Archive for the ‘California’ Category

California Won’t Conform with Mortgage Debt Forgiveness for 2013

Tuesday, September 17th, 2013

If you have a short sale or a foreclosure and have cancelled debt, tax law treats that as income. However, Congress passed laws excluding most such debt from a short sale or foreclosure related to your principal residence from federal tax. Congress extended that law for 2013.

California had a similar such law (through 2012). However, the California legislature did not pass such legislation for 2013. Thus, an individual in California who has a short sale or foreclosure related to his principal residence will have cancelled debt income in 2013. The income can still be excluded by using either the insolvency or bankruptcy exceptions.

California Is #1…For Highest Marginal Tax Rates for S-Corps

Sunday, September 15th, 2013

The S-Corporation is a business structure that’s well liked by entrepreneurs. It allows for a flow-through entity, corporate protection, and (generally) favorable taxation. Of course, there are exceptions–in tax, there are always exceptions.

The Tax Foundation has this wonderful map showing marginal tax rates by states for S-Corporations:

California is also #1 for sole proprietors. Nevada, where I reside, is #42 for both…and that’s a good thing.

Two QSB Relief Bills on Governor Brown’s Desk

Sunday, September 15th, 2013

The California legislature heard from business owners, and the business owners were angry. Their anger had to do with how California’s Franchise Tax Board decided to implement a court decision on Qualified Small Business Stock. The FTB decided that the best method would be retroactive tax increases on QSB sales.

The California legislature, to their credit, passed two separate relief measures. The first would do away with the retroactivity in full; the second would eliminate 76% of the tax. Why would such transactions be taxed at a 24% rate? The theory is the state might have to issue refunds; collecting some tax would pay for the refunds.

It will be up to Governor Brown as to which bill he will sign. Of course, he could veto both measures, in which case the fight would likely move to the courts. Vetoing both measures would also cement California’s place at the bottom of states that are friendly toward small businesses.

Bankruptcy Trumps a Deemed Sale

Thursday, September 12th, 2013

The Wilshire Courtyard is a 1-million square foot office complex in Los Angeles’s “Miracle Mile” district. The complex’s mortgage debt was acquired through bankruptcy by a consortium led by McCarthy Cook, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, and Merrill Lynch. California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB), the state income tax agency, felt that this was a disguised “deemed sale,” and that the owners owed capital gains tax on the transaction. The FTB said that the federal Tax Injunction Act prevented the bankruptcy court from intervening in this; the owners said that bankruptcy trumps this. Originally, the bankruptcy court agreed with the owners. However, a bankruptcy appellate panel reversed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on this earlier this week.

As noted in the summary of the opinion:

Holding that the character of the core transaction of the debtor’s bankruptcy was an issue that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to decide, the panel remanded the case to the BAP to determine in the first instance whether the bankruptcy court’s answer to this question gave due consideration to the “economic realities” of the transaction as structured under the plan and confirmation order.

This does not mean that the owners will win. Rather, it means that the dispute will be argued in bankruptcy court rather than in front of the FTB. As the Court noted,

The real relief sought in this case involves complexities of tax, partnership, and bankruptcy law, which we do not here decide…What we do determine is that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to make the determination, as it is sufficiently closely related to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Because everything is tied together, the matter is properly in front of the bankruptcy court. That’s a far friendlier venue for the owners than the FTB.

California to Require Annual Reporting of Like-Kind Exchanges for Out-of-State Property

Sunday, September 8th, 2013

Section 1031 exchanges are a popular means of deferring taxation on commercial property. Suppose in 1970 you purchased a commercial property in Los Angeles for $500,000. You decide to sell it, and discover that it’s now worth $2.5 million. One way of avoiding paying capital gains tax on the gain is to use §1031 of the Tax Code to defer that gain. (There are lots of requirements with §1031, including using a qualified intermediary, specific dates for the exchange, etc. that must be met.)

Nothing in the Tax Code prohibits you from taking that property in Los Angeles and exchanging it with a property in, say, Jacksonville, Florida. Indeed, there is no state tax in Florida. Additionally, California does not have preferential tax rates on capital gains; that $2 million gain would be taxed as ordinary income, reaching the (current) 13.3% marginal rate.

You’re probably ahead of me: One method that some tax professionals have used is to perform a §1031 exchange from California property to non-California property. If the taxpayer then leaves California (or if he is a non-Californian), the Franchise Tax Board (California’s income tax agency) has no method of going after the gain. California’s legislature didn’t like that, so Sections 18032 and 24953 were added to California’s Revenue and Taxation Code. (§18032 is for individuals while §24953 is for corporations.)

Beginning for years on January 1, 2014 and after, Californians and non-Californians will be required to file annual reports after exchanges of §1031 property. The form(s) do not yet exist; presumably, taxpayers will have to acknowledge that they still own the new property (or a successor property if another §1031 exchange has occurred). The statutes authorize the FTB to assess tax if a report is not filed.

Have I Got a Fixer-Upper for You

Sunday, August 25th, 2013

If you want to rent a building in Sacramento (California’s state capital), I have one that’s perfect…for your enemies, that is. It does have some advantages: It’s a 24-story building right in the heart of downtown Sacramento. It’s owned by the State of California. It’s not for sale, but I’m certain that California’s Department of General Services would be happy to sell it to you. It’s fully leased to the Board of Equalization.

It does have issues. Be careful if you walk on the sidewalk next to the building; you may be hit by falling glass. It seems that the window seals on the building don’t work correctly and the windows have a tendency to pop out.

There’s also the pipes in the building. There are corroded pipes on several floors. A General Services spokesperson helpfully noted that, back in 2012, “At this point it’s isolated to waste lines.”

You may want to take the stairs if you have to go to this building. The elevator doors have a tendency to not open.

I also need to talk about the mold. That’s not the good kind of mold, but the toxic kind that you don’t want in any building. Well, given that water seeped in through the exterior glass, and there are reports of roof leaks, add in Sacramento’s summer warmth and you have a perfect environment for all sorts of gunk to grow.

On the bright side, California paid only $81 million for the building and the repair costs haven’t hit that much…yet. Add to the mix that the BOE is outgrowing the building and now the legislature has to figure out what to do with a building that no one in their right mind wants to work in. Of course, since the BOE pays General Services for leasing the building, and it’s unlikely anyone else would pay anything until all the problems are fully resolved, it’s not likely there will be any volunteers to move into a building that’s a construction zone. While nearby communities such as Elk Grove would pay the state to have the BOE relocate there, the problem is that you’d have to also pay to have someone relocate into a fixer-upper.

California Goes After Flow-Throughs with Passive Investments in California

Saturday, August 17th, 2013

Let’s say you’re the manager of a business in Florida. Your business has some excess capital, so you decide to invest in the RussFox Fund, LLC. Your investment makes up a whopping 0.02% of the fund. (Put another way, you own 2/10000 of the LLC.) The RussFox Fund invests and trades capital equipment, including some in California. You take no part in the management of the fund–you’re clearly a passive investor.

One day you open the mail and see a notice from California’s Franchise Tax Board, California’s state income tax agency. It says you’re Florida business is liable for the $800 California minimum franchise tax (plus penalties and interest, of course) because your business has California-source income.

Now, would California do that? The answer is they have already done so. The facts that I gave mirror the facts of a case written up by Tax Analysts on a Kansas-based company called Swart Enterprises, Inc. Swart paid the FTB and then filed a claim for refund. That claim was denied; Swart has now filed a lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court. It will likely be some time before this case is decided, but it will be interesting to follow.

Of course, the conclusion that Tax Analysts writes is exactly what I thought: “While states are always on the lookout for each and every dollar of tax revenue, taxing investments in California serves as a big disincentive for out-of-state companies to invest in the state.”

The Flow of AGI from One State to Another

Saturday, July 20th, 2013

From watchdog.org comes an interesting interactive map showing how money has flowed from state to state. Back when I moved to Nevada from California, I noted this issue. Here’s yet more verification that this is real.

The five biggest losers were:
1. New York ($68.10 billion in annual Adjusted Gross Income (AGI))
2. California ($45.27 billion in annual AGI)
3. Illinois ($29.27 billion in annual AGI)
4. New Jersey ($20.62 billion in annual AGI)
5. Ohio ($18.39 billion in annual AGI)

The five biggest winners were:
1. Florida ($95.61 billion in annual AGI)
2. Arizona ($28.30 billion in annual AGI)
3. North Carolina ($25.12 billion in annual AGI)
4. Texas ($24.94 billion in annual AGI)
5. Nevada ($18.17 billion in annual AGI)

Sure, some of this is retirees moving from the snow belt to the sun belt. But California is anything but part of the snow belt; it’s clear that successful individuals are fleeing high tax states for low tax states. We here in Nevada are appreciative of the $9.59 billion in annual AGI that has moved from the Bronze Golden State to the Silver State.

Interestingly, the interactive map allows you to look county-by-county. The areas that one would think would show AGI growth are losing AGI. The area around Silicon Valley has lost AGI; so have Los Angeles and Orange County. Sure, some of this is retirees moving to the desert (Riverside County, which includes Palm Springs, showed an increase in AGI). However, there is no chance that this is just caused by retirees.

Taxes matter, and individuals absolutely do relocate because of taxes.

California Considering Conforming to Mortgage Debt Relief for One More Year

Wednesday, July 10th, 2013

The California Senate passed SB30 in June. This measure would extend California’s mortgage debt relief for one more year (through 2013). Note that the California mortgage debt relief is more stringent (in qualifications) than federal. The measure has been sent to the state Assembly for consideration.

I do expect passage and for the measure to be signed into law.

No More Tax Credits for Strip Clubs in California

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

The California legislature banned strip clubs from obtaining hiring tax credits. The legislation, which passed the state legislature last week, is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in the next few days. The specific legislation banned “sexually oriented businesses” from claiming California tax credits.

In other California tax news, the state legislature also eliminated the Enterprise Zone program — the program that led to most hiring tax credits in the state. That legislation is also expected to be signed into law in the coming days.