Our Blog: Flagel Voice

Rules on Deducting Business Start-Up Expenses

A recent U.S. Tax Court decision drives home Continue Reading

Relief Ended for Small Employers Paying Workers’ Insurance Premiums

If you're a small employer — in other words, Continue Reading

Recent Supreme Court Cases That May Affect Your Business

As the U.S. Supreme Court adjourns for its Continue Reading

tristate-success-awards top-150 BDO Alliance USA AICPA ohio-cpa

Rules on Deducting Business Start-Up Expenses

A recent U.S. Tax Court decision drives home the important point that current deductions aren’t allowed for most expenses incurred while a new business is still in the start-up phase. Other decisions have dealt with the same issue in recent years. So, the proper federal income tax treatment of start-up expenses remains an ongoing source of confusion for taxpayers.

Here’s what you need to know about deducting start-up costs, along with a real-life example of how the Tax Court applied the rules.

Deduct Section 162 Expenses Now

Internal Revenue Code Section 162 allows current deductions for “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. Section 162 expenses are basically routine expenses incurred in operating an up-and-running business. Examples include employee wages, rent, utilities and advertising. Section 162 expenses can generally be deducted in the year when they’re paid or incurred.

Many taxpayers are unaware that Section 162-type expenses incurred by a start-up can’t necessarily be deducted right away. That’s because these expenses are classified as Section 195 start-up expenses until the “active conduct” of business begins.

Once a taxpayer meets the active-conduct standard, Section 162-type expenses become Section 162 expenses, and the taxpayer can deduct them currently. (This assumes that other provisions — such as the passive activity loss or at-risk basis rules — don’t come into play and prevent current deductibility.)

Deduct or Amortize Section 195 Expenses When Business Commences

Section 195 start-up expenses are Section 162-type expenses that are incurred before the business actively commences operations. Start-up expenses can include costs incurred:

  • To investigate the creation or acquisition of a business,
  • To create a new business, or
  • To engage in any for-profit activity before the active conduct of business begins, in anticipation of such an activity becoming an active business.

Common examples of Section 195 start-up expenses include employee training, rent, utilities and marketing expenses incurred prior to opening a business.

In the tax year when active conduct of business commences, the Section 195 rules allow taxpayers to elect to amortize start-up expenses. The election potentially allows an immediate deduction for up to $5,000 of start-up expenses. However, the $5,000 deduction allowance is reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of cumulative start-up expenses in excess of $50,000. Any start-up expenses that can’t be deducted in the tax year the election is made are amortized over 180 months on a straight-line basis. Amortization starts in the month in which the active conduct of business begins.

A taxpayer is deemed to have made this election in the tax year when active conduct of business commences unless, on a timely filed tax return for the year, the taxpayer elects instead to capitalize start-up expenses.

Important Note: Section 195 start-up expenses don’t include interest expense, taxes or research and development costs. Those expenses are subject to specific rules that determine the timing of the deductions. Section 195 start-up expenses also don’t include corporate organizational costs or partnership or LLC organizational costs — although the tax treatment of those expenses is similar to the treatment of start-up expenses.

Recent Tax Court Decision

A recent Tax Court case demonstrates potential pitfalls that taxpayers should avoid when claiming deductions for start-up expenses. In this case, the taxpayer was a civil engineer with 25 years of experience as a highway designer and construction engineer.

In 2008, while still employed in a full-time job, he decided to start his own business. He selected the name Civil Engineering Services (CES), printed business cards, designed stationery and set up a website. He also purchased a computer, a desk and other office supplies and set up an office in the basement of his home.

By mid-2008, the taxpayer’s employer dramatically reduced his salary, and he decided to devote more time to developing CES. From his years of work experience, the taxpayer knew many contractors and project engineers who worked in the state. He regularly visited construction sites after his regular work to distribute business cards and speak with managers and others performing construction on local highways.

In addition to promoting his business, the taxpayer used these visits to stay abreast of developments in the highway construction engineering industry. He continued these trips throughout 2009, 2010 and 2011. In late 2010, he became unemployed and began focusing all of his attention on CES.

On his 2009 and 2010 federal income tax returns, the taxpayer claimed Schedule C business deductions totaling $46,629 and $45,618, respectively, for expenses purportedly incurred in the new business. After an audit, the IRS disallowed the deductions on the grounds that:

  • They weren’t properly substantiated, and
  • CES hadn’t yet commenced business because it didn’t have any clients, wasn’t hired to perform any services, didn’t bid on any highway engineering jobs and earned no income.

The IRS also disallowed some itemized deductions claimed on the taxpayer’s 2009 and 2010 returns. The disallowed deductions resulted in a delinquent tax bill of about $30,000. The IRS also imposed a 20% substantial understatement penalty on the additional tax due. The Tax Court upheld both the IRS deficiency and the understatement penalty (Tarighi v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-28).

Factors to Consider

The Tax Court has historically focused on these three factors to determine if a taxpayer has commenced the active conduct of a business:

  1. Did the taxpayer undertake the activity intending to earn a profit?
  2. Was the taxpayer regularly and actively involved in the activity?
  3. Has the activity actually commenced?

In Tarighi, the Tax Court concluded the taxpayer wasn’t engaged in a business during 2009 and 2010, because CES didn’t have any income or clients and didn’t bid on any jobs during those years. Though the taxpayer did engage in promotional activities, he didn’t intend to earn a profit in those years, because he didn’t pursue contracts or bid on jobs.

Therefore, the court ruled that the IRS was correct in denying the deductions reported on the taxpayer’s 2009 and 2010 returns, because they were amortizable Section 195 start-up expenses rather than currently deductible Section 162 expenses. However, if the taxpayer could properly substantiate the expenses, the opinion notes that the taxpayer could begin amortizing them in the year when his business activity started.

Finally, the court ruled that the IRS was correct in imposing the 20% substantial understatement penalty, because the taxpayer had failed to establish that there was any reasonable cause for the tax underpayment or that the taxpayer had acted in good faith.

Important Reminders about Start-Up Costs

When you incur business start-up expenses, it’s important to remember two key points. First, start-up expenses can’t always be deducted in the year when they are paid or incurred. Second, no deductions or amortization write-offs are allowed until the year when active conduct of your new business commences. That usually means the year when the business has all the pieces in place to begin earning revenue.

Time may be of the essence if you have start-up expenses that could be deducted in the current year. Contact your tax adviser to explain your plans. Failing to give your tax adviser a heads-up is often a recipe for unfavorable tax consequences.

Relief Ended for Small Employers Paying Workers’ Insurance Premiums

If you’re a small employer — in other words, an employer that isn’t an “applicable large employer” under the health care law — and you reimburse or pay premiums for individual health insurance policies for employees, be aware that you may be subject to a $100 per day per employee excise tax. This adds up […]

Continue reading...

Recent Supreme Court Cases That May Affect Your Business

As the U.S. Supreme Court adjourns for its summer recess, the landmark cases about same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits have garnered most of the publicity. However, you should also know about these three lesser-known Supreme Court decisions that may significantly affect your business. Supreme Court Rules on ACA Premium Tax […]

Continue reading...

Tax treatment of NQSOs differs from that of their better-known counterpart

fhf_02_featured

With nonqualified stock options (NQSOs), if the stock appreciates beyond your exercise price, you can buy shares at a price below what they’re trading for. This is the same as for the perhaps better-known incentive stock options (ISOs). The tax treatment of NQSOs, however, differs from that of ISOs: NQSOs create compensation income — taxed […]

Continue reading...

New Trade Law Stiffens Penalties for Certain Taxpayers

  On June 29, the Trade Preference Extension Act of 2015 (TPE) was signed into law. The TPE mainly focuses on foreign competition and retraining domestic workers. But if you read the fine print, you’ll see that it also includes important — but little-noticed — changes to the penalty regime for failing to file required […]

Continue reading...

Proposed DOL Rule May Make Millions More Eligible for Overtime Pay

In his 2015 State of the Union Address last January, President Obama said employees should get the overtime they’ve earned. He then directed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to review and amend the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to make more workers eligible. On June 30, the DOL took steps […]

Continue reading...

Two New Estate Tax Developments from the IRS

The IRS recently issued final regulations and made an announcement that may be of interest to estate executors, personal representatives and married couples. Here are the details of both developments: 1. Final Regulations Issued on the Portability Election for Spouses The IRS released final regulations on the portability election, which allows the executor to transfer […]

Continue reading...

Summer Construction: Are You Ready for the Housing Market to Heat Up

There’s finally good news for the residential housing market: The U.S. Commerce Department recently announced that new residential construction surged in April to its highest level in more than seven years in the United States. Although homebuilding revenue remains well below its prerecession peak of nearly a decade ago, the housing market appears to be […]

Continue reading...

Large employers: Time to start planning for ACA information reporting

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 12.04.31 PM

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) yet again, employers subject to the act’s information reporting provision can no longer afford to put off planning in the hope that the requirements might go away. Beginning in 2016, “large” employers as defined by the act (generally employers with 50 […]

Continue reading...

Opening the “back door” to a Roth IRA

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 12.04.31 PM

A potential downside of tax-deferred saving through a traditional retirement plan is that you’ll have to pay taxes when you make withdrawals at retirement. Roth plans, on the other hand, allow tax-free distributions; the tradeoff is that contributions to these plans don’t reduce your current-year taxable income. Unfortunately, modified adjusted gross income (MAGI)-based phaseouts may […]

Continue reading...