Employee Retention Credit and "Related Individuals"

Technical topics regarding tax preparation.
#1
Posts:
749
Joined:
15-May-2014 12:26pm
Location:
USA
The regulation says payroll of 'related individuals' does not qualify for Employee Retention Credit.

Taxpayer is the sole owner of a S-corp. His girlfriend, who is the mother of their two children, works there on payroll. Is she considered a 'related individual''?
 

#2
CrowCPA  
Posts:
402
Joined:
25-Apr-2014 3:27pm
Location:
New England
Unless they are in a state where common law marriage is recognized I would think she is not a related individual. They are just shacking up.
 

#3
taxcpa  
Posts:
729
Joined:
29-Apr-2014 6:47am
Location:
USA
The following starts with the FAQ and includes the Cited language.

Read the last bit carefully. Twice.

59. Are wages paid by an employer to employees who are related individuals considered qualified wages?
No. Wages paid to related individuals, as defined by section 51(i)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"), are not taken into account for purposes of the Employee Retention Credit. A related individual is any employee who has of any of the following relationships to the employee's employer who is an individual:
• A child or a descendant of a child;
• A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister;
• The father or mother, or an ancestor of either;
• A stepfather or stepmother;
• A niece or nephew;
• An aunt or uncle;
• A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law.
In addition, if the Eligible Employer is a corporation, then a related individual is any person that bears a relationship described above with an individual owning, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation.
If the Eligible Employer is an entity other than a corporation, then a related individual is any person that bears a relationship described above with an individual owning, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital and profits interests in the entity.
If the Eligible Employer is an estate or trust, then a related individual includes a grantor, beneficiary, or fiduciary of the estate or trust, or any person that bears a relationship described above with an individual who is a grantor, beneficiary, or fiduciary of the estate or trust.


Looking at section 51(i)(1)

(i)CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS INELIGIBLE
(1)RELATED INDIVIDUALSNo wages shall be taken into account under subsection (a) with respect to an individual who—
(A)
bears any of the relationships described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2) to the taxpayer, or, if the taxpayer is a corporation, to an individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, or, if the taxpayer is an entity other than a corporation, to any individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital and profits interests in the entity (determined with the application of section 267(c)),

152(d)(2)

(2)RELATIONSHIPFor purposes of paragraph (1)(A), an individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in this paragraph if the individual is any of the following with respect to the taxpayer:
(A)
A child or a descendant of a child.
(B)
A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister.
(C)
The father or mother, or an ancestor of either.
(D)
A stepfather or stepmother.
(E)
A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the taxpayer.
(F)
A brother or sister of the father or mother of the taxpayer.
(G)
A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law.
(H)
An individual (other than an individual who at any time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s household.
 

#4
Posts:
1371
Joined:
22-Apr-2014 9:07am
Location:
Chicago, IL
But 51(i)1A specifies individuals in A through G of 152(d)2, not H
 

#5
Posts:
268
Joined:
23-Jan-2015 11:10pm
Location:
michigan
But an individual owning 100% of the stock of an "S" Corp. who is an employee of the corporation is still an eligible employee for the ERC, correct?
 

#6
taxcpa  
Posts:
729
Joined:
29-Apr-2014 6:47am
Location:
USA
keninmichigan wrote:But an individual owning 100% of the stock of an "S" Corp. who is an employee of the corporation is still an eligible employee for the ERC, correct?


Nice catch. I think you are correct. I was too focused on the convoluted language and missed that it was not applicable.
 

#7
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
This article is a very good explanation of why >50% owner wages are not elligible for ERC:
https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopmen ... areholders
 

#8
Posts:
3222
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 8:25am
Location:
Michigan
May not be eligible?
 

#9
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
Are not eligible. What did you think of the article?

Unless Congress changes the law or the IRS interprets against existing law, we are stuck with family attribution rules of 267(c) disqualifying >50% owner's wages. I don't see it changing.
 

#10
Posts:
3222
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 8:25am
Location:
Michigan
dandaman809 wrote:Are not eligible. What did you think of the article?


I'll tell you what i think. I think the splash back theory is untested. If the only thing they can find is something said about it in a joint committee of taxation excerpt then it means hasn't gone to court. And since there is now more money on the line it may go to court. I concluded that we don't know one way or the other how this should be.
 

#11
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
The JCT report supports disqualification of >50% owners and committee reports are authoritative. But we don't even need the JCT report because we can read the code to get to the right answer.

Family attribution rules of 267(c) are not unproven. They have been around for a very long time and have full regulations written covering them. Indirect ownership by family attribution is a clear rule. It is used and referenced in many areas of tax law.

For example, a 100% S-Corp owner-employee father and his son are both disqualified from ERC eligibility. The son is disqualified by nature of being related to a >50% owner (the father). The father is disqualified by nature of being related to a >50% indirect owner (the son because the father's ownership is attributed to spouse/siblings/ancestors/decendants).
 

#12
Posts:
3222
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 8:25am
Location:
Michigan
You're saying the Code expressly provides for this. i know that.
 

#13
Posts:
798
Joined:
30-May-2014 7:38am
Location:
NC
dandaman809 wrote:For example, a 100% S-Corp owner-employee father and his son are both disqualified from ERC eligibility. The son is disqualified by nature of being related to a >50% owner (the father). The father is disqualified by nature of being related to a >50% indirect owner (the son because the father's ownership is attributed to spouse/siblings/ancestors/decendants).


So you're saying a shareholder with no close relatives qualifies but others don't because of this splash back idea. I realize tax law isn't fair but that doesn't sit right for me.
 

#14
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
I refer to that as the "no living relatives loophole" which sounds odd, but it what it is. Lots of the tax code doesn't sit right for me. I commiserate with you but follow the rules regardless.

Ed did a video on this topic too. Starts at 28:30 https://vimeo.com/532885005. Very informative.
 

#15
Posts:
1
Joined:
20-Apr-2021 11:05am
Location:
CALIFORNIA
I have been checking out different sites to see seminars to see every ones take on the issue of Employee-Owner wages and that no where does it say Owner-Employee wages are exclude. The ERC sites wages subject to FICA and specifically that self-employed are not eligible, which makes sense since like Partnerships the owner does not receive a W2. Spouses wages seem to be an issue since Spouse is not listed Related.

In IRS Section 51(i)(1)(A) it says...
"bears any of the relationships described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2) to the taxpayer, or, if the taxpayer is a corporation, to an individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, or, if the taxpayer is an entity other than a corporation, to any individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital and profits interests in the entity (determined with the application of section 267(c)"

152(d)(2)(H) which is not listed in the above specifically states Spouses as not part of the excluded list, so that seems to me to say that the IRS wants spouses to be allowed.

267(c) deals with Constructive Relations and yes Spouse is listed there, but if the OR means that 267 does not apply to Corporations, than Spouse's wages are allowed.

Definitions I find for Direct Ownership says that what an individual/taxpayer actually owns and that Indirect is what the individual/taxpayer owns that owns another entity. 267(c) deals with Constructive Ownership, so what an individual/taxpayer owns directly/indirectly is seen as being also owned by a Related individual.

If an S-Corp is a Corporation and 267(c) does not apply to Corporations than a spouse's wages would be eligible for ERC. Since there is no mention in either section 152 or 267's Related lists that a taxpayers wages are excluded, it seems to reason that the Owner-Employee wages are allowed if the Owner is not Related to another Owner with more than 50%, Again IF 267(c) does not apply to Corporations the ownership percentage is based upon the amount each individual owns and not a combination. Wife would not be seen as Example Husband owns 30%, Wife owns 30% and a Non-Related owns 40%. If either or both Husband/Wife are employees their wages would count, since individually neither is >50% and the same would apply to any Related employees.
IF 267(c) applied to a Corporation and the same example existed than the Husband, Wife and any related employees are not eligible because Constructively all of them would own 60%.

Based upon all that above does an S-Corp fall under Corporation or Other Entity? Does section 267(c) as referenced apply to ONLY Entities Other Than Corporation? I think knowing the answer to those 2 questions would solve the issue of what wages to excluded.
 

#16
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
Sec 267(c) is attribution rules for corporations but applies to all entities in this context. Sec 51(i)(1) includes both the effect to corps and partnerships:

(1)Related individuals

No wages shall be taken into account under subsection (a) with respect to an individual who—
(A)bears any of the relationships described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2) to the taxpayer, or, if the taxpayer is a corporation, to an individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, or, if the taxpayer is an entity other than a corporation, to any individual who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the capital and profits interests in the entity (determined with the application of section 267(c)),

I think you might be trying to say that attribution might only apply to partnerships due to the "or" above. Wishful thinking at best there. The wording of "directly and indirectly" clearly applies to both. How do we define indirectly? Sec 267(c)

It's mind numbing and unfortunate that the IRS hasn't addressed the issue specifically (yet), but it is the answer we get when we follow the code. There really is no reasonable basis to do otherwise unless congress changes the law or the IRS decides to go soft on the issue with some new guidance.
 

#17
FLCPA  
Posts:
174
Joined:
2-May-2014 8:09am
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
Notice 21-23, part III, E. Qualified Wages, (in the last sentence of page 12) it says, "Accordingly, the rule discussed in section II.F. of Notice 2021-20 does not apply to employee retention credits claimed for the first and second calendar quarters of 2021."

II.F. of Notice 2021-20 talks about related individuals among other things. Does this seem like it could be eliminating the related individual issue for the 1st and 2nd qtrs of 2021?
 

#18
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
Here is the full section you are referencing:

Finally, section II.F. of Notice 2021-20 states that under section 2301(h)(1) of the CARES Act, an employee will not be included for purposes of computing the employee retention credit for any period that an employer is allowed a work opportunity credit under section 51 with respect to that employee. Section 207(f) of the Relief Act removed this restriction from section 2301(h) of the CARES Act. Accordingly, the rule discussed in section II.F. of Notice 2021-20 does not apply to employee retention credits claimed for the first and second calendar quarters of 2021.

This part of the notice is discussing how ERC in 2020 can't be double dipped between ERC wages and WOTC wages. However, in 2021, this double dip provision goes away. You can get both credits on the same wages in 2021 but not in 2020.

This section has nothing to do with related party disqualification rules that create the problem discussed in this thread. Those rules are based on the WOTC related party rules which is why you see Sec 51 referenced in both contexts but there is no overlap of this section and related party issues of 51i and 267(c).
 

#19
Posts:
49
Joined:
13-Jan-2015 8:43am
Location:
US
Also worth noting another fantastic article newly published. Tom Gorczynski originally had said owners get ERC (as everyone did), but now has written about the 267(c) problem in good detail here: https://www.tomtalkstaxes.com/p/tom-tal ... il-30-2021
 

#20
Posts:
268
Joined:
23-Jan-2015 11:10pm
Location:
michigan
In the Ed Zollars video referenced here, he "felt" that the PPP loan forgiveness amount could count as revenues when computing whether a company qualifies for the ERC for a quarter. I haven't heard of this before now. This could be a significant factor for many companies. Do others have thoughts on this?
 

Next

Return to Taxation



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], jon, lckent, mikestaxes55, Nilodop, rbynaker, rotsky, TaxCut, TaxDude, TAXMASTER, taxp2345, Wilburbud and 88 guests