Entertaining the Idea of Starting a Loan-Out Corporation
Counseling clients in the entertainment industry, it is clear the road to success is a difficult one for those in the arts. It can take years for actors, musicians and others to reach a point where their efforts begin bringing in a notable return.
November 07, 2019 at 12:05 PM
5 minute read
Counseling clients in the entertainment industry, it is clear the road to success is a difficult one for those in the arts. It can take years for actors, musicians and others to reach a point where their efforts begin bringing in a notable return. If and when these types of clients begin to make a consistently significant income, their hard-earned pay should be properly protected. One method that deserves consideration is organizing a loan-out corporation.
From a legal standpoint, these corporations are essentially identical to single-member limited liability companies or sole-shareholder corporations. The term "loan-out corporation" is generally exclusive to the entertainment industry and reflects that these companies—typically consisting of one owner—allow entertainers to "loan out" their services into independent contract relationships with third parties. Substantial tax benefits and asset protections make these types of enterprises attractive once an entertainer begins taking in a more sizable income and is subjected to higher personal income taxes.
Often, entertainers may not understand why forming a loan-out corporation is in their best interests, or how to set one up that will be acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This is where an attorney's knowledge is vital in helping an entertainer determine the best route as they progress in their career.
|When to Start a Loan-Out Corporation?
For example, let's say a film and TV actor is beginning to get a steady stream of well-paying work. Once his income begins to increase to around $100,000 per year, the entertainer's counsel should broach the idea of a loan-out corporation. This is a general figure, but it is around that income level that the potential tax savings begin to outweigh the initial costs and annual fees of operating a corporation.
Another set of factors for legal and financial advisers to note before suggesting a loan-out corporation is the state under which the corporation will be created, as certain states have varying fees. Costs of living are also a consideration, as they may affect at what income level it is most beneficial to begin the process.
Once an entertainer reaches the rare heights of fame and starts earning a multimillion-dollar annual income, they might have multiple enterprises and companies, but the loan-out corporation remains their method for contracting themselves to film studios, production companies, record companies and other third parties.
|What Are the Main Benefits?
- Tax savings: Clients in the entertainment industry may be used to receiving payment from various production companies as an employee, with all of their wages subject to a self-employment tax that covers Medicare and Social Security. Following 2017's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, however, self-employed performers are no longer able to deduct business expenses, except in rare occasions. Businesses, however, have few limitations on deductions, so a loan-out corporation employee can deduct expenses on a corporate tax return.
By establishing a loan-out corporation, clients would be eligible to take an S election. This allows them to take a distribution as an owner, rather than collecting a full salary directly from the production company. As such, an entertainer can avoid the payroll tax on a significant portion of their income, and potentially reduce up to half the Social Security portion of their self-employment tax and more. Add it up, and it's a substantial amount of income per year.
- Asset Protection: Since a loan-out corporation is a separate legal entity from the individual, property held in the name of its owner or principal is protected from judgment against the corporation. That means if the company is sued, the owner's personal assets can't be touched to satisfy a judgment—only those held by the company. This becomes especially important as entertainers' personal assets rise in value.
For more protection against personal injury liability, the company can—and oftentimes should—obtain an insurance policy (and almost always its own bank accounts). Additionally, in the event of an audit, questions from a production company or, in the worst-case scenario, a lawsuit, a separate contact should exist between the company and its principal for the latter's personal services.
|What's the Catch?
Forming a loan-out corporation is no different than forming a corporation or LLC. While the entertainer is focused on creating their art, touring or shooting a television show, this is the pivotal time when their attorney steps in to form and structure the new business. There are multiple filing requirements, such as obtaining a tax ID number, drafting the operating document or bylaws, and a number of other procedural steps to complete depending on the type of business entity being formed.
These details do not go away after the business is formed. There remain annual operating expenses and often filings to maintain the entity, and if it is not properly documented and consistently used in the proper fashion, it may draw the unwanted attention of the IRS. The IRS recognizes that entertainers are creating these companies to save on taxes, so it will look for any reason to declare one a tax avoidance mechanism.
Trusted legal counsel and tax and financial advisers are an entertainer's best friends in avoiding that outcome. While the performers get down to the business of creating their art, it's the experts behind the scenes who keep the business going.
Maxwell Briskman Stanfield is an attorney at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He focuses his practice on corporate, business, financial and commercial real estate law, and he has a wide variety of experience in the entertainment industry. He can be reached at [email protected].
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 AllProskauer Rose Investment Management Trio Jumps to Stradley Ronon
Stradley Ronon Bolsters Investment Management Practice With Vanguard Hire
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
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