MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC

SHORT: Guaranteed Payments for LLC Members and Partners

“Guaranteed Payments”: What are They?

Guaranteed payments are exactly that: They are payments that are “guaranteed”.  By whom?  Well, salary payments are technically “guaranteed” in the sense that there is a contractual obligation to pay a certain amount on a regular basis.  But in the partnership context, including LLCs treated as partnerships for tax purposes, guaranteed payments are made to partners or other owners (“members” in the case of an LLC).

Guaranteed Payments: What Significance?

Partners form a partnership, go about building a product or service, and prepare to (hopefully) make money.  (See Warren Buffett’s Rule No. 1 of business: “Never Lose Money. Rule No. 2: Never Forget Rule No. 1.”)  To get there requires significant investment in time, goods, services and money.  Along the way, people actually have to pay rent, buy health insurance, pay for gas and the electric bill, and occasionally eat.  Maybe take a day off once in a while.

For partnerships and LLCs, guaranteed payments even-out the unpredictability of earning money from a small business.  Put another way, guaranteed payments are profits of the business paid during the course of the business year rather than all at once at the end of the year.  To be clear, though, guaranteed payments are not necessarily dependent on profits, and can be paid out the same as other business expenses to reduce profits, subject to certain IRS rules (discussed below).  Rather, guaranteed payments may be determined based on forecasted profits, but are not dependent on profits: 

Read More

SHORT: Restricted Stock: What Makes it “Restricted”?

What is Restricted Stock?

Restricted stock is stock (i.e. actual stock, not options) that is “substantially nonvested”, which in turn means that the stock is subject to – both – a “substantial risk of forfeiture” and the stock is non-transferable.  Substantial risk of forfeiture means that the company has a right to repurchase the stock at less than fair market value if the grantee leaves the company or if, as Charles A. Wry, Jr. writes, the grantee “ceases to perform substantial services (or if there is otherwise a failure of a condition related to a purpose of the transfer).”  Stock is non-transferable for as long as it may not be transferred free of a substantial risk of forfeiture.

What Significance If Stock is “Restricted”? 

Internal Revenue Code Section 83 governs tax consequences of grants of stock and options by companies to employees and nonemployees.  As the Journal of Accountancy noted earlier this year,

Under Sec. 83(a), property transferred to an employee as compensation for services is taxable to the employee on the earlier of the date the property is not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture by the employee or the date it is transferable by the employee.

Thus, the significance of restricted stock is to defer recognition of income received by virtue of the grant of such stock.  Once no longer deemed “restricted”, the grant of stock is then subject to income tax payment requirements.  Once either of the 2 restricted stock conditions lapses, the stock is no longer “restricted”.

Who Can Receive Restricted Stock?  

Employees and non-employees (including contractors, freelancers, vendors, etc.).

How is Restricted Stock Paid For?  What Tax Implications – To Grantees?  To the Company? 

If the stock has value, then the grantee is required to pay fair market value for purchase of the stock (unlike options).  Otherwise, the grant of the restricted stock will be deemed taxable compensation.  2 points about this:

(1) Startup Companies.  With new companies with startup value, the stock may not yet have value, so the cost to purchase the stock may be negligible.

(2) When Taxable?  Even if the grant of restricted stock is taxable compensation, the tax isn’t actually owed by the grantee until the vesting restrictions lapse.  At that point, tax is owed as compensation at ordinary income rate.  Ordinarily, the company gets a business compensation deduction when the restrictions lapse.

But even that comes with a caveat (Section 83(b) Election): The grantee may elect to recognize income immediately (rather than post-vesting and post-appreciation) at the time of receiving the stock grant, by filing a notice with the IRS of election under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.  The notice must be filed within 30 days of the grant of restricted stock.  If a Section 83(b) election is made, then tax is payable in the tax year the grant is received, based on the fair market value of the underlying stock.

The Journal of Accountancy published earlier this year an excellent discussion of Section 83(b)’s election process, tax benefits and risks as they relate to restricted stock.  The first obvious downside is the requirement to pay tax now, but that can be a gamble worth making if expectations are for substantial appreciation of the value of the underlying stock – and thus higher tax owed later.  Of course, another downside of electing to pay the tax now is that the stock is still “restricted” for the full holding period and thus subject to forfeiture.  So one could end up electing to pay the tax upon grant (rather than later) and still losing the stock through forfeiture with no refund of the tax.

If the grantee makes a Section 83(b) election, the company may take its compensation deduction immediately.

Major (Philosophical) Distinction between Restricted Stock and Options?

With restricted stock, the grantee becomes an actual shareholder immediately (although not for tax purposes unless the grantee makes a Section 83(b) election).  The stock is actually issued to the grantee, subject to vesting and company repurchase rights.  The grantee is thus a true “shareholder” with all rights of equity owners (voting rights, distribution rights, information rights, etc.).

Read More

Update: DC’s Qualified High Tech Company (QHTC) Changes: Nice Benefits to LivingSocial

My colleague Kate Tummarello wrote last year about the District of Columbia’s “New E-Conomy Transformation Act of 2000”, a 2001 law which set up tax benefits encouraging technological innovation.  The Act granted tax benefits to “Qualified High Technology Companies” (QHTCs), certain DC-based, for-profit businesses that make most of their revenue from the sale of products and services related to information technology.

Among other incentives, the Act granted to QHTCs tax credits for wages and costs of retraining qualified disadvantaged employees, credits for wages to qualified non-“disadvantaged” employees, exemptions from DC sales and use tax and reduction of DC’s corporate franchise tax rate, and exemption for 5 years from DC’s corporate franchise tax.

In April 2012, DC Mayor Gray proposed expansions of the QHTC program, in his “Social E-Commerce Job Creation Incentive Act of 2012.” The 2012 legislation, enacted in part and still pending in part, would accomplish 3 major things:

Read More

DC’s Qualified High-Technology Company (QHTC) – Tax Credits

Eleven years ago, the District of Columbia announced the “New E-Conomy Transformation Act of 2000”, which set up tax benefits encouraging technological innovation.  The Act became effective April 3, 2001.

“My vision for our city is to become the technology capital of the world….  We want to attract and retain leaders in the fields of e-government, e-commerce, e-business, and technology,” said then-mayor Anthony Williams.

New E-Conomy Transformation Act

The District’s final rulemaking for the Act, setting out terms of qualification for the Act’s various tax benefits to qualifying businesses, can be found here.

Among many other tax incentives, the Act granted tax benefits to “Qualified High Technology Companies” (QHTCs), those DC-based, for-profit organizations that make most of their revenue from the sale of products and services related to information technology.  

Read More

Internet Sales Tax – States Take on Amazon for Online Sales

Sales tax on online retail sales has been a confusing area of the law since the earliest forays into internet sales.  Recent attempts by the states to aggressively interpret the meaning of a business “nexus” with the state (which is the basis of a state’s claim to sales tax jurisdiction) have been fueled both by the maturity of the internet retail market and by the state budgetary crises of this and recent years.

In 2008, New York State enacted legislation which may still be the broadest attempt yet to collect sales taxes from out-of-state vendors, basing its legal argument on the networking, linking and affiliate relationships common to many online vendors and particularly, to Amazon.com.

Read More

LLCs vs S corps: Income and Tax Differences

LLCs vs S corps: Income and Tax Differences: These income and tax questions are frequently asked when individuals and partners contemplate forming a new company.  Basically, am I better off with an S-corp or an LLC?  There are several non-financial benefits (which I lean toward) in favor of the LLC over the S-corp, particularly the LLCs structural flexibility.  Many articles and blogs have been written about that subject and I will link to some of the good ones later.  For now, I wanted to address some of the more ambiguous questions about the two legal entities impacting the entity decision, namely whether the choice makes a basic tax difference for the principal owners.

Read More