- quote -

But if he starts the company early, he gets the income, but
the company earns the goodwill.

- quote -

That works if he's been earning for a while.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Harlan Lunsford" <hnslunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Actually, I just ran across this setup with a real estate
agent. The CPA suggested an S-Corp operating under a d/b/a
of the individual's name since real estate commissions can
only be paid to "individuals". Interestingly enough, the
reason for setting up the S-Corp wasn't to avoid/reduce SE
taxation, but to minimize the likelihood of an audit.
According to the CPA, audit rates are much lower for S-Corps
than for 1040's containing Schedule C. It seems to me, that
the added costs of the S-Corp (additional tax returns and
state fees) may be a steep price to pay just to avoid an
audit. But then, I don't know how clean these financial
records are.

Ira Smilovitz

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

sethb[at]panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
- quote -

My guess is that if the guy is already licensed, having a
corporation licensed (based on his) may be fairly routine
and inexpensive. That's the way it is for other professions,
at least those licensed by the State of California.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Doesn't matter. If he earns the money he gets taxed on it.

Now, if he can legally transfer his goodwill to a
corporation in a tax-free exchange for its stock, and the
corporation is the contracting party, then he might be able
to get away with it. Because in that case he's not assigning
income, the corporation is, technically, earning it. And he
just gets paid a salary.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

We were talking about assignment of income (I assumed to a
C-corp), which is a related but different question. In the
S-corp situation, the issue is reasonable compensation. A
lawyer can't do much about that.

- quote -

Exactly. I do know that corporations hold securities
licenses, but I don't know all the details either. But
having a corporation licensed and then the OP becomming its
employee is the only way for him to achieve his stated goal.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Your comments have been appreciated and helpful. Securities
licences can not be issued to a corporation only to the
individual. this is where the problem comes in. I will
talk to some of the people I know are doing it and see if
they can elaborate further. Thanks again for your comments.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

some of the factors which would militate against all income
being personal service type and therefore all subject to SE
tax. For example an S corporation with long standing
goodwill factors such as location, long establishment,
prestige in community, and also maybe payments of rent to S
corp owner for the building, but..... Looks like the OP is
is a licensed securities dealer, and this is a "PERSON"al
attribute whereas a corporation may not be. Not really
familiar with licensing requirements. Only IF the
corporation could hold the license, then it might could
employ owner to do the work at a reasonable wage.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:

- quote -

I suspect that the costs of getting a corporation licensed
in the securities industry is much higher than any potential
tax benefits. It might not even be feasible for too small a
company (e.g. a corporation requires supervisory personnel,
a compliance manager, etc.) There might be some loophole
for a single-person corp.; I've never looked into it.

Seth [ex-RR]

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Please excuse my previous post if Moderator didn't catch
incomplete, unedited text with flaky space bar and ignored. Hit
Send button instead of Save button. Actually a cheap, flaky
little wireless notebook with a hair-trigger mouse pad, but mere
shameless excuse. To repeat:

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

- quote -

I'm curious as to what a lawyer can do to avoid the "S Corp
compensation" issue. IRS has successfully attacked this on
purely employment tax grounds where reasonable salary need
not be the issue. Any payment (S-Corp profit distribution)
which under the facts is disguised compensation to the
shareholder/officer is subject to FICA. I think it's a
frivolous argument that payments for the poster's personal
services are substantially diminished by merely passing them
through the S Corp's bank account.

In one such case, IRS won in Tax Court where there was a
real business. Two unrelated, 50/50 S/H in a plumbing
business, presuming other workers and other profit-earning
capital (but not described in the facts). None of this thus
mattered, as only around $25K in reported FICA wages to each
apparently spoke for itself. Add'l, substantial S Corp
distributions were subjected to FICA.

Fred F.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I'm curious as to what a lawyer can do to avoid the "S Corp
compensation issue. So far as know, IRS has attacked it on
purely employment tax grounds. Any payment (S-Corp profit
distribution) which under the facts is disguised
compensation to theshareholder/officer. I think it's
frivolous argument that payments for the poster's personal
services aresubstantially diminihsed by passing them through
the S Corp bank account.

In one such cae, IRS won in Tacourt where there was a real
business. Two,m in related
<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

No doubt it is "all the time", however, there must be a
valid business purpose for it and not just for tax purposes.
That's the difference, and in these cases IRS can reassign
income back to the rightful recipient.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Animal wrote:
- quote -

These CPA's you speak of are assuming that it will be the
corporation after it is formed that will contract with your
employer. That's a horse of a different color.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Animal" <conceptv[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Technically you don't want to assign income. What you want
to do is have the corporation be the contracting party, so
any money would be owed to it. Just like when you have an
IBM tech come out and work on your computer you make the
check out to the company, not to him.

That's the reason I suggested looking into how to get your
corporation licensed - it's common to do so in other
professions such as CPA's, lawyers, real estate brokers,
etc. The difference is that stock brokers are licensed by
the federal government instead of the states, so the
procedures may be different.

Once your corporation qualifies for a license, your
corporation enters into the contracts instead of you. You
are only an employee of the corporation.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

What if he can make a legitimate case that the "personal
service income" is larger than it might otherwise be because
of "goodwill" that has been built up?

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

Thanks for your reply. Just so you know it is not my
intention to sham the IRS. I was told I could do this by
two different CPA's. I have also been told this by two
different associates who have their own CPA's that advised
this. I like to see some precedence before I move forward
of which I cannot find. I also assumed that I gave you all
the info, maybe I did and maybe I didn't. The income would
be assigned to my fee based advisory Corporation (S corp).
It still may not matter. I don't know. Taxes are not my
expertise.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

TxSrv <n3_eu[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

Actually it's done all the time, and perfectly properly,
too. You just have to make sure you get to a good lawyer
and have the paperwork done up properly.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

TxSrv wrote:

(snipped)

- quote -

"sham"! We use the same word.

GMTA

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Animal wrote:

- quote -

It is well-settled law that such an assignment cannot be
done. It wouldn't work anyway, and presuming you mean an S
Corp, because you can't take a lower salary than your
personal service income it receives. You must apply FICA to
100% of the money, less any expenses the 1120-S would have,
principally the employer's share of FICA. There's no
"profit" in receiving money and cutting a paycheck to one
person, in essence a sham. Else I'd be happy to take
anyone's paycheck or 1099 money, divide by like 2 and keep
1/2 for myself.

Fred F.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Animal wrote:

- quote -

That's a sham and IRS would (or should) see right through it.

No, the commissions are directly service related (your
services) and there's no real business purpose for a
corporation.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Animal" <conceptv[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

I don't know about this in the securities industry, but in
other businesses requiring licenses it is fairly simple to
get a corporation licensed based on your licenses. That
should solve the problem.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >