Three Instances of When You Need a New Subsidiary Entity for Your Business

by | May 15, 2018 | News, Uncategorized

Photo of an empty, minimalist boardroom overlooking an empty field.Are you growing your business? Adding new products or services? New locations? Adding partners or owners? If so, these are all instances when you should consider setting up a subsidiary or other new entity for your existing company. While you can run multiple streams of business through one entity, there are tax, asset protection, and partnership reasons why you may want to open up a new subsidiary entity for your new activity.

Let’s run through a few common situations when it makes sense to open up a subsidiary entity. And by subsidiary, I mean “a new entity which is owned wholly or partly by your primary business entity or by a common holding company.” Your new subsidiary could result in a parent and child relationship where your primary entity (parent) owns the new subsidiary entity (child), or it could be a brother and sister type structure where the primary business is a separate entity (brother) to the new entity (sister) and the two are only connected by you or your holding company that owns each separately and distinctly. (See the diagrams below to view the differences.)

I. Adding a New Product or Service

You may want a new entity to separate and differentiate services or products for liability purposes. For example, let’s say you are a real estate broker providing services of buying and selling properties and you decide to start providing property management services. Because the property management service entails more liability risk, a new entity owned wholly by your existing business could be utilized. The benefit of the new subsidiary is that if anything occurs in the new property management business, then that liability is contained in the new subsidiary and does not go down and affect your existing purchase and sale business. On the other hand, if you ran the property management services directly from the existing company without a new subsidiary and a liability arose, then your purchase and sale business that is running through the same entity would be effected and subject to the liability.

For tax purposes, in this instance, the income from the new subsidiary entity (child) will flow down to the parent entity without a federal tax return, and as a result, there is no benefit or disadvantage from a tax planning standpoint.

 

Diagram displaying the Parent-Child Subsidiary structure

 

II. Opening a New Location

What if you’re establishing a new retail or office location for your business? Let’s say you are a restaurant opening up your second location. For asset protection purposes, you should consider setting up a second entity for the new location. This can limit your risk on the lease (don’t sign a personal guarantee) for the new location or for any liability that may occur at the new location. In this instance, if one location fails or has liability, it won’t affect the other location as they are held in separate entities. The saying goes, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” In this case, the basket is the same entity and the locations are your eggs.  In the multiple location scenario, you should consider the brother-sister subsidiary structure such that each location is owned in a brother-sister relationship (e.g. neither owns the other) and their common connection is simply the underlying company (or person) who owns each entity for each location. Because both locations have risk it is useful for each to have their own entity and not to own each other (as can occur in the parent-child subsidiary). When structured in a brother-sister relationship, the liability for each location is contained in each subsidiary entity and cannot run over into the other subsidiary entity (the sibling entity) or down to the owner (which may be you personally or your operational holding company).

For tax purposes, the brother and sister subsidiary income (usually single member LLCs) flows down to the parent or primary entity where a tax return is filed (usually an S-Corp). (See the diagram below for an illustration.)Diagram displaying the Brother-Sister Subsidiary structure

III. Adding a New Partner

Maybe you’re starting a new business or operation where you have a new partner involved. If this partner isn’t involved in your other business activities or your existing company, it is critical that a new entity be established to operate the new partnership business. If you have an existing entity where you run business operational income (e.g., an S-Corporation), then this entity may own your share of the new partnership entity (e.g., an LLC) with your new partner. Your share of the new partnership income flows through the partnership to your existing business entity where you will recognize the income and pay yourself. In this instance, your existing entity is the parent and the new partnership is a partial-child subsidiary. The new partnership entity will typically file a partnership tax return.

IV. California Caveat

Because of gross receipts taxes in California, you may use a Q-Sub entity model where the subsidiary entity is actually another S-Corporation and is called a Q-Sub. This is available only when the parent entity is an S-Corporation and can avoid double gross receipts tax at the subsidiary and parent entity level.

Make sure you speak to your tax attorney for specific planning considerations as there are asset protection and tax considerations unique to each business and subsidiary structure.

When is a Business Partner a Disqualified Person to My Self-Directed IRA?

by | Apr 29, 2014 | Prohibited Transactions

Most self directed IRA owners know that their self directed IRA cannot conduct transactions with themselves or certain family members (e.g. spouse, kids, parents, etc.). Most self directed IRA owners also know that their self directed IRA cannot do business with a company they own or that their disqualified family members own 50% or more of. However, one of the most confusing areas of the prohibited transaction rules are the prohibited transaction rules which apply to business partners or officers, directors, and/or highly compensated employees of companies the IRA owner or family members are personally involved in. For example, what if I own a business with a partner? Can my IRA enter into a transaction with that business partner if we aren’t family? Well, it depends.

Disqualified Person Analysis

To analyze the rules you first need to determine whether the company in which the business partner (or officer, or director) is involved in is a company that is owned 50% or more by the IRA owner or their disqualified family members. IRC 4975 (e)(2)(E),(H), (I). So, for example, if my wife and I owned 60% of the business and our partner owned 40% of the business, then this company would be owned 50% or more by disqualified persons.

Once we know that the company is owned 50% or more by disqualified persons, we need to identify all of the officers, directors, highly compensated employees, and 10 % or more owners of that company. In sum, all of these persons are disqualified to the IRAs of the 50% or more owners. In the example above, since my business partner owned 40% of the company, he is a 10% or more owner and as a result he is a disqualified person to my IRA (since my wife and I own 50% or more of the company).

Let’s look at another example. Say that I am a 35% owner of a business with a few other partners who are not disqualified family members to me.  Since I do not own 50% or more of this company, it doesn’t matter who the other partners, officers, or directors, are, as they are not disqualified to my IRA as part of this rule since my ownership (and that of my disqualified family members) is below 50%.

As a final example, let’s say that I own 70% of a company and that I have a partner who owns 5%. Under the rule, my partner or fellow shareholder does not have 10% or greater ownership and as a result they are not disqualified to my IRA. However, if that 5% owner was the President of my company then they would be a disqualified person.

These rules can be tough to understand when you read the code, but if you take the two step analysis you can easily determine what partners, officer, directors, or highly compensated employees are disqualified to your IRA.

Here’s also a quick summary of the rule from my book where I took the text of the tax code and put it into plain language.

Key Persons in Company Owned 50% or More by Disqualified Persons

An officer, director, or 10% or more shareholder, or highly compensated employee (earns 10% or more of the company’s wages) of a company owned by the IRA owner or other disqualified persons. IRC § 4975 (e)(2)(H).

Before investing with someone who is an officer, director, highly compensated employee, or a shareholder/owner in a company you are involved in, please consult these rules and where you are un-clear, seek the advice of competent counsel.

S-Corp Salary/Dividend Split and Reasonable Compensation

by | Dec 18, 2012 | News

One of the most common tax minimization strategies used by operational small business owners is known as the salary/dividend or salary/net income split. This strategy can only be properly executed in an s-corporation where a business owner can pay themselves a portion of income in salary and a portion of income in dividend or net profit. The ultimate goal is to pay as little salary as possible (and therefore as much net income as possible) so as to minimize the amount of self employment taxes that are due.

This strategy cannot be utilized in a c-corporation nor can it be utilized in an LLC or sole proprietorship. It is only possible in an s-corporation as similar income running through a sole proprietorship or an LLC is entirely subject to self employment tax as income cannot be split between salary and net income in an LLC or sole proprietorship. Also, keep in mind that such a strategy is not utilized in passive business structures such as real estate businesses as rental income, interest income, and other passive income is exempt from self employment tax and therefore it is not necessary to implement the income splitting technique of the s-corporation.

In short, the strategy is implemented by “splitting” the income that is payable to the s-corporation owner into two categories: salary and net income (aka dividend). The reason this splitting of income is advantageous is that net income received by the s-corporation owner is not subject to the 15.3% self employment tax that is otherwise due and payable on salary. For every $10,000 of income an s-corporation owner can classify as net income as opposed to salary the business owner will save $1,530. Keep in mind that after about $100,000 of salary the savings of pushing additional income to net income is reduced as the self employment tax rate drops to 2.9%. It is still certainly worth implementing at higher income but the savings are then made at the 2.9% rate.

Watson v. Commissioner

When this strategy was first utilized many years ago, some taxpayers decided to just pay all of their income out as net income and elected to take no salary or wages and therefore pay no self employment tax. This was quickly challenged by the IRS and Revenue Ruling 59-221 was issued which stated that a business owner who renders services to their business must take “reasonable compensation” for the services rendered.  Over the years, the Courts have ruled on many cases of what is reasonable compensation but in 2012 the Courts made a significant ruling where they adjusted a business owners allocation between salary and net income in a case known as Watson v. Commissioner, 668 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir, 2012).

In Watson, the owner/employee Watson was a CPA and took $24,000 of salary a year and about $190,000 of annual net income. The IRS challenged the allocation of $24,000 of salary as being unreasonably too low. Watson lost in the District Court and appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals who re-characterized Watson’s income to $93,000 of salary and about $120,000 of net income. The case is an important one for properly understanding the factors that should be considered in all businesses when determining how much income a business owner can claim as net income instead of salary.  Here are some of those factors.

Factors Determining Net Income

  • Professional services businesses should take a larger portion of salary to net income than those in non-professional services: If the business is a professional services business (e.g. physician, dentist, lawyer, consultant, real estate broker, contractor, etc.) the IRS will more carefully scrutinize the services provided by business owners because the business provides a personal service.
  • Full-time working business owners should take a larger portion of salary to net income than part-time working business owners: If the business owner is involved full time in the business, more salary will be required. If the business owner’s involvement is part time or if they are involved in other businesses, a much lower salary can be justified.
  • Don’t take a salary that is below the salary paid to lower level employees in the business: In the Watson case the Court determined that a salary for Watson of $24,000 was not reasonable as new accountants salaries at his office were more than this.
  • Take a salary that is around the industry average for a person of similar experience in your industry: In the Watson case the Court scrutinized the experience and training of Watson and determined that a salary of $24,000 was not reasonable as accountants with similar experience and training in the industry were paid at least $70,000.

In summary, the salary/net income split is a legitimate tax planning technique for business owners but it is not one in which a business owner making over $200,000 a year can justify taking about 10% of income as salary (as was the case in Watson).  The Court disallowed the 10% salary level but did allow him to take about 43% of his income as salary (and almost 60% as net income). This still resulted in some excellent tax savings.

As a general rule, we recommend that business owners take at least 1/3 of their income as salary and pay self employment tax on those amounts. Many other factors should be considered, such as those outlined above, and every business has a unique situation. The good news is that taking a large portion of income from a business as net income as opposed to salary is alive and valid and there are plenty of taxes to be saved each year by using this strategy. A business owner just can’t get too aggressive and take salary levels that are grossly below what people with similar experience in the industry are paid.