You are currently browsing the archives for the Business News category.





Archive for the ‘Business News’ Category

Alternative Financing for Small Businesses

Saturday, May 27, 2017 @ 10:05 AM
Author: Peter Brehm

Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) is a network of nonprofits that provide small loans and financial advisement to small business owners in the metro area, in addition to affordable housing development. MCCD has loaned over $6.7 million to over 550 entrepreneurs for start-up and expansion projects. There are five focus areas that MCCD works with. The programs include advising, lending, emerging leaders, and owning a home. Requirements for each program and possible membership can be found at www.mccdmn.org. The website also provides ways for community members to get involved or receive the weekly “Rundown” newsletter.

 

off

Business Transfers and Changing Tax Rules

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 @ 10:12 AM
Author: Steven Ness

Last Thursday, December 1, 2016, there was a hearing before IRS regulators concerning the potential elimination of discounting the value of transferred business interests, a significant estate planning business succession technique often used in the transfer of closely held or family owned businesses.
In October, the IRS has issued proposed regulations to Section 2704 of the Internal Revenue Code that could dramatically reduce the ability to utilize well accepted discounting techniques used in valuing business interests being transferred. Specifically, these proposed regulations would likely restrict the application of “lack of control” or “lack of marketability” discounts when determining the value of the business interest being transferred. The loss of this technique creates serious tax implications, affecting taxation of capital gains, gift tax exemptions and estate taxes.
Although the 2016 federal estate tax exemption is $5,450,000, per person, that cap is subject to change by either congressional or Presidential pressure. If long recognized discounting method, relating to the accepted value of transferred business interests is lost, owners of family and closely held business could be paying more taxes as a result of a business transfer.
Since 1990, when Section 2704 was enacted by Congress, the IRS has attempted to close estate and gift discounting. Until now, that attempt by the IRS has been unsuccessful. The new proposed regulations use the authority granted under Section 2704(b)(4), which gives the IRS the authority to provide in regulations in determining the value of the transfer of any interest in a corporation or partnership to a member of the transferor’s family, if such restriction has the effect of reducing the value of the transferred interest . . . but does not ultimately reduce the value of such interest to the transferee.”
There are questions as to whether the proposed regulations exceed the regulatory authority of the IRS, and while the promulgation of these regulations will likely be challenged, that challenge would be well after the proposed regulations are effective.
If these changes are adopted as written, they will have a direct impact on estate planning considerations for owners of family controlled entities. These new regulations will effectively eliminate discounts for lack of control or marketability in valuing these interests. While there may still time to complete transfers before the proposed regulations become effective, that preemptive planning may be for naught. If planning individual dies within three years of the transfer and after the new regulations are effective, the transfer could still be taxed under these new regulations.
It is however, a double-edged sword. Given that the current federal estate tax exemption is $5,450,000, there is only a limited population that will ever be subject to this federal estate tax. That limited application of federal estate taxes, coupled with the current step-up in basis rules, benefits tax payers, who cannot be subjected to the taxing authorities attempts to apply discounts to that stepped-up bases. As an example, a business owner who dies and passes his or her business interest to the next generation, passes along a business interest with a higher value, providing an increased step-up in basis.

off

DOL Overtime Rule Changes on Hold

Wednesday, November 23, 2016 @ 10:11 AM
Author: Steven Ness

U.S. Department of Labor’s new unlegislated rules (to become effective on December 1) regarding overtime pay were indefinitely halted.  On November 22, 2016, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a final rule that would have altered the way workers are classified as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  A temporary sigh of relief for many small and medium sized businesses with “hybrid executives” who perform a variety of tasks/functions.

While this means the implementation of the rule has been delayed, and it will not go into effect on December 1, 2016 as expected, it could easily be implemented in the near future. Proactive employers that already implemented policies consistent with the new rules may have a difficult time reversing those new policies.  It is always prudent, if unsure, to consult legal counsel for additional guidance.

off

States Sue DOL on Overtime Changes

Friday, September 23, 2016 @ 09:09 AM
Author: Steven Ness

Officials from 21 states sued the U.S. Department of Labor Tuesday over a new rule that would, on December 1, 2016, make an estimated 4.2 million salaried workers (generally executive, administrative and professional employees) eligible for overtime pay. The protesting states are slamming the measure as a federal government overreach by the Obama Administration. Critics claim the measure will cripple small businesses.
States involved include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, and the governors of Iowa, Maine and New Mexico.

The Eastern Texas district where the lawsuit was filed is known as a “rocket docket” court where cases move along quickly.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than 50 other business groups filed a legal challenge against the same regulation.

Reported by: MICHELLE RINDELS Associated Press
Read more at: http://www.startribune.com/21-us-states-sue-to-block-expansion-of-overtime-pay-law/394173931/

off

Seminars on Business Valuation and Buy-Sell Agreements

Thursday, September 22, 2016 @ 12:09 PM
Author: Peter Brehm

At Business Law Center, we we do a number of things to help small business owners plan for the future. In conjunction with SCORE and Northeast Bank, on October 27, and November 3, 2016, we will be hosting two seminars geared towards helping small business owners protect their business, and improve the value of their business.

In Session 1, Succession Planning – Preparing to Leave Your Business, you will learn:

• Why should I have a plan?
• What happens to my business when I die?
• What happens if my partner dies, gets disabled, or divorced?
• How to get my business ready to sell?
• Could I sell my business now? And retire?
• How do I protect my family?
• How do I minimize taxes?

In Session 2, What’s Your Business Worth? you will learn:

• How can I determine the value of my business?
• What is the value of my goodwill?
• How do I decide how much insurance I need?
• What are my partners’ shares worth?
• Can I buy them out?
• Can my employees afford to buy me out?

For more information, and to register, you must go to SCORE’s website HERE.

off

Proposed IRS Regulations May Eliminate Valuation Discounts for Gifts of Family Ownership

Sunday, September 18, 2016 @ 10:09 AM
Author: Peter Brehm

On August 4, 2016, the IRS published in the Federal Register a set of proposed new regulations under Chapter 14, Section 2704 of the Internal Revenue Code. These proposed regulations would have a significant impact on the valuation of private business entity interests for transfer tax (estate, gift, and generation-skipping) purposes.  Currently, business appraisers will examine real world restrictions on ownership interests (such as limitations of voting rights, control, etc.), and will often apply significant discounts to stock that is gifted to family members.  The discounts are intended to reflect the reality that potential buyers will pay less for stock that is restricted than it will for stock that is not restricted.
Under the proposed regulations, appraisers would be required to conduct valuations assuming hypothetical circumstances that often do not coincide with market conditions.  In other words, appraisers would be expected to assume that restrictions of the stock being transferred do not exist. This would cause them to determine a fair market value that ignores otherwise applicable valuation discounts, resulting in a value determination that may not match what the market would actually pay.
If these regulations are enacted in December 2017 as planned, valuation discounts for transfer interests will essentially be eliminated.  This will redefine how these interests are valued and most likely limit the financial benefits of these transfers.  The proposed changes would affect anyone who plans to transfer equity interests to family members. It is essential to approach this process in the company of a seasoned business valuation expert who is adept at navigating the complex authorities in action during these transfers.

off

Minnesota’s B Corporation – The Public Benefit Corporation

Wednesday, November 12, 2014 @ 09:11 AM
Author: Peter Brehm

Many of our clients at Business Law Center are more than great business people, they are great people who do more for their communities than just create wealth.  The problem for some for profit companies is that the primary, if not exclusive purpose for the company is to create profits for the shareholders.  So, if the board of directors approves a program donating 10% of the company’s profits to a charitable organization, or cancels a lucrative contract with a business because it was using child labor, some (or all of the shareholders) could take action against the board for making decisions for reasons other than company profits.

Enter the B Corporation.  Minnesota’s new (effective January 1, 2015) Public Benefit Corporation.  Not to be confused with non-profit corporations, the B Corporation has shareholders, profits, and the board is required to consider, the impact of all actions on the financial interests of the owners.  Also, unlike a non-profit, there is no public agency that will force to the company to pursue its purpose.

However, like a non-profit, the corporation may also require the board to consider factors other than profits, and shields the directors from liability from doing so:

     In discharging the duties of the position of director of a specific benefit corporation, a director:

          (1) shall consider the effects of any proposed, contemplated, or actual conduct on:

                (i) the pecuniary interest of its shareholders; and

                (ii) the specific benefit corporation’s ability to pursue its specific public benefit purpose;

          (2) may consider the interests of the constituencies stated in section 302A.251, subdivision 5; and

          (3) may not give regular, presumptive, or permanent priority to:

               (i) the pecuniary interests of the shareholders; or

              (ii) any other interest or consideration unless the articles identify the interest or consideration as having priority.

There are two types of B Corporations:

General benefit corporations are required to pursue a net material positive impact from its business and operations on society, the environment and the well-being of present and future generations. In addition to this broad obligation, general benefit corporations may also state a specific public benefit, or benefits.

Specific benefit corporations are required to elect only to pursue one or more positive impacts, or reduction of a negative impact, on specified categories of natural persons, entities, communities or interests other than shareholders (in their capacity as shareholders). This narrower obligation allows the specific benefit corporation to focus its mission on one or more explicit benefits without the general societal concerns required of general benefit corporations.

The B Corporation should not be confused with C Corporations or S Corporations, in that it is not a tax designation, it is really just a subset of a typical Minnesota corporation governed by 302A.  Any new or existing corporation may elect to become a B Corporation though it original articles, by amending its articles to comply with the statute, or through a merger.   Any election to do so, however, will permit unhappy shareholders to be bought out.

Finally, one of the significant drawbacks of the B Corporation, is the requirements of transparency.  Every year, the company must file an annual report with the Secretary of State.  That report is public, and must detail how the company sought to fulfill its public purpose.  If the company is a general benefit corporation,  report must be based upon an independent third party standard for similar companies.

Peter C. Brehm

off

Starting a Business Seminar for Veterans

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 @ 10:10 AM
Author: BLCADMIN

On October 20, 2012, Peter will be a presenter at a seminar provided by SCORE and the VA to help veterans and their family members start a  business.   The seminar will be held 9 a.m.-3 p.m. in the auditorium of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, and the cost of the seminar is covered by the VA, so if you (or someone you know) in interested in starting a business you can register here.

 

off

Think Your Business Can Keep A Competitor from Using Your Intellectual Property?

Friday, June 22, 2012 @ 07:06 PM
Author: Peter Brehm

Judge Posner’s opinion in Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility Inc. demonstrates here why businesses need to demonstrate something more than the risk of financial loss to justify injunctive relief.   Just having intellectual property rights is not enough to force a competitor to stop using your property.

off