Last week, the Treasury Department released the “Green Book,” formally known as the General Explanations of the Administration’s Revenue Proposals. Among its proposals, the Green Book includes a new proposal that could signal stepped-up enforcement of section 409A, as well as a new tool for the IRS. Section 409A, adopted almost two decades ago, represented a significant shift in the tax treatment of non-qualified deferred compensation plans. Prior to its adoption, these plans often relied on traditional concepts of constructive receipt to determine when it was required that a plan participant recognize income. Section 409A overlaid those principles with significant new rules regarding the time that an election to defer compensation must be made, as well as limitations on the time and form of payment of deferred compensation. Continue Reading Administration Proposes New Withholding Requirements for 409A Failures
Administration Proposes W-9 Requirement for More Reportable Payments
Last week, the Treasury Department released the “Green Book,” formally known as the General Explanations of the Administration’s Revenue Proposals. Among its proposals, the Green Book suggests the expansion of the requirement to collect Forms W-9 to additional payments.
Under current law, payors are required to backup withhold on certain payments to payees that fail to provide a taxpayer identifying number (“TIN”) in advance of the payment being made. Currently, the backup withholding rate is 24%. In general, payments are potentially subject to backup withholding if the payments are required to be reported on Forms 1099-K, 1099-MISC, or 1099-NEC. Thus, payments made to payees that are “exempt recipients,” such as corporations, banks, and insurance companies, are not subject to backup withholding. If a payor fails to collect the payee’s TIN in advance of making the payment, the payor is liable for any failure to withhold the required backup withholding tax.
A subset of payments subject to reporting—interest, dividends, patronage dividends, and gross proceeds required to be reported by brokers—are subject to a heightened TIN collection requirement. Payors of such payments must obtain a certified TIN on a Form W-9 or a substitute Form W-9, signed by the payee under penalties of perjury. Payors of other types of reportable payments may generally obtain a TIN in any manner—over the phone, on an application form, on an invoice, or in an email, for example.
The Administration’s proposal would provide authority to Treasury to expand the scope of payments beyond those currently subject to the Form W-9 requirement. Accordingly, payors would need to potentially revise their vendor on-boarding process to collect certified TINs in advance of making the first payment. The proposal would be effective for payments made after December 31, 2022, but it appears that it would not take effect until Treasury issued regulations under section 3406 to expand the current certified TIN requirement
Treasury Stakes Out a Position on “On-Demand Pay” Arrangements
Last week, the Treasury Department released the “Green Book,” formally known as the General Explanations of the Administration’s Revenue Proposals. Among its proposals, the Green Book addresses the treatment of on-demand pay arrangements. These arrangements, which have recently grown in popularity, permit employees to access a portion of their earned wages in advance of the employee’s normal pay date. For this reason, they are often referred to as “earned wage access programs.”
One of the potential tax concerns with these arrangements has been that, depending upon the program design, the employee could be considered to be in “constructive receipt” of their earned wages. This creates payroll withholding and depositing obligations for employers regardless of whether the employee actually receives a wage payment. In addition, the program can cause uncertainty regarding how to properly calculate the required FICA tax and income tax withholdings when the employee elects to receive a payment of earned wages. For this reason, some third-parties designing the programs (which are often app-based) have sought either to structure the programs as loans or to avoid the constructive receipt issue by requiring the payment of a small fee when the earned wages are paid. Continue Reading Treasury Stakes Out a Position on “On-Demand Pay” Arrangements
FinCEN Releases Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements: Seven Things To Know
[This post was originally published as an Alert by Covington Financial Services.]
On December 7, 2021, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) invited public comment on its proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) implementing the beneficial ownership disclosure requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or “Act”). Comments to the Proposed Rule are due on February 7, 2022.
As discussed in our prior client alert here, under the CTA, which was passed as part of the 2020 Anti-Money Laundering Act, Congress created a new federal framework for the reporting, disclosure, and use of beneficial ownership information. The CTA aims to combat the illicit use of shell companies to hide the proceeds of crime, and transfer some of the burden of identifying the owners of such companies from financial institutions to the government itself. The Proposed Rule represents one of the first substantial steps in FinCEN’s implementation of the CTA.
This alert summarizes seven key takeaways from the Proposed Rule.
1 – The Proposed Rule Only Addresses Reporting of Beneficial Ownership Information, and Does Not Address Further Disclosure and Use of Such Information
The Proposed Rule represents the first of three formal rulemakings planned by FinCEN to implement the CTA.
Specifically, FinCEN will in the coming months undertake separate rulemaking processes regarding (i) access to and safeguards around information in the contemplated beneficial ownership information database and (ii) revisions to FinCEN’s existing customer due diligence (“CDD”) rule.
Although these rulemaking processes are forthcoming, the current Proposed Rule will have an impact on both future rulemakings. As such, interested stakeholders, including financial institutions subject to the CDD rule, may wish to comment now.
2 – The Proposed Rule Defines “Reporting Company” to Include Trusts and Partnerships
As we previously noted here, a central issue discussed in the related Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) earlier this year was how FinCEN would define “reporting companies” and specifically, how FinCEN would define “other similar entities” — a previously undefined term.
Citing the CTA’s intentionally expansive scope and recent comments from members of Congress, FinCEN has proposed interpreting “other similar entities” broadly, to include any entity that is created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. Consequently, limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships should qualify as “reporting companies,” according to FinCEN. Entities such as general partnerships or joint ventures that are not created through the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office will not be required to file reports with FinCEN. Entities that are registered investment companies or subject to specified exclusions from investment company registration, including exclusions used by certain private equity funds, may also qualify for an exemption.
3 – The Proposed Rule Does Not Introduce Any New Exemptions to the Definition of “Reporting Company”
Under the CTA, Congress required FinCEN to exempt certain entities from registration, and also enabled FinCEN to exempt additional entities, with the concurrence of the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security. The statutory exemptions are numerous and include U.S. public companies and companies with substantial physical operations in the United States. FinCEN, however, has for now declined to exempt any additional entities beyond the 23 exemptions specified in the CTA.
At the same time, FinCEN has clarified the scope of existing exemptions. Most notably, FinCEN has explained that in order for an entity to rely on the so-called “subsidiary exemption” — which exempts a reporting company if its ownership interests are owned or controlled (directly or indirectly) by another exempted entity — the subsidiary must be owned entirely by one (or more) other exempt entities. As such, entities that are partially-owned by an exempt entity cannot benefit from the exemption.
While FinCEN did not discuss in detail why it denied exemptions proposed by the public in response to its earlier ANPRM, FinCEN is not precluded from adding exemptions in the future, including after the final rule’s effective date. FinCEN noted that it will continue to consider whether new exemptions would be appropriate, if prompted.
Accordingly, current non-exempt entities, including entities regulated by other government agencies or foreign governments that believe compliance with the Proposed Rule will be duplicative of existing regulations or overly burdensome, should consider further engagement with FinCEN through the formal comment process or otherwise.
4 – The Proposed Rule Defines “Beneficial Ownership” Broadly and Differently From Existing Definitions
As defined in the CTA, a “beneficial owner” is “any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over such reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of such reporting company.” The CTA did not however define what it means to exercise “substantial control” or what “ownership interests” are. Thus, a key question was whether FinCEN would adopt similar or analogous definitions from existing rules or break new ground. As some had expected, FinCEN decided to break new ground.
With respect to the “ownership” prong, for example, FinCEN has taken a comprehensive and functional approach, including in the definition of “ownership interests” both equity and other type of interests, such as capital or profit interests, convertible instruments, warrants, and other options or privileges that enable an individual to acquire equity or capital in a reporting company.
FinCEN has proposed a similarly broad approach with respect to the “substantial control” prong of “beneficial owner.” Specifically, in a further departure from existing regulations, FinCEN has identified three categories or indicators of an individual who exercises “substantial control.” According to FinCEN, an individual exercises “substantial control” for purposes of the CTA if s/he: (i) serves as a senior officer of a reporting company, (ii) has authority regarding the appointment or removal of any senior officer or dominant majority of the board of directors (or similar body) of a reporting company, and/or (iii) exercises substantial influence, direction of, or decision over important matters of a reporting company.
This last catch-all category may require clarification and guidance in the future. It seeks to capture indirect and unorthodox forms of corporate control, including (as described in the Proposed Rule) individuals’ influence over: (i) the scope of a reporting company’s business; (ii) a reporting company’s potential reorganization, dissolution or merger; (iii) a reporting company’s major expenditures; (iv) compensation schemes and incentive programs for a reporting company’s senior officers; and/or (v) a reporting company’s entrance into, termination of, and/or fulfillment of significant contracts.
Although FinCEN explained that, in its view, this broad definition will likely not create onerous burdens for reporting companies, whether that is accurate remains to be seen. This is especially so since FinCEN has indicated that reporting companies should identify (i) all individuals with “substantial control” (and not just one such person) and (ii) at least one beneficial owner under the “substantial control” prong regardless of whether any other individuals satisfy the “ownership” prong. It is also possible that substantial controllers could face individual liability for an entity’s failure to report. Given these considerations, stakeholders should consider submitting comments to FinCEN requesting more specific guidance.
In its Proposed Rule, FinCEN has carried over the statutory exceptions to the definition of “beneficial owner.” As a result, nominees, intermediaries, custodians, or agents of another individual, most employees (other than, for example, senior officers), and/or creditors (to the extent the creditor does not have the ability to convert a payment right to any form of ownership interest in the reporting company) are not beneficial owners.
5 – The Proposed Rule Does Not Address How FinCEN Will Verify Entities Claiming an Exemption
As summarized in our prior alert here, the CTA exempts a range of companies from the CTA’s reporting requirements, including public companies and companies with substantial onshore operations in the United States. Yet, the CTA left open how precisely FinCEN would verify that entities are properly claiming an exemption.
In its Proposed Rule, FinCEN did not clearly address how entities relying on an exemption are to indicate they are doing so, and in fact implied that it lacked the statutory authority to require an affirmative exemption filing requirement. FinCEN has invited further comment on the appropriateness of permitting exempt entities to voluntarily file exemption certifications.
Entities that expect to take advantage of an exemption should pay close attention to this issue. Instead of a voluntary filing requirement, exempt entities may wish to encourage FinCEN to verify exemptions through existing mechanisms, such as through other government agencies and government-maintained databases. For example, FinCEN could verify exemptions for publicly traded companies with the SEC or based on public securities filings, and it could verify exemptions for financial institutions against registration information maintained by state and federal regulators. These alternative approaches may promote FinCEN’s statutory mandate to “minimize burdens on reporting companies . . . in light of the private compliance costs placed on legitimate businesses.”
6 – The Proposed Rule Articulates the Scope of Reporting Violations, and Allows for Individual Liability
The CTA includes civil and criminal penalties for the willful failure to provide accurate beneficial owner information or to report such information to FinCEN. Such failures are subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day a violation continues or has not been remedied, and a criminal penalty of up to $10,000 in fines and/or up to two years imprisonment.
Notably, the Proposed Rule provides for the possibility of individual liability for reporting violations. Specifically, the Proposed Rule indicates that, even though only a reporting company is directly responsible for submitting beneficial ownership information, a person can either directly or indirectly influence that process. Thus, FinCEN has proposed that individuals involved in the reporting process can be held liable if they willfully provide false or fraudulent information to be filed, if they willfully direct or control another person not to file a report when required, or if they are in substantial control of a reporting company when it fails to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information.
This penalty exposure highlights the need for clear reporting guidance from FinCEN regarding issues that are not clear, including as to the definition of “substantial control.”
7 – FinCEN Invites Further Comment Regarding Disclosing Intermediate Legal Entity Owners
FinCEN has invited further public comment about the Act’s application to intermediate legal entity owners that may not otherwise satisfy the definition of a reporting company.
The CTA does not specifically require a reporting company to disclose each intermediate legal entity in its chain of ownership, particularly if those intermediate entities are themselves not reporting companies. Acknowledging this separation, FinCEN has elected to seek further comments on the issue. Firms, particularly multi-national firms with a limited presence in the U.S. and otherwise regulated in their home jurisdictions, may wish to comment on this issue.
The statutory deadline for FinCEN to promulgate a final beneficial ownership information rule is January 1, 2022. Under the existing rulemaking, however, FinCEN will miss that deadline.
FinCEN has proposed that existing reporting companies must report their beneficial ownership information within one year after the final rule’s effective date — this may be the date of publication of the final rule, or some later date, but in all events existing companies are unlikely to face a reporting deadline until well into 2023. Reporting companies established after the final rule is effective must report their beneficial ownership information within 14 days after creation.
FinCEN has not articulated a timeline for the publication of its next two rules implementing the CTA.
While financial institutions, in particular, may view FinCEN’s forthcoming rulemakings as more directly relevant, there is likely greater flexibility in the rulemaking process at this stage rather than later. Thus, commenting now will be of broad relevance to those interested in the CTA’s overall regulatory framework, including forthcoming revisions to the CDD requirements and financial institutions’ access to the beneficial ownership database to be maintained by FinCEN.
|For further information on the Proposed Rule or the CTA more generally, please contact the members of Covington’s Financial Institutions and Tax practices.
Mike Chittenden +1 202 662 5295 email@example.com
IRS Releases Form 1042-S Data Integrity Tool to Assist Withholding Agents in Complying With Withholding and Reporting Obligations
The Internal Revenue Service recently released an online tool to help U.S. withholding agents comply with withholding and reporting obligations on IRS Form 1042-S, Foreign Person’s U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding. Forms 1042-S are issued by withholding agents to non-U.S. beneficial owners of U.S. source FDAP income under Chapter 3 and to non-U.S. payees who receive U.S. source withholdable payments under Chapter 4. Given the complexity of the Form 1042-S, this tool provides withholding agents with an opportunity to screen their draft Forms 1042-S for errors prior to filing. The Form 1042-S Data Integrity Tool performs a quality review of data before IRS submission at no cost to the user. Continue Reading IRS Releases Form 1042-S Data Integrity Tool to Assist Withholding Agents in Complying With Withholding and Reporting Obligations
Infrastructure Bill Will Terminate Employee Retention Credit Retroactively
Section 80604 of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) amends Section 3134 of the Internal Revenue Code to terminate the employee retention credit for employers subject to closure for COVID-19 effective October 1, 2021. The legislation, which passed the House on November 5 (after passing the Senate on August 10), was presented to President Biden for signature on November 8. It is anticipated that the President will sign the bill soon.
Once enacted, employers may not claim the credit with respect to wages paid after September 30, 2021. The employee retention credit was adopted as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in April 2020, and was modeled on a similar credit that had been adopted following natural disasters. The credit was enhanced and extended through June 30, 2021, in December 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The credit was then further extended through the end of 2021 and codified in Section 3134 of the Code as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, adopted earlier this year.
The retroactive nature of the suspension creates potential issues for employers who remained eligible for the credit in October and early November. Employers were permitted to reduce their employment tax deposits (including all withheld federal employment taxes) to take advantage of? the credit. Accordingly, employers claiming the credit for wages paid in October and November likely did not deposit amounts to reflect the credit. Those amounts must now be paid. Because the employer withheld those taxes from its employees (or reduced the deposit of its own share of FICA taxes), the employer could potentially be subject to a late deposit penalty under Section 6656 of the Code. It is likely, however, that the IRS will provide relief from penalties attributable to the retroactive change. It is uncertain how an employer will signal to the IRS that its late deposits are attributable to the retroactive termination of the credit. In the interim, employers who reduced their deposits in anticipation of the credit should prepare to deposit any amounts that will now be due, as soon as possible.
IRS Issues Additional Guidance on Employee Retention Credit
Nearly 18 months into the pandemic, the IRS continues to issue guidance on the employee retention credit, a credit that was adopted in March 2020 and has been addressed in a number of articles on the Tax Withholding & Reporting Blog, most recently on August 3, 2021.
The latest guidance takes the form of Notice 2021-49 and Revenue Procedure 2021-33, which together address a range of topics, including how employers should treat cash tips for purposes of determining the amount of qualified wages, whether the credit may be claimed with respect to the same wages for which the employer receives the Code Section 45B credit, how the related individual rules work for determining qualified wages, and whether employers are required to file amended tax returns if they claim the employee retention credit retroactively. The Service has also outlined a safe harbor that employers may apply to exclude from gross receipts the amount of the forgiveness of any PPP loans or the amount of shuttered venue operator grants or restaurant revitalization grants. Continue Reading IRS Issues Additional Guidance on Employee Retention Credit
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Would Terminate Retention Credit Early for Most Employers
The bipartisan infrastructure bill introduced in the Senate earlier this week includes a provision that would end early the employee retention credit, which was codified in Section 3134 of the Internal Revenue Code by the American Recovery Plan Act earlier this year. The Section 3134 credit, which took effect on July 1 but mirrors the credit originally adopted in the CARES Act and enhanced last December, is currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2021. However, the infrastructure bill would preclude employers, other than Startup Recovery Businesses established during the COVID-19 Pandemic, from claiming the credit for wages paid after the end of the third quarter. Startup Recovery Businesses would remain eligible for the credit through the end of 2021.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the early termination of the credit is expected to save $8.2 billion. To remain eligible for the credit in the fourth quarter, employers generally must experience a 20% decline in quarterly gross receipts in the third or fourth quarter of 2021 compared to the same quarter in 2019 or continue to experience full or partial suspension of their trade or business. We will continue to monitor the legislation to see if the provision is included in the final bill.
Supreme Court Denies New Hampshire’s Challenge to Massachusetts Telecommuter Tax Rule; Convenience of the Employer Lives to See Another Day
The Supreme Court, today, denied New Hampshire’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint challenging Massachusetts’ COVID-related tax regulations. The decision comes little more than a month after the Acting Solicitor General of the United States filed an amicus brief urging the court to deny the motion. In addition to New Hampshire, the decision will leave New Jersey and other states (nearly fourteen states had filed amicus briefs urging the Court to take the case) disappointed. The case was seen as an indirect threat to New York’s convenience of the employer rule, which operates similarly to the temporary regulations adopted by Massachusetts. See earlier coverage here and here. Continue Reading Supreme Court Denies New Hampshire’s Challenge to Massachusetts Telecommuter Tax Rule; Convenience of the Employer Lives to See Another Day
A Proposed Global Minimum Corporate Income Tax Rate
[This is a guest post by Ed McClellan and Thomas Reilly that was originally published on June 2, 2021, in Covington’s Global Policy Watch Blog.]
In mid-May, the Biden Administration officially threw its support behind a minimum global corporate income tax rate of at least 15%. The U.S. proposal would be limited to the world’s 100 largest companies – those with revenues of over $20 billion. The proposal would not depend on the company’s nationality (the U.S. has made clear that it would not support any proposals that discriminate against U.S. multinationals) and, since it would apply to digital services companies as well as to those selling tangible goods, would not be specific to any one sector. Continue Reading A Proposed Global Minimum Corporate Income Tax Rate