New Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Impacts Law Firms and Attorneys: What's in It for You?
Late in December, many local attorneys and law firm administrators were following the Republican tax plan with great anticipation of bringing home fatter paychecks with all that was being negotiated between the House and Senate.
April 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM
5 minute read
Late in December, many local attorneys and law firm administrators were following the Republican tax plan with great anticipation of bringing home fatter paychecks with all that was being negotiated between the House and Senate. A preliminary review by the CPA community tells a different story, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants is asking the IRS for immediate guidance with 39 separate areas included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Today, most modern law firms are set up in various partnership and corporate structures that essentially let most of a firm's profits flow directly to the equity partners' or shareholders. Common partnership entities include PL, LLLP, PLLC and LP while corporate structures fall into either a C-corporation or subchapter S-corporations. With the exception of engineering and architecture firms, Congress decided not to offer the dramatic tax reductions provided to pass-through service businesses such as law, accounting, health, financial services, brokers, athletes, consulting firms, etc. unless certain maximum taxable income levels are not exceeded.
While some are thinking of converting to a new ownership structure, CPAs, in many cases, explain that the potential double taxation and miscellaneous deduction limitations, remove any incentive to make that change. So what are the benefits and impacts of the new law on attorneys and law firms?
Beginning Sept. 27, 2017, firms purchasing office equipment such as computers, servers, software and furniture will now be able to expense these purchases under Section 179 to a million dollars with an increased phase out threshold of $2.5 million of purchases. The bill also expanded bonus depreciation to allow 100-percent depreciation for qualified property placed in service after Sept. 27, 2017 and before Jan. 1, 2023.
In the area of deductibility of entertainment and meals, there are several major impacts. The bill takes away deductibility for entertainment, or recreation activities, facilities, or membership dues related to such activities and also adds the “directly-related-to” and “associated-with” exceptions to the deduction disallowance. This means reevaluating expenditures such as sports and entertainment tickets and club memberships.
The deduction of meals for entertainment has been changed. The act states that the deductibility for meals consumed near an employer's premises for the convenience of an employer are reduced from 100 to 50 percent. Finally, meals incurred while on business travel are 50 percent deductible. Questions remain as to whether regular business meals are still 50% deductible.
There is a benefit for some shareholders and partners of pass-through entities. There is a new section 199A deduction for taxpayers other than C-corporations to deduct the sum of:
- The lesser of (A) the taxpayer's “combined qualified business income amount” or (B) 20 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's taxable income over capital gain, plus qualified cooperative dividends, plus
- The lesser of (A) 20 percent of the aggregate amount of qualified cooperative dividends or (B) the taxpayer's taxable income (reduced by net capital gains)
This was Congress's way of lessening the tax rate of businesses other than large corporations, but the taxable income limitations will surely impact higher income earners, providing them with no measurable benefit.
There are several other factors for taking this 199A deduction for qualified business income (QBI) for service companies/firms that you should discuss with your tax adviser, but the major exception that will affect high wage earners are the business income deduction exceptions for specified service businesses:
- Where a taxpayer's taxable income does not exceed $315,000 (joint filer) or $157,500 (other filers), subject to full phase-in at $415,000 and $207,500, respectively
- For non-service businesses other than architects and engineers, the deduction attributable to 20 percent of the taxpayer's QBI cannot exceed the greater of (A) 50 percent of W-2 wages paid with respect to the QBI or (B) The sum of 25 percent of W-2 wages plus 2.5 percent of the unadjusted basis of qualified property
- The W-2 wages or W-2 wages plus capital limitation does not apply to taxpayers with taxable income not exceeding $315,000 (joint filers) or $157,500 (other filers). The limitation is phased-in for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding these amounts over ranges of $100,000 and $50,000
As you can see, the legislation is very complex and many areas of the new law are still being ironed out by the IRS. Stay tuned; there is no question things can change based on technical corrections of government officials and the possibility of congressional fixes to the act. Please make sure to consult your tax professional to determine your next steps.
Howard E. Hammer is a principal in the tax planning, compliance and accounting services group at Fiske & Co. in Miami.
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
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