Northam Again Targets Virginia Business Taxpayers

Finance Secretary Aubrey Layne. Photo credit: Daily News.

By Steve Haner

Washington giveth and Richmond taketh away. Once again, the Northam Administration wants Virginia to ignore business income tax changes made at the federal level because they would lower state revenue.

Governor Ralph Northam’s finance secretary was in front of the House Appropriations Committee Friday explaining the reasoning and complaining that new federal rules represent a double tax benefit for the affected businesses. “Not only is it expensive, it’s bad tax policy and it’s bad public policy,” Aubrey Layne, a certified public accountant, said at one point in the meeting. 

Expensive is one of those “point of view” words. Expensive to whom? In this case, expensive to the public treasury. Should Virginia fully conform with all the changes in the CARES Act from early in 2020 and from the Comprehensive Appropriations Act (CAA) in late December, projected revenue would decline an estimated $190 million in the current fiscal year and almost $1 billion in Fiscal Year 2022.

For tax wonks and accountants, here is a letter Layne provided legislators with plenty of details.

In his presentation yesterday, Layne was mainly pointing to the new federal tax rules about how to handle those Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) loans, some from last year and now the new round of loans which is coming. That is where he sees a double tax benefit, discussed below. But that is only one of several business tax provisions Northam wants Virginia to reject.

Every debate around the question of state conformity to federal tax rules gets complicated fast. Virginia is traditionally a conformity state. However the U.S. Internal Revenue Service defines income, creates exclusions, or allows deductions, Virginia just goes along with that to determine state taxable income. When Congress or the IRS changes something, Virginia accepts that change.

Except when it doesn’t. The list of how it doesn’t is about to get much longer.

Conformity with the IRS was one of the pillars of Virginia’s pro-business reputation, along with the Right to Work law, and having few state-specific regulations or employer mandates that exceeded federal law. The value of tax conformity is it simplifies the tax process: Once you calculate your federal taxable income, you just transfer that number over to your state return.

Virginia is no longer a real conformity state. It is a partial, “we go along only when we chose to” state. That is a sea change.

The Northam bill for additional de-conformity (or if you prefer partial conformity) is not one the Democrats can ram through with their own votes. It is written as an “emergency” bill that goes into effect immediately upon signing. Otherwise, it could not clearly affect 2020 tax returns due in May. But that means it needs 80% affirmative votes in both chambers. Republicans can play in this game.

The new federal tax provisions that Virginia plans to reverse include enhanced deductions for net operating losses, both or incorporated and unincorporated businesses, and tax treatment of business interest. One of the few business- related provisions not being rejected involves deductions for business meals, which Layne views as a potential boon for struggling restaurants.

Now to the PPP loans, which the federal CARES Act provided would not be treated as taxable income if the recipients used them as the government directed, mainly to stay open and staffed up in the pandemic. Northam and Layne have no argument with leaving that money off the income side of the tax return.

The issue involves how that money was spent – payroll, equipment, whatever the employer did. The second federal act, CAA, added a provision that those expenses would remain a valid business deduction. Virginia wants to deny any deduction for them if CARES Act money paid those bills.

That can be argued either way, and according to Layne even the IRS has said that provision appeared out of nowhere at the end of the bill deliberations. Layne’s argument is that is unfair to a business that didn’t or couldn’t get a PPP loan but also kept operating. Maybe, but odds are that business ended the year showing a major loss anyway. Whatever the reasons, it is now the federal approach.

Yes, the 2019 General Assembly did largely conform with the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act  But most of those rule changes increased state revenue, rather than decreasing it, as the state’s own data showed, and Bacon’s Rebellion previously reported. The only way to prevent a major state tax windfall in 2019 was cutting state tax rates, which the Assembly did not do.

Heads the state wins, tails the taxpayers lose, especially business taxpayers. It made money off conformity by refusing to cut rates in 2019, and will now make money by refusing to recognize these new rules.

Layne made one disingenuous statement Friday, telling legislators that one reason Virginia used conformity to rake more income tax out of corporations in 2019 was to fund the small individual refunds it provided. They were not related. Virginia also garnered major higher individual taxes by accepting conformity and refusing to significantly cut individual rates or expand the standard deduction.

Virginia is sitting on a financial bonanza during a crushing pandemic in large part because it refused to take advantage of the TCJA to cut individual or corporate tax rates. Had it done so, accepting the state’s claim that it now needs to de-conform from these latest provisions would carry more weight. This deserves more debate and scrutiny than it will likely get.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

36 responses to “Northam Again Targets Virginia Business Taxpayers”

  1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    How about asking our dip-s%^& legislators from Fairfax County what the impact would be on the balance between the money sent from Fairfax County to Richmond and the amount coming back?

    Of course, if we had a functioning media, these questions would be asked. But then, what does one expect from a a national media company that spent tons of money investigating and reporting on a Senate candidate from Alabama, while missing the blackface antics of a candidate for Lt. Governor and then Governor.

    North Carolina calls louder and sweeter every year.

  2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    How about asking our dip-s%^& legislators from Fairfax County what the impact would be on the balance between the money sent from Fairfax County to Richmond and the amount coming back?

    Of course, if we had a functioning media, these questions would be asked. But then, what does one expect from a a national media company that spent tons of money investigating and reporting on a Senate candidate from Alabama, while missing the blackface antics of a candidate for Lt. Governor and then Governor.

    North Carolina calls louder and sweeter every year.

  3. Lawrence Hincker Avatar
    Lawrence Hincker

    Steve, you write:

    “The issue involves how that money was spent – payroll, equipment, whatever the employer did. The second federal act, CAA, added a provision that those expenses would remain a valid business deduction. Virginia wants to deny any deduction for them if CARES Act money paid those bills.”

    I wonder how the state would know whether your CARES act funds paid for such expenditures. Are businesses required to keep separate ledgers? Reminds me of the “water in vs water out” theory. Fill a bucket of water from two hoses and extract from a common spigot. There’s no way to know if the water coming out came from hose number 1 or hose number 2. (Similar to the same sham when the state argues that all lottery monies go toward education.)

    As always, your commentary shares light on government policy…or hanky panky. Thanks for your erudition on an extraordinarily complex topic.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Thanks. Anybody very interested should read Layne’s letter.

    2. “Are businesses required to keep separate ledgers?”

      The short answer, at least if they are complying with the reporting provisions that local jurisdictions are supposed to implement, is yes, or at least an accounting for the funds.

      That being said, there is no provision that I am aware of that the jurisdiction then has to provide that business accounting to the Feds much less the Commonwealth.

      Thus, although the short answer is yes, I suspect the Commonwealth has no clear path to divining that information and I suspect that the local jurisdictions that actually have the data will be most unlikely to provide it to State officials.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Oh dear god, keeping books is boring enough, reading about is a recipe for suicide, but the final answer is “how hard can it be?” It only involves ear-marking and only for 2020 and 2021. After that, it should be back to the usual (I hope).

        A lot of these types of things only force a consistency in booking.

  4. Lawrence Hincker Avatar
    Lawrence Hincker

    Steve, you write:

    “The issue involves how that money was spent – payroll, equipment, whatever the employer did. The second federal act, CAA, added a provision that those expenses would remain a valid business deduction. Virginia wants to deny any deduction for them if CARES Act money paid those bills.”

    I wonder how the state would know whether your CARES act funds paid for such expenditures. Are businesses required to keep separate ledgers? Reminds me of the “water in vs water out” theory. Fill a bucket of water from two hoses and extract from a common spigot. There’s no way to know if the water coming out came from hose number 1 or hose number 2. (Similar to the same sham when the state argues that all lottery monies go toward education.)

    As always, your commentary shares light on government policy…or hanky panky. Thanks for your erudition on an extraordinarily complex topic.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Thanks. Anybody very interested should read Layne’s letter.

    2. “Are businesses required to keep separate ledgers?”

      The short answer, at least if they are complying with the reporting provisions that local jurisdictions are supposed to implement, is yes, or at least an accounting for the funds.

      That being said, there is no provision that I am aware of that the jurisdiction then has to provide that business accounting to the Feds much less the Commonwealth.

      Thus, although the short answer is yes, I suspect the Commonwealth has no clear path to divining that information and I suspect that the local jurisdictions that actually have the data will be most unlikely to provide it to State officials.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Oh dear god, keeping books is boring enough, reading about is a recipe for suicide, but the final answer is “how hard can it be?” It only involves ear-marking and only for 2020 and 2021. After that, it should be back to the usual (I hope).

        A lot of these types of things only force a consistency in booking.

  5. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
    Emilio Jaksetic

    Won’t Virginia customers also suffer if the cost of doing business (CODB) for Virginia businesses is increased because of higher business taxes?

    I’m assuming that any increase in the CODB could result in one or more of the following consequences: (1) increased cost of goods and services provided by Virginia businesses; (2) reduced amount or quality of goods and services provided by Virginia businesses if not passing increased costs to customers; (3) cost cutting by businesses that includes reduced number of employees; or (4) businesses moving out of Virginia or going out of business altogether.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      Yes, but you should expect to pay more to live in a state as good as Virginia.

    2. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The competitive impact will depend on what other states do, how many others spurn the changes Congress made. Virginia’s relative position may not change much. It sure isn’t going to be getting better.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        Really, I don’t think Virginia is that good of a state. I know there are lots of people who read this blog that think Virginia is as close to heaven as you can get on earth. They’re entitled to that opinion.

  6. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
    Emilio Jaksetic

    Won’t Virginia customers also suffer if the cost of doing business (CODB) for Virginia businesses is increased because of higher business taxes?

    I’m assuming that any increase in the CODB could result in one or more of the following consequences: (1) increased cost of goods and services provided by Virginia businesses; (2) reduced amount or quality of goods and services provided by Virginia businesses if not passing increased costs to customers; (3) cost cutting by businesses that includes reduced number of employees; or (4) businesses moving out of Virginia or going out of business altogether.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The competitive impact will depend on what other states do, how many others spurn the changes Congress made. Virginia’s relative position may not change much. It sure isn’t going to be getting better.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        Really, I don’t think Virginia is that good of a state. I know there are lots of people who read this blog that think Virginia is as close to heaven as you can get on earth. They’re entitled to that opinion.

    2. idiocracy Avatar

      Yes, but you should expect to pay more to live in a state as good as Virginia.

  7. Virginia’s strategy has been to increases taxes to wipe out the tax savings that the Federal 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) otherwise would have provided residents and businesses.

    However, if you are lower income below say $90,000 I am not sure if there could possibly a lower tax state. Also if you are very wealthy, reflecting on @NoVaLads friends, Virginias tax code is not all that bad.

    That leaves over $90k income but below say $250k, and throw in businesses, that Virginia needs to clobber, including senior citizens IRA withdrawals. And don’t forget the car Tax.

  8. Virginia’s strategy has been to increases taxes to wipe out the tax savings that the Federal 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) otherwise would have provided residents and businesses.

    However, if you are lower income below say $90,000 I am not sure if there could possibly a lower tax state. Also if you are very wealthy, reflecting on @NoVaLads friends, Virginias tax code is not all that bad.

    That leaves over $90k income but below say $250k, and throw in businesses, that Virginia needs to clobber, including senior citizens IRA withdrawals. And don’t forget the car Tax.

  9. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Generally, if the state policy is to conform to federal tax law and policies, we should be consistent and conform, even when it costs the state revenue. However, I have to agree with Vivian Watts in being reluctant to conform with a idiotic federal provision that provides federal funds (CARE money) to businesses to use in paying certain expenses and then allows the businesses to deduct those expenses on their tax returns, even though they did not actually have to pay for those expenses with their own money.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I’m still rolling that one around in my head. Need to put pencil to paper, but I’m not sure it is idiotic after all. The point was that without the grants, more employees might be laid off and end up on unemployment, food stamps, and the feds and state would be out withholding taxes, which certainly got paid. Layne and Watts are not talking about that, although Layne did a bit Friday. Need to run some examples…..

      If you remove the grant amount on the income side, and allow the expenses paid with the grant to be deducted, the grant basically passes through to profit unreduced by taxes. Disallow the related expenses and the grant basically loses value to the company, it was just the government paying those expenses, and of course reaping the benefit from the avoided lay off costs and the continued tax participation by the employed. With the tax treatment Congress now decreed, a company has a strong incentive to join the PPP program in this second round. It still has to spend the money on its operation or the money stays a loan that must be paid back. But without the special tax treatment, the incentive changes. Not simple at all….

      Hey, if asked a year ago about this idea to remain alive in a recession, my initial reaction would have been it was nuts. And I’m still not sure the whole thing wasn’t a mistake, and for the most part companies did what they wanted to do without regard to the grants. It looked like free money to me from Day One. I was not amused by the firms that took it not needing it, sucking up the money before the small guys had a shot.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        It’s either a gift or a loan. Neither are taxable. Since it was a gift of deductible expenses, they cannot be deducted.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          This wesite is screwed up. That’s not what I eventually posted but close enough.

          If the money was used for “covered” expenses, it becomes like a LTC insurance payout. You can’t deduct those medical expenses and collect the benefit.

          But say you didn’t use the money as prescribed, i.e., took the money and shuttered. Then it became a loan.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            No question it would have been cleaner if the Congress just said the grant is income and the expenses are deductible and that is a wash so there is no tax liability. But it didn’t. In a true conformity state, you stick with the federal AGI. I have a sneaking feeling things like this won’t be breaking in favor of companies in the years ahead — and Virginia will JUMP to conform — so not sue we should reject this one. Heads the state wins, tails the taxpayer loses.

            If you took the money and shuttered it is a loan that likely won’t be repaid….Again, it is not like the government didn’t benefit from this, too.

            Now that I’ve spent some time with this, I also take issue with the “double benefit” claim. Either you get a tax benefit or you do not. Do what Congress does, and yes, that is a nice break — the PPP grant or some of it becomes untaxed income. Do what Layne/Northam want and basically it becomes a wash, with zero net benefit or far less to the company’s bottom line. Not a true “double dip.”

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            The company took a PPP loan, much to the dismay of many of us. We have plenty of work and working from home is the norm.

            I look forward to the shareholder’s and annual accountants report.

  10. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Generally, if the state policy is to conform to federal tax law and policies, we should be consistent and conform, even when it costs the state revenue. However, I have to agree with Vivian Watts in being reluctant to conform with a idiotic federal provision that provides federal funds (CARE money) to businesses to use in paying certain expenses and then allows the businesses to deduct those expenses on their tax returns, even though they did not actually have to pay for those expenses with their own money.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I’m still rolling that one around in my head. Need to put pencil to paper, but I’m not sure it is idiotic after all. The point was that without the grants, more employees might be laid off and end up on unemployment, food stamps, and the feds and state would be out withholding taxes, which certainly got paid. Layne and Watts are not talking about that, although Layne did a bit Friday. Need to run some examples…..

      If you remove the grant amount on the income side, and allow the expenses paid with the grant to be deducted, the grant basically passes through to profit unreduced by taxes. Disallow the related expenses and the grant basically loses value to the company, it was just the government paying those expenses, and of course reaping the benefit from the avoided lay off costs and the continued tax participation by the employed. With the tax treatment Congress now decreed, a company has a strong incentive to join the PPP program in this second round. It still has to spend the money on its operation or the money stays a loan that must be paid back. But without the special tax treatment, the incentive changes. Not simple at all….

      Hey, if asked a year ago about this idea to remain alive in a recession, my initial reaction would have been it was nuts. And I’m still not sure the whole thing wasn’t a mistake, and for the most part companies did what they wanted to do without regard to the grants. It looked like free money to me from Day One. I was not amused by the firms that took it not needing it, sucking up the money before the small guys had a shot.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        It’s either a gift or a loan. Neither are taxable. Since it was a gift of deductible expenses, they cannot be deducted.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          This wesite is screwed up. That’s not what I eventually posted but close enough.

          If the money was used for “covered” expenses, it becomes like a LTC insurance payout. You can’t deduct those medical expenses and collect the benefit.

          But say you didn’t use the money as prescribed, i.e., took the money and shuttered. Then it became a loan.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            No question it would have been cleaner if the Congress just said the grant is income and the expenses are deductible and that is a wash so there is no tax liability. But it didn’t. In a true conformity state, you stick with the federal AGI. I have a sneaking feeling things like this won’t be breaking in favor of companies in the years ahead — and Virginia will JUMP to conform — so not sue we should reject this one. Heads the state wins, tails the taxpayer loses.

            If you took the money and shuttered it is a loan that likely won’t be repaid….Again, it is not like the government didn’t benefit from this, too.

            Now that I’ve spent some time with this, I also take issue with the “double benefit” claim. Either you get a tax benefit or you do not. Do what Congress does, and yes, that is a nice break — the PPP grant or some of it becomes untaxed income. Do what Layne/Northam want and basically it becomes a wash, with zero net benefit or far less to the company’s bottom line. Not a true “double dip.”

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            The company took a PPP loan, much to the dismay of many of us. We have plenty of work and working from home is the norm.

            I look forward to the shareholder’s and annual accountants report.

  11. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    There are a lot of businesses out there that are bailing the water out of their leaking boats. I work as a fee-splitting Of Counsel for a small tech/telecom law firm in NoVA. The firm took PPP. As a fee-splitter, the PPP didn’t affect me. Working with one of the partners, we were able to help a client settle a significant lawsuit, which we had on a partial contingency basis. The client was pleased. But probably not as pleased as our managing partner. What I helped bring in turned a year of loss into a profit. Absent this result, some of the people I work with might well be without a job, or, if they still had them, a pay cut.

    I expect the PPP tax consequences will also have an impact on the firm and its employees, most especially going forward in 2021.

  12. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    There are a lot of businesses out there that are bailing the water out of their leaking boats. I work as a fee-splitting Of Counsel for a small tech/telecom law firm in NoVA. The firm took PPP. As a fee-splitter, the PPP didn’t affect me. Working with one of the partners, we were able to help a client settle a significant lawsuit, which we had on a partial contingency basis. The client was pleased. But probably not as pleased as our managing partner. What I helped bring in turned a year of loss into a profit. Absent this result, some of the people I work with might well be without a job, or, if they still had them, a pay cut.

    I expect the PPP tax consequences will also have an impact on the firm and its employees, most especially going forward in 2021.

  13. Since cnbc hasn’t published their state biz rank we’ll take a look at others.
    Forbes and Chief Business exec have dropped us in 2020. Va dropped 3 slots on chief exec to 16th and Forbes has NC as #1. NC has a regressive accumulated asset tax. If they get rid of that they’ll clobber VA. There are so many anti biz bills floating around the 2021 assembly relocating execs can only wonder.

  14. Since cnbc hasn’t published their state biz rank we’ll take a look at others.
    Forbes and Chief Business exec have dropped us in 2020. Va dropped 3 slots on chief exec to 16th and Forbes has NC as #1. NC has a regressive accumulated asset tax. If they get rid of that they’ll clobber VA. There are so many anti biz bills floating around the 2021 assembly relocating execs can only wonder.

Leave a Reply