Employee retention tax credit significantly expanded for 2021

The Employee Retention Tax Credit was significantly expanded by the federal relief and stimulus package finalized Dec. 27, 2020.

< back to insights gallery

Employee retention tax credit significantly expanded for 2021

ARTICLE | January 12, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) passed in December 2020 provides a number of COVID-19 related benefit provisions, including extensions and modifications of many provisions of the CARES Act. The major changes to the Employee Retention Credit also known as the employee retention tax credit (ERTC) rules are made within the part of the CAA known as the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, Sections 206 and 207. Many of these changes are only effective starting January 1, 2021, but a few are effective retroactively to the original CARES Act date.

Section 206 includes the following changes that are effective retroactively to the CARES Act ERTC effective date (March 13, 2020):

1.  Companies that obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans are now able to apply for the ERTC, so long as the wages that were used to support the payroll portion of the PPP loan forgiveness are not used to support the ERTC qualified wages or qualified health expenses (i.e. no “double dipping”).

The definition of ERTC qualified wages and qualified health expenses is noticeably different than the definition used in the PPP law and regulations. Under PPP changes made as part of the CAA, an employer can support the PPP loan using any period of time within the PPP period (which is April 1 – December 31, 2020), not just the 8 weeks or 24 weeks provided under prior guidance. Thus, most employers likely have enough wages to support both the PPP loan forgiveness and the ERTC. Careful accounting may be needed to show that a company is not double dipping and using the same wages for both. Some care will be needed for that accounting because the definition of qualified wages is significantly different than the definition of payroll expenses for the PPP application.

The CAA language suggests that wages are first applied to the ERTC but it is not yet clear how, as taxpayers can elect out of the ERTC. We expect guidance from the IRS on the interaction between the PPP payroll amounts and the ERTC qualified wage and health expense amounts.

Under another related change, if an employer that took a PPP loan determines it is eligible for 2020 ERTC credits, it may be possible to add the ERTC amounts, even if related to earlier quarters, to the 2020 4th quarter Form 941. However, most payroll companies “close” their quarterly reporting around the middle of the following month so there is very little time remaining to incorporate these law changes on the 4th quarter reporting. More likely (unless the IRS issues guidance very soon and a business has all of the information for the credit already calculated), a company will apply for the ERTC for 2020 quarters by using the Form 941-X for the appropriate quarter(s). A company still has a significant amount of time to perform ERTC determinations and calculations and then apply for a Form 941-X refund. However, IRS refunds are currently being issued quite a while after the Form 941-X is submitted, so employers may be interested in getting their applications in sooner rather than later.

For 2020, an employer with more than 100 employees must first qualify for the ERTC by showing that EITHER:

a. the jobs of some of the employees of the employer were affected by various governmental orders and the employer paid the employee for time when the employee was not working (because of the effects of the government orders), OR

b. the company had a more than 50% decline in gross receipts for a quarter, when compared to the same quarter in the prior year.

Once the company satisfies one of the two tests above, the company then determines the amount or percentage of compensation that was paid when the employee was not working.

For many businesses, the first rule has been the most useful. Most of the effects of the governmental orders were in the second quarter of 2020, though many companies still had some effects even as the most restrictive orders were being phased out. However, because of the more recent surge in virus cases, some companies have had additional effects in the fourth quarter as governments reactivated some of the more restrictive orders.

2.  The CAA also clarified a few ERTC definitions, generally supporting positions that the IRS took in the IRS Employee Retention Credit FAQs

a. The changes support the IRS position that if an employee was furloughed but the employer continued to pay pre-tax health benefits, the pre-tax health benefit amounts can be counted as qualified health expenses for the ERC calculation.  

b. CAA language supports the IRS using the section 6033 definition of gross receipts for tax exempt organizations, which generally includes total sales (net of returns and allowances), amounts received for services and income from investments.

ERTC FAQS:  WHO QUALIFIES UNDER EMPLOYEE RETENTION CREDIT CHANGES?

The Employee Retention Credit provides liquidity benefits for many businesses and was significantly expanded for 2020 and 2021. Here’s how it may apply to you.

Section 207 includes the following changes that are effective Jan. 1, 2021:

1.  The ERTC originally only applied to qualified wages and qualified health expenses incurred in 2020. The CAA change extends the ERTC for two more calendar quarters, through June 30, 2021.

2. The CAA also adds several significant changes to the calculation of the credit for 2021:

a. The maximum credit was capped at $5,000 per employee for the entire 2020 period. The CAA increases the maximum credit to $7,000 per employee for each of the two quarters in 2021. This is done by providing a $10,000 maximum in each employee’s aggregate qualified wages and qualified health expenses for each quarter and by increasing the credit to 70 percent of the employee’s qualified wage and health expense amounts for that quarter.

b. For 2020, the CARES Act required a 30-day “look back” period (before the beginning of the hardship period) for determining wages that could be counted in calculating the ERTC. Thus, bonuses and raises paid after the 30-day look-back period could not be counted. The CAA eliminates the 30-day look-back, allowing any raises and bonuses to be counted (once paid) for the ERTC wage calculation.

c. For 2020, a “small” employer (with no more than 100 employees, based on a 2019 average full time equivalent calculation) was allowed to use all qualified wages paid to employees, rather than determining the compensation paid to employees for time that they were not working (because of governmental orders or because of the 50 percent reduction in gross receipts). The CAA changes the definition of “small” employer to a company with no more than 500 employees. This allows many more companies to count all wages paid during their qualified period which is much easier to calculate and leads to larger credits. 

3.  Under the CARES Act, a company needed a more than 50 percent decline in gross receipts, compared to the same quarter in 2019, in order to use the gross receipts test to be eligible for the credit. The CAA changes the test so a company that has had a more than 20 pecent decline in gross receipts in 2021, compared to the same quarter in 2019, satisfies the gross receipts test. 

In addition, the new rule allows a company to elect to use the gross receipts from the immediately preceding quarter, and compare these prior quarter gross receipts to the same quarter in 2019, rather than the current quarter.  

Example: Company B wants to determine whether they can use the gross receipts test to satisfy the ERTC eligibility with regard to qualified wages paid to employees in 2021. Company B can choose to compare the first quarter 2021 gross receipts (once known) to the gross receipts from 1st quarter 2019 or Company B can, instead, use the gross receipts from the fourth quarter of 2020 and compare those gross receipts to the gross receipts to the fourth quarter of 2019. If either test shows a more than 20 percent decline, Company B is eligible for the ERTC in the first quarter of 2021.

Overall, the Consolidated Appropriations Act changes to the Employee Retention Credit program are significant and generally support more companies obtaining these payroll credits. However, there are a number of unanswered questions with regard to these new rules, especially in the gross receipts area. It is expected that the IRS will issue guidance fairly soon on some of these issues.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 373-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Anne Bushman and originally appeared on Jan 12, 2021.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/employee-retention-tax-credit-significantly-expanded-for-2021.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

Game-changing updates to the Employee Retention Credit

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients may now qualify for the employee retention tax credit based on new legislation signed.

< back to insights gallery

Game-changing updates to the Employee Retention Credit

VIDEO | January 07, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

Application of the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) was significantly expanded by the federal relief and stimulus package finalized Dec. 27, 2020. The ERTC is a refundable payroll tax credit for employers that meet certain criteria and continued to incur payroll and related costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes to the ERTC could result in payroll tax refund opportunities and prospective savings—including for those companies that obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

Anne Bushman, leader of RSM’s Washington National Tax compensation and benefits practice, detailed the game-changing, taxpayer-friendly revisions to the ERTC in a discussion with Matt Talcoff, RSM’s national tax industry leader. Here’s a transcript of their conversation, edited for clarity:

Matt: Let’s start with the basics: What is the Employee Retention Credit?

Anne:  It is a refundable payroll tax credit that was enacted as part of the CARES Act in March of 2020.  Companies qualified for the credit if they were either fully or partially shut down due to governmental orders, or if they had a significant decline in quarterly revenue. The credit from the CARES Act is equal to 50% of payroll-related costs over a certain period of time up to a maximum of $5,000 per employee for 2020.

Matt: Perfect. I understand that the legislation enacted late last year, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, made major changes to the ERTC.  What are the big changes that we can look forward to?

Anne: That’s right, Matt. The new legislation gave us some very taxpayer-favorable changes that many companies will benefit from. The first, and maybe the biggest, change is the fact that companies that received PPP loans may also benefit from the ERTC now. Prior to this legislation, companies were not permitted to benefit from both the PPP and the ERTC.

Second, they expanded the allowable size of a company that will have wages that qualify for the credit. Under the original law, companies with 100 employees or less could include all wages paid to employees during their eligible period, but companies over that size were more limited in identifying the wages that would qualify. The recent changes increase that employee limit up to 500 employees, which dramatically expands the number of companies that will benefit from this credit.

Third, the legislation also extended and liberalized nearly every aspect of the credit for the first six months of 2021. The credit as a percentage of payroll and the definition of a significant revenue decline are both more generous now. Another big change is the maximum for wages that can be used for the credit was also increased.

Matt: That’s great, Anne. OK, let’s talk dollars, then. In 2020, there was a possible $5,000 credit per employee. How does this change with the new act?

Anne: Well, this was part of the prospective change for the first two quarters of 2021. Rather than a $5,000 maximum per employee, you can possibly get up to $7,000 per employee in both of the first two quarters of 2021. So that would be $14,000 per employee in 2021. Plus, you still have that $5,000 that applied to 2020. So now the maximum credit per employee could be as much as $19,000.

Matt: Wow. Those are certainly some terrific changes for taxpayers. What about businesses that have more than 500 employees—does that mean they’re not eligible for the credit?

Anne: Not necessarily. The types of wages eligible for the credit are reduced, but employers with more than 500 employees can still take advantage of the ERTC if they have employees that are being paid but are not yet working or if they are working reduced hours.

Matt: OK. So, Anne, you mentioned earlier that a business can qualify if they were affected by shutdown orders or if they had a significant decline in gross revenues. We have seen many sectors that have been impacted by shutdowns. How should a taxpayer think about that shutdown rule?

Anne: Well, this one isn’t always as straightforward as it might seem. It’s either being fully or partially affected by a government shutdown order, which sometimes is easy to see if your business wasn’t allowed to be open for a period of time under a state or local order. But you may still be partially affected even if you were an essential business.

One example that helps people think about this is a bank. We’ve talked to some banks that were considered essential and stayed open, but they were limited by the number of people that they could have in the lobby. For the purposes of the credit, you’re not allowed to look at customers not showing up just because they chose to stay home. But in many cases, there are orders that prevented at least some amount of business from occurring. Businesses need to consider whether those shutdown orders affected them for purposes of this credit.

Matt: It sounds like it’s complicated, but it certainly could impact a number of different sectors through the industries that we see out there. That’s great.

Now, let me ask you about the PPP. As we know, a lot of taxpayers borrowed money through the Paycheck Protection Program. What should they be thinking about in terms of this Employee Retention Credit?

Anne: This is a big one, Matt. Again, since PPP borrowers knew since the enactment of the CARES Act that they were not eligible for this credit, they likely have not evaluated whether they met the criteria. While the liberalization of some of those rules that we went through applies only to the first two quarters in 2021, this change for PPP borrowers to be able to take the credit is retroactive back to the passing of the CARES Act (on March 27, 2020).

Companies really need to work with their advisors and figure out the impact on their business of any revenue decline and government orders. If they meet the requirements, they could be eligible for the credits in 2020 that can still be claimed.

Matt: Wow, this retroactivity is big news. Are there any strategies on the application for PPP forgiveness related to the eligibility for ERTCs?

Anne: Yes, because you still can’t use the same wages for both the ERTC and for PPP forgiveness. Technically, the credit gets precedence. Obviously, getting a full-dollar PPP forgiveness is better than a partial-dollar credit, so some strategy and calculations will be helpful.

Setting aside that the definition of wages is different for both purposes, you have to think about time periods. You have flexibility in your PPP forgiveness period, so you need consider in which quarters might you have qualified for the payroll credit first—either from a shutdown or gross receipts decline—and use those periods for the ERTC.

Also, you might have more than enough wages for PPP forgiveness even when using the same periods, so you have to carefully account for that and have documentation that the wages used for the ERTC are not the same wages used on your PPP forgiveness application.                                             

Matt: It sounds like there’s a lot of interaction here, a lot of modeling that needs to be done. That’s very helpful.

Everyone is talking about adding liquidity, and a lot of businesses struggled in 2020 and have tax losses. Is this ERTC available to them? What if a company met all of the requirements for an ERTC but had tax losses?

Anne: Great question. Since this is a payroll tax credit, even companies with tax losses can still get some cash flow from the credit, and it’s refundable. For the 2020 year, it is possible to amend prior payroll tax filings to generate those refunds. And with the extension of the credit into 2021, companies can even apply for advance payments of their expected future credits.

Matt: So this is a nice cash flow opportunity in terms of both getting a refund from before, as well as prospective savings?

Anne: Exactly. Plus, many businesses are more focused on “above the line” or EBITDA savings—and as a payroll tax credit, that’s an added benefit here as well.

Matt: Great point. Changing gears a bit, I know some of the credit programs are fairly burdensome in terms of the information-gathering process and documentation that needs to be provided. We know that the PPP has a lot of documentation required, and it was complex. How challenging might it be to capture these benefits for these credits?

Anne: While many businesses were ineligible for the original credit due to taking a PPP loan, we still had a large number that did qualify, so we have plenty of experience in capturing the credit—and the information-gathering process is not a walk in the park. But it’s fairly straightforward for many companies.

In essence, there is the first step of determining eligibility, which you want to have documentation of. And then the second step isof identifying the wages that will qualify. The math from there is simple, and then actually claiming the credit is not very burdensome either.

Matt: Anne, this terrific news. This adds liquidity and cash flow. Any closing thoughts?

Anne: I just recommend that every company revisit this program. Regardless of whether you received a PPP loan or not, the continuation and expansion of the ERTC definitely warrants some consideration. In the right fact pattern, these credits can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. We would hate to see companies miss out on any opportunities there.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 373-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Anne Bushman, Matt Talcoff and originally appeared on Jan 07, 2021.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/game-changing-updates-to-the-employee-retention-credit.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

PPP reopening for first draw borrowers Jan. 11; second draw Jan. 13

Treasury Department and SBA announce reopening dates for Paycheck Protection Program – Jan. 11, 2021 and Jan. 13, 2021.

< back to insights gallery

PPP reopening for first draw borrowers Jan. 11; second draw Jan. 13

ARTICLE | January 07, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

From the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Full press release can be found here.

“The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), in consultation with the Treasury Department, announced today that the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) will re-open the week of January 11 for new borrowers and certain existing PPP borrowers. To promote access to capital, initially only community financial institutions will be able to make First Draw PPP Loans on Monday, January 11 and Second Draw PPP Loans on Wednesday, January 13.  The PPP will open to all participating lenders shortly thereafter. Updated PPP guidance outlining Program changes to enhance its effectiveness and accessibility was released on January 6 in accordance with the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Venues Act.”

In addition, the SBA has published top-line overviews of each program:

Top-line-Overview-of-First-Draw-PPP.pdf (treasury.gov)

Top-line-Overview-of-Second-Draw-PPP.pdf (treasury.gov)

RSM alerts on changes to the program are below:

A business guide to the December coronavirus relief package

SBA releases guidance on PPP continued access program 

SBA releases guidance on PPP second draw loans 

PPP eligibility expanded to certain section 501(c)(6) organizations

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 313-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Ryan Corcoran and originally appeared on 2021-01-07.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2021/ppp-reopening-for-first-draw-borrowers-jan-11-second-draw-jan-13.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

SBA releases guidance on PPP continued access program

SBA releases two PPP reopening guidance packages. The first round of guidance provides information for new PPP borrowers.

< back to insights gallery

SBA releases guidance on PPP continued access program

ARTICLE | January 06, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

The SBA recently released consolidated and revised guidance for entities and individuals wishing to obtain their first Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan. This guidance expands upon changes to the PPP program contained within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. Much of the guidance in the 82-page releases simply restates existing SBA interim final rules. However the guidance also contains important information for section 501(c)(6) entities and broadcast entities that are now able to obtain their first PPP loan. In addition, due to rule changes, certain farmers and ranchers may now be able to obtain a PPP loan. For borrowers looking for additional information on the second-draw program, see our alert here.

Updates to the program now allow new PPP borrowers to use their 2019 or 2020 average monthly payroll to determine the maximum loan amount. Unlike the second draw program, the maximum loan amount stays at $10 million. There is a cap of $20 million for the maximum amount that a single corporate group can receive. A single corporate group is defined as businesses that are majority owned, directly or indirectly, by a common parent. 

Borrowers gaining access to the program include certain section 501(c)(6) organizations, housing cooperatives and destination marketing organizations. For these borrowers, the maximum number of employees is capped at 300 versus the 500 for all other initial PPP borrowers. More detail for these potential borrowers can be found here. Many news organizations may now be eligible for an initial PPP loan — those businesses or nonprofit broadcasting entities  are assigned a NAICS code of 511110 or 5151. Under the program, the affiliation rules are waived for these entities and the employee maximum is set at no more than 500 employees per location.

The guidance also provides that the following businesses or organizations are ineligible for PPP funding:

  • A businesses or organization that was not in operation on Feb. 15, 2020; 
  • A businesses or organization that received or will receive a grant under the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant program under section 324 of the Economic Aid Act;
  • A businesses or organization in which the President, the Vice President, the head of an Executive Department, or a Member of Congress, or the spouse of such person as determined under applicable common law, directly or indirectly holds a controlling interest;
  • A business that is an issuer, the securities of which are listed on an exchange registered as a national securities exchange under section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or
  • A business or organization that is permanently closed.
  • A business or organization that has taken out a PPP loan before Dec. 27, 2020 is eligible for a grant under the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant program, provided it is otherwise eligible for the program.

To calculate the maximum loan size, many businesses will use rules similar to the previously published guidance on how to compute payroll costs. However, farmers and ranchers can calculate their maximum loan amount by using the gross income line from the 2019 or 2020 Form 1040 Schedule F line 9 if there are no employees, limiting such amount to $100,000, divide the amount by 12 and then multiply by 2.5. If a rancher or farmer wishes to refinance an Economic Injury Disaster Loan, it should add the outstanding amount to the previously computed total. If there are employees, the rules provide instructions for how a farmer or rancher should compute the maximum loan amount.

A farmer or rancher that already received a PPP loan and would have been entitled to additional amounts under this formula can request an increase in their existing PPP loan. Other borrowers that are eligible for an increase in their loan, such as those entitled to an increase under revised guidance, a borrower that returned all or a part of a PPP loan, or a borrower that did not accept the full amount of the original PPP loan, can request an increase in their existing PPP loan.

New PPP borrowers will have to make the certification “that the uncertainty of current economic conditions makes necessary the loan request to support the ongoing operations”, but borrowers (including affiliates) that received loans of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made this certification in good faith.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 313-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Justin Stallard, Ryan Corcoran, Mathew Talcoff and originally appeared on 2021-01-06.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2021/sba-releases-guidance-on-ppp-continued-access-program.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

White House releases President’s budget, Treasury Greenbook

Administration issues Presidential priorities and pay-fors. Corporations and wealthy individuals face prospect of increasing tax rates.

< back to insights gallery

White House releases President’s budget, Treasury Greenbook

TAX ALERT | January 05, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

In one of the most significant tax-oriented milestones of his presidency to date, President Biden last Friday released his full FY22 budget, and the Treasury Department released its Greenbook explanation of Biden’s tax proposals, inclusive of proposed (and one retroactive) effective dates. Collectively, these documents provide the most detailed description to date of the Biden Administration’s tax proposals that were included in the Made in America Plan and the American Jobs Plan, and set the course for Congressional action over the next several months.

In general, most of the proposals in the Greenbook follow through on the prior plans of the Administration to request almost $4 trillion in new spending, partially offset by requested increases in taxes and additional IRS enforcement.

The President’s Budget is not a law introduced in Congress. Rather, it is an overall funding request and recommendation on spending for Federal fiscal policy. Likewise, the accompanying Treasury Greenbook is a detailed description of the President’s tax proposals contained within the budget that Congress can choose to act upon in some fashion. Proposals taken up for consideration by Congress will likely be modified or revised to increase the likelihood of passage, but for Congressional Democrats, the overall aim is to remain closely aligned to the policies and priorities of the Biden Administration.

This Alert provides a discussion of the various tax proposals, as well as our observations and insights, followed by a brief description of what lies ahead. 

Key highlights of the Budget and Greenbook include:

  • Increase in corporate tax rate to 28%. Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021. For a fiscal year taxpayer the rate would be equal to 21% plus 7% multiplied by the portion of the tax year that occurs in 2022.
  • Significant revisions to international taxation including the elimination of qualified business asset investment (QBAI), a reduction to the global minimum tax inclusion deduction, moving to a country-by-country calculation of GILTI and foreign tax credits, and a repeal of high tax exemption to subpart F income and GILTI. Also a repeal of the deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII). Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.
  • Replacing the base erosion anti-abuse tax (BEAT) with the stopping harmful inversions and ending low-tax developments (SHIELD). This proposal coincides with the Pillar Two Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) blueprint. Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022.
  • Imposing a 15% book minimum tax on book earnings of large corporations (worldwide book income in excess of $2 billion). Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.
  • Increasing the top marginal income tax rate for high earners to 39.6%. Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.
  • Reform the taxation of capital income through taxing long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at ordinary rates for high-income earners. Effective after the date of announcement of American Families Plan (April 28, 2021).
  • Reform the taxation of capital income by treating transfers of appreciated property by gift or on death as realization events. Effective for gains on property transferred by gift, and on property owned at death by decedents dying, after Dec. 31, 2021, and on certain property owned by trusts, partnerships, and other non-corporate entities on Jan. 1, 2022.
  • Tax carried interest as ordinary income. Effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.
  • Improve taxpayer compliance and administration by increasing IRS funding and enforcement.

American Jobs Plan

Corporate taxation

As expected, the Greenbook called for an increase to the income tax rate for C corporations from 21% to 28%. This increase would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021. For corporations that have tax years beginning after Jan. 1, 2021 and before Jan. 1, 2022, the tax rate would be equal to 21% plus 7% times the portion of the tax year that occurs in 2022. Given that some recent comments indicated a lesser prospective rate increase, the Administration may ultimately agree to a rate less than 28%.

RSM INSIGHT

This proposal to increase corporate tax rates would put the effective U.S. corporate tax rate well above the OECD member states’ average statutory corporate tax rate of 23.51%, 26.30% when weighted by GDP. In any event, raising the corporate income tax rate may put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage when compared against other OECD member states.

The proposed corporate tax reform also fails to account for taxpayers using pass-through structures, who may have otherwise used the corporate form, if not for the increased rates. Further, the proposal makes no mention of adjusting the current section 199A which arguably served to maintain tax parity for pass-through businesses and corporations.

This increase in tax rate would come at a time when tax rules present many corporate taxpayers with reduction in their tax deductions for interest expense and net operating loss carryforwards.

Global minimum tax – minimum tax of 15% on book earnings of large corporations

The Administration’s proposal imposes a new 15% minimum tax based upon the worldwide pre-tax book income of certain large corporations. This minimum tax applies only to corporations that have worldwide book income in excess of $2 billion and apparently targets disparities between financial statement income and taxable income.  The Administration estimates that this $2 billion threshold would mean only 120 taxpayers may be subject to the tax based on current figures. 

Specifically, taxpayers would calculate their book tentative minimum tax (BTMT), which is equal to 15% of worldwide pre-tax book income, less general business credits. The pre-tax book income for a given year would be reduced by any book net operating loss deductions. A taxpayer’s minimum tax would equal the excess (if any) of its BTMT over its regular tax.

If taxpayers are subject to the minimum tax, they would be permitted to carry forward a corresponding book tax credit against regular tax in future years. However, this book tax credit could only reduce tax liability to the extent that regular tax exceeds BTMT for that year.

This proposal would be effective to relevant taxpayers for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Restrict interest deductions for certain disproportionate U.S. borrowings

Section 163(j), overhauled in the TCJA, generally limits tax deductions for business interest expense to the sum of (i) business interest income, (ii) 30% of adjusted taxable income (not less than zero) and (iii) floor plan financing interest. However, section 163(j) does not consider the leverage of a multinational group’s U.S. operations relative to the leverage of the group’s worldwide operations. The Administration asserts multinational groups are able to reduce their U.S. tax on income earned from U.S. operations by over-leveraging their U.S. operations relative to those located in lower-tax jurisdictions.

Accordingly, under the Administration’s proposal, a financial reporting group member’s deduction for interest expense generally would be limited if (i) the member has U.S. net interest expense and (ii) the member’s net interest expense for financial reporting purposes exceeds the member’s proportionate share of the financial reporting group’s net interest expense, determined based on the member’s proportionate share of the group’s earnings. When a financial reporting group member has excess financial statement net interest expense, a deduction will be disallowed for the member’s excess net interest expense for U.S. tax purposes. Alternatively, the interest deduction would be limited to the member’s interest income plus 10% of the member’s adjusted taxable income. The amount of interest expense disallowed under this provision and section 163(j) would be determined based on whichever of the two provisions imposes the lower limitation. Regardless of the approach taken, any disallowed interest expense could be carried forward indefinitely.

The proposal would not apply to (I) financial services entities (generally banks) and (ii) financial reporting groups that would otherwise report less than $5 million of net interest expense, in the aggregate, on one or more U.S. tax returns for a taxable year. The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

RSM INSIGHT

For multinational companies, the computations necessary for proportional-to-earnings interest expense limitation generally would make estimating or predicting allowable interest deductions for more difficult. The more stringent section 163(j) limitation may also render partnership preferred equity financing more tax-advantageous.

International taxation

Modify the GILTI provisions

Under the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) provisions, a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is subject to current U.S. tax on its share of the CFC’s GILTI. GILTI is generally defined as the excess of a U.S. shareholder’s aggregated “net tested income” from CFCs less a 10% routine return on certain foreign tangible assets (referred to as QBAI). This aggregated approach allows loss entities to offset other entities with tested income within the group. 

In addition, section 250 allows a U.S. corporate shareholder to deduct 50% of its GILTI, reducing the effective rate on GILTI income to 10.5% instead of the normal 21%. A U.S. corporate shareholder may also claim an indirect foreign tax credit (FTC) for 80% of the foreign tax paid by the shareholder’s CFCs that is allocable to GILTI income. Further, under Treasury regulations released in July 2020, taxpayers may exclude certain high-taxed income of a CFC from their GILTI computation on an elective basis.

The Greenbook would eliminate the 10% deduction for QBAI and increase the tax rate on GILTI to 21% by reducing the section 250 deduction to 25% (assuming a 28% corporate income tax rate). Furthermore, a U.S. shareholder’s GILTI inclusion and foreign tax credit limitation would be applied on a country-by-country basis, thus reducing the ability to blend tested income with tested losses (unless both entities are in the same country) and precluding excess FTCs from entities in high-taxed countries from being credited against GILTI inclusions from low-tax countries. Finally, the high-tax exclusion for GILTI (and Subpart F income) would be repealed.

The GILTI modifications would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Repeal the FDII provisions

The Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) provisions allows U.S. corporations to take a 37.5% deduction, provided they have sufficient total taxable income to absorb that deduction, on certain export sales and services income—reducing the effective tax rate on FDII income to 13.125%—through the end of 2025. After 2025, the FDII deduction is supposed to shrink to 21.875% increasing the effective tax rate on FDII income to 16.406%.

The Green Book would repeal the FDII deduction and (without providing details) would use the savings to enhance provisions incentivizing research and development (R&D).

The FDII deduction repeal would apply to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Replace BEAT with SHIELD

The Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) is a 10% minimum tax intended to prevent domestic and foreign corporations operating in the United States from shifting profits out of the United States. The BEAT targets large corporations with gross receipts of $500 million or more and with ‘base erosion’ payments—payments made to related foreign parties—that exceed 3% (2% for certain financial firms) of total deductions taken by a corporation.

The Greenbook would repeal the BEAT and replace it with the Stopping Harmful Inversions and Ending Low-tax Developments (SHIELD) regime. The SHIELD regime would disallow deductions to a domestic corporation or branch on gross payments made to a member in the same financial reporting group whose income is subject to a low effective tax rate.

  • The SHIELD would apply to financial reporting groups with greater than $500 million in global annual revenues (as determined based on the group’s consolidated financial statement).
  • A ‘financial reporting group’ is any group of business entities that prepares consolidated financial statements and that includes at least one domestic corporation, domestic partnership or foreign entity with a U.S. trade or business.
  • A ‘low-taxed member’ would be any financial reporting group member whose income is subject to (or deemed subject to) an effective tax rate that is below a designated minimum tax rate.
  • The ‘minimum tax rate’ would be that tax rate agreed to under the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Pillar Two agreement or, if not reached prior to the effective date of SHIELD, the new GILTI rate of 21%.

Replacing BEAT with SHIELD would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022.

Tighten the anti-inversion rules

An inversion transaction generally involves replacing a corporate group with a U.S. parent with a foreign corporate parent. Under current law, if the shareholders of the U.S. parent receive 80% or more of the new foreign parent’s stock and other requirements are met, the inversion is disregarded entirely and the new foreign parent will be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. tax purposes. If at least 60%, but less than 80%, of the new foreign parent’s stock is acquired by the shareholders of the U.S. parent, the new foreign parent is not taxed like a domestic corporation, but any U.S. toll taxes (taxes on gains) that apply to transfers of assets to the new entity are not permitted to be offset by foreign tax credits or net operating losses.

The Greenbook would replace the 80% test with a greater than 50% test and eliminate the 60% test. The Green Book also provides that, regardless of the level of shareholder continuity, an inversion transaction occurs if:

  • Immediately prior to the inversion transaction, the fair market value of the domestic corporation is greater than the fair market value of the foreign corporation,
  • The expanded affiliated group is primarily managed and controlled in the United States after the acquisition, and
  • The expanded affiliated group does not conduct substantial business activities in the country in which the foreign corporation is created or organized.

The new anti-inversion provisions would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022.

Other international tax proposals

  • Apply the country-by-country approach to calculating the FTC limitation to branch income. 
  • Limit FTCs on sales of hybrid entities.
  • Repeal the exemption from GILTI for foreign oil and gas extraction income.
  • Introduce a 15% minimum tax on worldwide book income for corporations that have worldwide book income in excess of $2 billion.
  • Create a new business credit equal to 10% of eligible expenses paid or incurred in connection with onshoring a U.S. trade or business.

RSM INSIGHT

In general, these proposals are in line with what the Administration has signaled: Separate county calculation of GILTI and FTC on a separate country/separate basket basis, along with the repeal of high tax exemption for subpart F income and GILTI. Uncertainty abounds in how to reconcile some of the OECD Pillar Two provisions with U.S. tax law. There looks to be complexity with a potential for a risk of double taxation.

The Administration is proposing a full repeal of the FDII rules in exchange for R&D and the scoring is dollar for dollar repurposing of FDII costs. Unclear as to whether this is a full offset to repeal the TCJA deferred effective date of requiring amortization of R&D expenses, or another potential R&D incentive.

With respect to BEAT and SHIELD, the proposal applies when a US payor makes a deductible payment to related party in a ‘low tax’ jurisdiction. That is, a place where the rate is below the Pillar Two rate, should a minimum rate be agreed upon. The rule that indicates a taxpayer is deemed to make a payment to a foreign related party in a low tax jurisdiction even if the taxpayer pays a related party that is in a high tax jurisdiction. This could be interpreted to require that every payment made to a foreign related party will be deemed to be paid in part to members in a low tax jurisdiction in part under a formula. This rule could add a new dimension to planning and the Administration anticipates revenue of $390 billion from this provision.

Credits

The American Jobs Plan / Made in America tax plan proposes new or expanded housing and infrastructure credits, as well as providing for federally subsidized state and local bonds for schools and transportation. These proposals create an additional type of a housing credit dollar amount to expand the low-income housing tax credit, create a new tax credit – the Neighborhood Homes Investment Credit (NHIC), and make permanent the new markets tax credit. In addition, the proposal creates qualified School Infrastructure Bonds and private activity bonds for transportation infrastructure.

Clean energy

The Administration proposes to do away with tax preference items for taxpayers in the oil, gas and coal industries. Under the proposal, the following items are targeted for repeal:

  • Enhanced oil recovery credit for eligible costs attributable to a qualified enhanced oil recovery project (the credit is completely phased out in 2020)
  • The credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells (the credit for oil was completely phased out in 2019)
  • The expensing of intangible drilling costs
  • The deduction for costs paid or incurred for any tertiary injectant used as part of a tertiary recovery method
  • The exception to passive loss limitations provided to working interests in oil and natural gas properties
  • The use of percentage depletion with respect to oil and gas wells; 
  • Two-year amortization of independent producers’ geological and geophysical expenditures, instead allowing amortization over the seven-year period used by integrated oil and gas producers
  • Expensing of exploration and development costs
  • Percentage depletion for hard mineral fossil fuels
  • Capital gains treatment for royalties
  • The exemption from the corporate income tax for publicly traded partnerships with qualifying income and gains from activities relating to fossil fuels
  • The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax exemption for crude oil derived from bitumen and kerogen-rich rock, and 
  • Accelerated amortization for air pollution control facilities

Unless otherwise specified, the proposal provisions would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021. For royalties, the provisions would be effective for amounts realized in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021. Finally, the repeal of the exemption from corporate income tax for publicly traded partnerships with qualifying income and gains from activities relating to fossil fuels would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2026.

In place of these fossil fuel items, the Administration proposes several renewable and alternative energy incentives, including:

  • Extend the full production tax credit for qualified electricity production facilities commencing construction after Dec. 31, 2021 and before Jan. 1, 2027, with a phasedown of the credit over five years, starting in 2027. Taxpayers would have the option to elect a cash payment in lieu of a general business credit.  
  • Extend credits for investments in solar and geothermal electric energy property, qualified fuel cell power plants, geothermal heat pumps, small wind property, offshore wind property, waste energy recover property and combine heat and power property. Additional credits are provided for stand-alone energy storage technology. Taxpayers would have the option to elect a cash payment in lieu of a general business credit.
  • Extend the Residential Energy Efficiency Credit and expand it to include qualified battery storage technology. Starting in 2022, the previously reduced credit would return to the full 30% rate for property placed in service after Dec. 31, 2021 and before Jan. 1, 2027. The credit would then be phased out over the next five years. Taxpayers would have the option to elect a cash payment in lieu of a general business credit.
  • Provide a tax credit for electricity transmission investment for property placed in service after Dec. 31, 2021 and before Jan. 1, 2032.
  • Provide allocated credit for electricity generation from existing nuclear power facilities.
  • Establish new tax credits for qualifying advanced energy manufacturing.
  • Establish tax credits for heavy-and medium-duty zero emissions vehicles. Taxpayers would have the option to elect a cash payment in lieu of a general business credit.
  • Provide tax incentives for sustainable aviation fuel.
  • Provide a production tax credit for low-carbon hydrogen.
  • Extend and enhance energy efficiency deductions and tax credits for investments in energy efficiency property and improvements.
  • Provide a disaster mitigation tax credit. Effective for tax years beginning after the date of enactment.
  • Expanding and enhancing the carbon oxide sequestration credit. Under the expansion qualified facilities must begin construction by Jan. 1, 2031. Taxpayers would have the option to elect a cash payment in lieu of the carbon sequestration credit.
  • Extending and enhancing the electric vehicle charging station credit.
  • Reinstating superfund excise taxes and modifying oil spill liability trust fund financing.

Unless otherwise noted, the effective date for these proposals would be after Dec. 31, 2021.

RSM INSIGHT

Many of these credits add the taxpayer’s ability to elect cash payments in lieu of the section 38 general business credit. This addition could result in fewer investment strategies that are currently used to modify the credit and increase business’s ability to claim the credit on their own.

American Families Plan

Individual taxation

The Greenbook proposes an increase in the highest tax rate on ordinary income back to levels that existed prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. This would bring the highest ordinary income from rate from 37% to 39.6%. For married individuals filing a joint return this top rate would apply to taxable income over $509,300 ($452,700 for unmarried individuals, $481,000 for head of household, $254,650 for married individuals filing separately). This proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Reforming the taxation of capital income

The Greenbook includes a dramatic change in the taxation of capital gains and qualified dividends effective as of the date of introduction, presumed to be April 28, 2021 (the Administration’s introduction of the American Families Plan). This proposal would increase the current 20% rate on capital gain income to the highest ordinary income tax rate (currently 37%, 40.8% including the net investment income tax) for individuals with more than $1 million ($500,000 for married filing separately) of adjusted gross income.

Taxation of gains from transfers as a gift or at death

In addition to increasing the tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends, the proposal would also tax unrealized appreciation in property transferred by gift or at death. These taxes would only apply to any gains in excess of a $1 million lifetime exclusion from recognition provision. This exemption would be portable between spouses allowing for a total of $2 million of excluded gains for married couples. Additional exclusions are available for transfers between spouses, to charities and the existing exclusions for gain on a personal residence ($250,000 per taxpayer) as well as certain small business stock and tangible personal property such as household furnishings and personal effects. A transfer would be defined under the gift and estate provisions.

To value assets subject to this tax, transfers of partial interests in property will be valued as a fraction of the fair market value of the whole essentially eliminating discounts for minority interests. The proposal calls for methodologies of valuation similar to methodologies used for gift or estate tax purposes.

The proposal includes an election to defer payment of tax on appreciation for certain family-owned and operated businesses until the business is sold or it ceases to be family-owned and operated. For other transfers at death a 15-year fixed-rate payment plan would be provided except for transfers of liquid assets (such as publicly traded securities) or where the election to defer payment for a family-owned and operated businesses is made.

Trusts, partnerships and other non-corporate entities

The Greenbook includes provisions dealing with trusts, partnerships and other non-corporate entities. These provisions provide that in kind transfers into and distributions from these non-corporate entities will be subject to taxation. The proposal also calls for the taxation of the unrealized appreciation in assets held in non-corporate entities without a taxation event within 90 years. For this purpose, testing will begin on Jan. 1, 1940. This means that the first tax collected under this provision would be Dec. 31, 2030.

In general, the effective dates of these proposals would be tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021 for gains on property transferred by gift, and on property owned at death by decedents. For certain property owned by trusts, partnerships and other non-corporate entities, the effective date is Jan. 1, 2022.

RSM INSIGHT

The Biden Administration has been unwavering in its belief that capital gains should be taxed at ordinary income rates for those with incomes over $1 million and the elimination of a step-up in basis. The Greenbook provides more details about how the Administration would implement these plans, but like any proposal, there are some unanswered questions.

For example, an election to defer the taxation of gains from the transfer of family-owned and operated businesses until either a sale of the business or a time where it ceases to be family-owned and operated. The proposal reads as a deferral of payment and not a deferral of taxation. In a case when the first generation transfers a family-owned and operated business to the second generation and the value decreases, is the tax redetermined?

The proposal also introduces rules related to the valuation of property for purposes of calculating the tax. The rule states that partial interests in property will be valued as a fraction of the whole. Clarity is then needed on the use of common discounts for lack of liquidity or control.

Overall, there are more answers about the proposed reform of capital gains taxation, but the retroactive dates and the uncertainty surrounding other planning will need to include provisions allowing them to undo the planning if legislative action occurs. Individuals with large capital gain transaction contemplated in 2021 will need to model the transaction under today’s law and under the proposal and work closely with advisors to make the more informed decision.

Imposition of self-employment taxes on ‘active’ S Corporation owners and Limited Partners

The proposal would expand the scope of self-employment taxes and the net investment tax to require that, for ‘high-income taxpayers’, all income derived from a pass-through trade or business be subjected to one or the other regime.

Under current law, ‘passive’ owners of S Corporations and entities taxed as partnerships are subject to the net investment income tax – a 3.8% tax on their share of business income. Meanwhile, ‘active’ owners of partnership entities pay a similar 3.8% amount of self-employment tax. However, ‘active’ owners of S Corporations and certain active ‘limited partners’ (including certain LLC owners) are not subject to either tax.

The Administration’s proposal would ‘rationalize’ these rules by –

  • Expanding the definition of net investment tax to include all trade or business income that is not otherwise subject to employment taxes, and 
  • Subjecting active S Corporation owners, ‘limited partners’ and LLC members to self-employment tax on their distributive shares of income.

These changes would only apply over certain income thresholds ($400,000 of income, not indexed for inflation) and would retain exemptions from self-employment tax provided under current law for certain types of income allocable to active owners (e.g. rents, gains from the sale of business assets, and certain retired partner income). The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

RSM INSIGHT

As with any substantial changes to the tax code, the proposal raises questions regarding choice of entity for income tax purposes. While the increase to the ordinary tax rate to as much as 43.4% may cause some to question whether a 28% corporate rate may be more palatable, one must also consider the ‘dual’ taxation of corporations. When combined with an increased qualified dividend rate, the effective federal tax rate for a corporation under this proposal could be over 59.25%. In addition, treatment of death as a realization event may negate many of the basis ‘step-up’ benefits for corporate stock.

In addition to C Corporation vs. pass-through form, the imposition of self-employment taxes may cause many businesses (especially new entities) to re-evaluate the benefits of the S Corporation form when compared with partnerships. The exception from self-employment taxes has long been one of the primary benefits of an S Corporation, but comes at a cost of limited flexibility and ownership.

Carried interest

As promised in the American Families Plan, the Greenbook details a proposal to tax income attributable to partnership interests received in exchange for investment services (commonly referred to as ‘carried interests’) as ordinary income, regardless of the character of the income in the hands of the partnership. The mechanics described in the Greenbook appear to follow a bill that has regularly been introduced by Democratic representatives over the past decade, most recently earlier this year. Unlike previous bills, however, the effect of this proposal would be limited to taxpayers earning greater than $400,000 in a year. Taxpayers earning under this threshold would continue to be subject to the existing three-year rule for long-term capital gains attributable to carried interests (section 1061). For more details, refer to our prior tax alert.

The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

Repeal deferral of gain from like kind exchanges

In the wake of the TCJA, section 1031 may be taking another blow that would further limit its applicability. The Administration has repeatedly expressed its views that like-kind exchanges are a loophole and signaled its eagerness to make taxable high-gain transactions that have historically been tax-deferred. The Administration’s proposals would continue the historic limitation on the types of property subject to deferral under section 1031, and if enacted as drafted in the Greenbook, would further limit the applicability of section 1031 by limiting the amount of gain deferral to only $500,000 ($1 million for married couples filing jointly) for exchanges completed in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

There are a number of industries that would be affected by the proposed change in law, particularly those with large and valuable land holdings, including, oil and gas, mineral industries, and private equity that invest in real property through vehicles, such as Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).

RSM INSIGHT

Taxpayers considering like-kind exchanges may want to push up those plans. Given the effective date of the proposed legislation if passed, most taxpayers who begin a like-kind exchange in June 2021 or later likely would not be able use the full 180-day period to complete the exchange without triggering the cap on deferral.

The new legislation if enacted could encourage taxpayers to break up real property and devise other tax planning strategies in order to fall within the limitation.

In conjunction with proposed changes to the capital gains rate and the proposed limitation on stepped-up basis, taxpayers relying on like-kind exchanges for various planning goals should consult with their tax advisors to discuss how to deal with the proposed limitations so they may act quickly if enacted.

Make permanent rules from TCJA related to excess business losses for non-corporate taxpayers

TCJA limited the deductibility of business losses to offset nonbusiness income to an inflation-adjusted number of $524,000 for a married couple ($262,000 for all other taxpayers). These rules were originally set to expire in 2026 and were recently extended to 2027 as part of the American Rescue Plan. The proposal would make these limitations permanent with the goal of leveling the playing field between corporate and flow-through businesses.

Improve compliance

The Administration proposes a multi-year adjustment to the discretionary spending allocation for the IRS Enforcement and Operations Support accounts. The total adjustment would be $6.7 billion over the budget window, with the proposed allocation adjustment for 2022 funding $417 million in enforcement and compliance initiatives and investments above current levels of activity. In addition, the Administration proposes to provide the IRS $72.5 billion in mandatory funding over the budget window. A portion of these proposed IRS resources would fund improvements and expansions in enforcement and compliance activities. The proposed mandatory funding would also provide the IRS with resources to enhance its information technology capability, including implementation of the proposed financial information reporting regime, and to strengthen taxpayer service. The proposal would direct that additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes, rather than Americans with actual income of less than $400,000.

Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan and investment accounts with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. Current income reporting by financial institutions would be expanded to all entities, including certain corporations. Interest payments would be included in the loan account reporting. Transferee information would be reported for all real estate transactions on Form 1099-S.

Similar reporting requirements would apply to crypto asset exchanges and custodians. Separately, reporting requirements would apply in cases in which taxpayers buy crypto assets from one broker and then transfer the crypto assets to another broker, and businesses that receive crypto assets in transactions with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would have to report such transactions. 

The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022.

Improve tax administration

The Administration proposes to amend Title 31, U.S. Code (Money and Finance) to provide the Secretary with explicit authority to regulate all paid preparers of Federal tax returns, including the unlicensed and unenrolled by establishing mandatory minimum competency standards. Part of the proposal increases the penalty amount to the greater of $500 per return or 100% of the income derived per return by a ghost preparer. The proposal would also increase the limitations period during which the penalty may be assessed from three years to six years. This proposal would be effective for returns required to be filed after Dec. 31, 2021

To further improve tax administration, the proposal requires electronic filing of returns filed by taxpayers reporting larger amounts or that are complex business entities, including: (1) income tax returns of individuals with gross income of $400,000 or more; (2) income, estate, or gift tax returns of all related individuals, estates, and trusts with assets or gross income of $400,000 or more in any of the three preceding years; (3) partnership returns for partnerships with assets or any item of income of more than $10 million in any of the three preceding years; (4) partnership returns for partnerships with more than 10 partners; (5) returns of REITs, REMICs, RICs and all insurance companies; and (6) corporate returns for corporations with $10 million or more in assets or more than 10 shareholders. 

Return preparers that expect to prepare more than 10 corporation income tax returns or partnership returns would be required to file other certain forms electronically. 

This proposal would be effective for payments made after Dec. 31, 2021.

In addition, the proposal would also treat all information returns subject to backup withholding similarly. Specifically, the IRS would be permitted to require payees of any reportable payments to furnish their TINs to payors under penalty of perjury. This proposal would be effective for payments made after Dec. 31, 2021.

The Administration would also require brokers, including entities such as U.S. crypto asset exchanges and hosted wallet providers, to report information relating to certain passive entities and their substantial foreign owners when reporting with respect to crypto assets held by those entities in an account with the broker. The proposal, if adopted, and combined with existing law, would require a broker to report gross proceeds and such other information as the Secretary may require with respect to sales of crypto assets with respect to customers, and in the case of certain passive entities, their substantial foreign owners. 

The proposal would be effective for returns required to be filed after Dec. 31, 2022

RSM INSIGHT

In general, increased funding, enforcement and compliance will mean more examinations and possible penalties. The supervisor approval of penalties proposal is significant. Extending the assessment statute on listed transactions and making sellers of stock in intermediary transactions liable is also significant, giving IRS more time to examine and go after the TP with assets. Collectively, these measures are all in line with the Administration’s intent to invest more money into enforcement with a view toward closing the tax gap and raising revenue.

In addition to the return requirements above, the Administration proposes several other changes in tax administration. These include:

  • Addressing taxpayer noncompliance with listed transactions. The proposal would increase the limitations period under section 6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for returns reporting benefits from listed transactions from three years to six years. The proposal also would increase the limitations period for listed transactions under section 6501(c)(10) from one year to three years. This proposed change would be effective on the date of enactment.

The proposal would also add a new section to the Code that would impose on shareholders who sell the stock of an ‘applicable C corporation’ secondary liability (without resort to any State law) for payment of the applicable C corporation’s income taxes, interest, additions to tax and penalties to the extent of the sales proceeds received by the shareholders. 

The proposed changes above would be effective for sales of controlling interests in the stock of applicable C corporations occurring on or after April 10, 2013.

  • Amending the centralized partnership audit regime to address tax decreases greater than a partner’s income tax liability. The proposal would amend sections 6226 and 6401 of the Code to provide that the amount of the net negative change in tax that exceeds the income tax liability of a partner in the reporting year is considered an overpayment under section 6401 and may be refunded. The proposal would be effective upon enactment. 
  • Modifying requisite supervisory approval of penalty included in notice. The proposal would clarify that a penalty can be approved at any time prior to the issuance of a notice from which the Tax Court can review the proposed penalty and, if the taxpayer petitions the court, the IRS may raise a penalty in the court if there is supervisory approval before doing so. For any penalty not subject to Tax Court review prior to assessment, supervisory approval may occur at any time before assessment. In addition, this proposal expands approval authority from an ’immediate supervisor’ to any supervisory official, including those that are at higher levels in the management structure or others responsible for review of a potential penalty. Finally, this proposal eliminates the written approval requirement under section 6662 for underpayments of tax; section 6662A for understatements with respect to reportable transactions; and section 6663 for fraud penalties. The proposal would effective upon enactment. 
  • Authorizes limited sharing of business tax return information. The proposal would give officers and employees of Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) access to Federal tax information (FTI) of those sole proprietorships with receipts greater than $250,000 and of all partnerships. BEA contractors would not have access to FTI.

The proposal would also give Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) officers and employees access to certain business (and tax- exempt entities) FTI. BLS would not have access to individual employee FTI.

The proposal would be effective upon enactment.

Other provisions

Making permanent many benefits for America’s workers

The Greenbook also proposes to make permanent many aspects of the American Rescue Plan. Amongst these provisions are:

  • Expansion of Premium Tax Credits for health insurance purchased on the Marketplace.
  • Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for Workers without Qualifying Children.
  • Expansion and refundability of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit coupled with increased reporting requirements.

In addition to these permanent changes, the administration is proposing and extension of the expanded refundable Child Tax Credit through tax years beginning before Jan. 1, 2026.

Increase in employer provided childcare tax credit for businesses

The administration has also proposed an increase in the tax credit related to employer provided childcare. This credit currently offers a nonrefundable credit equal to 25% of qualified care expenditures and 10% of referral expenses capped at $150,000. The proposal would allow for a credit equal to 50% of the first $1 million spent on employer provided childcare. Providing for a maximum credit of $500,000. This provision would be applicable for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2021.

For more insights on tax policy visit our resource center.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 313-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Nick Passini, Andy Swanson, Ryan Corcoran, Patrick Phillips and originally appeared on 2021-01-05.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2021/white-house-releases-presidents-budget-treasury-greenbook.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

PPP eligibility expanded to certain section 501(c)(6) organizations

Year-end stimulus legislation extends Paycheck Protection Program and expands eligibility for exempt organizations.

< back to insights gallery

PPP eligibility expanded to certain section 501(c)(6) organizations

TAX ALERT | January 05, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

The Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (the 2021 Act), signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, includes additional funding for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a new shuttered venue operator grant program, and funding for new Economic Injury Disaster Loan Assistance (EIDL) grants for eligible entities located in low-income communities. In addition, the Act expands PPP eligibility to certain organizations described in section 501(c)(6).

Background

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) established PPP forgivable loans administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide economic assistance to certain small organizations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the original terms of the program, the only nonprofit organizations eligible to participate were organizations described in sections 501(c)(3) and (19) that employed no more than 500 individuals, subject to SBA affiliation rules.

Expanded PPP

The 2021 Act provides another $284 billion in funding for the PPP, allows borrowers to select a forgiveness period between eight and 24 weeks, and expands the eligible nonprofit organizations to include entities described in section 501(c)(3), (6), and (19) if they otherwise meet the borrower criteria. In addition, public colleges and universities (described in section 511(a)(2)(B)) may be eligible if they are FCC license holders and represent that the PPP funds will be used by the relevant component to support locally-focused or emergency information.

After the SBA begins accepting applications, the expanded PPP will be open through March 31, 2021. For first-time borrowers that are not section 501(c)(6) organizations, the CARES Act eligibility requirements continue to apply (e.g., employing no more than 500 employees and being in operation as of Feb. 15, 2020). However, for repeat borrowers or for section 501(c)(6) organizations, more restrictive criteria apply, including employing no more than 300 employees. In addition, there are additional limitations imposed on section 501(c)(6) organizations:

  • Must not be a professional sports league
  • Must not have a purpose of promoting or participating in a political campaign or other activity
  • May not receive more than 15% of its receipts from lobbying activities
  • Lobbying activities may not comprise more than 15% of the organization’s total activities
  • Cost of lobbying activities of the organization did not exceed $1 million during the most recent tax year ended before Feb. 15, 2020.

Finally, the 2021 Act adds “destination marketing organizations” as eligible PPP borrowers, adding the same restrictions to the eligibility criteria as apply to section 501(c)(6) organizations (including the 300 employee cap). These entities are described in section 501(c), quasi-governmental, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions. They must be engaged in marketing and promoting communities and facilities through a range of activities (e.g., assisting with the location of meeting and convention sites, providing maps, and organizing group tours of local, historical, recreational, and cultural attractions) or must be engaged in and derive the majority of its operating budget from revenue attributable to providing live events.

Additional information

The SBA has not yet opened applications for the expanded PPP. We expect additional guidance, interpretation, and rules to be issued in the coming weeks. More information about the 2021 Act is available here.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 313-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Alexandra O. Mitchell, Ryan Corcoran and originally appeared on 2021-01-05.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2021/ppp-eligibility-expanded-to-certain-section-501-c-6-organization.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890

Retirement plans under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

TAX ALERT
Retirement plans under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The Act does not lengthen CARES Act COVID plan relief, but offers relief for non-COVID disasters, partial terminations and pension plans.

< back to insights gallery

Retirement plans under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

TAX ALERT | January 03, 2021 | Authored by RSM US LLP

The Act covers non-COVID disasters, partial terminations and more.

On Dec. 22, 2020, Congress passed, and President Trump recently signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. This Act contains over $900 billion of additional stimulus funding intended for COVID-19 relief. In addition, the Act amends some Internal Revenue Code (Code) provisions pertaining to qualified retirement plans, including non-COVID disaster emergency relief, partial plan termination relief and other provisions affecting multiemployer and other defined benefit plans.

Notably, the Act does not extend the timeframes applicable to qualified plan participants under the CARES Act. The Act provides the following with respect to qualified retirement plans.

Non-COVID-19 disaster emergency relief

The Act includes tax relief for plan sponsors in presidentially declared disaster areas for major disasters declared on or after Jan. 1, 2020 and ending 60 days after the date of the Act’s enactment.

The Act’s disaster emergency relief provisions allow qualified individuals to withdraw up to an aggregate limit not to exceed $100,000 counting cumulative qualified disaster distributions from prior years. The distributions are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty tax and may be included in income ratably over a three-year period unless elected otherwise. Alternatively, the individuals are permitted to repay all or a part of the distributions back to an eligible retirement plan within three years of the date of the withdrawal. 

Distributions under this provision are allowed for 180 days after the enactment of the Act to individuals whose principal residence is located in a qualified disaster area. The provision treats any re-contribution as if it was a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.

The Act allows for re-contributions of previous plan withdrawals for home purchases or construction that were not used due to the qualified disaster.

Plan loan relief is provided for individuals impacted by a qualified disaster. Specifically, the maximum plan loan limits are temporarily increased from the lesser of $50,000 or 50% of their vested account balance to the lesser of $100,000 or 100% of their vested account balance. These limits apply to loans made within 180 days of the enactment of the Act.

Relief from plan loan repayments is also provided for individuals with an outstanding loan and a repayment due date between the disaster date and 180 days after the last day of the incident. These loan repayments can be delayed for one year or, if later, until the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act. The repayments must reflect the suspended payments including interest accruals during the delay.

Plan amendments related to these provisions must be completed by the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2022 (or Jan. 1, 2024 for governmental plans).

Partial plan termination relief

The Act provides that a qualified plan will not be treated as having a partial termination under Code section 411(d)(3) during any plan year that includes the period beginning on March 13, 2020, and ending on March 31, 2021, if the number of active participants covered by the plan on March 31, 2021 is at least 80% of the number of active participants covered by the plan on March 13, 2020. The provision is effective on the date of enactment.

Generally, the IRS considers a partial termination to have occurred when the number of employees participating in a qualified plan drops by at least 20% in a plan year or in some circumstances over more than one plan year. The effect of a partial termination is that all affected participants must become 100% vested in their plan benefits.

This provision may provide some relief to plan sponsors who have experienced periodic workforce reductions under governmental restrictions related to Covid-19. No partial termination will be deemed to have occurred where an employer is able to restore plan participation to at least 80% of its March 13, 2020 level, presumably by hiring or rehiring employees, on or before March 31, 2021.

The Act expanded the relief the IRS previously provided which clarified that employer do not need to count employees furloughed or laid off due to COVID-19 but rehired by the end of 2020 in determining whether a retirement plan incurred a partial plan termination for the plan year.

Coronavirus-related in-service withdrawals from a money purchase pension plan

The Act now permits money purchase pension plans to provide for in-service coronavirus-related withdrawals. Section 2202(a)(6) of the CARES Act allowed certain qualified cash or deferred arrangements, such as 401(k) plans, to allow coronavirus-related distributions without regard to the otherwise applicable distribution rules requiring a severance from employment, disability or attainment of age 59½. Such coronavirus-related distributions specifically included 401(k) plans, custodial accounts under section 403(b)(7)(A)(i), annuity contracts under section 403(b)(11), governmental deferred compensation plans under section 457(d)(1)(A) and the Thrift Savings Plan under 5 U.S.C. 8433(h)(1), but specifically excluded money purchase pension plans and defined benefit plans.  The Act now specifically allows money purchase pension plans to make in-service coronavirus-related distributions, effective back to the enactment of the CARES Act.

Reduction in the minimum age for certain in-service distributions from building and construction industry multiemployer plans

Code section 401(a)(36) allows defined benefit plans to make in-service distributions to participants who reach age 59½. In a special provision applicable in very limited circumstances to multiemployer plans in the building and construction industry, the Act amends the Code to allow such distributions at age 55, effective for distributions made before, on or after the date of enactment.

Employer action steps

The partial plan termination relief may be too late for employers that have already elected to treat a reduction in force as having triggered a partial plan termination. However, employers that have not yet determined that a partial termination occurred during 2020 should act now to review the relief the Act provides.

Employers should review their plans to determine whether any amendments are mandatory under the Act, or whether any amendments permitted by the Act on a voluntary basis may be advantageous or advisable based on their particular business circumstances.

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (541) 773-6633 (Oregon), (208) 313-7890 (Idaho) or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.





  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Joni Andrioff, Toby Ruda and originally appeared on 2021-01-03.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2021/retirement-plans-under-the-consolidated-appropriations-act-2021.html

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM(tm) brandmark is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

KDP is a proud member of RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise, and technical resources.

For more information on how KDP LLP can assist you, please call us at:

Oregon Office:
(541) 773-6633

Idaho Office:
(208) 373-7890