PPP Tax May Focus on Larger Employers Only

by Steve Haner

A week ago, Governor Ralph Northam’s Administration was adamant that it would be unfair, in fact a double tax benefit, to allow Virginia employers with forgiven Paycheck Protection Plan loans to also deduct any expenses used to qualify for forgiveness.

This week, the position changed. Maybe it would make sense to allow it for some employers. Perhaps those employers could keep the first $100,000 from the grants free from tax. What was a firm assertion of fair tax policy is now a typical legislative horse trade, with smaller businesses considered “deserving” and larger businesses not.

Northam and his secretary of finance, Aubrey Layne, built the introduced state budget on a key assumption: Any Virginia employer that received some of the $12 billion in PPP money which flowed into Virginia, and had that loan forgiven, would be denied a tax deduction on the expenses which qualified it for forgiveness. (Mostly employers qualified by keeping employees on the job, so the deduction would be payroll dollars that supported them and their families.)

Under traditional IRS rules, which the IRS confirmed in the case of the PPP program last year, that is how other business loans are treated if the loan amount is forgiven. Applying that IRS interpretation added up to $500 million in projected individual and corporate income tax revenue for fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

But then Congress overruled the IRS. Congress in December made it clear the PPP loans are not taxable income and the expenses that justified them remain deductible expenses. That effectively made PPP tax free at the federal level. Governor Northam is asking the legislators to stick by the old approach and impose state tax on the PPP proceeds that preserved jobs in the 2020 recession.

Two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, seek to de-conform Virginia from several new federal tax provisions adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most are business related, and most have not proven controversial. But the attempt to prevent deduction of the payroll and other expenses which turned the PPP loans into grants brought both bills to a halt.

Layne was back in front of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee Wednesday with more information and the outlines of a compromise, but without a specific recommendation. Six members of that committee will meet and decide whether to allow none of those deductions, all of them, or some portion. In other words, whether to tax all, none, or part of those PPP grants.

Estimates were provided on the fiscal impact to the state of various caps that might be set on the deductions — $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000. (“Fiscal impact to the state” also translates into “more money left with taxpayers.”) Some larger employers – heavily in Northern Virginia – received PPP loans in the millions, but the statewide average amount was $107,000, Layne reported.

Committee members in both parties warmed to the idea of allowing partial deductions with a cap. “For the most part I agree with where you are going,” said senior Republican Emmett Hanger of Augusta. Some members, however, discussed trying to focus the deductions only on struggling companies.

This is not an issue for companies that will show a loss on their 2020 tax returns. In fact – an inconvenient fact – disallowing these deductions will push some companies from tax-free losses into taxable gains.

To assist in the deliberation, Layne broke the data into estimates for incorporated businesses and unincorporated businesses, which are often taxed through their owner’s individual returns. The vast majority of PPP loans were given to unincorporated businesses, often family operations, or partnerships.

Of the 108,000 loans to taxed entities, only 21,500 were for amounts above $100,000. That means a cutoff of $100,000 for deductions of the PPP-tied expenses covers 80% of recipients. It protects more of the smaller unincorporated operations, and fewer large corporations. Layne didn’t circle that fact in red or put a gold star on the chart, but the politicians will home in on that line immediately.

The $100,000 deduction cap provides political cover. Eight in ten of the employers would get full deductions. Since the larger loans were often much larger, the state would still get most of the PPP tax receipts baked into the Governor’s introduced budget. This approach may emerge next week.

As he had in a previous meeting, Layne argued Wednesday that the PPP recipients do not deserve better treatment than those employers who did not seek it or didn’t qualify. He mentioned that those were disproportionally small and minority firms, as if higher taxes on the firms that did get PPP removes that problem.

Many of those employers instead received grants from Rebuild VA, which the state set up. Rebuild VA was about one percent of the size of the PPP program, $120 million instead of $12 billion, and it was the Northam Administration’s plan to impose the same tax hit on them – deny to them any deduction for the expenses they used to qualify for the grants. That changed, too.

“Threshold, timing, and definition of qualifying taxpayers (for Rebuild VA) should be consistent with the deduction for PPP loan recipients, if such tax benefits are adopted,” Layne wrote in his presentation slides. That is correct. Taxing those grants – taking a six-percent kickback on that job rescue money – would be wrong. The General Assembly should fix that, too.

This was originally published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

69 responses to “PPP Tax May Focus on Larger Employers Only”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/senate-work-group-to-look-at-tax-options-for-helping-va-businesses-without-breaking-bank/article_cdb8c38b-ad0c-5798-8d39-5a35d031dba1.html

    That RTD piece from yesterday is basically the administration spin, IMHO. Note the concern with “breaking the bank” as if the money is the state’s first and a decision to NOT tax it is doing the taxpayers a big favor. Anybody who votes for a “partial” deduction and then goes to campaign on how they gave employers tax break will be shameless. Won’t stop them….

  2. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/senate-work-group-to-look-at-tax-options-for-helping-va-businesses-without-breaking-bank/article_cdb8c38b-ad0c-5798-8d39-5a35d031dba1.html

    That RTD piece from yesterday is basically the administration spin, IMHO. Note the concern with “breaking the bank” as if the money is the state’s first and a decision to NOT tax it is doing the taxpayers a big favor. Anybody who votes for a “partial” deduction and then goes to campaign on how they gave employers tax break will be shameless. Won’t stop them….

  3. The issue gets very complicated as soon as you delve into the details. The affected businesses care deeply, I’m sure, but I don’t see this as an issue that will move public opinion. Is there any way to boil down your argument to a pithy bumper-sticker statement…. or does the nature of the controversy defy simplification?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      One of the chief attractions of BR for me has been that it was a forum for a reasoned discussion of complicated issues. If the emphasis is going to shift to those that can be boiled down to “bumper-sticker” labels, that will be a shame.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        🙂

        yup

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The time for a bumper sticker approach may come. But doing what Layne is now pushing, taking the problem away from the smaller firms that only got loans under $100K, reduces the political danger. And if my writing about this has been a part of moving them in that direction, and in removing tax on the state grants, I’ll call that a good day’s work.

      AND offline I just heard from the good secretary, who thinks I overstated his position — he was just responding to legislative requests for alternatives, laying out options, but in no way backing off what they think is the right approach, which would be to de-conform from the federal treatment of these expenses. Still good tax policy, he said. Well, maybe, but he laid out those attractive options right in front of the committee and the cameras and I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I know an olive branch when I see one.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I always appreciate your analyses. It sounds like there is a good old-fashioned legislative compromise in the making.

        My first inclination was to take administration to task for “baking” revenues into the budget which had not yet been approved by the legislature. That is classic bad budget policy (but not uncommon, either). However, then I realized that the Feds changed their minds after the Governor had prepared and submitted his budget proposal. When the budget was being developed, the IRS interpretation had been that the expenses could not be deducted, then the new legislation, adopted in late December, said they were deductible. The Northam budget bill got caught in the middle of this change in federal policy.

        I think your characterization of this action as taxing the federal grants is misguided. It is like saying that my not being able to deduct medical expenses that I did not have to pay because my insurance company paid them is a tax increase on me.

  4. The issue gets very complicated as soon as you delve into the details. The affected businesses care deeply, I’m sure, but I don’t see this as an issue that will move public opinion. Is there any way to boil down your argument to a pithy bumper-sticker statement…. or does the nature of the controversy defy simplification?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      One of the chief attractions of BR for me has been that it was a forum for a reasoned discussion of complicated issues. If the emphasis is going to shift to those that can be boiled down to “bumper-sticker” labels, that will be a shame.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        🙂

        yup

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The time for a bumper sticker approach may come. But doing what Layne is now pushing, taking the problem away from the smaller firms that only got loans under $100K, reduces the political danger. And if my writing about this has been a part of moving them in that direction, and in removing tax on the state grants, I’ll call that a good day’s work.

      AND offline I just heard from the good secretary, who thinks I overstated his position — he was just responding to legislative requests for alternatives, laying out options, but in no way backing off what they think is the right approach, which would be to de-conform from the federal treatment of these expenses. Still good tax policy, he said. Well, maybe, but he laid out those attractive options right in front of the committee and the cameras and I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I know an olive branch when I see one.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I always appreciate your analyses. It sounds like there is a good old-fashioned legislative compromise in the making.

        My first inclination was to take administration to task for “baking” revenues into the budget which had not yet been approved by the legislature. That is classic bad budget policy (but not uncommon, either). However, then I realized that the Feds changed their minds after the Governor had prepared and submitted his budget proposal. When the budget was being developed, the IRS interpretation had been that the expenses could not be deducted, then the new legislation, adopted in late December, said they were deductible. The Northam budget bill got caught in the middle of this change in federal policy.

        I think your characterization of this action as taxing the federal grants is misguided. It is like saying that my not being able to deduct medical expenses that I did not have to pay because my insurance company paid them is a tax increase on me.

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Our political figures should stick to the spirit of intention of the PPP loans. Help the small business owner. This legislative scheme will come across as a bait and switch.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The problem being you doubly help those that were lucky enough to get one, while continuing to punish those that didn’t.

      Perhaps this is the solution. Add a multiplier on deductible expenses. If your company received a PPP loan that multiplier is 1.0. If not, it is 2.0. There, now everyone gets a double-dip cone.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        I see your point. I hope they come up with something to help out our small businesses.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I just did. Ralph can send my BeneSuggs check to BR.

      2. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        The PROBLEM is that PPP round 2 is on the way….and the amounts involved are going to balloon….

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yeah, but that’s tax year 2021. Got nine months to figure it out. AND, don’t have to be consistent, yoy, either. Pays to be King.

          We are really backed into a corner by the Feds. Our choices as I see it now is to limit the PPP paid-for expense deductions or help those that didn’t get a loan. Giving an additional deduction to non-PPP business may be the only equitable choice, even if it’s only to small companies.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            I never oppose ideas to lower business taxes, as a rule… 🙂

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Our political figures should stick to the spirit of intention of the PPP loans. Help the small business owner. This legislative scheme will come across as a bait and switch.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      The problem being you doubly help those that were lucky enough to get one, while continuing to punish those that didn’t.

      Perhaps this is the solution. Add a multiplier on deductible expenses. If your company received a PPP loan that multiplier is 1.0. If not, it is 2.0. There, now everyone gets a double-dip cone.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        I see your point. I hope they come up with something to help out our small businesses.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I just did. Ralph can send my BeneSuggs check to BR.

      2. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        The PROBLEM is that PPP round 2 is on the way….and the amounts involved are going to balloon….

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yeah, but that’s tax year 2021. Got nine months to figure it out. AND, don’t have to be consistent, yoy, either. Pays to be King.

          We are really backed into a corner by the Feds. Our choices as I see it now is to limit the PPP paid-for expense deductions or help those that didn’t get a loan. Giving an additional deduction to non-PPP business may be the only equitable choice, even if it’s only to small companies.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            I never oppose ideas to lower business taxes, as a rule… 🙂

  7. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    OTOH, taking a piece of a gift, as opposed to “hard earned” money, is bound to meet with less resistance.

    It is a bit like stealing the charity box from a church, but if you spend it on necessities, it’s a little less,.. what’s a good word?

  8. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    OTOH, taking a piece of a gift, as opposed to “hard earned” money, is bound to meet with less resistance.

    It is a bit like stealing the charity box from a church, but if you spend it on necessities, it’s a little less,.. what’s a good word?

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    So I’d ask , who gets the money for small businesses, and then who gets the money for big corporates?

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    So I’d ask , who gets the money for small businesses, and then who gets the money for big corporates?

  11. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    “I think your characterization of this action as taxing the federal grants is misguided.” I will respond to Dick down here and not insert over others….

    Well, you say potAto and I say poTOTo, and we car argue the point. I have seen a Tax Foundation report on this from way back in April, right after CARES passed, that said that allowing the exemption on the income side, but then denying the deduction, effectively taxed the grant. The CARES Act was silent on the point but then the IRS issued a ruling, which Congress then overrode.
    https://taxfoundation.org/senate-passes-small-business-relief-ppp-expenses/

    Yes, based on the IRS ruling the state could assume the revenue, but apparently within the Washington tax geeks this was controversial, and the effort to make this deductible was not a secret. It might have been wise to leave some wiggle room in the budget.

    Had the CAA not overruled the IRS, I likely would have fumed but not sought to have the GA change Layne’s approach. But here we are with a bill that will be a vote in favor of de-conformity, thus a vote in favor of taxing PPP.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If the grant is provided AND it’s not taxed and it’s used to pay for something… it ought not be a deduction.

      If the grant was taxable, then yes.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Okay, you do returns, so you can see this unless you are refusing to. Congress (and VA) says the grant is not income. Check. Congress says the expenses which turned the loan into a grant remain deductible. If they are NOT deductible, then the bottom line taxable income goes up ….. exactly the same amount as the grant! You add it back on the bottom line and it gets TAXED. If you can’t get that, we need to audit all the returns you’ve done….

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s in flux… we’re still not getting “final” decisions but for individuals, it appears that they’re trying to do the rules so they get more money back.

          They’re doing that for Schedule C and I can see that for small businesses but when it gets to be a bigger company, I’m thinking it’s just going to boost their profits.

          We had some abuses on the prior stimulus with some larger companies taking it when they did not need it. We had others give it back and others who refused it at the start.

          So for individual taxpayers and small businesses, I can see such rules but those rules are totally not kosher in normal tax times.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I am trying to work this through in my mind. Let’s say that one’s income before deductions was $100,000. So, without deductions, the taxable income was $100,000. But, there were expenses of $5,000, so that would make the taxable income come to $95,000. Then, along comes the PPP loan/grant of $5,000, which, in effect, negated those expenses, made them go away. So, we are back to a taxable income of $100,000, the same that it would have been if those expenses had not existed. Yes, one will have to pay more tax on $100,000 than on $95,000, but one does not now have those troublesome expenses. I see how you could take the perspective that the grant is being taxed, but the business is not any worse off. In fact, isn’t he better off because deductions do not result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in one’s taxes?

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      You say ‘Potato’ and I say ‘Vodka’.

  12. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    “I think your characterization of this action as taxing the federal grants is misguided.” I will respond to Dick down here and not insert over others….

    Well, you say potAto and I say poTOTo, and we car argue the point. I have seen a Tax Foundation report on this from way back in April, right after CARES passed, that said that allowing the exemption on the income side, but then denying the deduction, effectively taxed the grant. The CARES Act was silent on the point but then the IRS issued a ruling, which Congress then overrode.
    https://taxfoundation.org/senate-passes-small-business-relief-ppp-expenses/

    Yes, based on the IRS ruling the state could assume the revenue, but apparently within the Washington tax geeks this was controversial, and the effort to make this deductible was not a secret. It might have been wise to leave some wiggle room in the budget.

    Had the CAA not overruled the IRS, I likely would have fumed but not sought to have the GA change Layne’s approach. But here we are with a bill that will be a vote in favor of de-conformity, thus a vote in favor of taxing PPP.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If the grant is provided AND it’s not taxed and it’s used to pay for something… it ought not be a deduction.

      If the grant was taxable, then yes.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Okay, you do returns, so you can see this unless you are refusing to. Congress (and VA) says the grant is not income. Check. Congress says the expenses which turned the loan into a grant remain deductible. If they are NOT deductible, then the bottom line taxable income goes up ….. exactly the same amount as the grant! You add it back on the bottom line and it gets TAXED. If you can’t get that, we need to audit all the returns you’ve done….

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s in flux… we’re still not getting “final” decisions but for individuals, it appears that they’re trying to do the rules so they get more money back.

          They’re doing that for Schedule C and I can see that for small businesses but when it gets to be a bigger company, I’m thinking it’s just going to boost their profits.

          We had some abuses on the prior stimulus with some larger companies taking it when they did not need it. We had others give it back and others who refused it at the start.

          So for individual taxpayers and small businesses, I can see such rules but those rules are totally not kosher in normal tax times.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I am trying to work this through in my mind. Let’s say that one’s income before deductions was $100,000. So, without deductions, the taxable income was $100,000. But, there were expenses of $5,000, so that would make the taxable income come to $95,000. Then, along comes the PPP loan/grant of $5,000, which, in effect, negated those expenses, made them go away. So, we are back to a taxable income of $100,000, the same that it would have been if those expenses had not existed. Yes, one will have to pay more tax on $100,000 than on $95,000, but one does not now have those troublesome expenses. I see how you could take the perspective that the grant is being taxed, but the business is not any worse off. In fact, isn’t he better off because deductions do not result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in one’s taxes?

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      You say ‘Potato’ and I say ‘Vodka’.

  13. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    We will see what Fairfax County’s legislative delegation does. They often join locals and County Government in denouncing the unfair tax burden that is imposed on the County and its residents and employers. Dollars to Richmond and about 23 cents more or less back. This would be a good place for them to draw a line in the sand and say “Sorry Governor.”

    My bet is that the delegation caves. However, they will receive cover from the County, which will remain silent, and be ignored by the residents who don’t get the connection.

  14. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    We will see what Fairfax County’s legislative delegation does. They often join locals and County Government in denouncing the unfair tax burden that is imposed on the County and its residents and employers. Dollars to Richmond and about 23 cents more or less back. This would be a good place for them to draw a line in the sand and say “Sorry Governor.”

    My bet is that the delegation caves. However, they will receive cover from the County, which will remain silent, and be ignored by the residents who don’t get the connection.

  15. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Look at this another way. Uncle Sugar has now sent us $3600 in COVID bucks. Tax free. What if they said, if you gave it to charity — no deduction. Paid your mortgage interest– no deduction. You must reduce your standard deduction by $3600. Would the COVID bucks still be tax free? Layne would say so. 🙂

    And TMT, some of the biggest PPP amounts were in Northern VA.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      but it was tax-free, no?

      does it matter what you spent it on if it was untaxed to start with?

      Do you get to deduct what you pay for health insurance?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Here, Larry, hit him with this one. I pay, 0% and/or 15% on Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains on the Fed forms, but Virginia doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about that. It’s all FAGI to them and it’s all taxed at the same rate.

        I demand CONFORMITY!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It can get complex… but no rule that says Virginia must do what the Feds do… there are dozens of credits and deducations that Virginia does different from the Feds.

          I still think what the Feds are doing is trying to help the individual and small business and not the bigger companies and that may be what Virginia is trying to do.

          This may be akin to the Feds giving stimulus payments to people who make 75K/150K. That money doesn’t get into the economy like money given to those making 15-20K.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Still, it’s a windfall. Best kinda tax target.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s a gift versus income issue. It appears that the feds are going to treat forgiven loans as a gift — untaxed and no restriction on the use.

      But seriously, does the State have to conform to Federal tax treatments? Is there any reason why the State couldn’t just tax it at a flat 2% and then allow all the usual deductions?

      It’s not like it isn’t separable from normal income sources. It has “PPP” written all over it.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        There is no rule that says the state has to conform to Federal tax treatments. However, Virginia has operated under a general policy of conforming. That makes it easier for everyone. The issue now is that the administration has proposed selectively conforming and it just happens that the proposed exception would result in more tax revenue for the state.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Then tax it, and move on. It only has an effect for 2 years. The usual cry of “Picking winners and losers” comes from the very people wanting them to pick a winner. It’s not like it’s “earned income”.

          A forgiven loan of any variety other than PPP is treated as income. Just as Bob McDonnell, he’ll tell you that.

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      On the other hand, Steve, in the past the government has given advanced tax credits that have to be reconciled or returned.

  16. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Look at this another way. Uncle Sugar has now sent us $3600 in COVID bucks. Tax free. What if they said, if you gave it to charity — no deduction. Paid your mortgage interest– no deduction. You must reduce your standard deduction by $3600. Would the COVID bucks still be tax free? Layne would say so. 🙂

    And TMT, some of the biggest PPP amounts were in Northern VA.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      but it was tax-free, no?

      does it matter what you spent it on if it was untaxed to start with?

      Do you get to deduct what you pay for health insurance?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Here, Larry, hit him with this one. I pay, 0% and/or 15% on Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains on the Fed forms, but Virginia doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about that. It’s all FAGI to them and it’s all taxed at the same rate.

        I demand CONFORMITY!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It can get complex… but no rule that says Virginia must do what the Feds do… there are dozens of credits and deducations that Virginia does different from the Feds.

          I still think what the Feds are doing is trying to help the individual and small business and not the bigger companies and that may be what Virginia is trying to do.

          This may be akin to the Feds giving stimulus payments to people who make 75K/150K. That money doesn’t get into the economy like money given to those making 15-20K.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Still, it’s a windfall. Best kinda tax target.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s a gift versus income issue. It appears that the feds are going to treat forgiven loans as a gift — untaxed and no restriction on the use.

      But seriously, does the State have to conform to Federal tax treatments? Is there any reason why the State couldn’t just tax it at a flat 2% and then allow all the usual deductions?

      It’s not like it isn’t separable from normal income sources. It has “PPP” written all over it.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        There is no rule that says the state has to conform to Federal tax treatments. However, Virginia has operated under a general policy of conforming. That makes it easier for everyone. The issue now is that the administration has proposed selectively conforming and it just happens that the proposed exception would result in more tax revenue for the state.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Then tax it, and move on. It only has an effect for 2 years. The usual cry of “Picking winners and losers” comes from the very people wanting them to pick a winner. It’s not like it’s “earned income”.

          A forgiven loan of any variety other than PPP is treated as income. Just as Bob McDonnell, he’ll tell you that.

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      On the other hand, Steve, in the past the government has given advanced tax credits that have to be reconciled or returned.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar

    The idea that Virginia should “conform” has always been a bit of a myth. It does conform but never has 100% if you take a look at their subtractions, deductions and credits that do different tax treatment of many things than the Feds:

    https://www.tax.virginia.gov/deductions
    http://www.tax.virginia.gov/tax-credits
    http://www.tax.virginia.gov/subtractions

    more than a few people including some tax preparers miss them.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      I pick over these every year for the same reason I read the Bible… looking for loopholes, looking for loopholes.

      But since my daughter moved to Pennsylvania, one of them sprang from the page. Pennsylvania taxes 401(k) and similar plan contributions even if the Fed does not, but then does not tax the money coming out. Essentially, to Pennsylvania, all plans are Roth types. If you worked in Pennsylvania and retire in Virginia then Virginia treats those accounts as Roth too. Cool.

      Hmmm, this makes me wonder if the converse is true. Maybe, if I move to Pennsylvania to retire, then I’ll save 5% on withdrawals from my IRAs? Well, 3% since that’s Pennsylvania’s tax rate. Have to look at that.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        that’s a much better attitude than woe-is-me-the-govt-sucks grievances… IMHO

  18. LarrytheG Avatar

    The idea that Virginia should “conform” has always been a bit of a myth. It does conform but never has 100% if you take a look at their subtractions, deductions and credits that do different tax treatment of many things than the Feds:

    https://www.tax.virginia.gov/deductions
    http://www.tax.virginia.gov/tax-credits
    http://www.tax.virginia.gov/subtractions

    more than a few people including some tax preparers miss them.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      I pick over these every year for the same reason I read the Bible… looking for loopholes, looking for loopholes.

      But since my daughter moved to Pennsylvania, one of them sprang from the page. Pennsylvania taxes 401(k) and similar plan contributions even if the Fed does not, but then does not tax the money coming out. Essentially, to Pennsylvania, all plans are Roth types. If you worked in Pennsylvania and retire in Virginia then Virginia treats those accounts as Roth too. Cool.

      Hmmm, this makes me wonder if the converse is true. Maybe, if I move to Pennsylvania to retire, then I’ll save 5% on withdrawals from my IRAs? Well, 3% since that’s Pennsylvania’s tax rate. Have to look at that.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        that’s a much better attitude than woe-is-me-the-govt-sucks grievances… IMHO

  19. […] meeting of the committee, Northam’s Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne had discussed setting a $100,000 threshold for deductions of the PPP related expenses, in effect taxing all but $100,000 of the PPP money.  […]

Leave a Reply