Connecticut’s New Pass Through Entity Tax

On May 31, 2018, Governor Malloy signed P.A. 18-49, which fundamentally changes how income earned by pass through entities such as S corporations, partnerships, and multi-member LLCs are taxed. The new legislation does not affect the taxation of publicly traded partnerships, sole proprietorships, or single member LLCs.

The legislation is retroactively effective to January 1, 2018. For tax years beginning on or after that date, a pass-through entity is now subject to tax, at a rate of 6.99%, on its own income. The new law provides a tax credit that partners may claim on their Connecticut income tax return, intended, generally, to ensure that the pass-through entity’s income is not taxed twice.

The policy goal of the legislation is fairly novel. It is intended as a revenue-neutral work around to the $10,000 limitation to the deduction for state and local taxes contained in the revisions to the federal tax law. The new Connecticut tax law transfers the Connecticut income tax deduction from the business owners to the entity itself. Because the new state tax will be an expense of the pass-through entity that pays it, the tax reduces the federal taxable income of the individual owners of pass-through entities, it offsets, at least in part, the effects of the federal law’s new limitation on the deduction for state and local taxes. Each such owner is now provided a refundable credit against the Connecticut personal income tax in an amount equal to 93.01% of that owner’s pro rata share of the tax paid by the pass-through entity. An individual owner who is either a full year or part year resident of Connecticut is also entitled to a credit against the Connecticut personal income tax for that individual’s pro rata share of taxes paid to another state or the District of Columbia on income of the pass-through business entity if the Commissioner of Revenue Services determines that the tax is substantially similar to the new Connecticut pass through entity tax.

A nonresident individual whose only Connecticut source income is from one or more Connecticut pass-through entities which entities pay the pass-through entity tax will not need to file a Connecticut personal income tax return. However, an individual member of a pass-through entity that has elected to file a “combined return” with one or more other pass through entities and pass-through chooses to file a combined return and the offsetting credit for the pass-through’s tax payment does not completely satisfy the nonresident’s Connecticut personal income tax liability.

Because the new Connecticut tax law is made retroactive to the beginning of 2018 and requires pass-through entities to make estimated tax payments quarterly (i.e. April 15, June 15, and September 15 of 2018, and January 15 of 2019), the affected entities are, in effect already late on the first payment due. The Department of Revenue Services has stated that entities may make solve this issue in any of three ways:

  1. Make a catch-up payment with the June 15, 2018 estimated payment that satisfies both the first and second estimated payment requirements;
  2. Make three estimated payments (by each of June 15 and September 15 in 2018, and by January 15 in 2019) each equaling 22.5% of the total tax liability, with the final payment due with the tax return; or
  3. Annualize their estimated payments for the taxable year

Further, DRS will allow pass-through entities to recharacterize all or a portion of any April 15, 2018, June 15, 2018, or September 15, 2018, income tax estimated payments made by any of their individual partners, with such partner’s consent, so that the payments are applied against the pass-through entity’s 2018 estimated payment requirements. The recharacterization of these 2018 income tax estimated payments must be completed by December 31, 2018. The recharacterized amount will be deemed to have been made by the pass-through entity on the date that the individual partner remitted the estimated payment to DRS. DRS will provide information by September 30, 2018, about the mechanism to re-characterize these estimated payments.

A pass-through entity may make its June 15, 2018 estimated tax payment by completing an estimated tax payment coupon and mailing it to DRS with a check. The estimated tax payment coupon may be downloaded here.  For the September 15, 2018 estimated payment, a pass-through entity may also make its estimated payment at http://www.ct.gov/tsc.

Because individual partners will get a credit for the Pass-Through Entity Tax paid by their pass-through entity, many resident individual and trust partners will no longer need to make estimated income tax payments to cover their Connecticut income tax liability arising from their pass-through entity income. A partner may still be required to make estimated income tax payments depending upon the method the pass-through entity uses to calculate the Pass-Through Entity Tax, if the partner has income from other sources, or if the individual partner is an employee who will not have enough income tax withheld from their wages. Partners should consult with their pass-through entities and tax counsel to determine how they will be affected.

DRS has stated it is aware that some individual partners have already remitted the first-quarter estimated income tax payment and may have scheduled the automatic payment of the second, third and fourth quarter estimated income tax payments. If an individual partner determines that he or she no longer needs to make estimated income tax payments, the partner may cancel any pending scheduled payments.

In circumstances where partners or other owners of affected pass through entities have already made estimated individual income tax payments, there are two options:

  1. The individual partners (or other owners) will receive a refund when they file their 2018 Connecticut returns; or
  2. The individual partners may have all or a portion of their 2018 income tax estimated payments re-characterized so that the payments are applied against their pass-through entity’s 2018 estimated payment requirements. This must be done by December 31, 2018.

The new law provides for a taxpayer to elect either of two methods of calculating the tax:

  1. Multiply the applicable rate by the entity’s Connecticut source income; or
  2. If timely elected, the taxpayer may apply the rate to an “alternative tax base” that is equal to the “resident portion of unsourced income” plus “modified Connecticut source income.”

 

 

Some definitions will help here.

Unsourced income generally equals the business’s net income as calculated for federal tax purposes, increased or decreased by applicable personal tax deductions and without regard to the location from which the items of income and adjustments are derived, minus the business’s Connecticut sourced income without any adjustments for tiered business entities and also minus the business’s net income, for federal tax purposes, that is derived from sources in another state with jurisdiction to tax the entity, as increased or decreased by any adjustments that apply under the personal income tax that are derived from, or connected to, sources in another state with jurisdiction to tax the entity.

Modified Connecticut source income is defined as the business’s Connecticut source income multiplied by a percentage equal to the sum of ownership interests in the business that are owned by individual members that are (i) subject to the Connecticut personal income tax or (ii) pass-through businesses subject to the entity tax to the extent that such businesses are directly or indirectly owned by individuals subject to the Connecticut personal income tax.

The resident portion of unsourced income is “unsourced income” multiplied by a percentage equal to the portion of the ownership interests in the business entity owned by individual members who are Connecticut residents.

While there is not yet published guidance, election of the alternative tax base seems likely to be more attractive to Connecticut residents because it increases the available tax credit to include “unsourced income” as well as Connecticut sourced income. This alternative tax calculation should also permit a business to avoid paying the pass-through entity tax to the extend of income earned by owners who are not subject to the Connecticut personal income tax, such as Subchapter C corporations and tax-exempt entities.

Partners in a pass-through entity that files on a fiscal year basis appear to need to continue to make 2018 estimated income tax payments. If a pass-through entity is a fiscal year filer, the distributive share of the entity’s income from its 2018 return will be included in such partner’s 2019 income tax return. Hence, the credit associated with the entity’s 2018 return will not be claimed until the partner’s 2019 Connecticut income tax return is filed.

We are still awaiting guidance on some issues that remain unresolved with the new law, such as:

(i)      The impact on nonresident owners who reside in jurisdictions with an income tax that

may not grant a credit for the new Connecticut tax;

(ii)     The applicability of the tax to guaranteed payments; and

(iii)    The impact of the Connecticut modification from federal adjusted gross income for

Connecticut taxes. In addition, any sole proprietorship operated as a single member

limited liability company treated for federal tax purposes as a disregarded entity, should

consult with a tax advisor as to whether the owner should convert to pass-through status

by adding a nominal partner to take advantage of the tax benefit afforded by this legislation

 

This information is provided as a review of general principles only and is not intended as legal or tax advice. The reader is cautioned to discuss his or her specific circumstance with a qualified practitioner before taking any action.

Connecticut’s New Pass Through Entity Tax

On May 31, 2018, Governor Malloy signed P.A. 18-49, which fundamentally changes how income earned by pass through entities such as S corporations, partnerships, and multi-member LLCs are taxed. The new legislation does not affect the taxation of publicly traded partnerships, sole proprietorships, or single member LLCs.

The legislation is retroactively effective to January 1, 2018. For tax years beginning on or after that date, a pass-through entity is now subject to tax, at a rate of 6.99%, on its own income. The new law provides a tax credit that partners may claim on their Connecticut income tax return, intended, generally, to ensure that the pass-through entity’s income is not taxed twice.

The policy goal of the legislation is fairly novel. It is intended as a revenue-neutral work around to the $10,000 limitation to the deduction for state and local taxes contained in the revisions to the federal tax law. The new Connecticut tax law transfers the Connecticut income tax deduction from the business owners to the entity itself. Because the new state tax will be an expense of the pass-through entity that pays it, the tax reduces the federal taxable income of the individual owners of pass-through entities, it offsets, at least in part, the effects of the federal law’s new limitation on the deduction for state and local taxes. Each such owner is now provided a refundable credit against the Connecticut personal income tax in an amount equal to 93.01% of that owner’s pro rata share of the tax paid by the pass-through entity. An individual owner who is either a full year or part year resident of Connecticut is also entitled to a credit against the Connecticut personal income tax for that individual’s pro rata share of taxes paid to another state or the District of Columbia on income of the pass-through business entity if the Commissioner of Revenue Services determines that the tax is substantially similar to the new Connecticut pass through entity tax.

A nonresident individual whose only Connecticut source income is from one or more Connecticut pass-through entities which entities pay the pass-through entity tax will not need to file a Connecticut personal income tax return. However, an individual member of a pass-through entity that has elected to file a “combined return” with one or more other pass through entities and pass-through chooses to file a combined return and the offsetting credit for the pass-through’s tax payment does not completely satisfy the nonresident’s Connecticut personal income tax liability.

Because the new Connecticut tax law is made retroactive to the beginning of 2018 and requires pass-through entities to make estimated tax payments quarterly (i.e. April 15, June 15, and September 15 of 2018, and January 15 of 2019), the affected entities are, in effect already late on the first payment due. The Department of Revenue Services has stated that entities may make solve this issue in any of three ways:

  1. Make a catch-up payment with the June 15, 2018 estimated payment that satisfies both the first and second estimated payment requirements;
  2. Make three estimated payments (by each of June 15 and September 15 in 2018, and by January 15 in 2019) each equaling 22.5% of the total tax liability, with the final payment due with the tax return; or
  3. Annualize their estimated payments for the taxable year

Further, DRS will allow pass-through entities to recharacterize all or a portion of any April 15, 2018, June 15, 2018, or September 15, 2018, income tax estimated payments made by any of their individual partners, with such partner’s consent, so that the payments are applied against the pass-through entity’s 2018 estimated payment requirements. The recharacterization of these 2018 income tax estimated payments must be completed by December 31, 2018. The recharacterized amount will be deemed to have been made by the pass-through entity on the date that the individual partner remitted the estimated payment to DRS. DRS will provide information by September 30, 2018, about the mechanism to re-characterize these estimated payments.

A pass-through entity may make its June 15, 2018 estimated tax payment by completing an estimated tax payment coupon and mailing it to DRS with a check. The estimated tax payment coupon may be downloaded here.  For the September 15, 2018 estimated payment, a pass-through entity may also make its estimated payment at http://www.ct.gov/tsc.

Because individual partners will get a credit for the Pass-Through Entity Tax paid by their pass-through entity, many resident individual and trust partners will no longer need to make estimated income tax payments to cover their Connecticut income tax liability arising from their pass-through entity income. A partner may still be required to make estimated income tax payments depending upon the method the pass-through entity uses to calculate the Pass-Through Entity Tax, if the partner has income from other sources, or if the individual partner is an employee who will not have enough income tax withheld from their wages. Partners should consult with their pass-through entities and tax counsel to determine how they will be affected.

DRS has stated it is aware that some individual partners have already remitted the first-quarter estimated income tax payment and may have scheduled the automatic payment of the second, third and fourth quarter estimated income tax payments. If an individual partner determines that he or she no longer needs to make estimated income tax payments, the partner may cancel any pending scheduled payments.

In circumstances where partners or other owners of affected pass through entities have already made estimated individual income tax payments, there are two options:

  1. The individual partners (or other owners) will receive a refund when they file their 2018 Connecticut returns; or
  2. The individual partners may have all or a portion of their 2018 income tax estimated payments re-characterized so that the payments are applied against their pass-through entity’s 2018 estimated payment requirements. This must be done by December 31, 2018.

The new law provides for a taxpayer to elect either of two methods of calculating the tax:

  1. Multiply the applicable rate by the entity’s Connecticut source income; or
  2. If timely elected, the taxpayer may apply the rate to an “alternative tax base” that is equal to the “resident portion of unsourced income” plus “modified Connecticut source income.”

Some definitions will help here.

Unsourced income generally equals the business’s net income as calculated for federal tax purposes, increased or decreased by applicable personal tax deductions and without regard to the location from which the items of income and adjustments are derived, minus the business’s Connecticut sourced income without any adjustments for tiered business entities and also minus the business’s net income, for federal tax purposes, that is derived from sources in another state with jurisdiction to tax the entity, as increased or decreased by any adjustments that apply under the personal income tax that are derived from, or connected to, sources in another state with jurisdiction to tax the entity.

Modified Connecticut source income is defined as the business’s Connecticut source income multiplied by a percentage equal to the sum of ownership interests in the business that are owned by individual members that are (i) subject to the Connecticut personal income tax or (ii) pass-through businesses subject to the entity tax to the extent that such businesses are directly or indirectly owned by individuals subject to the Connecticut personal income tax.

The resident portion of unsourced income is “unsourced income” multiplied by a percentage equal to the portion of the ownership interests in the business entity owned by individual members who are Connecticut residents.

While there is not yet published guidance, election of the alternative tax base seems likely to be more attractive to Connecticut residents because it increases the available tax credit to include “unsourced income” as well as Connecticut sourced income. This alternative tax calculation should also permit a business to avoid paying the pass-through entity tax to the extend of income earned by owners who are not subject to the Connecticut personal income tax, such as Subchapter C corporations and tax-exempt entities.

Partners in a pass-through entity that files on a fiscal year basis appear to need to continue to make 2018 estimated income tax payments. If a pass-through entity is a fiscal year filer, the distributive share of the entity’s income from its 2018 return will be included in such partner’s 2019 income tax return. Hence, the credit associated with the entity’s 2018 return will not be claimed until the partner’s 2019 Connecticut income tax return is filed.

We are still awaiting guidance on some issues that remain unresolved with the new law, such as:

(i)      The impact on nonresident owners who reside in jurisdictions with an income tax that

may not grant a credit for the new Connecticut tax;

(ii)     The applicability of the tax to guaranteed payments; and

(iii)    The impact of the Connecticut modification from federal adjusted gross income for

Connecticut taxes. In addition, any sole proprietorship operated as a single member

limited liability company treated for federal tax purposes as a disregarded entity,

should consult with a tax advisor as to whether the owner should convert to

pass-through status by adding a nominal partner to take advantage of the tax benefit

afforded by this legislation.

This information is provided as a review of general principles only and is not intended as legal or tax advice. The reader is cautioned to discuss his or her specific circumstance with a qualified practitioner before taking any action.

SEC Proposes Regulation Best Interest for Brokers

On April 18, 2018, the SEC proposed “Regulation Best Interest,” which is the latest in a long and disputed line of proposed attempts by various governmental bodies to homogenize the duties owed by brokers and investment advisers to their respective clients. Professionals in the financial services industry and others should take note that they have until approximately July 23, 2018i to file a public comment on the proposed SEC rule, and investors should take this opportunity to educate themselves on the current differences between “brokers” and “investment advisers,” including the different standard of care that each owe their clients.

BACKGROUND

For decades, customers of the financial services industry have been confused by (if not outright unaware of) the different “standards of care” that their “brokers” and “investment advisers” have owed them.

On the one hand, “[a]n investment adviser is a fiduciary whose duty is to serve the best interests of its clients, including an obligation not to subordinate clients’ interests to its own. Included in the fiduciary standard are the duties of loyalty and care.”ii Investment advisers typically charge for their services via an annual fee assessed as a percentage of the “assets under management” (the so-called “AUM”) that the investment adviser “manages” for the client. The primary regulator of an investment adviser is either the SEC (usually for relatively larger investment advisers – i.e., those managing more than $100 million AUM) or a state securities commission (usually for relatively smaller investment advisers – i.e., those managing less than $100 million AUM).

On the other hand, brokers “generally must become members of FINRA” and are merely required to “deal fairly with their customers.”iii  FINRA Rule 2111 requires, in part, that a broker “must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the [broker] to ascertain the customer’s investment profile” (the “suitability” standard).iv  Rather than a percentage of AUM, brokers’ compensation is typically derived from commissions they charge on each of the trades they execute for their clients. FINRA, a non-governmental organization, is the primary regulator for almost all brokers in the U.S.

At first blush, a layman retail client could easily be excused for struggling to understand the difference between the requirements of an investment adviser to “serve the best interests of its clients” and those of a broker to “deal fairly with their clients.” This confusion is exacerbated when a broker is also registered as an investment adviser, thus clouding what “hat” the advisor is wearing when dealing with a client.

Tortured Regulatory History

Regulator concern about this confusion has existed for decades.  In 2004, the SEC retained consultants to conduct focus group testing to ascertain, in part, how investors differentiate the roles, legal obligations, and  compensation between investment advisers and broker-dealers. The results were striking:

In general, [the focus] groups did not understand that the roles and legal obligations of investment advisers and broker-dealers were different. In particular, they were confused by the different titles (e.g., financial planner, financial advisor, financial consultant, broker-dealer, and investment adviser), and did not understand terms such as “fiduciary.”v

In 2006, the SEC engaged RAND to conduct a large-scale survey on household investment behavior, including whether investors understood the duties and obligations owed by investment advisers and broker-dealers to each of their clients. First, it should be noted, “RAND concluded that it was difficult for it to identify the business practices of investment advisers and broker-dealers with any certainty.”vi  Second, RAND surveyed 654 households (two-thirds of which were considered “experienced”) and conducted six focus groups, and reported that such participants –

…could not identify correctly the legal duties owed to investors with respect to the services and functions investment advisers and brokers performed. The primary view of investors was that the financial professional – regardless of whether the person was an investment adviser or a broker-dealer – was acting in the investor’s best interest.vii

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated the SEC to conduct a study to evaluate, among other things, “Whether there are legal or regulatory gaps, shortcomings, or overlaps in legal or regulatory standards in the protection of retail customers relating to the standards of care for providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers that should be addressed by rule or statute,” and to consider ”whether retail customers understand or are confused by the differences in the standards of care that apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers.”viii A conclusion of that study was as follows:

[T]he Staff recommends the consideration of rulemakings that would apply expressly and uniformly to both broker-dealers and investment advisers, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers, a fiduciary standard no less stringent than currently applied to investment advisers under Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2).

In 2013, the SEC issued a “request for information” on the subject of a  potential “uniform fiduciary standard,”ix but never promulgated a rule after receiving more than 250 comment letters from “industry groups, individual market participants, and other interested persons[….]”x

Finally, on April 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor adopted a new, expanded definition of “fiduciary” to include those who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of an ERISA plan or IRA (in other words, certain “brokers”) (the “DOL Fiduciary Rule”). Many brokerage firms and others (such as insurance companies) made operational and licensing adjustments to prepare for the DOL Fiduciary Rule while various lawsuits were filed in attempts to invalidate the controversial rule. Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the DOL Fiduciary Rule on March 15, 2018.xi

“Suitability” Standard vs. “Fiduciary” Standard

The “suitability” standard of a broker is a far cry from the “fiduciary” standard of an investment adviser.  As the SEC has stated, “Like many principal-agent relationships, the relationship between a broker-dealer and an investor has inherent conflicts of interest, which may provide an incentive to a broker-dealer to seek to maximize its compensation at the expense of the investor it is advising.”xii  Put more bluntly, “there is no specific obligation under the Exchange Act that broker-dealers make recommendations that are in their customers’ best interest.”xiii

FINRA (including under its former name, NASD) has certainly striven to close that gap via its own interpretations and disciplinary proceedings, and has succeeded to a point.  Specifically, a number of SEC administrative rulings have confirmed FINRA’s interpretation of FINRA’s suitability rule as requiring a broker-dealer to make recommendations that are “consistent with his customers’ best interests” or are not “clearly contrary to the best interest of the customer.”xiv However, the SEC has highlighted that these interpretations are “not explicit requirement[s] of FINRA’s suitability rule.”xv

This lower duty of care for brokers (as opposed to investment advisers, who have a fiduciary duty) has had and continues to have purportedly large and definitive financial consequences for retail investors:

Conflicted advice causes substantial harm to investors. Just looking at retirement savers, SaveOurRetirement.com estimates that investors lose between $57 million and $117 million every day due to conflicted investment advice, amounting to at least $21 billion annually.xvi

A 2015 report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that –

[…]conflicts of interests cost middle-class families who receive conflicted advice huge amounts of their hard-earned savings. It finds conflicts likely lead, on average, to:

  • 1 percentage point lower annual returns on retirement savings.
  • $17 billion of losses every year for working and middle class families.
SEC”S NEWLY-PROPOSED “REGULATION BEST INTEREST”

Despite the controversy over the DOL Fiduciary Rule and its recent, apparent defeat, the SEC has been working under the guidance of Chairman Jay Clayton since 2017 to finally rectify the confusion among investors as to the different standards of care applicable to brokers versus investment advisers.xvii

The latest development in that regard has been the proposal by the SEC of “Regulation Best Interest” (“Reg. BI”) on April 18, 2018.xviii  The proposed rule is significant in its proposed breadth. Subparagraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule would provide as follows:

A broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer, or natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer.xix

This is a sea change in the duty of care owed by brokers to their retail clients, as it would effectively enhance a broker’s duty of care to approximate that of an investment adviser’s (at least in regard to retail clients).xx

To satisfy the “best interest” obligation in subparagraph (a)(1), subparagraph (a)(2) of Reg. BI would impose four component requirements: a Disclosure Obligation, a Care Obligation, and two Conflict of Interest Obligations.xxi

For the “Disclosure Obligation,” subparagraph (a)(2)(i) of Reg. BI would require the broker to –

reasonably disclose[] to the retail customer, in writing, the material facts relating to the scope and terms of the relationship with the retail customer, including all material conflicts of interest that are associated with the recommendation.xxii

For the “Care Obligation,” subparagraph (a)(2)(ii) of Reg. BI would require the broker to “exercise[] reasonable diligence, care, skill, and prudence to” do the following:

(A) Understand the potential risks and rewards associated with the recommendation, and have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be in the best interest of at least some retail customers;

(B) Have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is in the best interest of a particular retail customer based on that retail customer’s investment profile and the potential risks and rewards associated with the recommendation; and

(C) Have a reasonable basis to believe that a series of recommended transactions, even if in the retail customer’s best interest when viewed in isolation, is not excessive and is in the retail customer’s best interest when taken together in light of the retail customer’s investment profile.xxiii

Finally, for the two “Conflict of Interest Obligations,” subparagraph (a)(2)(iii) of Reg. BI would require the following:

(A) The broker or dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and at a minimum disclose, or eliminate, all material conflicts of interest that are associated with such recommendations.

(B) The broker or dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and disclose and mitigate, or eliminate, material conflicts of interest arising from financial incentives associated with such recommendations.xxiv

Furthermore, Reg. BI would expand the SEC’s records requirement rules (i.e., Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4) to  provide that “[f]or each retail customer to whom a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities is or will be provided,” a broker obtain and maintain for six years “[a] record of all information collected from and provided to the retail customer pursuant to [Reg. BI].”xxv

CONCLUSION

The SEC’s proposed “Regulation Best Interest” is a significant proposal that could have far-reaching impact across the securities brokerage and other segments of the financial services industries. Whether this latest regulatory effort to establish a more consistent standard of care for brokers and investment advisers will succeed is unknown, but the proposed rule is certainly an aggressive step in that regard.

All those interested will have until approximately July 23, 2018 to file a public comment on the proposed rule. Meanwhile, investors should take this opportunity to educate themselves on the current differences between “brokers” and “investment advisers,” including the different standard of care that each owe their clients.

ENDNOTES

i   The specific date will be established once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

ii   Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers As Required by Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Jan. 2011) (“Study”), at iii, available at www.sec.gov/news/studies/2011/913studyfinal.pdf.

iii  Study at iv.

iv  FINRA Rule 2111(a), available at http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display.html?rbid=2403&record_id=15663&element_id=9859&highlight=2111#r15663, as of April 23, 2018.

v   Study at 96.

vi  Study at 97.

vii Study at 98.

viii Study at i.

ix  See Request for Data and Other Information: Duties of Brokers, Dealers and Investment Advisers, Exchange Act Release No. 69013 (Mar. 1, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf.

x   Regulation Best Interest, Exchange Act Release No. 34-83062 (April 18, 2018) (“Reg. BI Proposal”), at 20, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/34-83062.pdf.

xi  Reg. BI Proposal at 27.

xii     Reg. BI Proposal at 7.

xiii Reg. BI Proposal at 8.

xiv Reg. BI Proposal at 14, fn. 15.

xv Reg. BI Proposal at 8, fn. 6.

xvi Reg. BI Proposal at 20, fn. 28, quoting Letter from Marnie C. Lambert, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (Aug. 11, 2017) (“PIABA Letter”).

xvii    Chairman Jay Clayton, Public Comments from Retail Investors and Other Interested Parties on Standards of Conduct for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Public Statement, June 1, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-chairman-clayton-2017-05-31.

xviii   See Reg. BI Proposal.

xix Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xx In a related SEC proposal regarding investment advisers that was also dated April 18, 2018, the SEC stated that “[a]n investment adviser’s fiduciary duty is similar to, but not the same as, the proposed obligations of broker-dealers under Regulation Best Interest,” and that “we are not proposing a uniform standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers in light of their different relationship types and models for providing advice[….]” See Proposed Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; Request for Comment on Enhancing Investment Adviser Regulation, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-4889 (April 18, 2018), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/ia-4889.pdf.

xxi Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xxii Reg. BI, subparagraph (B), Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xxiii   Reg. BI Proposal, at 404-405.

Subparagraph (b)(2) of Reg. BI would define “retail customer’s investment profile” as including, but not be limited to, “the retail customer’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information the retail customer may disclose to the broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer in connection with a recommendation.” Reg. BI Proposal, at 406.

xxiv   Reg. BI Proposal, at 405.

xxv      Reg. BI Proposal, at 406-407

SEC Proposes Regulation Best Interest for Brokers

On April 18, 2018, the SEC proposed “Regulation Best Interest,” which is the latest in a long and disputed line of proposed attempts by various governmental bodies to homogenize the duties owed by brokers and investment advisers to their respective clients. Professionals in the financial services industry and others should take note that they have until approximately July 23, 2018i to file a public comment on the proposed SEC rule, and investors should take this opportunity to educate themselves on the current differences between “brokers” and “investment advisers,” including the different standard of care that each owe their clients.

BACKGROUND

For decades, customers of the financial services industry have been confused by (if not outright unaware of) the different “standards of care” that their “brokers” and “investment advisers” have owed them.

On the one hand, “[a]n investment adviser is a fiduciary whose duty is to serve the best interests of its clients, including an obligation not to subordinate clients’ interests to its own. Included in the fiduciary standard are the duties of loyalty and care.”ii Investment advisers typically charge for their services via an annual fee assessed as a percentage of the “assets under management” (the so-called “AUM”) that the investment adviser “manages” for the client. The primary regulator of an investment adviser is either the SEC (usually for relatively larger investment advisers – i.e., those managing more than $100 million AUM) or a state securities commission (usually for relatively smaller investment advisers – i.e., those managing less than $100 million AUM).

On the other hand, brokers “generally must become members of FINRA” and are merely required to “deal fairly with their customers.”iii  FINRA Rule 2111 requires, in part, that a broker “must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the [broker] to ascertain the customer’s investment profile” (the “suitability” standard).iv  Rather than a percentage of AUM, brokers’ compensation is typically derived from commissions they charge on each of the trades they execute for their clients. FINRA, a non-governmental organization, is the primary regulator for almost all brokers in the U.S.

At first blush, a layman retail client could easily be excused for struggling to understand the difference between the requirements of an investment adviser to “serve the best interests of its clients” and those of a broker to “deal fairly with their clients.” This confusion is exacerbated when a broker is also registered as an investment adviser, thus clouding what “hat” the advisor is wearing when dealing with a client.

Tortured Regulatory History

Regulator concern about this confusion has existed for decades.  In 2004, the SEC retained consultants to conduct focus group testing to ascertain, in part, how investors differentiate the roles, legal obligations, and  compensation between investment advisers and broker-dealers. The results were striking:

In general, [the focus] groups did not understand that the roles and legal obligations of investment advisers and broker-dealers were different. In particular, they were confused by the different titles (e.g., financial planner, financial advisor, financial consultant, broker-dealer, and investment adviser), and did not understand terms such as “fiduciary.”v

In 2006, the SEC engaged RAND to conduct a large-scale survey on household investment behavior, including whether investors understood the duties and obligations owed by investment advisers and broker-dealers to each of their clients. First, it should be noted, “RAND concluded that it was difficult for it to identify the business practices of investment advisers and broker-dealers with any certainty.”vi  Second, RAND surveyed 654 households (two-thirds of which were considered “experienced”) and conducted six focus groups, and reported that such participants –

…could not identify correctly the legal duties owed to investors with respect to the services and functions investment advisers and brokers performed. The primary view of investors was that the financial professional – regardless of whether the person was an investment adviser or a broker-dealer – was acting in the investor’s best interest.vii

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated the SEC to conduct a study to evaluate, among other things, “Whether there are legal or regulatory gaps, shortcomings, or overlaps in legal or regulatory standards in the protection of retail customers relating to the standards of care for providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers that should be addressed by rule or statute,” and to consider ”whether retail customers understand or are confused by the differences in the standards of care that apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers.”viii A conclusion of that study was as follows:

[T]he Staff recommends the consideration of rulemakings that would apply expressly and uniformly to both broker-dealers and investment advisers, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers, a fiduciary standard no less stringent than currently applied to investment advisers under Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2).

In 2013, the SEC issued a “request for information” on the subject of a  potential “uniform fiduciary standard,”ixbut never promulgated a rule after receiving more than 250 comment letters from “industry groups, individual market participants, and other interested persons[….]”x

Finally, on April 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor adopted a new, expanded definition of “fiduciary” to include those who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of an ERISA plan or IRA (in other words, certain “brokers”) (the “DOL Fiduciary Rule”). Many brokerage firms and others (such as insurance companies) made operational and licensing adjustments to prepare for the DOL Fiduciary Rule while various lawsuits were filed in attempts to invalidate the controversial rule. Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the DOL Fiduciary Rule on March 15, 2018.xi

“Suitability” Standard vs. “Fiduciary” Standard

The “suitability” standard of a broker is a far cry from the “fiduciary” standard of an investment adviser.  As the SEC has stated, “Like many principal-agent relationships, the relationship between a broker-dealer and an investor has inherent conflicts of interest, which may provide an incentive to a broker-dealer to seek to maximize its compensation at the expense of the investor it is advising.”xii  Put more bluntly, “there is no specific obligation under the Exchange Act that broker-dealers make recommendations that are in their customers’ best interest.”xiii

FINRA (including under its former name, NASD) has certainly striven to close that gap via its own interpretations and disciplinary proceedings, and has succeeded to a point.  Specifically, a number of SEC administrative rulings have confirmed FINRA’s interpretation of FINRA’s suitability rule as requiring a broker-dealer to make recommendations that are “consistent with his customers’ best interests” or are not “clearly contrary to the best interest of the customer.”xiv However, the SEC has highlighted that these interpretations are “not explicit requirement[s] of FINRA’s suitability rule.”xv

This lower duty of care for brokers (as opposed to investment advisers, who have a fiduciary duty) has had and continues to have purportedly large and definitive financial consequences for retail investors:

Conflicted advice causes substantial harm to investors. Just looking at retirement savers, SaveOurRetirement.com estimates that investors lose between $57 million and $117 million every day due to conflicted investment advice, amounting to at least $21 billion annually.xvi

A 2015 report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated that –

[…]conflicts of interests cost middle-class families who receive conflicted advice huge amounts of their hard-earned savings. It finds conflicts likely lead, on average, to:

  • 1 percentage point lower annual returns on retirement savings.
  • $17 billion of losses every year for working and middle class families.

SEC”S NEWLY-PROPOSED “REGULATION BEST INTEREST”

Despite the controversy over the DOL Fiduciary Rule and its recent, apparent defeat, the SEC has been working under the guidance of Chairman Jay Clayton since 2017 to finally rectify the confusion among investors as to the different standards of care applicable to brokers versus investment advisers.xvii

The latest development in that regard has been the proposal by the SEC of “Regulation Best Interest” (“Reg. BI”) on April 18, 2018.xviii  The proposed rule is significant in its proposed breadth. Subparagraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule would provide as follows:

A broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer, or natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer.xix

This is a sea change in the duty of care owed by brokers to their retail clients, as it would effectively enhance a broker’s duty of care to approximate that of an investment adviser’s (at least in regard to retail clients).xx

To satisfy the “best interest” obligation in subparagraph (a)(1), subparagraph (a)(2) of Reg. BI would impose four component requirements: a Disclosure Obligation, a Care Obligation, and two Conflict of Interest Obligations.xxi

For the “Disclosure Obligation,” subparagraph (a)(2)(i) of Reg. BI would require the broker to –

reasonably disclose[] to the retail customer, in writing, the material facts relating to the scope and terms of the relationship with the retail customer, including all material conflicts of interest that are associated with the recommendation.xxii

For the “Care Obligation,” subparagraph (a)(2)(ii) of Reg. BI would require the broker to “exercise[] reasonable diligence, care, skill, and prudence to” do the following:

(A) Understand the potential risks and rewards associated with the recommendation, and have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be in the best interest of at least some retail customers;

(B) Have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is in the best interest of a particular retail customer based on that retail customer’s investment profile and the potential risks and rewards associated with the recommendation; and

(C) Have a reasonable basis to believe that a series of recommended transactions, even if in the retail customer’s best interest when viewed in isolation, is not excessive and is in the retail customer’s best interest when taken together in light of the retail customer’s investment profile.xxiii

Finally, for the two “Conflict of Interest Obligations,” subparagraph (a)(2)(iii) of Reg. BI would require the following:

(A) The broker or dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and at a minimum disclose, or eliminate, all material conflicts of interest that are associated with such recommendations.

(B) The broker or dealer establishes, maintains, and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and disclose and mitigate, or eliminate, material conflicts of interest arising from financial incentives associated with such recommendations.xxiv

Furthermore, Reg. BI would expand the SEC’s records requirement rules (i.e., Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4) to  provide that “[f]or each retail customer to whom a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities is or will be provided,” a broker obtain and maintain for six years “[a] record of all information collected from and provided to the retail customer pursuant to [Reg. BI].”xxv

CONCLUSION

The SEC’s proposed “Regulation Best Interest” is a significant proposal that could have far-reaching impact across the securities brokerage and other segments of the financial services industries. Whether this latest regulatory effort to establish a more consistent standard of care for brokers and investment advisers will succeed is unknown, but the proposed rule is certainly an aggressive step in that regard.

All those interested will have until approximately July 23, 2018 to file a public comment on the proposed rule. Meanwhile, investors should take this opportunity to educate themselves on the current differences between “brokers” and “investment advisers,” including the different standard of care that each owe their clients.

 

ENDNOTES

i   The specific date will be established once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

ii   Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers As Required by Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Jan. 2011) (“Study”), at iii, available at www.sec.gov/news/studies/2011/913studyfinal.pdf.

iii  Study at iv.

iv   FINRA Rule 2111(a), available at http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display.html?rbid=2403&record_id=15663&element_id=9859&highlight=2111#r15663, as of April 23, 2018.

v    Study at 96.

vi   Study at 97.

vii Study at 98.

viii Study at i.

ix   See Request for Data and Other Information: Duties of Brokers, Dealers and Investment Advisers, Exchange Act Release No. 69013 (Mar. 1, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2013/34-69013.pdf.

x    Regulation Best Interest, Exchange Act Release No. 34-83062 (April 18, 2018) (“Reg. BI Proposal”), at 20, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/34-83062.pdf.

xi  Reg. BI Proposal at 27.

xii     Reg. BI Proposal at 7.

xiii Reg. BI Proposal at 8.

xiv Reg. BI Proposal at 14, fn. 15.

xv Reg. BI Proposal at 8, fn. 6.

xvi Reg. BI Proposal at 20, fn. 28, quoting Letter from Marnie C. Lambert, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (Aug. 11, 2017) (“PIABA Letter”).

xvii    Chairman Jay Clayton, Public Comments from Retail Investors and Other Interested Parties on Standards of Conduct for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Public Statement, June 1, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-chairman-clayton-2017-05-31.

xviii   See Reg. BI Proposal.

xix Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xx In a related SEC proposal regarding investment advisers that was also dated April 18, 2018, the SEC stated that “[a]n investment adviser’s fiduciary duty is similar to, but not the same as, the proposed obligations of broker-dealers under Regulation Best Interest,” and that “we are not proposing a uniform standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers in light of their different relationship types and models for providing advice[….]” See Proposed Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; Request for Comment on Enhancing Investment Adviser Regulation, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-4889 (April 18, 2018), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/ia-4889.pdf.

xxi Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xxii Reg. BI, subparagraph (B), Reg. BI Proposal, at 404.

xxiii   Reg. BI Proposal, at 404-405.

Subparagraph (b)(2) of Reg. BI would define “retail customer’s investment profile” as including, but not be limited to, “the retail customer’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information the retail customer may disclose to the broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer in connection with a recommendation.” Reg. BI Proposal, at 406.

xxiv   Reg. BI Proposal, at 405.

xxv      Reg. BI Proposal, at 406-407

 

Private-Equity Firm Manager Prevails in Federal District Court Against the Milstein Family

Private- equity firm manager Dean Barr, along with his attorneys at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, successfully defended claims brought against him by the Milstein Family, the founders of Burlington Coat Factory and investors in Mr. Barr’s firm. The Milsteins had invested several millions of dollars in the fund before its ultimate decline, and claimed that the risks associated with the investment were misrepresented to them. The Connecticut District Court disagreed, and ultimately found that the Milsteins were sophisticated investors, were aware of the risks related to their investment and dismissed the claims brought against Dean Barr. Mr. Barr has retained Pastore & Dailey to bring claims of his own in Connecticut State Court against the Milsteins as well as his former partners.

The full article can be read here: https://m.greenwichtime.com/business/article/Greenwich-financiers-exonerated-in-dispute-with-12606578.php

 

IRS Proposes to Exclude S Corporations from the New Carried Interest Exception

On March 1, 2018, IRS released Notice 2018-18 announcing that Treasury and IRS intend to issue regulations providing guidance on the application of Code §1061, enacted under P.L 115-97 to S corporations. This new statute section treats carried interests of fund managers.

Some background is important. Code Section 1061(a) states that, if one or more applicable partnership interests are held by a taxpayer at any time during the tax year, the excess (if any) of (a) the taxpayer’s net long-term capital gain with respect to such interests for such tax year, over (b) the taxpayer’s net long-term capital gain with respect to such interests for such tax year computed by applying paragraphs (3) and (4) of Section 1222 by substituting “3 years” for “1 year,” shall be treated as short-term capital gain. Such gain is taxable at the holder’s marginal income tax rate, which may be as high as 37% (plus the 3.8% net investment income tax, if applicable).

Section 1061(c)(1) defines “applicable partnership interest” as any interest in a partnership which, directly or indirectly, is transferred to (or is held by) the taxpayer in connection with the taxpayer’s performance of substantial services, or any other related person, in any applicable trade or business. An “applicable trade or business” means any activity conducted on a regular, continuous and substantial basis which, regardless of whether the activity is conducted in one or more entities, consists, in whole or in part, of: (A) raising or returning capital, and (B) either: (i) investing in (or disposing of) specified assets (or identifying specified assets for such investment or disposition), or (ii) developing specified assets. The term “specified assets” means securities, commodities, real estate held for rental or investment, cash or cash equivalents, options or derivative contracts with respect to any of the foregoing, and an interest in a partnership to the extent of the partnership’s proportionate interest in any of the foregoing.

Section 1061(c)(4)(A) provides that the term “applicable partnership interest” does not include any interest in a partnership held directly or indirectly by a corporation. (emphasis added).

Being able to continue to treat carried interest as a capital gain, at a 20% rate is an advantage to a fund manager, of course, so access to the exemption under Section 1061 has become notably important to hedge fund managers.[1] It is not clear that the increase of the holding period to qualify for capital treatment will actually have much effect, though, as the average holding period for private equity is around 6 years.[2]

So, it appears that managers are hoping that placing carried interest in a single member LLC, then electing to have the LLC treated as an S corporation, will qualify them for exemption from the three-year holding period to access capital gain treatment.

Notice 2018-18 states that regulations will be forthcoming that provide that the term “corporation,” as used in Code section 1061(c)(4)(A) does not include an S corporation, the plain language of the statute notwithstanding. While Section 1061(f) authorizes Treasury to issue regulations “as is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section,” it offers no further guidance.

Consider that the interpretation promulgated in Notice 2018-18 proposes treatment, for this purpose, of an S corporation as an individual. This is not without precedent. In Rev. Rul. 93-36, the Service held that certain bad deduction rules, while generally not applicable to corporations, apply to S corporations because of the “same manner” device used in Code §1363(b).[3] The Tax Court has taken a slightly different approach. In Rath v. Commissioner, the court declined to allow Section 1244 loss treatment, which is applicable only to small business corporation stock sold by an individual or partnership, to stock sold by an S corporation.[4]

Also worth noting is that Notice 2018-18 is conspicuously silent on its authority to exclude S corporations from access to Code Section 1061(c)(4)(A). It may be that the Service hopes this preemptive announcement has the effect of discouraging the growing number of fund managers seeking to access treatment as a corporation for purposes of exempting carried interests from higher tax exposure.

 

[1] According to a report in Bloomberg, there was a 19% increase in LLC filings in Delaware during December of 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-14/new-hedge-fund-tax-dodge-triggers-wild-rush-back-into-delaware

[2] The New York Times reported this figure in November of 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/business/republican-tax-plan-carried-interest.html

[3] The revenue ruling states that, but for certain exceptions enumerated in §1363(b), an S corporation’s taxable income is computed in the same manner as an individual’s income. Given that §166 is not specifically listed as an exception to the general rule of §1363(b), the revenue ruling concludes that §166 applies to an S corporation in the same manner as it applies to an individual. Thus, an S corporation must claim a short-term capital loss for its wholly worthless nonbusiness debt.

[4] 101 T.C. 196 (1993)

Update on the New Tax Law

This is a summary of some of the changes to federal tax law that have been made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December of 2017. These changes are effective for tax years beginning in 2018 unless otherwise noted.

Corporate Tax Rates Have Been Reduced. The corporate income tax rate is now set at a flat 21%. Previously, rates were graduated across four income brackets.

Dividends Received Deduction Has Been Reduced. This deduction is available to corporations that receive dividends from other corporations. Corporations that own 20% or more of a company that pays them dividends may now deduct only 65% of those dividends, reduced from the previous 80%. Corporations that own less than 20% of the dividend payor will see their DRD shrink from 70% to 50%.

Corporate AMT Repealed. The Alternative Minimum Tax, as it applies to corporations, has been repealed.

Alternative Minimum Tax Credit. The elimination of the corporate AMT notwithstanding, the corporate AMT credit remains. For tax years beginning after 2017 and before 2022, the credit is refundable is an amount equal to 50% of the excess of the AMT credit for the year over the credit allowable for the year against regular tax liability. Hence, the full amount of the credit will be available in tax years beginning before 2022.

Modification of the NOL Deduction. Net Operating Losses arising in tax years ending after 2017 may only be carried forward, no longer back. Nonetheless, a two-year carryback for certain farming losses is allowed. NOLs may now be carried forward indefinitely, whereas they formerly expired after 20 years. This can be taken into account as a useful tax planning tool, especially in connection with indefinitely carried-forward deferred tax liabilities, such as amortization of goodwill. For losses incurred after 2017, the NOL deduction is limited to 80% of taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction. NOL carryovers are adjusted to take the 80% limitation into account.

New Limitation on Business Interest Deduction. Every business, regardless of its form (corporation, LLC, etc), is limited to a deduction for business interest equal to 30% of its adjusted taxable income. For pass-through entities, such as partnerships and S-corporations, the limit determination is made at the entity level. Adjusted taxable income is computed without regard to the repealed domestic production activities deduction and, for tax years beginning after 2017 and before 2022, without regard for deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion. Any business interest disallowed under this rule is carried into the following year, and, generally, may be carried forward indefinitely. The limitation does not apply to taxpayers (other than tax shelters) with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less for the three-year period ending with the prior tax year. Real property trades or businesses can opt out of the rule by electing to use the alternative depreciation system for real property used in their trades or businesses. Partnerships are affected by additional rules.

Domestic Production Activities Deduction is Repealed. The DPAD previously allowed taxpayers 9% (or, in the cases of certain oil and gas activities, 6%) of the lesser of the taxpayer’s (a) qualified production activities income (QPAI) or (b) taxable income for the year, limited to 50% of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer for the year. QPAI was, under the former rules, the taxpayer’s receipts, minus expenses allocable to the receipts, from: i) property manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted within the United States; ii) qualified film productions; iii) production of electricity, natural gas, or potable water; iv) construction activities performed in the U.S.; and  v) certain engineering or architectural services.

New Business Expense and Fringe Benefit Rules. The new law eliminates the 50% deduction for business entertainment expenses. The previous law’s 50% limit on deductible business meals is now expanded to include meals purchased from an in-house cafeteria or other food service establishment on the employer’s business premises. Also, the deduction for transportation fringe benefits (such as parking and public transportation subsidies) is now eliminated. Note, however, such subsides remain excluded from income for employees. On the other hand, reimbursements to employees for bicycle commuting are deductible by the employer but not excludible from income by the employee. No deduction is allowed for transportation expenses that are the equivalent of commuting for employees, except as may be provided for the safety of the affected employees.

Penalties and Fines. Under prior law, deductions were not allowed for fines and penalties paid to a government for the violation of any law. Now, the tax law provides that no deduction is allowed for any otherwise deductible amount paid or incurred by suit, agreement, or otherwise to, or at the direction of a government or specified nongovernmental entity in relation to the violation of any law or investigation or inquiry by the government or entity into potential violations of any law. There is an exception for any payment the taxpayer establishes as either restitution (including property remediation), or an amount required to establish compliance with any law that was violated or involved in the investigation or inquiry that is identified in the court order or settlement agreement as such a payment. There is also an exception for amounts paid or incurred as taxes due.

Sexual Harassment. The new law, effective for amounts paid or incurred after December 22, 2017 provides that no deduction is allowed for any settlement, payout, or attorney fees related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if the payments are subject to a nondisclosure agreement.

Lobbying Expenses. The law now disallows deductions for lobbying expenses paid or incurred after the date of enactment with respect to lobbying expenses related to legislation before local government bodies, including Indian tribal governments. Previously, such expenses were deductible.

Family and Medical Leave Credit. A new general business credit is available to eligible employers for tax years beginning in 2018 and 2019. The credit is equal to 12.5% of wages such employers pay to qualifying employees on family and medical leave if the rate of payment is 50% of wages normally paid to that employee. The credit increases by .25%, up to a maximum of 25% for each percentage point by which the payment rate exceeds 50% of regular wages. For this purpose, the maximum leave that may be taken into account for any employee for any year is 12 weeks. Eligible employers are those with with a written policy in place allowing a qualifying full-time employee at least two weeks of paid family and medical leave a year, and employees who are less than full time a prorated amount of leave. A qualifying employee is one that has been employed by the employer for one year or more and who, in the preceding year, had compensation not above 60% of the compensation threshold for highly compensated employees. Paid leave provided as vacation leave, personal leave, or other medical or sick leave is not considered family and medical leave.

Qualified Rehabilitation Credit. The TCJA repeals the 10% credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures for a building that was first placed in service before 1936 and modifies the 20% credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures for a certified historic structure. The 20% credit is available during the five-year period starting with the year the building was placed in service in an amount equal to the ratable share for that year. This is 20% of the qualified rehabilitation expenditures for the building, as allocated ratably to each year in the five-year period. It is intended that the sum of the ratable shares for the five years not exceed 100% of the credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures for the building. The repeal of the 10% credit and modification of the 20% credit takes effect starting in 2018, subject to a transition rule for certain buildings owned or leased at all times after 2017.

Orphan Drug Credit Reduced and Modified. The tax law now reduces and modifies the business tax credit for qualified clinical testing expenses for certain drugs for rarer diseases or conditions, often known as “orphan” drugs.  The credit was equal to 50% of qualified clinical testing expenses, and is now equal to 25% of such expenses, beginning after 2017. Qualified Clinical Testing Expenses are costs incurred to test an orphan drug after it has been approved by the FDA for human testing but before it has been approved for sale. Amounts used in calculating this credit are excluded from the computation of the separate research credit. The law now modifies the credit by allowing a taxpayer to elect to take a reduced orphan drug credit in lieu of reducing otherwise allowable deductions.

Increased Code Section 179 Expensing. The new tax law increases the maximum amount that may be expensed under Code Section 179 to $1 million. If the taxpayer places more than $2.5 million of Section 179 property into service during the year, the $1 million limitation is reduced by the excess over $2.5 million. Both the $1 million and the $2.5 million amounts are indexed for inflation after 2018. The expense election has also been expanded to cover (a) certain depreciable, tangible personal property used mostly to furnish lodging or in connection with furnishing lodging, and (b) listed improvements to nonresidential real property made after it was first placed in service: roofs; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment; fire protection an alarm systems; security systems; and any other building improvements that are not elevators or escalators, do not enlarge the building, and are not attributable to the building’s internal structural framework.

Bonus Depreciation. The law now provides for a 100% first year deduction for qualified new and used property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017 and before 2023. Prior law allowed a 50% deduction, phased out for property placed in service after 2017. The new 100% deduction begins to phase out after 2023.

Depreciation of Qualified Improvement Property. Qualified improvement property is now depreciable using a 15-year recovery period and the straight-line method. Qualified improvement property is any is any improvement to an interior portion of a building that is nonresidential real property placed in service after the building was placed in service. It does not include expenses related to the enlargement of the building, any elevator or escalator, or the internal structural framework. There are no longer separate requirements for leasehold improvement property or restaurant property.

Depreciation of Farming Equipment and Machinery. The tax law now provides, subject to certain exceptions, the cost-recovery period for farming equipment and machinery the original use of which begins with the taxpayer is reduced from 7 to 5 years. Now, in general, the 200% declining balance method may be used in place of the 150% declining balance method that had previously been required.

Luxury Automobile Depreciation Limits. The tax law now provides that, for an automobile for which bonus depreciation is not claimed (see above), the maximum depreciation allowance is now as follows:

Year   Depreciation Allowance
One $10,000
Two $16,000
Three $9,000
Four or Later $5,760

 

These amounts are indexed for inflation after 2018. For passenger automobiles eligible for bonus first year depreciation, the maximum additional first year depreciation allowance remains at $8,000, as provided by prior law.

Computers and Peripheral Equipment. The new law removes computers and peripheral equipment from the definition of listed property. This means that the heightened substantial requirements and often slower cost recovery for listed property no longer apply.

New Rules for Post-2021 Research and Experimentation Expenses. Specified R&E expenses paid or incurred after 2021 in connection with a trade or business will have to be capitalized and amortized ratably over a 5-year period, or 15 years if the business is conducted outside the U.S. The affected expenses include expenses for software development, but do not include expenses for land or depreciable or depletable property used in connection with R&E activities. Note, however, that affected R&E expenses do include the depreciation and depletion allowance for such property. Prior law had provided that, for R&E expenses paid or incurred before 2022, such expenses were, at the taxpayer’s election, currently deductible, capitalized and recovered over the shorter of the useful life of the research or 60 months, or ten years.

Like-Kind Exchange Treatment Limited. Now, the deferral of gain on like-kind exchanges of property held for productive use of property held for productive use in a taxpayer’s trade or business or for investment purposes is limited to like-kind exchanges of real property not held primarily for sale. A transition rule provides that prior law applies to like-kind exchanges of personal property if the taxpayer has either disposed of the property given up or obtained the replacement property before 2018.

Excessive Employee Compensation. Prior law allowed a deduction for compensation paid or accrued with respect to a covered employee of a publicly traded corporation up to $1 million per year. The law provided exceptions for commissions, performance-based pay, stock options, payments to a qualified retirement plan, and amounts excludable from the employee’s gross income. The new law repeals the exceptions for commissions and performance-based pay. It also revises the definition of “covered employee” to include the principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and the three highest paid officers. An individual who is a covered employee for a tax year beginning after 2016 remains a covered employee for all future years.

Clarification of Employee Achievement Awards. An employee achievement award is tax free to the extent the employer can deduct its cost, generally limited to $400 per employee or $1600 for a qualified plan award. An employee achievement award is an item of tangible personal property given to an employee in recognition of length of service or a safety achievement and presented as part of a meaningful presentation. The new law amends the definition of “tangible personal property” to exclude cash, cash equivalents, gift cards, gift coupons, gift certificates (other than from an employer pre-selected limited list), vacations, meals, lodging, theater or sports tickets, stocks, bonds, or similar items, and other non-tangible personal property.

New Deduction for Pass-Through Income. Tax law now provides a 20% deduction for “qualified business income,” defined as income from a trade or business conducted within the U.S. by a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. Recall that limited liability companies being treated, for tax purposes, as partnerships, fall within this category. Investment items, reasonable compensation paid by an S corporation, and guaranteed payments from a partnership, are excluded. The deduction reduces capital income but not adjusted gross income. For taxpayers with taxable incomes above $157,500 ($315,000 for joint filers), (a) a limitation based on W-2 wages paid by the business and the basis of acquired depreciable tangible property used in the business is phased in, and (b) the deduction is phased out for income from certain service-related trades or businesses, such as health, law, consulting, athletics, financial or brokerage services, or where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more employees or owners.

Partnership Technical Termination Rule Repealed. Under prior law, a partnership faced a technical termination, for tax purposes, if, within any 12-month period, there was a sale or exchange of at least 50% of the total interest of partnership capital and profits. This resulted in a deemed contribution of all partnership assets and liabilities to a new partnership in exchange for an interest in it, followed by a deemed distribution of interests in the new partnership from the purchasing partners and continuing partners from the terminated partnership. Some of the tax attributes of the old partnership terminated, its tax year closed, partnership-level elections ceased to apply, and depreciation recovery periods restarted. This often imposed unintended burdens and costs on the parties. The new law repeals this rule.  A partnership termination is no longer triggered if, within a 12-month period, there is a sale of 50% or more of total capital and profits interests. A partnership termination will still occur only if no part or any business, financial operation, or venture of the partnership continues to be carried on by any of its partners in a partnership.

Partnership Loss Limitation Rule. A partner can only deduct his share of partnership loss to the extent of his basis in his partnership interest as of the end of the partnership tax year in which the loss was incurred. IRS has ruled, however, that this loss limitation rule should not apply to limit a partner’s deduction for his share of partnership charitable contributions and foreign taxes paid. However, in the case of partnership charitable contributions of property with a fair market value that exceeds its adjusted basis, the partner’s basis reduction is limited to his share of the basis of the contributed property.

Look-Through Rule on Sale of Partnership Interest. The new tax law provides that gain or loss on the sale of a partnership interest is effectively connected with a U.S. business to the extent the selling partner would have had effectively connected gain or loss had the partnership sold all of its assets on the date of the sale. Such hypothetical gain or loss must be allocated in the same way as is non-separately stated partnership income or loss. Unless the selling partner certifies that he is not a nonresident alien or foreign corporation, the buying partner must withhold 10% of the amount realized on the sale. This rule applies to transfers on or after November 22, 2017 and will cause gain or loss on the sale of an interest in a partnership engaged in a U.S. trade or business by a foreign person to be foreign source.

Change in Tax Treatment of a Profits Interest in a Partnership. Taxation of carried interest held in connection with the performance of services is now calculated on the excess of:

The taxpayer’s net long-term capital gain with respect to those interests for that tax year over

The taxpayer’s net long-term capita gain with respect to those interests for that tax year computed by applying Code section 1222(3) and Code Section 1222(4) by substituting “3 years” for “1 year.”

This amount will be treated as short term capital gain and will apply notwithstanding Code Section 83 or any election in effect under Code section 83(b). Observe also that this calculation applies to  an “applicable partnership interest.” This is defined as any interest in a partnership which, directly or indirectly, is transferred to (or is held by) the taxpayer in connection with the performance of substantial services by the taxpayer, or any other related person, in any applicable trade or business. An interest held by an individual employed by another entity that is conducting a trade or business (which is not an applicable trade or business) and who provides services only to that other entity is not an applicable partnership interest. Code Section 1061(c)(1). Also, expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable partnership interest” is any interest in a partnership held by a corporation. Code Section 1061(c)(4)(A). This language does not limit the exclusion to any type of corporation, so it arguably could be interpreted to allow for an S-corporation to serve as a carried interest partner and thereby avoid the 3-year holding period. While Treasury has stated it will narrow this apparent loophole by regulation, it is not at all clear that it has the authority to do so.

Deduction for Foreign-Source Portion of Dividends. The tax law now provides a 100% deduction for the foreign-source portion of dividends received from specified 10%-owned foreign corporations by domestic corporations that are 10% shareholders of those foreign corporations.  No foreign tax credit is allowed for any taxes paid and accrued as to any dividend for which the deduction is allowed, and those amounts are not treated as foreign source income for purposes of the foreign tax limitation. In addition, if there is a loss on any disposition of stock of the specified 10%-owned foreign corporation, the basis of the domestic corporation in that stock is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of the allowable deduction.

Sales or Exchanges of Stock in Foreign Corporations. Now, if a domestic corporation sells or exchanges stock in a foreign corporation held for over a year, any amount it receives which is treated as a dividend for Code Section 1248 purposes, will be treated as a dividend for purposes of the deduction for dividends received, discussed above. In the same way, any gain received by a CFC from the sale or exchange of stock in a foreign corporation that is treated as a dividend under Code Section 964 to the same extent that it would have been so treated had the CFC been a U.S. person is also treated as a dividend for purposes of the deduction for dividends received.

Incorporation of Foreign Branches. The new tax law now provides that, if a U.S. corporation transfers substantially all of the assets of a foreign branch to a foreign subsidiary, the transferred loss amount must be recognized in the U.S. corporation’s gross income.

Deemed Repatriation. The tax law now requires U.S. shareholders owning at least 10% of a foreign subsidiary to include in income, for the subsidiary’s last tax year before beginning before 2018, the shareholder’s pro-rata share of the undistributed, non-previously taxed post-1986 foreign earnings of the corporation. The inclusion amount is reduced by any aggregate foreign earning and profits deficits, and a partial deduction is allowed such that a shareholder’s effective tax rate is 15.5% on his aggregate foreign cash positions and 8% otherwise. The net tax liability can be spread over a period of up to 8 years, Special rules apply for S corporation shareholders and for RICs and REITs.

Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income. GILTI must now be included in gross income by taxpayers who are shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs). This is the excess of the shareholder’s net CFC tested income over the shareholder’s net deemed tangible income return (10% of the aggregate of the shareholder’s pro rata share of the qualified business asset investment of each CFC with respect to which it is a U.S. shareholder). The GILTI is treated as an inclusion of Subpart F income for the shareholder. Only an 80% foreign tax credit is available for amounts included in income as GILTI.

Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and GILTI. Under the new law, in the case of a domestic corporation, a deduction is allowed equal to the sum of (a) 37.5% of its foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) for the year, plus (b) 50% of the GILTI amount include in gross income (see above for this calculation). Generally, FDII is the amount of a corporation’s deemed intangible income that is attributable to sales of property to foreign persons for use outside the U.S. or the performance of services for foreign persons or with respect to property outside the U.S. or the performance of services for foreign persons or with respect to property outside the U.S.  Coupled with the 21% tax rate, for domestic corporations, these deductions result in effective tax rates of 13.125% on FDII and of 10% on GILTI. The deductions are reduced for tax years after 2025.

Subpart F Changes. The new tax law made several changes to the taxation of Subpart F income of U.S. shareholders of CFCs. Among other things, the new law expands the definition of U.S. shareholders to include U.S. persons who own 10% or more of the total value, and not merely the total vote, of shares of all classes of stock of the foreign corporation. In addition, the requirement that a corporation must be controlled for 30 days before Subpart F inclusions apply has been eliminated.

Base Erosion Prevention. To prevent companies from stripping earnings out of the U.S. through payments to foreign affiliates that are deductible for U.S. tax purposes, a base erosion minimum tax applies to corporations other than RICs, REITs, and S corporations, with average annual gross receipts of $500 million or more that made deductible payments to foreign affiliates that are at least 3% (2% in the case of banks and certain securities dealers) of the corporation’s total deductions for the year. The tax is structured as an alternative minimum tax and applies to domestic corporations, as well as to foreign corporations engaged in a U.S. trade or business in computing the tax on their effectively connected income.

Tax exempt organizations are also affected by the new tax law. Here is a summary of some of the new provisions.

Excise Tax on Exempt Organizations’ Excessive Compensation. Under prior law, executive compensation paid by tax-exempt entities was subject to reasonableness requirements and a prohibition against private inurement. The new tax law adds an excise tax that is imposed on compensation in excess of $1 million paid by an exempt organization to a “covered” employee. The tax rate is set at 21%, equal to the new corporate tax rate. For these purposes, compensation is the sum of: (a) remuneration (other than an excess parachute payment) over $1 million paid to a covered employee by a tax-exempt organization for a tax year; plus (b) any excess parachute payment paid by the organization to a covered employee. A covered employee is an employee or former employee of the organization who is one of its five highest compensated employees for the tax year, or its predecessor for any preceding tax year beginning after 2016. Remuneration is treated as paid when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to the remuneration.

Excise Tax on Private College Investment Income. Previously, the law allowed private colleges and university to be treated as public charities, rather than private foundations, and were therefor not subject to the private foundation excise tax on the net investment income of colleges and universities meeting specified size and asset requirements. The excise tax rate is 1.4% of the institution’s net investment income and applies only to private colleges and universities with at least 500 students, more than half of whom are in the U.S., and with assets of at least $500,000 per student. For this purpose, assets used directly in carrying out the institution’s exempt purposes are not counted. The number of student is based on a daily average of “full time equivalent” students. So, for example, two students carrying half-loads of credits would count as a single, full-time equivalent student. For purposes of the excise tax, net investment income is the institution’s gross investment income minus expenses incurred to produce it, but without the use of accelerated depreciation or percentage depletion.

Exempt Organization’s UBTI Computed Separately for Specific Businesses. Previously, a tax-exempt organization computed its unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) by subtracting deductions directly connected with the unrelated trade or business. If the organization had more than one unrelated trade or business, the organization combined its income and deduction from all of the trades of businesses. Under that approach, a loss from one trade or business could offset income from another unrelated trade or business, thereby reducing overall UBTI. Now, the law provides that an exempt organization cannot use losses from one unrelated trade or business to offset income from another such business. Gains and losses are calculated and applied to each unrelated trade or business separately. This differs from the consolidated treatment available to for-profit corporations which are members of affiliated groups. The new tax law provides an exception to this separate allocation rule for net operating losses from pre-2018 tax years that are carried forward.

Exempt Organization’s UBTI to Include Disallowed Fringe Benefits Costs. The new tax law provides that an exempt organization’s unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) must include any nondeductible entertainment expenses and costs incurred for any qualified transportation fringe benefit, parking facility used in qualified parking, or any on-premises athletic facility. However, UBTI does not include any such amount to the extent it is directly connected with an unrelated trade or business regularly carried on by the organization.

This new tax law includes many other changes which can affect you and your business in substantial ways. We are happy to discuss with you how you might plan for the effects of these changes. Please do not hesitate to contact us.

 _____________________________________________________________________________________

[1] This note illustrates general principles only and is not intended as tax or legal advice. You should discuss your circumstances with a qualified professional before taking any action. In some jurisdictions, this may be interpreted as attorney advertising.

New York Employers: Anti-Sexual Harassment Training and Best Practices

As evidenced by recent news headlines throughout the country, it is imperative for employers to institute policies and procedures designed to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and to fully address any complaints regarding such conduct as soon as they arise. How employers handle general allegations and formal complaints is critical to both mitigating the harm caused to the victim of the harassment, as well as the potential liabilities of the employer associated with the conduct. The following summary will discuss certain key aspects of any well crafted set of policies and procedures relating to sexual harassment, as well as note important concepts for every employer to be aware of in addressing claims of misconduct.

Be Informed

Harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances and any verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. However, sexual harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature – it can include any offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.[1] Both the victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Even simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that may not seem very serious, can be illegal especially when they are frequent, severe, create a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.[2] While many of these concepts may seem obvious to management, it is never wise to assume that the general work force is cognizant of the totality of circumstances that can (and do) give rise to harassment complaints. For this reason, as further discussed below, proper employee training is an absolute necessity to protecting your employees from harassment, and your company from related liabilities.

Best Practices

There is no requirement under New York law that employers provide sexual harassment training, which is in contrast to other states like Connecticut that requires all employers with fifty or more employees to provide two hours of sexual harassment training for supervisors within six months of the start of each supervisor’s employment.[3] However, to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and, as much as possible, mitigate liability for the employer, we recommend the following best practices be embraced and implemented by New York employers.

  • Implement a strong anti-sexual harassment policy and train all employees on its contents.
  • Enforce your policy and hold employees accountable.
  • Promote an inclusive culture in the workplace by fostering an environment of professionalism and respect for personal differences.
  • Foster open communication and early dispute resolution, particularly with respect to establishing a procedure through which employees can report instances of sexual harassment without fear of repercussions from either the harasser or the company in general. This may minimize the chance of misunderstandings escalating into legally actionable problems.
  • Establish neutral and objective criteria to avoid subjective employment decisions based on personal sterotypes or hidden biases.
  • Take advantage of and implement alternative dispute-resolution practices in firm policies and employee contracts.
Recommended Content of Your Policy

At a minimum, an anti-harassment policy should contain the following statements:

  • The employer is committed to maintaining a workplace free from sexual harassment.
  • Sexual harassment is unlawful and subjects the employer to liability.
  • Any possible sexual harassment will be investigated whenever management receives a complaint or otherwise knows of possible sexual harassment occurring.
  • Those who engage in sexual harassment will be subject to disciplinary action.
  • Explain and define sexual harassment, so that employees will know what actions are prohibited.
  • Encourage employees to complain of sexual harassment that they experience or learned was (or may have been) experienced by another employee.
  • Indicate to whom employees can complain about sexual harassment (this should, particularly with smaller employers, include all owners and managers, or otherwise provide open access for employee complaints).
  • Require employees to cooperate with management during any investigation of sexual harassment .
  • Require all supervisory and management staff to report any complaint that they receive, or any harassment that they observe, to a specifically designated point person for intaking such complaints. This is particularly important given that a supervisor’s or manager’s knowledge of sexual harassment may create liability for the employer.[4]
The Faragher-Ellerth Defense

The Faragher-Ellerth defense, outlined by the Supreme Court in the companion cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 24 U.S. 742 (1998), is an affirmative defense employers may use to defend against claims of harassment where:

  • no tangible adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff (for example, discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment);
  • the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and
  • the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm (for example, by not taking advantage of reporting procedures outlined in an anti-harassment policy).

Thus, if a company maintains and implements effective anti-harassment policies and the employee fails to follow such policies by failing to report any harassing conduct to the company, the company may be entitled to avoid liability through the Faragher/Ellerth defense.  As well, where an employee follows the policy and complains to the company regarding sexual harassment, if the Company promptly investigates and remedies the issue, the company may also be entitled to avoid liability through the Faragher/Ellerth defense.

Addressing Legal Concerns

If an employee or other person suffers sexual harassment, the first step they should take is to follow their employer’s guidelines for reporting it (which is why it is critical to have these policies in place!). There are also laws that protect against any retaliation by employers against an employee who has reported incidents of sexual harassment, and having a robust anti-harassment program in place will help an employer ensure that the employee’s complaint is not only being seriously addressed, but give the employer an opportunity to discuss anti-retaliation laws with the relevant employees to mitigate any possibility that retaliation (and thus, increased employer liability) will result from a complaint.[5]. Only if employers implement strong anti-harassment policies, take sexual harassment allegations seriously and adhere to the aforementioned preventative steps, will the employer be able to create a safe workplace for its employees and avoid the potential pitfalls associated with sexual harassment claims.

If you have any questions regarding these issues, would like assistance drafting or restructuring existing policies, or need an employment law professional to conduct on-site workplace training, please contact Christina Volpe at (203) 658-8460 or (646) 665-2202, Michele Martin at (352) 316-6955, or Pastore & Dailey LLC generally at (203) 658-8454.

____________________________________________________________________________________

[1] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sexual Harassment

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

[2] Id.

[3] See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-54(15)(B)); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 46a-54-204.

[4] See Guidance on Sexual Harassment For All Employers in New York State NY Division of Human Rights https://dhr.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidance-sexual-harassment-employers.pdf

[5] See The Fair Labor Standard Act; New York Fair Labor Standards Act.

Regulators Expect More with Vendor Risk Management

Banks and financial services firms continue to grapple with regulators’ growing demands to better manage cyber risks created by third-party vendors, but they should not focus solely on compliance, according to a panel of former regulators and cyber experts. Viewing third-party risk within a wider risk management framework would lead to greater security maturity, agreed the banking, legal, and cyber experts, who participated in a December 2017 webinar hosted by the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) and CyberFortis, a cybersecurity solution service provider for the financial sector.

The panel included a former state banking commissioner, a former regulator who helped create the recently-implemented New York DFS cyber regulations, and a nationally known legal expert who works on cybersecurity cases, including those involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Although headlines tend to be dominated by cyberattacks on large banks or financial firms, organizations of any size are at risk, said panelist David Cotney, former Massachusetts Banking Commissioner and advisor to CyberFortis. He said he hears daily reports of hackers attacking the defenses of banks both large and small, including looking for easy entry points such as third parties connected to banks’ systems.

These known vulnerabilities have forced federal regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), to require financial institutions to have a strong vendor risk management system. This includes establishing risk tolerance, ongoing monitoring, and independent reviews. There is also an expectation that boards will be actively involved throughout the vendor risk management process.

Cotney issued a warning about compliance versus security, noting that some regulators have expressed private concerns that too many bankers think simply meeting the baseline expectation under the FFIEC’s Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) is sufficient. “Threats evolve and a bank’s environment is not static. They are changing their products and services, they are hiring and terminating employees, and their networks and IT environments are also undergoing changes and updates,” said Cotney. “Instead of thinking of the CAT as a ‘check the box annual exercise,’ use it to reexamine your inherent risk profile and maturity level prior to introducing new products, services, or initiatives, which includes new third-party connections or mergers and acquisitions,” he suggested.

To secure the assets of both a bank and its customers, it is necessary to move from a baseline approach (compliance-driven) to a higher maturity level approach (enterprise risk), which Cotney said is something regulators are specifically looking for in a bank’s security program.

NY DFS REGS INFLUENCE OTHERS

The panel also addressed how the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) regulation can be viewed as a bellwether for how all regulators are viewing cybersecurity risks and more specifically, third-party cybersecurity issues. “Must we be our brother’s keeper?” asked Alexander Sand, now an associate at Eversheds Sutherland and a former NY DFS regulator who helped create the new requirements. “To the extent that third parties are touching your network and holding your data, then yes,” he answered.

Because regulators want to see that financial institutions are making their decisions based on risk, having a risk assessment performed is crucial and will help with meeting strict NY DFS deadlines. There are both internal and external risk assessments involved, said Sand. “Internally, what are the risks to the bank’s ability to operate if a significant operational vendor goes down, and externally, what are the risks of third party security practices?” Although the Third-Party Service Provider Security Policy deadline is March 1, 2019, Sand said NY DFS expects this to be a large undertaking that organizations will need to begin addressing immediately.

The requirements are robust and include written policies and procedures based on the risk assessment that address:

  • Identifying and assessing the risks of third-party service providers
  • Setting out minimum cyber practices banks require
  • Establishing due diligence processes
  • Performing periodic assessments of the risks of third-party service providers

While this regulation does not require specific controls to be put in place for all vendors, Sand said it does emphasize certain controls that NY DFS wants organizations to consider, such as multi-factor authentication, encryption of data in transit and at rest, vendor breach notifications, and confirmation of vendor’s cybersecurity practices. “Give yourself plenty of time to deal with this third-party issue,” Sand concluded. “At the end of the day what will be better for your customers and your bank is to be proactive and thoughtful so that you’re meeting your organizations’ specific risks rather than pulling something off the shelf.”

START BY SETTING PRIORITIES & POLICY

“Banks will say to me, ‘I have 120 vendors. How can I get my arms around this?’” noted Jack Hewitt, Partner at Pastore and Dailey, LLP. He recommended that banks identify all vendors and prioritize by importance. Then look at the auditor reports and reports of breaches. But even before tackling that, Hewitt said it’s first necessary to create, or update, your vendor management policy, adding that harmonization is essential. “I recommend you blend together procedures based on the applicable regs from the relevant authorities such as the NY DFS, OCC, SEC, and FINRA. Your policy statement should provide vendors with appropriate guidance to ensure the bank’s security.”

An organization’s vendor risk management program should be matched by that of their vendors’. This ensures that any connected systems are taking the same security measures that you are, helping mitigate risk and shoring up inherent vulnerabilities. The vendor management policy and its purpose should be communicated to both staff and vendors so that all involved parties are on the same page, said Hewitt, who also echoed Sand’s thoughts regarding the importance of a risk assessment.

This analysis will identify and provide insight into what elements of risk exist, which often includes threats stemming from existing vendors. Hewitt outlined as series of specific steps banks should take, including recommendations on how to craft robust contracts, what detailed procedures vendors should be required to have, the management oversight and continuous monitoring practices every vendor program should include, and what types of records should be maintained. “Many banks are beginning to use new technologies such as robo-advisors, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, which all involve third-party vendors,” said Hewitt. “Before you begin to engage actively with a vendor in these areas, complete your assessment ahead of time, have management controls in place, and be able to analyze on a continuous basis or it could compound problems in the event you do have an intrusion.”

The panelists concluded with a caution that regulators recognize the burdens on financial institutions, but will take action when they deem that an organization has actively chosen not to comply with regulations or improve its security posture. They also agreed that while banks’ actions are often driven by compliance, achieving more mature security and the resilience it generates will require banks to look beyond checking the box.

New Partnership Tax Audit Rules Now in Effect

As part of a budget compromise, the Bipartisan Budget Act was enacted on November 2, 2015, and became effective on January 1, 2018. Title XI of the BBA is a revenue device and works to raise tax revenue without raising taxes by substantially streamlining IRS partnership audit procedures, including audit procedures for LLCs which are treated as partnerships for tax purposes.

Opt-Out for Small Partnerships

Small partnership can elect out of the new rules if:

  • The partnership is required to issue no more than 100 Schedules K-1
  • Each partner is an individual an estate of a deceased partner, and S corporation, a C corporation, or a foreign entity that would be treated as a C corporation if it were domestic
  • An election is timely filed with a timely filed return providing the names and identification numbers of the partners and
  • The partnership notifies each partner of the election

Hence, a partnership that includes among its partners another partnership or trust, including a grantor trust, may not opt out. Also, a partnership with a tax-exempt entity as a partner will need to determine if the entity is a C corporation. When an S corporation is a partner, the names and taxpayer identification numbers of the S corporation’s shareholders, together with the S corporation itself, must be included in the election statement, and the Schedules K-1 of the S corporation count toward the 100 shareholder limit for the opt-out qualification. Observe that IRS is authorized to issue rules allowing partnership to elect to opt-out regardless of the type of entities owning a partnership interest, so long as the total number of Schedules K-1 required to be issued by the partnership and its partners do not exceed 100 and the partnership discloses the identities of indirect partners.

The apparent counting problem created by issuance of multiple Forms K-1 to the same partner who holds different classes of interests in the partnership will likely need to be addressed by regulation.

In the same way, regulations will be needed to clarify whether a disregarded entity or nominee holding an interest will be disregarded in determining who owns the interest. Related to this issue will be the need for regulations for guidance as to whether a partnership interest held by an IRA, SEP, or other closely held retirement entity will be treated as owned by the individual beneficiary.

New Partnership Representative

The old rules called for appointment of a tax maters partner in many cases involving partnerships. Beginning with 2018, any audits will be managed at the partnership level by a Partnership Representative (PR). We are seeing many LLCs and other partnership entities attempting to comply with this change by merely changing nomenclature within their operating agreements. This, however, disregards the dramatically different authority the PR has from the old TMP.

Under the BBA, unless a partnership can and does opt-out (recall the opt-out election must be made annually) the IRS will deal only with the PR. The partners have no rights to appeal a tax assessment. The PR also has the authority to:

  • Waive the statute of limitations and other defenses
  • Communicate with the IRS and agree to settle the total tax liability of all the partners
  • After the total tax assessment is agreed, the PR can elect either to
    • Allocate the total amount among the partners enabling IRS to collect a specific amount from each partner or
    • Pay, at the partnership lever, the tax on behalf of each partner

The BBA eliminates the notion of Notice Partners who were formerly entitled to receive notice directly from the IRS. Under the new regime, an audit might commence and be completed, and the partners might never hear about it until they receive a non-appealable tax bill from the IRS.

So, in addition to accommodating the tax liability allocation scheme the BBA now imposes on partnerships,* partnership agreements should be amended to include:

A dispute resolution mechanism (e.g. mediation, arbitration) to manage disputes by partners who don’t agree with the acts of the PR

  • A collection mechanism for circumstances in which the partnership pays a tax assessment at the entity level but one or more partners does not voluntarily pay his share of the assessment
  • A reconciliation mechanism for cases where the PR makes a good faith error
  • Notice obligations as between the PR and the partners
  • Liquidity provisions, such as insurance, for the PR’s acts and omissions
  • Selection of the PR and successor PR

Operating agreements should also address the following issues:

  • Does a decision to extend the statute of limitations or a decision to settle an audit case require a simple majority vote of the partners, a majority of each class or a unanimous vote?
  • How should the PR settle the case if there is no agreement among the partners?
  • How and when should the PR notify the partners of correspondence and other communications with the IRS?
  • How should the partnership’s tax liability be allocated among the partners and the classes of partners? How should exiting and entering partners be obliged to manage tax liability of which they are nit yet aware?
  • Should any additional tax simply be paid by the partnership and charged against each partner’s account as a distribution? Or should the tax-payment responsibility be “pushed-out” to each partner so the IRS handles the collection? This election must be made within a very short 45 day window.
  • The new law presumes that all partners are taxed at the highest possible bracket, unless the PR proves otherwise within 270 days of making a settlement. How and when should the partners supply information to the PR that will enable him to protect their right to use the lower tax brackets?

This note does not include review of the entire effect on the BBA on partnerships. It is intended only as an illustration of selected general principles.

__________________________________________________________________________

* The BBA now imposes imputed tax underpayments and all related penalties and interest directly on the partnership at the highest individual marginal tax rate. One of the several effects of this approach is that even partners who were not members of the partnership at the time the tax liability was incurred will be charged with the associated tax liability.