Understanding the One-Stop-Shop Rule: Navigating S Corporation Terminations and Revocations
What business owners often fail to realize is that the initial S Election kicks off a litany of compliance obligations that S Corporations must continually observe, supplemented by volumes of Treasury Regulations and Revenue Rulings interpreting and, in several instances, expanding these compliance rules.
September 04, 2024 at 12:32 PM
6 minute read
Subchapter S corporations (S Corporations) have grown in popularity in recent years, largely due to their unique tax structure and the perception of enhanced liability protections for owners. It is also relatively simple for a business to make elect Subchapter S status (S Election)—it can be accomplished easily by filing Form 2553, Election by a Small Business Corporation, with the IRS. Often, owners of an entity initially formed as an LLC decide after a few years of operations that they would be better served as an S Corporation, given either the prospect of additional investors, or purely for tax planning and structuring purposes. After filing the Form 2553, no further action is needed other than the transition to an 1120-S year-end filing, and the business owner considers the matter closed.
What business owners often fail to realize is that the initial S Election kicks off a litany of compliance obligations that S Corporations must continually observe, supplemented by volumes of Treasury Regulations and Revenue Rulings interpreting and, in several instances, expanding these compliance rules. Many of the rules are clear, while others are incredibly arcane. For instance, it is clear from the Internal Revenue Code that S Corporations may have only one class of stock. It isn't abundantly clear that in certain instances a simple entity-level loan between the S Corporation and a third-party individual, with loan terms that don't evidence typical indicia of debt, can be viewed by the IRS as a distribution based upon a deemed second class of stock in violation of the single class of stock requirement. Point being, there are many technical traps for the unwary which can cause an S Election termination. In some instances, a business owner might intend to terminate the S Election, and upon affirmatively deciding that S Corporation status is no longer desirable for his or her enterprise, file a "revocation". In either instance, the business owner will anticipate a reversion back to the prior LLC form either a disregarded entity in the case of a single member LLC, or a partnership in the case of a multimember LLC).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllHogan Lovells, Reed Smith Add Tax Partners in DC, San Francisco
The Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration
- 2McDermott's Onetime London Leader Headed to Pillsbury
- 3A&O Shearman To Lose Another Five Lawyers to EY
- 4Pearl Cohen Enters San Francisco Market Via Combination With IP Boutique
- 5'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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