| |||||||
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| "David Jensen" <djnews1[at]xxhealthcare.com> wrote: - quote - > "David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote:
I don't do taxes for a living, but I think I know enough to> > If you are not at risk, there is no tax event, no deduction, > > nothing. A different corporation is subject to its own at > > risk limitations and has nothing to do with the first corp. > OK, I thought that your response made it very cut and dry. > Then the individual that this relates to told me that their > accountant is looking into what constitutes 'at risk'. The > accountant was considering the fact that the individual had > on 'opportunity cost' by being a salaried shareholder in his > firm (where he wants to understandably be able to benefit > from the firm's loss) at a lower salary than he was making > elsewhere before joining the firm. In other words, becuase > he made less money in that firm then he did before, he > effectively lost money in the firm and thus became 'at risk' > from an 'opportunity cost' perspective and could therefore > benefit from the losses. > Is there any precident in tax law for such a view point? > Even if this approach doesn't hold up to tax law muster, > I've got to give the guy's accountant credit for being > creative! Then again, I guess you can do time for creative > accounting! In fairness, the accountant was looking into > this, and had not given an definitive opinion on the matter > yet. Before I pass judgement on the accountant, I want to > hear what you tax guys say. say it sounds preposterous. Two concepts are being confused here, for starters: the passive-activity at-risk limitation and the shareholder's basis in an S corporation. They are similar in that under either limitation, you may end up with losses you cannot currently use and have to suspend until a year in which you can use them. If you are involved in a passive activity (say you own the right to royalties from an oil well, but you do nothing but deposit your checks), you can't deduct losses you aren't at risk for. You're at risk for losses that you're liable to make up out of pocket; if your oil well can lose money without you having to pay out, you're not at risk, and you have to suspend not-at-risk losses. If you are a shareholder in an S corporation, you have basis in the S corporation. Your basis is the value of money or other assets you contributed to the S corporation, plus profits made by the corporation, less distributions made to you. There is a quirk in S corporation law by which shareholder loans to an S corporation are considered part of basis. Similar to the at-risk rules, you have to suspend S corporation losses in excess of your basis. Now there are two things you would like to do, but can't, so far as I can see: You can't use a suspended S corporation loss against another S corporation's profits. The reason should be obvious: allowing this would create an ability to lay off S corporation profits against paper losses you are not liable for. Past abuse of such schemes is the reason why there are at-risk and basis limitations. Opportunity cost doesn't go into basis, becasue doing so would be double-counting. Say you give up a $100K job to go to work for an S corp. that turns only enough cash flow to pay you a $15K salary, you already have received the full tax benefit of your $85K opportunity cost: you did not pay taxes on the $85K you didn't make. If you were then allowed basis in the S corp. for the $85K, you would be double-counting, because now you could take $85K in tax-free distributions or deduct $85K in losses. -- Chris Green << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| "David Jensen" <djnews1[at]xxhealthcare.com> wrote: - quote - > "David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote:
There is no basis in tax law for his position. At risk for> > If you are not at risk, there is no tax event, no deduction, > > nothing. A different corporation is subject to its own at > > risk limitations and has nothing to do with the first corp. > OK, I thought that your response made it very cut and dry. > Then the individual that this relates to told me that their > accountant is looking into what constitutes 'at risk'. The > accountant was considering the fact that the individual had > on 'opportunity cost' by being a salaried shareholder in his > firm (where he wants to understandably be able to benefit > from the firm's loss) at a lower salary than he was making > elsewhere before joining the firm. In other words, becuase > he made less money in that firm then he did before, he > effectively lost money in the firm and thus became 'at risk' > from an 'opportunity cost' perspective and could therefore > benefit from the losses. > Is there any precident in tax law for such a view point? > Even if this approach doesn't hold up to tax law muster, > I've got to give the guy's accountant credit for being > creative! Then again, I guess you can do time for creative > accounting! In fairness, the accountant was looking into > this, and had not given an definitive opinion on the matter > yet. Before I pass judgement on the accountant, I want to > hear what you tax guys say. an s-corp shareholder is either/or stock basis and debt basis. Nothing else. Hope this makes it 100% clear. -- David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU Woods Financial Services Norwood, MA 02062 www.woods-financial.com << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| "David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote: - quote - > If you are not at risk, there is no tax event, no deduction,
OK, I thought that your response made it very cut and dry.> nothing. A different corporation is subject to its own at > risk limitations and has nothing to do with the first corp. Then the individual that this relates to told me that their accountant is looking into what constitutes 'at risk'. The accountant was considering the fact that the individual had on 'opportunity cost' by being a salaried shareholder in his firm (where he wants to understandably be able to benefit from the firm's loss) at a lower salary than he was making elsewhere before joining the firm. In other words, becuase he made less money in that firm then he did before, he effectively lost money in the firm and thus became 'at risk' from an 'opportunity cost' perspective and could therefore benefit from the losses. Is there any precident in tax law for such a view point? Even if this approach doesn't hold up to tax law muster, I've got to give the guy's accountant credit for being creative! Then again, I guess you can do time for creative accounting! In fairness, the accountant was looking into this, and had not given an definitive opinion on the matter yet. Before I pass judgement on the accountant, I want to hear what you tax guys say. Thanks in advance. David << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| - quote - > I am unclear what carry forward/backward options an
If you are not at-risk with respect to an S corporaton loss,> individual has that is a shareholder of an S-corp but is not > at-risk. Can they benefit in any way from that loss? What > about if they have a DIFFERENT S-corp that they are at-risk > on either currently or in the future. Could they then use > that not-at-risk loss against at-risk gain? Are there other > scenarios where they can benefit from the not-at-risk loss? the loss is suspended pending future K-1 income, or investment in the corporation, that increase your basis. If neither of those two events happen, the loss is unusable. -- Thomas E Healy, CPA, PC 1650 38th St., Ste 202W Boulder, CO 80301 Please send email to: tom[at]tomhealycpa.com, since I block all email at my newsgroup address. phone (303) 443-1804 fax (720) 489-3772 << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| | |||
| |||
| "David Jensen" <djnews1[at]xxhealthcare.com> wrote: - quote - > I am unclear what carry forward/backward options an
If you are not at risk, there is no tax event, no deduction,> individual has that is a shareholder of an S-corp but is not > at-risk. Can they benefit in any way from that loss? What > about if they have a DIFFERENT S-corp that they are at-risk > on either currently or in the future. Could they then use > that not-at-risk loss against at-risk gain? Are there other > scenarios where they can benefit from the not-at-risk loss? nothing. A different corporation is subject to its own at risk limitations and has nothing to do with the first corp. -- David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU Woods Financial Services Norwood, MA 02062 www.woods-financial.com << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| I am unclear what carry forward/backward options an individual has that is a shareholder of an S-corp but is not at-risk. Can they benefit in any way from that loss? What about if they have a DIFFERENT S-corp that they are at-risk on either currently or in the future. Could they then use that not-at-risk loss against at-risk gain? Are there other scenarios where they can benefit from the not-at-risk loss? Thanks very much for your thoughts. -- David Jensen Replace the xx in my E-mail address with "Team" for my real E-mail address << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| Tags |
| atrisk, carry, forwards or backwards, loss, scorp, shareholder |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Symbol "CD" (Cendant Corp) conflicts hwyhiker: Today I purchased shares of Cendant Corp (ticker "CD") and Money 2004 won't allow me to set it up as an investment. The conflict appears to be that... | Microsoft Money | 4 | 10-27-2004 03:31 PM | |
| Can you "not use" capital loss in a particular year? Frank S. Duke, Jr.: Client had some carryover from 2002 and incurred some more in 2003 for a total of $2800. However, deductions far exceeded AGI so client gets no... | Taxes | 9 | 05-12-2004 03:02 AM | |
| Money 2002 transaction status flags ("E", "C", "R") have all disappeared Nick Tonkin: Hi, After many months of using Money 2002, yesterday I suddenly noticed that the column in my resgister that shows the cleared status of each... | Microsoft Money | 4 | 02-28-2004 04:39 AM | |
| How to deducting a bad personal loan to a "C" Corp? Gene: I've now twice sent these questions to the IRS without receiving any answers, and so I'm hoping someone here can shed light on this: my questions,... | Taxes | 3 | 08-20-2003 10:21 PM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |