Discussion:"Check the Box" LLC argument revisted

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> "Check the Box" LLC argument revisted

Stevo (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
I saw some old posts discouraging using "check the box" to go from LLC to S-corp. Those who had partner debt, negative basis, etc. said it wasn't worth the hassle. But what about for a brand new entity? It seems to me it is much easier to Organize a single member LLC, and now just file the 2553 (the IRS says they don't even want the 8832).

It's less paperwork than doing corporate resolutions, minutes, etc.

Of course I wouldn't do this if the S-corp would hold appreciating assets, etc. but other than that it seems like a no brainer. Am I missing something?

Thanks for the input.

Will (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
If you consider the corporate procedures required by state laws to be over-burdensome, it is probably a good bet that incorporating at all is overkill for the liabilities involved in the enterprise.

The amount of paperwork involved for an MMLLC to achieve the same level of liability protection and basic functionality that a straight S election would is far under-estimated. $3000 to start for an MMLLC agreement in my area if there are real capital and revenue interests involved. A solid corp by-laws book and some nice looking certificates and you are out the door for $1k.

An SMLLC is a great entity for sole p's looking for protection and the question would be why file the 2553 at all?


William Price, EA | Portland, OR - Talk to me

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 19, 2007
To me, it comes down to conflict between the law and tax. One example that comes to mind is renting from yourself. I'd have to dig thru old threads and/or my brain to remember the specific issues, but there are some big differences between how it must be handled for S's and 1065's, and since underlying real estate law in the state can just be disregarded, which rules? The S rules or the real estate law. Sorry I can't give something specific, but I don't see how you accomplish much. You still file an annual report, same as for a corp. Oh, wow, you don't give an attorney $200 for the meeting minutes...whooppeee... So how is it easier? You should still have an LLC agreement....if you want a corp, make a corp. No biggie, but clearly clearly clearly clarifies all the underlying legal issues. Clear?

Estock (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
I have an S that was once an LLC. The original members (two of them)didn't want to pay self-employment tax, ever. I suggested that they become an S. Now they don't pay se tax and they are happy. Big dummies - Nothing really changed, and now they have to pay SUTA/FUTA.

Hey JR1 - what is this about minutes??? ;)

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
There are clear (non-huge) advantages to using an LLC. There are no disadvantages. So use an LLC.

Many people would be better off with the LLC disregarded, but if your heart is set on an S corporation, the LLC is still the best way to get there.

Stevo (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
No disadvantage to being an SMLLC? What about audit frequency? I have read that audit rates are much higher for Schedule C (does it matter whether it's a sole p or diregarded SM LLC? I don't think so)than an 1120S, and subsequent flow-through to Sch. E).

Is there new evidence to the contrary?

Also, can't some net income in an S Corp be saved from Payroll Tax (after paying reasonable comp.)

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2007
Audits? Discussion: How Many Audits Did You Have in 2006?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 19, 2007
I do wish a tax attorney would log in here, who has practical experience out there, about the issues, if any, on this. Maybe I've just made up all the problems...even as I write this tho', I wonder about all those things that are controlled by state law...like how you handle real estate, liquidation of the LLC/S corp, etc.

Eriktax (talk|edits) said:

20 January 2007
As a tax attorney I have seen a few instances where the 3 step "form an llc - check the box - file an S election" or the newer 2 step "form an llc - file an S election" have caused problems.

A lot of adivosrs recommed S corps over LLC's bc of the SET games and since there are less state law corporaet formalities with a state law LLC. In certain cases, I agree that an S corp is a better vehicle for these reasons.

The need for flexiblity (capital influx, dispropotinate allocations, dispprportionate distributons, a wider universe of investors) though typically causes me to recommend an LLC taxed as a partnership/sole prop.

The big issue that I have seen, though, that should keep you up at night is where a client comes in with an exisiting LLC and asks for tax planning based upon business needs. Suppose the LLC represeantive says that they want to (1) let in "C Corp" as an investor, (2) let in a new investor and give it a pref, or (3) give an interest to a trust (that would not be able to elect ESBT or QSST, etc) and due to thinking you are dealing with an LLC, you adivse the client about the alternatives and then the client proceeds with the planning. If an S corp election has been made for the LLC, any of the aforementioned items (or any number of other items) would terminate the S election. Viola', now you've got a client expecting flow though treatment that is immediatley a shareholder in a C corp. THat's right. You cannot "revert" to LLC status. Rather, you are a C corp and cannot re-elect S status for five years. I've not seen any reported guidance re: the IRS granting releife for an inadvertant termination due to these facts based upon a miscommunication between the advisor and client but I expect that a lot of requests have been submitted.

My nutshell: 1. The 2 step or 3 step S corp election for an LLC may be good in certain circumstances but the entity may unduly restrict itself by doing so. 2. If you are an advisor, make sure that your LLC clients have not elected S corp status. Get such a rep in writing. 3. If you are an LLC having made an S election, please tell your adivsor of this even if your adivsor doesn't ask.

Eriktax (talk|edits) said:

20 January 2007
Following up on JR1's comment above:

If you have an LLC that has elected to be an S corp, you need to treat everything just like it were an S corp. Prorats distributions, prorata allocations, no funky equity, no funky debt, no nonqualified investors.

On making the election, pay close attention to Sec. 357(c) ---> "gain on a Sec. 351 transaction if the debt assumed by the corp exceeds the tax basis of property contributed"

WIth real estate, since it can appreciate at such a great clip, the real estate cannot get "out" of the S corp in a tax efficent manner. The S corp will be deemed to have sold it to the shareholder at FMV thereby causing gain at the entity level withc flows through to the sahreholder. While the flow through increases basis, there will still be tax to pay. While this is better than a C corp bc C corps would have two layers of tax (entity and sharehodler), it is far worse than that which could be accomplished in a LLC taxed as a paretnerhsip (carryover basis no gain recognition in many cases).

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 20, 2007
Thank you Erik for that primer on some of this stuff. I'd like to somehow pin this to the top of the board for mandatory reading by all who venture here...

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

20 January 2007
Reading between Erik's lines, it looks too many people who post questions here have not done the proper homework but rather called an 800# and formed a LLC willy-nilly.

Bkochu (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
And here I am getting ready to convert my SMLLC to an S Corp to save on SE tax....

Once I file the 2553 (I don't need the 8832?) am I still considered an LLC?

Do I have to worry about an annual meeting/minutes (with myself since I'll be a 100% shareholder)?

Is 50% of my net profits OK for a "reasonable salary" (my net for last year was 120K, so I'm thinking a salary of 60K)?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 3, 2007
No, do that and you are an S, that's the point of the 2553. Get some help. Seriously. If you've been reading around here, you know how to do a reasonable salary...and it has NOTHING to do with the profits or a ratio.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Actually, the business would still be an LLC for state law purposes, but an S corp for tax purposes only.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 3, 2007
Super! What a concept.

Gmikeg (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Kevin is correct. The state, at least NM, still sees the LLC, not a Corp. No minutes, etc. But what I want to know, is why Eriktax says you can't get back to LLC? Doesn't the 8832 also do that? AND, what is this new 2-step process?

....I edited this in order to correct my post...

Thanks,


Mike

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
While I respect Erik's knowledge and research immensely (Hi E.L.!), I'm not sure if you're not taking his statment out of context.

Once an LLC has elected to be taxed as other than the default, there is a 5 year waiting period to elect another tax scheme. So if a MMLLC, whose default is a 1065 chooses to be taxed as an 1120-s, then it must wait 5 years before going to either 1120 or 1120s (or even Sch C if all members but one dropped out). Accepting the default classification is not considered to be an election, so there is no 5 year waiting period to change from default to something else.

I don't know which two-step they do in Wisconsin. Maybe he is referring to the prior 8832 Corp election, then the 2553 S-corp election, which was changed in 2004 to now only require a 2553 (per the instructions).

Will (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
I thought 2-step was the old process, now it is just the 2553 and you're done.

Will (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Are you sure on that Kevin? You can only elect S once in 5 years but can rescend the election at anytime I beleive. (Revert to an 1120 I mean, not 1065.)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Will, it is really a 60 month time period, not 5 years, and can be waived by the IRS if there has been greater than a 50% ownership change.

Got out my text from when I taught this several times last year. LLC has to be an "eligible entity". An eligible entity is any entity recognized for federal tax purposes that is not properly classified as a corporation or otherwise subject to special treatment under the tax code (insurance company, bank, etc).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
So you are right for a C corp owned SMLLC, Will, but most others require the 60 months.

Will (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
ok, ty

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Oh, but I don't know how a C-Corp owned SMLLC could have ever elected S Corp status, since an S Corp can't have a C-corp as a shareholder anyway.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Now I get the Wisconsin Two Step - Form an LLC is the first step. I had to re-read Erik's post to get it.

Gmikeg (talk|edits) said:

3 March 2007
Wait, I thought the disregarded entity had to file an 8832 to become a C-corp, then immediately file the 2553 to elect the S. I also believe that the 60 month wait period only applied to an electing S-corp that went to a C, then has to wait 60 months to elect S again.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

4 March 2007
1) No, that is why Erik calls it a two step process whereas it used to be a three step process. The entity is not ever a corp, it is always an LLC (although it may be taxed as a corp if either the SM is a corp or the members file 8832 to elect the Corp taxation scheme).

2) Read the Form 8832 instructions on the 60 month rule on page 5 of the Instructions

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

4 March 2007
For the two-step S election, see Reg Sec. 1.301-7701-3(c)(1(v)(c) [Here] This reg also has the 60 month waiting rule.

BradP (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2007
What? Never had a problem filing a 2553 to convert a 1065 company to an S-Corp. From what I have read, it really does not make any sense for the two step process anymore. Maybe the IRS is not consistent on this?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2007
Brad, for an LLC that IS the 2 step: 1) Form an LLC; 2) File 2553


A partnership filing Form 1065 would have to convert to a C corporation by state law first, though, so your comment is a little puzzling. It would have a 3 step process.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.