Jump to content
ATX Community

Prepared by someone else (prior year)


ILLMAS

Recommended Posts

I seen a tax return prepared by another tax preparer and that has left me scratching the little hair I have left on my head.

Basic details

  • 1120S  (LLC), one K-1
  • Owner buys, rehabs property and sells right away
  • Property are reported as inventory
  • Profits are passed to shareholder as ordinary income

Here is my concern, since I have not dealt with a client in this situation before:

  • If they are in the business of buying/fixing/selling homes, shouldn't the profits be subject to SE taxes?

I did not see it (SE tax) when I reviewed the shareholder personal tax return, again I have not had dealt with a client like this before and just want to make sure to say the return was prepared correctly or incorrectly and it should be amended.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems as though they are using the S-corp in an attempt to bypass socsec/med tax because the net income of the S-corp is not subject to SE taxes,  However, if the owner is not receiving a salary from the S-corp which would approximate reasonable compensation for someone of his/her level of expertise, then this is potentially a big problem.  You might want to have that conversation with the client and make sure they are committed to paying themselves reasonable compensation going forward.  If not, then it would be wise to pass on the relationship.  Whether they do anything about prior-years' returns is an open question, but you definitely should not get on board with continuing this practice (if my assumption is correct that this is what is happening).

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BHoffman said:

Did the SCorp shareholder take any distributions?  A discussion during a CPE class seemed to imply that no distributions means there is nothing for IRS to reclassify as missed reasonable salary. 

Yes, there was a partial distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BHoffman said:

Did the SCorp shareholder take any distributions?  A discussion during a CPE class seemed to imply that no distributions means there is nothing for IRS to reclassify as missed reasonable salary. 

That doesn't make sense to me since the the taxability of income from an S Corp is based on S Corp profits not on whether income is distributed.

You should take a good look at all the components of reasonable compensation for this client .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, cbslee said:

That doesn't make sense to me since the the taxability of income from an S Corp is based on S Corp profits not on whether income is distributed.

True, he is taxed on profits whether distributed or not, but paying a distribution shows that the entity has the ability and willingness to pay the shareholder even though he may be rolling a substantial amount of resources/profits into new projects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cbslee said:

That doesn't make sense to me since the the taxability of income from an S Corp is based on S Corp profits not on whether income is distributed.

You should take a good look at all the components of reasonable compensation for this client .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2014/02/04/tax-geek-tuesday-reasonable-compensation-in-the-s-corporation-arena/6/#5cf75f1641a2. See the last paragraph of the article.  This is a contentious issue, but if the shareholder received no distributions then perhaps there is nothing to re characterize. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a look a the Forbes article and the paragraph that you quote has no substantial support.

It falls in the arena of educated speculation. Plus Illmas has already said that a distribution was made and that the owner takes a "very small salary from another business."

In my mind that creates a scenario for a very winnable audit for a competent revenue agent.

If it was my incoming client, I would explain everything to the client and strongly suggest that he needs to pay himself compensation from the 2nd business.

If not, I would turn down the work and clearly explain why!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2 cents, I've insisted my single shareholder's S Corp wages be set at what other comparable businesses pay for similar services, as per the fact sheet.  The income of the S Corp fluctuates but recently has been about 1.2M.  I have suggested over the last few years (when income was much lower) to put wages at 260K (a fair amount for his experience and industry standards), and to maximize SEP contributions from the S Corp. 

So I'm wondering, are wages now too low, as income has increased substantially to 1.2M?   He takes much of it out as distributions as expenses are low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My client's S Corp's revenue will be increasing substantially over the next few years.  Here is my concern going forward, he says a fair rate for his type of work in his field would be  $150-200/hr.  He puts in 25 hrs/wk  (he has another job), so that's how we came up with a 260K salary, using $200/hr x 25hrs x 52 weeks.   But expenses are low and he takes out substantial distributions.  So my understanding is, the salary is reasonable, the rest is gravy.  The S Corp's revenue could go up to 2M next year, I am wondering if I should recommend he increase his salary, I know he'll object, (distributions would be about 1.7M)  or, is it not an issue since he maxs out SS and will only be paying more in Medicare tax (he hates that).   I'm just trying to make everyone happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe someone here posted a case about a CPA or accountant that argued his client was a had a substantial increase in salary every year after his client was fined for not having a reasonable salary.  If I remember, the person was making 20K as supposed to $200K, so the accountant would significantly increase the salary by $5K a year, that is a huge increase for someone making $20k lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDNY - If you and the client have already determined his reasonable salary at a hefty $260k per year, and his hours haven't changed, then why would he need to increase his salary just because his investment in his company is doing well?  Unless he is the only one providing goods/services for sale to his customers I'd say that no one is going question his salary.  He's already paid taxes on the cash used for his distributions. The whole premise of the S Corp is to pay FICA only on income that is earned, and avoid the double taxation on dividends.  

I think we get tangled up with the reasonable salary for S Corp shareholders because there is no set calculation. The tax court cases were all about heinously low salaries and huge distributions. The court recharacterized that portion of the distributions to closely meet the SS wage limit in every case.  I think it's a relatively safe bet that the SS wage limit would, in most cases, satisfy the reasonable salary requirement. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BHoffman and ILLMAS.  I did think the same as you B, but I was concerned because all his income is generated by his own efforts that IRS may want more in salary.  Thanks for your response, we'll  leave it as is...as it should be.  Thanks, Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...