The Section 355 Transaction: Waving Goodbye to Your Business Partner With Money in Your Pocket

A business is constantly changing and almost everyone wants to see their businesses evolve and grow.

However, when businesses have multiple owners, business relationships may sour due to both personal and professional conflicts. These conflicts can often lead to the dissolution and liquidation of a business if owners cannot find common ground, which often results in large amounts of realized income and capital gains tax. If you have almost or already reached such an impasse and you desire to continue operating the business, rather than dissolving your business, consider splitting your business via a Section 355 nonrecognition transaction (a Section 355 transaction can be used for both corporations and limited liability companies that have elected to be taxed as a corporation).

A Section 355 transaction in its most basic form generally involves a parent company and a subsidiary company. Though all requirements are the same within Section 355, there are three variations of the Section 355 fact pattern: 1) a spin-off, 2) a split-up and 3) a split-off.

1. A spin-off involves the distribution of subsidiary company stock from parent company to the shareholders of the parent, without the surrendering of any parent stock.
2. A split-up involves the distribution of two or more subsidiaries from the parent company to the shareholders of the parent company in complete liquidation of the parent company. The distribution of subsidiary stock can either be pro-rata to the parent company shareholders or each shareholder can acquire a separate subsidiary.
3. A split-off involves the distribution of subsidiary to some or all of the parent’s shareholders in exchange for some or all of their stock in parent.

Regardless of the type of split, there are a number of requirements that must be satisfied to ensure the transaction qualifies for nonrecognition treatment. Though a number of the requirements are relatively straightforward, the requirement most prone to challenge is the business purpose requirement. The reason for this is because even if the transaction satisfies all other requirements, if no legitimate business purpose exists, the transaction will lose its nonrecognition treatment and the shareholders and company will be subject to tax.

Though what constitutes a business purpose is not clearly defined within Section 355, or the corresponding regulations, a legitimate business purpose has previously been found in the following situations:

1. when there are two owners and they desire to split because the owners have interest in different business activities;
2. when a parent company surrendered all outstanding stock in its subsidiary due to serious disputes between owners; and
3. when a distribution was completed in order to increase the amount of commercial credit.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that simply because a business purpose has previously been found in the transactions, each transaction is independently reviewed and a business purpose that satisfied the requirement for one transaction may not satisfy the requirement for another.

Given the intricate requirements involved in properly structuring a Section 355 transaction to ensure nonrecognition treatment, it is important that you consult with competent legal counsel. If you have any questions about how a Section 355 transaction can help your business, the attorneys of Vandenack Weaver can assist you.

VW Contributor: Justin A. Sheldon
© 2020 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

SEC Proposes To Expand the Definition of an Accredited Investor

In an era where, according to the Wall Street Journal, an estimated $3.4 trillion dollars is sitting on the “sidelines”, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is proposing to expand the number of individuals that can invest in non-public securities and other restricted investment vehicles. To do this, the SEC has proposed to expand the definition of an “accredited investor,” opening the door for more money to funnel into these restricted offerings by expanding the number of individuals qualified to make such an investment.

Generally, the limits were implemented to protect those individuals not knowledgeable enough to invest in securities that are not subject to the disclosure rules of a public security. However, the definition of an accredited investor qualified to make such an investment hasn’t been updated in a number of years, leaving it outdated. The proposed expansion of the definition will incorporate new categories of “natural persons” and “entities,” as well as other investment related organizations. New categories of natural persons include professionals with certain designations, such as those licensed with their Series 7, 65, or 82. Similarly, those knowledgeable employees of private funds would qualify as an accredited investor. Other proposed new categories include certain limited liability companies, investment advisers, investment companies, and family offices.

The SEC proposed expanding of the definition of an accredited investor on December 18, 2019, and the proposal will be open for a 60 day comment period. The SEC is actively soliciting comments regarding every aspect of this rule change, including its overall economic impact. For many, this is a long awaited and desired change to the definition of accredited investor that could result in more capital moving off the “sidelines.”

VW Contributor: Alex Rainville
© 2019 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Nebraska Sales and Use Tax on Short-Term Rentals: New Guidance by the Nebraska Department of Revenue

By Ryan Coufal

Earlier this year Nebraska LB 284 passed into law requiring remote sellers—those without a physical presence—whose retail sales exceeded $100,000 in the previous year or current calendar year or if the seller made 200 or more separate Nebraska retail sales transactions in that same time frame, to obtain a sales tax permit from the Nebraska Department of Revenue (DOR) and begin collecting and remitting Nebraska and local sales tax.  Included with the online retail sales were sales made Multivendor Marketplace Platforms (MMP), or online marketplace facilitators.  Remote sellers selling through MMP’s must file sales tax returns reporting all of their Nebraska sales, but are relieved of the duty to collect and remit the sales tax on sales facilitated by the MMP if the MMP reports and remits the tax to the DOR.

Recently, the Nebraska DOR provided guidance on sales and use tax collection for remote sellers and MMPs which transact sales regarding Short-Term Lodging and Rentals in General Information Letter (GIL) 1-19-1.  The GIL clarifies that beginning on April 1, 2019, MMPs which facilitate short-term rentals must obtain sales and lodging tax licenses and begin collecting and remitting these taxes on the sales they facilitate, much like MMPs facilitating retail sales.  Additionally, the MMP is to complete the MMP Lodging Tax Worksheet-Breakdown by County with the Nebraska and County Lodging Tax Return (Form 64) to report the lodging tax by each county for sales facilitated in Nebraska.  Hotel or tourist home owners who provide short-term lodging and rentals are relieved of the duty to collect and remit the sales and lodging taxes on sales facilitated by an MMP if the MMP reports and remits the taxes themselves to the DOR, however, any sales and lodging not facilitated by an MMP must still be reported by the short-term rental provider themselves.

Per the Nebraska Revenue Act, a retailer or seller of lodging is defined as any person who, directly or indirectly, rents or leases property for a profit or gain when the transaction is subject to the sales tax, including sales facilitated by an MMP.[1]  The GIL indicates that travel agents who do not publish room availability and rates on behalf of hotels or tourist homes are generally not considered MMPs. This helps clarify a travel agent from a more well-known MMPs, such as Airbnb.

[1] Neb. Rev. Stat. §§77-2701.07, 77-2701.13, 77-2701.16, 77-2701.32 and 77-2701.36; see also Neb. Rev. Stat. §§77-2701.25, 77-2701.31, and Nebraska Sales and Use Tax Regulations 1-004.02C.

© 2019 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Rights of States to Collect Tax on Internet Transactions

by James S. Pieper

Since the dawn of the Internet, online sellers have benefited from a line of United States Supreme Court precedent that prevented states from requiring out-of-state businesses to collect and remit sales tax on sales in states where the seller has no “physical presence.”

On June 21, 2018, the Court discarded its longstanding “physical presence” test, thus opening the door for state governments to impose a broader range of duties on remote sellers, including the duty to collect and remit sales tax.

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., South Dakota sought to defend its statute that imposed a duty on all retailers with more than $100,000 of sales or 200 transactions within the state to collect sales tax on transactions and remit the tax to the state.  For retailers with no physical presence in the state, the statute was clearly in violation of the historic interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which limits the ability of states to regulate “interstate commerce” unless there is a “substantial nexus” between the state’s interests and the commercial activity.

Prior court decisions concluded that a state could have no “substantial nexus” with a seller that had no “physical presence” in said state.  As a result, online sellers with no “brick-and-mortar” presence or employees working in a state were free from the obligation to collect tax on their sales.

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Court rejected its prior interpretations of the Commerce Clause and held that a “substantial nexus” could be created by online sales alone despite the lack of “physical presence.”  The decision was decided with a bare 5-4 majority.

As a practical matter, the majority of online sales already entail the collection of sales tax due to either requirements that were valid under prior law or voluntary compliance by larger online retailers (including amazon.com).  Some retailers with no physical stores, however, will lose the advantage of being able to undertake transactions without collecting tax (including the respondents in the case, wayfair.com, overstock.com and newegg.com).

It will be up to each state to set the parameters of which remote sellers might be exempt from collecting tax due to a lack of significant sales, and the Court did not set a constitutional standard for what level of sales would constitute a sufficient “substantial nexus” to allow a state to impose duties (only that South Dakota’s standards were more than sufficient).

Perhaps more importantly, by jettisoning the “physical presence” standard as inappropriate in an era of “substantial virtual connections,” the Court has raised the prospect of greater opportunity for individual states to tax and regulate the actions of businesses whose only connection to said state is via online presence.

All businesses that connect with customers in other states via online connections will need to have heightened awareness that state tax and regulatory requirements in those other states may now apply to those interactions due to the Court’s new reading of the scope of a state’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

© 2018 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Prohibits Certain Arbitration Clauses

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released a final rule that prohibits certain financial service companies from blocking class action lawsuits with pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class action waiver clauses in consumer financial services contracts. The final rule requires arbitration clauses to contain a provision that explains that the arbitration clause cannot be invoked in a class action proceeding and requires parties to submit certain arbitration records to the CFPB whenever an arbitration claim is filed in relation to a consumer that entered a pre-dispute arbitration agreement after the rule’s compliance date.

 

The rule is a consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, in which Congress authorized the CFPB to issues regulations that limit or prohibit the use of arbitration agreements in the financial industry.  However, it is unclear whether the broad scope may adversely impact smaller entities that cannot afford to defend themselves against a class action lawsuit.

 

The rule is set to become effective on September 17, 2017 and applies to consumer financial services contracts that are entered into 180 days after September 17, 2017.  Thus, the rule does not affect existing contracts, except when a new financial services entity becomes a party to an older contract. Institutions should prepare to review and update their contract provisions to comply with the final rule.

 

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Broker-Dealers Offered Opportunity to Provide Comments to FINRA Rules for Capital Formation

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, known as FINRA, is undergoing a review of internal operations and programs as part of a review process dubbed FINRA 360. FINRA, as an independent self-regulatory organization with the overall goal of protecting investors and creating efficiency in the markets, governs many in the financial services industry in conjunction with the securities and exchange commission. FINRA has been issuing notices and seeking comments from those in the industry, as part of FINRA 360, with the goal of identifying opportunities to further the FINRA mission.

Recently, FINRA started the review process for rules that pertain to broker-dealers and their involvement with the capital formation process, and has issued corresponding notices. One of the recent notices from FINRA includes regulatory notice 17-14, seeking comments regarding broker-dealers when involved with unregistered securities and operating funding portals. The broad spectrum of rules that fall within the purview of notice 17-14 include funding portals, crowdfunding, capital acquisition brokers, unlisted real estate investment trusts, and other administrative and operational rules for raising capital.

For those wishing to submit comments on the rules, FINRA has set a deadline of May 30, 2017. For more information, FINRA notice 17-14 can be found at the following link: http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_doc_file_ref/Regulatory-Notice-17-14.pdf

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

Selecting the Right Entity for Your Tech Startup

Nebraska, and neighboring Midwest states, have developed a reputation as the “Silicon Prairie,” a prime location for technology startups. The recent tech startup boom in the Midwest can be attributed to the lower cost of living, knowledgeable tech labor force, and willingness of the community to embrace the startup. For many of these startups, besides the intense need to develop and protect the technology, a common issue is picking the right business entity structure.

 

In picking the right entity for the startup, several considerations should be weighed, including the need for liability protection, how the company will fund operations, and the most beneficial tax status. For example, if a tech startup is developing a product that will take a substantial period to produce, and likely need multiple rounds of equity financing involving institutional investors, with other funding coming through debt, the demand for classes of shares, preferences, and conversion rights, may require that the startup to form as a C-corporation, with corresponding tax status. On the other hand, if the startup only intends to have one round of equity financing, through a “friends and family” offering, a limited liability company may be appropriate, providing additional flexibility to select tax status.

 

Picking the right type of entity is important for the success of a tech startup, with many considerations to weigh. Ultimately, as facts change, it may be possible to change the structure of your company, but initial selection should not be taken lightly and can reduce problems as your company grows.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

Department of Labor Delays Implementation of the Fiduciary Rule

Last year, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule, expanding the definition of a fiduciary, making many broker-dealers and insurance agents fiduciaries. This rule, issued April 2016, was set to become effective June 2016, but was then delayed until April 10, 2017, with certain provisions delayed until January of 2018. However, President Trump ordered a review of the new rule and the DOL issued another delay, of 60 days, to complete the review. With the delay, the expanded fiduciary definition will become effective June 9, 2017.

Under the rule, a person or firm that is deemed a fiduciary is required to act in the best interests of their clients. This includes an obligation to avoid conflicts of interests, or otherwise receive compensation that creates a conflict between the interests of the fiduciary and the client. The new rule poses several issues for certain professionals that will be deemed a fiduciary under the new rule. For example, sales commissions would be deemed a conflict of interest, creating an especially problematic situation for broker-dealers that engage in principal transactions with clients. However, the DOL recognized the issue and created several principal transaction exemptions, but the exemptions require additional burdensome steps. This issue, among others, are central to the review causing the rule to be delayed.

Despite this delay, and the DOL admitting the review will not be complete by June 9, 2017, the expanded definition of fiduciary will be implemented at the end of the 60-day delay. Therefore, broker-dealers, insurance agents, and others that will now be deemed a fiduciary, should be prepared for the additional requirements on June 9, 2017.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

SEC Updates Rules for Capital Raises Through Regulation D

Over the past couple of years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has evolved how companies can raise capital, while simultaneously maintaining adequate protection for investors. For example, starting in May of 2016, companies were provided the option of raising capital through the newly created Regulation Crowdfunding, but the SEC was not finished modernizing the laws for exempt securities issuance. On October 26, 2016, the SEC finalized rules amending Regulation D, which contains exemptions from securities registration.

 

Many non-public companies, at all stages, rely on Regulation D for capital raises. Depending upon the unique circumstances of the company, the company may have utilized registration exemptions under rule 504, 505, or 506 of Regulation D. However, exemption under rule 505 became disfavored compared to rule 504 and 506 because of the additional, and oftentimes onerous, regulatory requirements. Recognizing this trend, the SEC finalized rules that increased the amount a company can raise under rule 504 to $5,000,000 dollars, up from $1,000,000, in a 12-month period. This means that the same amount of capital can be raised under rule 504 as was possible under rule 505, allowing the SEC to repeal rule 505.

 

For most companies relying on Regulation D to raise capital, the factors used before the rule change will likely continue to be the predominate factors when determining whether to use rule 504, often referred to as the “seed capital” exemption, or rule 506 exemption. For example, an entrepreneur in the first few years of business that requires additional capital to get a product, currently in research and development, to the market, will likely look to rule 504, which limits the total money raised, but is more navigable for new companies. Moving forward, as the SEC undergoes a change of leadership, starting when SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White steps down in early 2017, these rules may continue to evolve and any company looking to utilize a Regulation D exemption should consult with legal counsel. For more information on the current changes under SEC Regulation D, please visit the following SEC website: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-226.html

© 2016 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

100% Exclusion for Qualified Small Business Stock Held for Five Years

Starting a small business is full of challenges and an entrepreneur will have many concerns, especially with ensuring adequate operating capital and meeting funding requirements. The federal government does recognize the importance of small business and the challenges faced by entrepreneurs, including cash issues, and reacted by making permanent the 100% qualified small business stock (QSBS) exclusion in December of 2015.

Originally, in 1993, Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted, encouraging investment in small business by excluding 50% of capital gains from the sale of QSBS held for 5 years. Over the years, the exclusion changed and evolved until 100% of capital gains from the sale of QSBS held for 5 years was excluded, if the required conditions were met. The 100% exclusion was set to expire at the end of 2015, but the exclusion was made permanent in the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act, enacted in December 2015.

The 100% QSBS exclusion, although permanent, is nuanced and the stock itself must be held for five years, be in a C corporation, be in a Corporation with less than $50 million of assets at the time the stock was issued, have acquired the stock at its original issue, and have over 80% of the corporation assets being used in the active conduct of a qualified business during the entire time holding the stock. Active conduct is similarly defined under the tax code, excluding investment vehicles, brokerage services, farming business, and other inactive business. For those looking to utilize the QSBS exclusion or attract new capital from investors under this exclusion, a proper evaluation should be conducted to ensure the stock qualifies.

© 2016 Vandenack Williams LLC
For more information, Contact Us