Technique to Maximize Pass-Through Income Tax Break Won't Work for Florida
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides a tax break for businesses conducted by pass-through entities (partnerships, LLC's and subchapter S corporations) which will allow a deduction of 20 percent of the business income, so that the owners will pay tax on only 80 percent of the business income.
February 15, 2018 at 11:45 AM
4 minute read
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides a tax break for businesses conducted by pass-through entities (partnerships, LLCs and Subchapter S corporations) which will allow a deduction of 20 percent of the business income, so that the owners will pay tax on only 80 percent of the business income. But this tax break is not available to the owners of professional service businesses, like lawyers, accountants, physician, dentists and consultants, unless their total taxable income is less than $157,500 (or $315,000 for married taxpayers). Many tax advisers around the country are telling their professional service clients to spin-off the real estate used in their practice that is owned by the business, and charge rent to their practices. This would shift income from their professional practice (not eligible for the 20-percent deduction) to their separate office leasing business, which would be eligible for the tax break. Although this technique will be viable in most every state, it will not work in Florida because of the structure of our sales tax here.
Florida is one of the only states in the U.S. which imposes its sales tax on commercial real estate leases (Arizona is the other notable exception). The sales tax is due on all leases, even on a lease to related parties. The sales tax due on the lease will likely exceed the potential income tax savings resulting from the 20-percent deduction.
For example, let's say a lawyer with an associate and paralegal working for him owns his own office unit in an office condominium project, and nets $600,000 in taxable income. Since his taxable income is well above the $315,000 threshold amount for a joint filer, he will not be eligible for the 20-percent deduction because a law practice does not get the benefit from this tax break. However, if he spins-off the office condominium into a separate Subchapter S corporation (which is generally not a good idea anyway) and charges a reasonable rent, the office condominium unit company's profit would be eligible for the 20-percent deduction.
Let's assume he can charge $100,000 rent to his law practice on a triple net lease basis. In this case, he could shift $100,000 in income to the real estate business, which would be eligible for the 20-percent deduction. This would result in a $20,000 deduction on the income from the office leasing business, saving $7,000 in tax at the 35-percent marginal tax rate for this income bracket. Not a bad income tax result.
But the Florida sales tax due would be nearly as much or greater than the income tax savings. The sales tax would be due not only on the $100,000 in net rent, but also the real property taxes, maintenance and insurance paid by the law practice on the triple net lease. Let's assume these other charges are $20,000, the sales tax would be due on $120,000. Depending on the county, the sales tax would be between $6,960 (5.8-percent rate) and $8,160 (6.8-percent rate), potentially exceeding the income tax savings in this example.
In addition, transferring the office condominium to a related company would trigger stamp tax on the deed if there is a mortgage on the property, and a new set of mortgage tax if the bank wants the new real estate company to sign onto the mortgage. The transfer might also result in an increase in real property taxes if the property has been subject to the annual 10-percent cap on increases in assessed value.
So although this technique will be viable in other states, this is not the case in Florida. On the plus side, we don't have a personal income tax in the Sunshine State, and we also save money on snow removal costs. Some might say that's a fair trade-off.
Marvin A. Kirsner is the administrative shareholder of Greenberg Traurig's Boca Raton office, where his primary areas of practice deal with corporate, transactional and industry specific tax issues. He serves as the co-chair of the firm's state and local tax practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250