Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Jan. 13, 2020, NJ Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Senate Bill 3246 (S. 3246) establishing the "business alternative income tax" (BAIT), an elective New Jersey business tax regime for pass-through entities (PTEs). Law firms are left wondering if electing to pay the BAIT is the right choice. This article summarizes how the NJ BAIT works, as well as its pros and cons for companies in the industry.
The new law allows pass-through entities such as S corporations and LLCs to elect to pay NJ income tax at the entity level, as a business tax, and to pass through a net amount of Federal taxable income to the owners of the business along with a gross amount of NJ taxable income a NJ tax credit to prevent double taxation in NJ. By passing through a gross amount of NJ taxable income and a credit, the owner is not required to separately pay NJ income tax that could be subject to the SALT limit. Absent this election, the business would pass through a gross amount of Federal and NJ taxable income to the owner, the owner would pay NJ income tax, and the owner's tax payment would be subject to the SALT limit. The BAIT applies to PTE tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2020. A detailed article regarding the BAIT tax and its mechanics can be found here.
Below are some key considerations to take into accounting in determining whether your firm may want to elect to pay the BAIT:
|The IRS recently released Notice 2020-75. In the Notice, the IRS has announced that it intends to issue proposed regs to clarify that State and local income taxes imposed on and paid by a partnership or an S corporation on its income are allowed as a deduction by the partnership or S corporation in computing its non-separately stated taxable income or loss for the taxable year of payment. For more information on the impact of this on NJ BAIT, see Withum's recent update.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.