle and upper middle class taxpayers) who have an estate below the exemption equivalent should not die in 2010.

Would SOX 404(b) Have Protected Koss?

Last week Koss, the manufacturer of high quality head phones, disclosed that their principal accounting officer had embezzled between $4.5 million and $31 million between 2005 and December, 2009. The advocates of requiring small issuers  to annually file integrated audit reports on their respective internal control systems immediatley pointed  at Koss as justification for requiring the  implementation of 404(b) beginning in June, 2010. Is this adequate justification?  For several reasons, I don’t believe it is.

This was an intentional fraud. Neither financial statement nor internal control audits are designed to guarantee the detection of fraud.  Yes, an internal control audit would have disclosed the existence of significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. An expanded internal control review might have even stumbled across the defalcation. More likely it would have only resulted in an adverse opinion on the internal control systems by the company’s auditor. This could have been an alert to investors, but more likely it would have been ignored as the SEC’s own studies have indicated. Integrated audits have not resulted in a higher level of confidence by investors. Fraud audits for all issuers require a lower level of materiality that can not be justified economically.

If in this particular case the amount embezzled was material for any of the five years effected it would seem that it should have been detected under normal financial statement audit procedures in at least one year. A failure by the audit firm  to properly complete an audit is not justification for adding another layer of regulation on small issuers under SOX.

The company had retained the same national audit firm for the past five years. Based on the professional fees disclosed in the proxy statement it is possible that Koss was a small fish in the big pond of this national firm and may or may not have gotten the service it needed and deserved. Some large national firms have been known to ‘rank’ their clients. If you are not the big dog on the porch you are not likely to get the same level of expertise, experience and service as the bigger clients.

Cost. Certainly for Koss  the cost of an ICFR program – including both the external audit fees and the internal program costs -  would have been less expensive than the amount embezzled, but requiring all firms to bear a cost to ‘potentially’ prevent an occasional fraud loss of this type is ridiculous. Theoretically, 404(b) would cost a firm similar in size to Koss, $250,000 annually (ballpark WAG).  One-third to one-half of that being for the external auditors. So the investors in Koss would have been out something in excess of a million dollars. The cost/benefit equation for requiring this universally just wouldn’t seem to balance, unless you subscribe to the premise that something graeter than 10% of all statements are fraudulent.

There are already criminal and civil penalties in place to protect the investor from this type of malfeasance as we’ve discussed in our prior posts. Another in the form of 404(b)  is not needed. The responsibility to the shareholders rightfully lies with the Audit Committe of the Board, the Board of Directors and management. If more company oversight is needed and beneficial those charged with governance are ostensibly sophisticated enough and in the best analytical position to know and provide it.

I still view the cost of 404(b) as an ineffective unsupportable dissipation of investors equity. We’ve had some great dialog on this topic in the past.  Did I change anyone’s mind?

Say Goodbye to the Bonus

Accrual basis taxpayers are generally permitted to deduct accrued compensation if it’s paid out within 2 1/2 months after year end.  In a recent Chief Counsel Advice, the IRS announced that they would not permit deductions for accrued bonuses if payment is contingent upon continued employment at the date the bonus is actually paid.  If you haven’t finalized your year-end bonus plan and expect a deduction, you should ensure that employees are not required to be employed at the payment date.  This may be difficult for many companies, as bonus policies are usually established well in advance of the year-end, but there’s still time to change it if you can.

Tax Help for All Businesses Great and Small

In February the normal two year carryback period for Net Operating Losses (NOL’s) was extended to 3, 4 or 5 years for electing small businesses. Earlier this month, the 3, 4 or 5 year NOL carryback election was extended to all business (except taxpayers receiving help from the Federal government under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act). The carryback is valid for any years ending after December 31, 2007 and commencing before January 1, 2010 – you can even make the election if you previously elected to forego the 2 year carryback period.

What’s the catch? Well, you can only make the election once (qualifying small businesses who were previously eligible now get to make the election twice). Also, if you elect the 5 year carryback, you can only offset 50% of that year’s income with the NOL. Other guidelines, including details for how to elect the carryback were issued by the IRS last week.

Extended carryback periods have been used by the IRS before, and should help many businesses who were profitable by expediting the tax benefit from recent losses. We certainly hope it helps more businesses to keep going during tough economic times, and keep more people employed.

IFRS – Time to Panic?

In recent months the focus of discussions related to adoption of the International  Financial Reporting Standards have centered on differences with US GAAP (such as LIFO inventory), timing and implementation. I don’t want to debate the necessity of adopting a world standard given our weakening  influence over the world economy, or the esoteric benefits or detriments.  My concerns are much more basic. Without tort reform in the United States, IFRS is a time bomb with a very short fuse resulting in a cataclysmic disaster waiting to happen.

Currently, US GAAP is a rules based set of standards. While the end result of their application frequently results in worthless unsupportable financial reporting, the issuer and their auditor have but to point to the ‘rules’ in defense. On the other hand, IFRS is principles based, and simpler to apply.  But it can and frequently does require the issuer and his auditor to exercise judgment.  Judgment that can be questioned, criticized and  litigated.

Please don’t misunderstand.  Professionally in my opinion the quality of financial reporting will be significantly improved by the application of sound principles. IFRS is long overdue. Without liability reform, however, I fear financial reporting and assurance services will quickly follow the health care industry in terms of cost to the providers.

Maybe I’m just paranoid in my advancing years.

S Corporation Pitfalls – Part 1

S Corporations are a popular business entity - they allow for limitation of liability, may reduce self-employment taxes, and income is passed through to the owners, resulting in only one level of taxation, while providing a “corporate veil” for liability protection.  There are a number of possible pitfalls for the unwary, particularly if the company operated as a C Corporation prior to electing S Corporation status.  This series on S Corporation pitfalls will discuss some of the more common issues, and some of the more serious… pitfalls that can have costly results without proper planning…

First, as a rule of thumb, do not hold appreciable assets, such as real estate or passive investments in an S Corporation. Why not? You probably know that there is generally no resulting tax when cash is distributed from S Corporation earnings. What many people fail to realize is that the distribution of appreciated property will result in a taxable transaction. When property is distributed from any type of Corporation (S Corporation or C Corporation) the distribution is made at the property’s Fair Market Value. This means that there is a realized taxable gain on the difference between the Fair Market Value at the date of distribution and the tax basis. You will pay tax on the transaction, and your resulting tax basis in the asset after distribution will be its Fair Market Value at the date of distribution.

This problem is most commonly avoided by distributing cash from the S Corporation to the owners, who then use the funds to purchase real estate, or other passive investments.  These assets are frequently purchased through a limited liability company (LLC) to preserve pass through treatment of the income.  If the real property is used by the S Corporation in its business, the property is then rented back to the S Corporation. The difference is that distributions from LLC’s (and partnerships) are made at the asset’s tax basis, with no gain or loss recognized on the distribution (resulting in a deferral of tax until the property is actually disposed of). Your basis in the distributed asset will be the same as it was in the hands of the LLC.

Placing appreciable assets into LLC’s instead of S Corporations will provide greater flexibility for future tax planning, and possibly defer the payment of income tax.

Oil and Gas Accounting – SEC Issues SAB 113

The Office of the Chief Accountant through Corp Fin recently published Staff Accounting Bulletin 113.  There are four main areas of focus within this SAB which will likely affect everyone to some degree:  valuation methodology of oil and gas reserves; clarification of methodology related to write-offs of excess capitalized costs under the full cost method; extending appliability of guidance to include unconventional methods of extracting oil and gas from sand and shale;  and removing information from the guidance which is no longer necessary.

For the most part SAB 113 is pretty straight forward, however, as is the case with many of the SABs, hidden in the minutiae are land mines for the unwary or uninformed.  Correspondingly you would be well served to skim through it for any matters that might affect your company, and then discuss them with your audit firm.

Additionally, on October 26, 2009 additional Oil and Gas Rules were released.  These compliance and disclosure interpretations (C & DIs) relate to Regs S-X and S-K.  There is some important information here which is very relevant and brief!

Hip Hip Hooray! Permanent exemption from 404(b) for Small Business is Possible!

Recently, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3817, the Investor Protection Act. The bill includes an amendment, which would permanently exempt small public companies from complying with Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The bill must still be voted on by the entire House of Representatives, but it is nice to know that there is hope.

As noted in the October 19^th blog post by Mark Bailey, the 404(b) requirement for small business issuers is not beneficial in most cases and thus the passing of this act by the House Financial Services Committee is welcome news.

Taking the Life out of LIFO

For many companies the transition to IFRS will not result in a major change… the big exception is in the manufacturing and retail industries, as IFRS does not allow the use of LIFO (the Last In First Out method of accounting for inventory). Because LIFO treats the last item to be purchased as the first item to be sold, the use of LIFO generally increases the cost of goods sold during periods of inflation.  This reduces a company’s assets and earnings, but can result in large tax savings. It is because of this dichotomy that the IRS requires businesses to use LIFO for their book accounting records and financial statements if they wish to use it for tax purposes. Additionally, use of LIFO is generally restricted to mid-to-large sized companies, as it requires additional administrative work to track multiple LIFO layers for each type of inventory, and to prepare tax Uniform Capitalization adjustments on each layer.

Enter IFRS (from 2014 to 2016 for publicly traded companies – transition dates for privately held businesses have not yet been announced). Exit LIFO.  If companies can no longer use LIFO for book accounting purposes, they will not be able to use it for tax accounting. This will give rise to a flood of paperwork to the IRS, as each company requests permission to change accounting method (which must be formally requested, even though the change is required and unwanted). More importantly, it will  result in a huge income tax liability for nearly all companies required to make the transition.

So far the IRS has not offered any hint of resolution on this matter… and it looks like our manufacturers and retailers may pay the price.

Critical Accounting Policies and How They Differ From Significant Accounting Policies

In an effort to help improve my client’s filings, and of course avoid SEC Comment Letters,  I am constantly reminding them that the disclosures required by SEC Rules Release 33-8098, contained in the MD&A, are considerably different than the significant accounting policies disclosed in the footnotes. Too frequently issuers simply cut and paste their summary of significant accounting policies into this section, which I believe will result in comments from the SEC if selected for a full review by Corp Fin.

I believe the intent of the critical accounting policies disclosures is for issuers to identify and disclose only those accounting policies that require significant judgment and estimation with a degree of uncertainty. Further, simply narrating the assumptions used in a Black-Scholes model for valuing stock options does not provide the appropriate information contained in the rules release. Disclosures related an issuers critical accounting policies (estimates) should include the methodology used in developing assumptions and the corresponding estimates, how the estimates impact the financial statements, and the effect of a change in the estimates and / or underlying assumptions.

The SEC provides two questions issuers need ask in making the “critical” determination:

1. Did the estimate require making assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain?
2. Would reasonably developed, different estimates / assumptions, at the time or in future periods, have a material impact on our financial statements?

When both questions are answered yes, it should be included in this section of the MD&A.

The included disclosures should not simply be boilerplate (like significant accounting policies tend to be) or be overly accounting technical (as “plain English” as possible). Further, the SEC expects varying numbers of critical accounting policies amongst issuers, but they have indicated three to five as a reasonable range.

The rules release provides several examples of disclosures that can help issuers develop the approach and content for appropriate inclusion in future filings.

SOX 404(b) – The Tar Baby and the SEC

As a youngster the Song of the South stories penned by Joel Chandler Harris at the beginning of the 20th century and brought to life by Disney were some of my favorites. In one, Bre’r Fox and Bre’r Bear make a tar baby to catch Bre’r Rabbit. Bre’r Rabbit becomes offended when the inanimate tar baby doesn’t respond, strikes it and becomes stuck to it.  The more he struggles the more inextricably attached he becomes. It certainly seems that the SEC has found a tar baby in SOX 404(b) as it pertains to non-accelerated filers.

Recently the  SEC deferred the compliance date – once again. This time for 9 months. The reason for further deferral was explained as being necessary as the results of an on-line survey conducted by the SEC which was not completed in time. A survey, I venture, that was essentially unknown to virtually everyone it might have affected, so not having it available was irrelevant.

As you may recall the original rationalization for 404 included the premise it would reduce fraud while increasing investor confidence in the issuer’s reporting. Those interviewed for the survey above indicated they did not believe there had been any increase in investor confidence as a result of 404 applied by large filers.  Yet in his public comment, Commissioner Aguilar stated ” I join Chairman Shapiro in assuring investors that there will be no further extensions of the compliance deadline.” What am I missing? By the SEC’s own survey, investors don’t care! So why is it mandated? Certainly there can and have been benefits enjoyed by larger issuers. For them it is good governance in many cases, and worthwhile. But not for small companies.

There is essentially no benefit to most non-accelerated filers either actual or perceived in most cases, and the cost is proportionately greater than for larger companies. Both the SEC and the PCAOB have exercised common sense in promoting ’scalability’ in other areas. They need to do so here as well by eliminating the requirement – one with no or negligible benefit and grossly disproportionate cost – for small non-accelerated issuers.

Will it reduce fraud in small companies? I seriously doubt it and I believe most public company audit partners would agree. The SEC has the weapon it needs to fight fraud in the 302 certifications.

Send this tar baby back to Congress and let the money be redirected for innovation and growth.

Oil and Gas Accounting and Disclosure Rules Revised under SEC Release 33-8995

Last Friday, the AICPA released a discussion draft of the audit and accounting guide for Entities with Oil and Gas  Producing Activities. While not authoritative  it is anticipated to reflect the current standards being revised by both the Financial Accounting Standards Board which sets US GAAP, and the International Accounting Standards Board, all of which is being done in response to SEC Release 33-8995.

While the changes are too voluminous and complex to even summarize here, I’ve included links and welcome questions,comments to this post or phone calls to discuss the implications.

The definitions in Rule 4-10 have been significantly changed. The pricing mechanism for reserves has been defined as a twelve month average. The definition of what is and is not considered ‘oil and gas’ has been clarified to include bitumen and other saleable hydrocarbon resources (geothermal has been excluded); the definitions of ‘proved’ ‘unproved’, ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ reserves has been amended and clarified; and the disclosure requirements under Regulation S-K has been expanded.

Additionally, the disclosure requirements within the financials and for the K’s and Q’s  have been expanded and clarified including the disclosure requirements for MD & A. The SEC continues to coordinate with the FASB and the IASB who continue to develop their standards for the oil and gas entities. Given the SEC has come to the party first, it’s hard to imagine the other standard setting bodies will do anything but comply.

Foreign filers using Form 20-F will be subject to the same disclosure as opposed to the previous disclosure requirements summarized under Appendix A. Canadian filers, however, will not be subject to the new disclosure rules given that the requirements under the Multi-Jurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS) using form 40-F are already consistent.

Now some good news. The implementation date  for registrations filed and for annual reports on Forms 10-K and 20-F is for fiscal years ending on or  after January 1, 2010. While the implementation is mandatory, “a company may not apply the new rules to disclosures in quarterly reports prior to the first annual report in which the revised disclosures are required”.  Implementation may  be deferred as discussions between the SEC, FASB and IASB go forward.

A Matter of Trust

A number of countries don’t allow foreign people (including foreign business entities) to own land in certain areas. The most well known of these countries is Mexico, but I have recently come across a similar situation in Canada, and know of cases in Great Britain. As a work-around, the land is usually held in trust for the foreign owner. This may not seem as though it creates any tax issues, but it does. Unfortunately foreign trusts have at times been used to try to shelter income off-shore in foreign tax havens, so the IRS has strict reporting requirements for foreign trusts… and the penalties for not filing the related forms are huge! (In some cases 35% of the trust assets per year).  Even if you don’t think of the trust as a “real trust” – the IRS probably will (they are commonly referred to as “Land Trusts” or “Mexican Land Trusts”). We recently enlisted the services of tax attorney, Jean Ryan at Sideman Bancroft, LLP, to analyze a Canadian land trust.  Although the client “never thought of it as being a real trust,” her answer was that it the IRS may treat it as trust, because of the language in the document. So if you own beachfront property in Mexico – lucky you, but in all seriousness, talk to your tax advisor to make sure that you don’t lose it all in penalties.

SEC Extends ICFR for Small Issuers to 2010

Today, October 2, 2009, the SEC announced that independent audits of internal control over financial reporting has been extended for smaller reporting companies.  The press release indicates small companies will now need to be compliant beginning with annual reports for fiscal years ending on or after June 15, 2010.

Fair Value – Inactive Markets and Orderly Transactions

Recently issued “guidance” provides that when determining the fair value of certain assets (liabilities) it is only appropriate to use comparable transactions that were not fire (liquidation) sales where an active market exists.    The recent guidance (pre codification FSP FAS 157-4, codification 820-10-65-65-4), effective for interim and annual periods ending after June 15, 2009, simply provides additional items to consider for adding additional premiums or discounts when developing fair value estimates.

Further, the new guidance continues to reiterate the fair value definition that has been around for several decades, “Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.”  Remember, the Company’s intent or ability to hold an asset should not be used in determining fair value as the estimate is market based and not entity specific.

In developing estimates, several factors provide an indication that significant adjustments to fair value (in this case quoted market prices – Level 1 inputs) may be necessary when market activity does not appear to be normal.  Some of those factors include:

• Declines in recent transactions
• Price quotations are stale or vary substantially, including significant bid-ask spreads
• Indexes no longer correlate to values of individual assets or liabilities

After analyzing the market activity in general, the next step is to perform additional analysis to determine the transactions were not forced liquidations or distressed sales.  Factors to consider when a transaction may constitute a distressed sale include:

• A recent transaction that appears to be an outlier compared to other recent transactions
• Signs indicate the seller is experiencing significant financial difficulty, e.g. at or near bankruptcy
• The asset (liability) was not marketed for an appropriate period or to multiple buyers

Three outcomes exist when analyzing transactions to determine if they fall within the fair value definition and require inclusion in estimates.  First, if the transaction is not orderly, it would likely hold little weight in estimating fair value.  Second, if the transaction is orderly, see above market activity analysis when determining how to include in fair value estimates including risk premiums.  Finally, there may not be enough information available to conclude whether the transaction is orderly, in which case, it should still be considered, but not the sole indicator of fair value.

The guidance recognizes that issuers need not undertake undue cost and effort in making these market determinations, but should not ignore information that may be readily available in the public domain.  Further, the degree of difficulty and subjectivity in developing risk premiums does not provide a sufficient basis to exclude risk adjustments to fair value.

At this point, you may be asking yourself – where does one obtain all of this information?  That is a very good question and I am out of time…anyone, anyone, anyone?.!

Next Page »