Category Archives: Tax

Advantages of Nevada Limited Liability Companies (LLC’s)

Many know that Nevada has a tax favorable climate for business and legal entities.  Nevada does not collect individual, corporate, inventory, franchise, gift, business occupation or stock transfer taxes.  One of the preferred forms of operating a business is through a limited liability company (“LLC”).

An LLC is a hybrid entity offering the legal protection of a corporation combined with the “pass through” taxation advantages of a partnership.  The owners of an LLC are called “members” (rather than partners or shareholders).  A Nevada LLC does not pay taxes and the tax consequences pass through to the LLC members.  Yet, like a corporation (and unlike a limited partnership) all of the members enjoy limited liability.  In other words, there is no one similar to the general partner in a limited partnership that must be fully liable for the debts and obligations of the LLC.  Thus, if administered properly the LLC enjoys the benefits of partnership taxation without exposing anyone to unlimited liability.

Nevada is one of the most difficult states in which to “pierce the corporate veil” or enforce personal liability for the debts and actions of the LLC on its members.  Just like a corporation, if the LLC’s owners treat it as a separate entity (e.g., they observe certain formalities, do not commingle assets, do not make personal use of company assets, etc.), then the courts will generally treat the entity as separate from the members and will not hold them responsible for liabilities of the LLC.

Under Nevada law, a charging order is the sole legal method for creditors suing you personally to attack your assets held in an LLC. For example, if you are a member of a Nevada LLC and have a day trading account, a boat and a duplex held in an LLC and are sued personally, a creditor would not be able to seize your assets. They would instead have to obtain a charging order over your membership interests in the LLC, entitling them to receive a portion of income earned by that LLC.  If the LLC did not earn any income, then there would be no profits to be distributed.  The judgment creditor cannot compel any such distribution that is not required by the company’s operating agreement and cannot force a dissolution of the company.

Members (owners) and manager of the LLC need not be residents of Nevada (or even U.S. citizens) and do not need to come to Nevada to form the LLC.  Member meetings may be held anywhere in the world.

A Nevada LLC can own property in any state without having to be incorporated in that state. Nevertheless, the Nevada LLC may need to qualify to do business in the foreign jurisdiction.  Such qualification could lead to paying foreign taxes.

The Managing Member of an LLC can deduct 100% of the health insurance premiums he or she pays, up to the extent of their pro-rata share of the LLC’s net profit, because the profit is considered earned income.  If a member has earned income, he or she will also qualify.

When considering whether to form an LLC, you consult with a trusted attorney.  Beyond the filing documents required by the Secretary of State, you must prepare appropriate governing instruments.

How Do You Hold Title to Your Assets?

How you hold title to an asset affects how it can be disposed of during lifetime and how it will be distributed upon your death. Title to property affects inheritance taxes and the extent to which probate may be needed.

Community Property. Nevada is a community property state. Property acquired during marriage by the labor of either or both spouses is deemed “community property” and each spouse has an equal interest therein.  It is possible to acquire or hold property as “community property” or as “community property with right of survivorship.” The additional language “with right of survivorship” ensures that the surviving spouse will receive title to the whole of the asset upon the death of the first spouse. Holding an asset as community property also creates a tax advantage, in that the surviving spouse will get a step up in basis on the asset to the date of death of the first spouse. In other words, the surviving spouse will not have to pay a capital gains tax on the increase in value from the date of purchase to the date of the first spouse’s death.

Separate Property. A married person may also hold property as his or her separate property. This includes property that was acquired prior to marriage, or property acquired during marriage by one spouse only as a gift or an inheritance. A spouse with separate property may make a gift of that property to the community by deeding or changing title of the asset to community property. If the spouse continues to hold the property as separate, upon death the spouse may will it to anyone he wishes; the surviving spouse does not have any legal right to it. However, if a spouse with separate property dies without a will, separate property will pass according to Nevada’s laws on intestate succession, and the surviving spouse will be entitled to a share of the property.

Joint Tenancy. Two persons, whether or not married, may hold property as joint tenants. Upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant becomes the owner of the whole of the property. In other words, the heirs of the first joint tenant to die do not inherit that person’s interest in the property; it passes by operation of law to the surviving joint tenant. For this reason, sometimes joint tenancy language also says “with right of survivorship.” For married couples, a partial step-up in basis is available if title is held in joint tenancy.

Couples should be aware of and sensitive to the manner in which they hold title. A change in how an asset is titled will change how the asset is distributed at death. If you have questions or concerns, you should contact a qualified Nevada attorney.

By: Sharon M. Parker, Esq.

Ideal Time for Business Succession Planning

This article appeared in the February 21, 2011 edition of Northern Nevada Business Weekly:

One of the chief concerns of family business owners is how to pass the business to the next generation and/or key employees.  Although various provisions of the federal estate tax laws are intended to ease the tax burden on the transition of small businesses upon an owner’s death, these provisions are very limited in their scope and benefit.  However, the recently enacted Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the “Act”) provides business owners with some meaningful tax-free opportunities to move their businesses to the next generation.

As widely publicized, the Act extends the Bush-era individual income, capital-gains and dividend tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years (2011 and 2012).  Most people also know that the Act temporarily increased the federal estate tax exclusion (i.e., the amount that may be passed to heirs free of federal estate tax) from $1 million to $5 million and reduces the federal estate tax rate to a single tax bracket of 35%.  For the first time ever the Act also provides for “portability” of the estate tax exclusion between spouses.  Portability means that any unused portion of a person’s estate tax exemption is transferable to his or her surviving spouse to be used upon the surviving spouse’s death.  So, if one spouse died in 2011 or 2012 and did not use any of his or her gift or estate tax exclusion, the surviving spouse will have an available estate tax exclusion of $10 million, and only the value of assets in excess of that sum would be subject to the 35% federal estate tax.

Obviously, a business owner who dies in the next two years will be able to pass substantially more of his or her business to his or her heirs than would have been possible without the act.  However, unless the business owner dies in the next two years (which is hopefully not the case) the Act’s changes to the estate tax laws really won’t help very much.  As seen in 2010, Congress may or may not extend, modify, or otherwise alter these new laws.  If nothing is done, we will revert to the rules that would have been applicable in 2011 without the Act, i.e., a $1 million federal estate tax exclusion and a maximum estate tax rate of 55%.

The Act’s biggest benefit to business owners, however, is a 500% increase in the federal lifetime gift tax exclusion.  Since 2001 the lifetime gift tax exclusion has remained at $1 million.  Under the terms of the Act, the gift tax exception increases dramatically to $5 million and the gift tax rate is reduced to 35% for transfers in excess of $5 million.  Like the estate tax exclusion, the gift tax exclusion is an exclusion from federal transfer taxes for assets transferred to other persons except that it relates to transfers made while you are alive rather than at death.  The federal gift tax and estate tax exclusions are unified such that any gifts made during your lifetime which use a portion of your gift tax exclusion will also reduce dollar for dollar the amount of your estate tax exclusion available upon your death.

What does all of this mean for business owners?  During this brief, two-year window you have an unprecedented opportunity to pass up to $5 million (or up to $10 million for a married couple) in business interests or other assets to the next generation or generations.  The combination of this previously undreamed-of gift-tax exclusion, depressed asset and real property values, and rock-bottom interest rates has created a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transfer very large blocks of your business interests wealth to your children, grandchildren and beyond free of any federal gift and estate taxes.  There has not been a better time to make gifts in several decades.

Importantly, the Act does not disturb some very advantageous estate planning tools.  Valuation discounts for minority interests and illiquid assets (such as closely-held business interests) are still available and are often used with various estate planning techniques to leverage a person’s gift and estate tax exclusions to make tax-free transfers of substantially more assets than would otherwise be possible.  While it had been rumored that the new tax law might limit these valuation discounts, the Act is silent on this subject.  As a result, valuation discounts continue (at least for now) to be an effective estate planning tool, especially for business owners.  For example, assume Father and Mother own a business, including equipment, materials, and real property worth $10 million.  Father and Mother would like to transfer the business to their three children who all participate in the business.  By gifting equal 33% interests in the business to the three children, Father and Mother can take valuation discounts due to the lack of control and lack of marketability associated with those 33% interests.  After the transfers, none of the children will have a controlling interest in the company and there is no ready market or stock exchange available for them to quickly convert the business interests to cash.  Therefore, Father and Mother may be able to discount the value of the gifted business interests as much as 30% to 40%.

Assuming a 30% discount in our example, Father and Mother would utilize $7 million of their combined $10 million gift tax exclusions.  The remaining $3 million in gift tax exclusions could be utilized to transfer other assets to their children or lower generations .  Not only would Father and Mother avoid taxation resulting from the transfer of their business, but also they would maximize the amount of assets transferred by discounting the asset values.  The transfer also allows any future appreciation in the value of the business to inure directly to the benefit of the children outside of Father’s and Mother’s estates.

Some of you have already exhausted your $1 million lifetime gift-tax exclusion.  The Act provides a limited time period to make additional gifts.  You have another $4 million to gift for the next two years.  Some of you have sold business interests to irrevocable trusts for your children, in return for a low interest promissory note payable (which is still a very useful planning method).  Generally, the purpose of these transactions is to take advantage of valuation discounts and to “freeze” the value of the business interest in your estate by replacing the business interest with a very low interest promissory note.  If the business interest has not performed well or if you simply want to be free of the hassle of the ongoing note payments, then the additional $4 million of lifetime gift tax exclusion presents an opportunity to forgive the promissory note and thereby conclude the transaction and relieve your heirs of the burden of making the note payments.

Please keep in mind that other advanced planning techniques are available to leverage your lifetime exclusions to pass even more assets to your descendants or beneficiaries.  Prior legislative proposals would have instituted a minimum ten-year term for an estate planning technique known as a “Grantor Retained Annuity Trust” (“GRAT”), which would have greatly reduced the planning opportunities associated with this type of trust.  However, the Act did not address GRATs.  With a GRAT, the business owner receives fixed annuity payments for a specific term.  At the end of the term, any remaining trust property is transferred to the younger generation free of estate and gift taxes. Short-term GRATs (e.g. two years) are viable, at least in the immediate future.  GRATs can be particularly effective when interest rates are low, and with the current rates at historic lows GRATs are a very common planning tool at this time.

In terms of planning beyond the Act’s two-year horizon, we feel that the only prudent thing to do at this time is to assume that the Act will expire.  Therefore prompt action to take advantage of these planning opportunities is clearly advisable.

By Don L. Ross, Esq. and Jason C. Morris, Esq.

Deductibility of Legal Fees for Estate Planning

**UPDATE: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) enacted on December 22, 2017, provided, “[n]otwithstanding subsection (a) [subjecting certain miscellaneous itemized deductions to the 2 percent floor], no miscellaneous itemized deductions shall be allowed for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.”**

Section 212 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) provides that a deduction is available for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year:

1. for the production or collection of income;

2. for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income; or

3. in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax.

Section 212 is limited by the two percent (2%) floor under § 67 of the Code. Section 67 provides an individual’s “miscellaneous itemized deductions” may only be deducted to the extent that the aggregate of the deductions exceed two (2%) percent of adjusted gross income. IRC §67(a).  Because of the itemized deductions floor, most clients will not benefit from a deduction for legal expenses incurred in estate planning.

The Tax Court has considered numerous cases to determine whether legal fees incurred in estate planning are deductible.  One of the first cases to allow a deduction for estate planning fees, Bagley v. Commissioner, found that the law firm provided deductible legal services under §212(2).  The law firm consulted the clients with regard to tax-favorable investments, loans to the corporation owned by the client family, and the review and creation of estate plans for the family members.

In Merians v. Commissioner, the court allowed a §212(3) deduction for legal fees allocated to tax advice.  The court narrowly construed their decision to a deduction for only the portion of services which it considered tax advice.  The attorney did not maintain accurate time entry or billing records reflecting the amount of time spent on tax-related aspects of his representation.

The Tax Court has disallowed deductions for legal fees paid for estate planning and general business guidance when the taxpayer does not have any evidence of how the fees relate to the §212 categories.  The mere preparation of a will or testamentary trust will not be deductible.  However, an argument can be made that the creation of a revocable living trust is a tax-motivated transaction for the management and conservation of property.  Similarly, the taxpayer could argue the fees were incurred in connection with the determination (minimization) of the taxpayer’s future tax liability. Therefore, the fees should be deductible under §§212(2) and 212(3).

 

Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Year-End Planning

Often overlooked during this “year-to-die” without an estate tax, the generation skipping transfer (“GST”) tax lapsed on January 1, 2010. Similar to the estate tax, the GST tax lapse affords some great year-end tax planning opportunities. These opportunities will not last long as the federal estate and GST tax regimes return on January 1, 2011.
Outright Gifts
Different from the estate and GST taxes, the gift tax remains in effect in 2010. The $1 million gift tax exemption remains with a 35% tax rate. Without congressional action, the gift tax rate will increase to 55% on January 1, 2011. Individuals may seek to take advantage of the historically-low gift tax rate by making outright gifts to beneficiaries. This simple, straightforward tactic may be advantageous for those looking to take advantage of the lowest gift tax rate seen in 70 years.
Gifts to Grandchildren
Another worthwhile consideration is giving assets to grandchildren. This year, grandparents can gift unlimited amounts of assets to grandchildren free from the GST tax. As noted above, the grandparents would still pay gift tax on amounts in excess of the lifetime exemption. If the assets are given outright, instead of held in trust, the assets will be held tax-free until the grandchild’s death. As this year has proven, we cannot anticipate where the GST tax rate will be in future years. As a result, individuals should make outright gifts to grandchildren and pay any gift tax at the lower 35% tax rate on any such gifts, and thereby avoid any future GST tax on such assets. If grandchildren are too young or irresponsible to handle large amounts of money, gifts of interests in a limited liability company managed by a responsible family member could be a substitute for monetary gifts.
Distributions from Trusts
With the lapse of the GST, individuals holding assets in non-exempt GST trusts should consider making distributions to the trust creator’s grandchildren. These distributions will be subject to GST tax in 2011 and later years. The non-exempt GST trust distributions are not subject to the gift tax and will avoid GST tax in 2010. In addition, by distributing the assets this year the assets will not be subject to the GST tax upon the death of the grandchild’s parent.
Caution
Although it is unlikely, Congress may enact a retroactive estate and/or GST tax for 2010. In light of the heated debates over the extension or modification of the Bush income tax cuts, there exists a very remote chance that Congress would take such action. Because of the continued uncertainty, individuals should take precaution to properly structure and document any gifts or distributions made before year-end.