Archive for November, 2011

Senators Introduce Online Sales Tax Bill

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

From www.accountingtoday.com

A bipartisan group of 10 senators introduced legislation Wednesday that would give states the option to collect the sales taxes they are owed under current law from out-of-state businesses, rather than rely on consumers to pay those taxes to the states.

The bill, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, would give states the option to collect sales and use tax revenues from out-of-state sellers through a new, simplified tax system. Among the senators sponsoring the bill are Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

The bill resembles another piece of legislation, the Main Street Fairness Act, which was introduced in July by Durbin and several other Democratic lawmakers, but now includes support from some key Republicans and conservative groups (see Congress Introduces Bill to Collect Online Sales Taxes).

Like the earlier bill, it relies on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement that is already in use by 24 states. However, the emphasis with the new bill is on the fact that it would not impose any new taxes, but merely collect taxes that are already owed, and it gives states the option not to collect the sales taxes, preserving states’ rights.

“This legislation would give states the ability to close the online sales-tax loophole, created when out-of-state sellers don’t collect, and purchasers don’t pay, the state sales tax—even though they still owe it,” Alexander said in a statement. “The legislation addresses a states’ rights issue: preserving the right of states to collect—or to decide not to collect—taxes that are already owed under state law.”

The legislation would streamline the country’s more than 7,500 diverse sales tax jurisdictions and provide two options by which states could begin collecting sales taxes from online and catalog purchases.

States that voluntarily become member states of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, or SSUTA, would be able to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes after 90 days.

The agreement would help harmonize states sales and use tax rules, bring uniformity to the definitions of items in the sales tax base, reduce the paperwork burden on retailers, and incorporate new technology to modernize administrative procedures.

States that do not wish to become members of SSUTA would be allowed to collect the taxes only if they adopt certain minimum simplification requirements and provide sellers with additional notices on the collection requirements.

“For over a decade, Congress has been debating how to best allow states to collect sales taxes from online retailers in a way that puts Main Street businesses on a level playing field with online retailers,” said Enzi. “This bill empowers states to make the decision themselves. If they choose to collect already existing sales taxes on all purchases, regardless of whether the sale was online or in store, they can. If they want to keep things the way they are, it’s a state’s choice.”

Enzi read a letter from Amazon.com supporting the bill. Amazon also released a statement conforming its support. “Amazon strongly supports enactment of the Enzi-Durbin-Alexander bill and will work with Congress, retailers, and the states to get this bi-partisan legislation passed,” said Amazon vice president of global public policy Paul Misener. “It’s a win-win resolution—and as analysts have noted, Amazon offers customers the best prices with or without sales tax.”

Alexander noted that a version of the legislation introduced in the House has also won the support of the American Conservative Union.

The legislation exempts sellers who make less than $500,000 in total remote sales in the year preceding the sale to qualify for an exemption and not be required to collect the tax.

“Most small business people don’t want a government handout,” said Durbin. “They don’t want special treatment. They just want to be able to compete fairly against other businesses. That’s why I have worked with Senators Enzi and Alexander to introduce the Marketplace Fairness Act—a bipartisan bill to level the playing field for local main street businesses.”

Senators Tim Johnson, D-S.D., John Boozman, R-Ark., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., are also co-sponsors of the legislation.

Under the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill decision, retailers are only required to collect sales tax in the states where they also have a physical presence, also known as nexus, while consumers are required to report to state tax departments any sales taxes they owe for online purchases. As a result, local retailers are at a competitive disadvantage because they must collect sales taxes at the point of sale while out-of-state retailers, including many large online and catalog retailers, in effect give their customers a discount by collecting no state or local sales taxes.

As with the earlier bill introduced by Durbin, eBay registered its objection, however. “This is another Internet sales tax bill that fails to protect small business retailers using the Internet and will unbalance the playing field between giant retailers and small business competitors,” said eBay vice president for government relations and deputy general counsel Tod Cohen. “It does not make sense to expand Internet sales tax burdens on small businesses at a time when we want entrepreneurs to create jobs and economic activity.”

Alexander predicted on the Senate floor that the legislation ultimately would be passed. “This problem’s been there for a long time,” he said. “It’s had the opposition of conservatives worried about taxes. It’s had the opposition of Amazon and other online sellers. The Supreme Court said 20 years ago that it was too complicated for out-of-state vendors to figure out how to collect sales taxes when something is purchased and sent to the state, which is what the Main Street seller does, and maybe that was true 20 years ago. But the Supreme Court said 20 years ago, it invited us in Congress to solve this problem, and Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin with this legislation in my opinion have solved the problem, and this is going to happen. I’m not presumptuous enough to predict what the United States Congress will do and what the President will sign, but I think I’ve been around long enough, and I’ve watched Congress enough to say this is going to happen. And if I were a governor, or I were an online retailer, or I were a catalog retailer, I would make my plans to conduct my business in this way.” For more information please see Senators Introduce Online Sales Tax Bill at www.accountingtoday.com.

IRS Allows Tax Break for Bonuses

Monday, November 14th, 2011

From-www.accountingtoday.com

The Internal Revenue Service has issued a revenue ruling permitting an employer that is using an accrual method of accounting to take a deduction in the current year for a fixed amount of bonuses payable to a group of employees, even though the employer does not know which of the employees will receive a bonus or the amount of any particular bonus until after the end of the taxable year.

Under Revenue Ruling 2011-29, employers could take a deduction on the bonuses, whether or not the employees has determined who will receive the bonus.

“In other words, the entire amount of the bonus pool will be paid to members of the group of employees in the following year, but at the end of the current year the employer doesn’t yet know which particular employees will receive any bonus or how much,” the IRS said when issuing the revenue ruling Wednesday.

The revenue ruling could prove helpful in particular to financial firms that typically award year-end bonuses to high-performing employees. Wall Street banks are expected to pay lower year-end bonuses this year as a result of the trading volatility this past year. Other types of companies could also benefit. In the revenue ruling, the IRS cited court precedents involving the Washington Post Company and casino operator Hughes Properties. For more information please visit, IRS Allows Tax Break for Bonuses, on the Accounting Today website, www.accountingtoday.com.

30 Major Corporations Avoided Federal Income Taxes

Friday, November 4th, 2011

From-www.accountingtoday.com

The 280 most profitable U.S. corporations are sheltering half their profits from federal income taxes, and 30 of them paid less than zero in the last three years, according to a new study. The study also found that 78 of the corporations paid no federal income tax in at least one of the last three years. The study, by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, expands on a preliminary report in June by the advocacy group that sparked controversy (see 12 Major Corporations Pay Less Than Zero in Taxes).

The average effective tax rate for all 280 companies in the study over the three-year period was 18.5 percent. For the period 2009-2010 it was 17.3 percent, less than half the statutory rate of 35 percent. Total tax subsidies given to all 280 profitable corporations amounted to $222.7 billion from 2008-2010. Thirty companies enjoyed a negative income tax rate over the three year period, despite combined pre-tax profits of $160 billion.

Wells Fargo topped the list of 280 U.S. corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies, getting nearly $18 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. Treasury in the last three years.

Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study, at negative 57.6 percent over the three year period.

The study was released at a time when many corporations are lobbying for lower corporate rates and a tax holiday on repatriated foreign profits.

“Our study provides proof that too many corporations are already being coddled by our tax system,” said Citizens for Tax Justice director Robert McIntyre, the report’s lead author.

Some companies within sectors fare worse than others, the study found. For example, the report found that FedEx paid a 0.9 percent tax rate over the three-year period, while its competitor, UPS, paid a 24.1 percent rate.

While retailers and wholesalers in the study generally pay average effective tax rates of about 30 percent, online commerce giant Amazon.com paid a rate of only 7.9 percent on its $1.8 billion in profits from 2008 to 2010.

Financial services companies received the largest share (16.8 percent) of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years. More than half of the federal corporate tax subsidies for companies in the study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and oil, gas and pipelines.

The top 10 defense contractors saw their combined tax rate decline from 19.3 percent in 2008 to a mere 10.6 percent rate in 2010.

U.S. corporations with significant (10 percent or more of their total worldwide profits) foreign profits paid tax rates to foreign countries that were almost a third higher than the taxes they paid to the IRS on their domestic profits.

Most of the corporations do not release their tax returns. Instead the study relied on the annual reports and 10-K forms filed by the corporations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which often include information on the tax liabilities and benefits claimed on their financial statements. These can differ from the actual tax returns they file with the IRS, however, and many of the companies pay other types of taxes, such as state and payroll taxes. For details, visit 30 Fortune 500 Corporations Paid Less than 0 in Federal Income Taxes, on the Accounting Today website, www.accountingtoday.com.