Sixth Circuit Court rules Law Firm is not Exempt from Taxes
Recently, in the case of a Michigan law office, the Sixth Circuit Court upheld a decision to penalize the law firm for not filing a Form 5330, Return of Excise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans. According to a Bloomberg BNA report, the court ruled that the firm was penalized for reasonably acknowledging that it had not paid its taxes.
The background of the initial case
The law office established an employee stock ownership plan in 1998, a Law 360 report explained. This ESOP is a retirement plan that owns securities of the employer that sponsors the program. Then, after the principal established the ESOP, he transferred his ownership to the plan. At the time, ESOPs at S corps like the firm in question were exempt from taxes on income attributable to stocks held in the ESOP until it was distributed. As the principal and his firm were exempt from taxes, there were no returns filed.
However, in 2001, Congress amended the provisions, giving taxpayers a six-month grace period to make back payments and ensure compliance. This provision was amended to combat tax abuses by S corporations that established ESOP programs that were designed to benefit a few key personnel rather than large groups of employees. Congress imposed a 50 percent excise tax on S corp. ESOP programs that did not have employee ownership. Ultimately though, the law firm did not comply within the grace period.
Further complicating the case was the fact that the IRS waited until 2011 to collect the excise tax – which was over $200,000 – that resulted from the firm’s decision not to come into compliance. In the initial case, the court found that Section 4979A, which enforces the excise tax, governed the statute of limitations, and that the time had expired for the IRS to impose the tax.
The court’s initial ruling
The court initially found the IRS was required to adhere to a three-year statute of limitations imposed under Section 4979A. However, when the court reconsidered the case, it ruled that the IRS should have applied a different tax code section.
Therefore, the court found that the statute of limitations never expired because the law firm never properly filed the necessary tax form for the ESOP, which meant that the statute of limitations never started.
The significance of the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision
The lesson for taxpayers, particularly S corps, is that in order to benefit from the three-year statute of limitations, it is crucial that they file the necessary tax form – even if they did not need to when they established the ESOP. Taking this one step further, the guidance for taxpayers in general is that they should file tax returns, even if they believe in good faith that they are tax exempt. It is best that the IRS is provided with the information so that they can calculate any potential taxes.
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Short Form Merger: Streamlining the Process for Businesses
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
