Exploiting the Medicare Tax Loophole

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Connecticut Insurance Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-09-22 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3041694
K. Burke
{"title":"Exploiting the Medicare Tax Loophole","authors":"K. Burke","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3041694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Section 1411 imposes a 3.8% surtax on investment income of high earners that mirrors Medicare taxes on earned income. The enactment of the net investment income tax highlights gaps in the employment tax rules for passthrough entities—particularly limited partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies. This Article considers how businesses can be structured to allow active high-income owner-employees of passthrough entities to avoid all three of the 3.8% Medicare taxes (SECA, FICA and section 1411). Part I considers the anachronistic limited partner exception to the SECA tax and the well-known S corporation loophole under the FICA tax, as well as the failure of section 1411 to reach active business income that avoids these employment taxes. Part II considers the recent Renkemeyer case, which has reignited the employment tax debate and threatens to upend structures used in investment and real estate funds to shelter management fees from all of the 3.8% taxes. Although repeal of section 1411 remains high on the Republican tax-cutting agenda, Part III suggests the need to reform (not repeal) section 1411 to backstop the employment tax rules for active passthrough businesses, regardless of organizational form. The proposed approach would curtail opportunities to avoid the 3.8% taxes, raise substantial revenue, and promote the goal of parity in the taxation of earned and unearned income. By contrast, tax legislation enacted in 2017 leaves intact planning to avoid employment taxes and section 1411, while dramatically lowering the income tax rate on business income. As a result, business taxation has grown increasingly incoherent, regressive, and unstable.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3041694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Section 1411 imposes a 3.8% surtax on investment income of high earners that mirrors Medicare taxes on earned income. The enactment of the net investment income tax highlights gaps in the employment tax rules for passthrough entities—particularly limited partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies. This Article considers how businesses can be structured to allow active high-income owner-employees of passthrough entities to avoid all three of the 3.8% Medicare taxes (SECA, FICA and section 1411). Part I considers the anachronistic limited partner exception to the SECA tax and the well-known S corporation loophole under the FICA tax, as well as the failure of section 1411 to reach active business income that avoids these employment taxes. Part II considers the recent Renkemeyer case, which has reignited the employment tax debate and threatens to upend structures used in investment and real estate funds to shelter management fees from all of the 3.8% taxes. Although repeal of section 1411 remains high on the Republican tax-cutting agenda, Part III suggests the need to reform (not repeal) section 1411 to backstop the employment tax rules for active passthrough businesses, regardless of organizational form. The proposed approach would curtail opportunities to avoid the 3.8% taxes, raise substantial revenue, and promote the goal of parity in the taxation of earned and unearned income. By contrast, tax legislation enacted in 2017 leaves intact planning to avoid employment taxes and section 1411, while dramatically lowering the income tax rate on business income. As a result, business taxation has grown increasingly incoherent, regressive, and unstable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用医疗保险税收漏洞
第1411条对高收入者的投资收入征收3.8%的附加税,这与劳动收入的医疗保险税相呼应。净投资所得税的颁布凸显了通过实体——特别是有限合伙企业、S公司和有限责任公司——的就业税规则的差距。本文考虑如何构建企业结构,以允许直通实体的活跃高收入所有者-雇员避免所有三种3.8%的医疗保险税(SECA, FICA和section 1411)。第一部分考虑了SECA税的不合时宜的有限合伙人例外和众所周知的FICA税下的S公司漏洞,以及第1411条未能达到避免这些就业税的积极业务收入。第二部分考虑了最近的Renkemeyer案,该案件重新引发了就业税的辩论,并有可能颠覆投资和房地产基金用来逃避所有3.8%税的管理费用结构。尽管废除第1411条仍然是共和党减税议程的重点,但第三部分建议需要改革(而不是废除)第1411条,以支持主动直通企业的就业税规则,无论其组织形式如何。拟议的方法将减少避免3.8%税收的机会,增加大量收入,并促进对劳动所得和非劳动所得征税均等的目标。相比之下,2017年颁布的税收立法保留了完整的计划,以避免就业税和第1411条,同时大幅降低了企业收入的所得税税率。因此,企业税收变得越来越不连贯、递减和不稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Demand for Health Insurance in the Time of COVID-19: Evidence from the Special Enrollment Period in the Washington State ACA Marketplace Licensing the Insured: Providing Driver Licenses to Unauthorized Immigrants Has Not Impacted Auto Insurance in California Terrorism Risk Insurance Act: Time to Renew . . . or Rethink? Loss of ‘Unattended Property in a Public Place’ – Testing the Good Faith of the Travel Insurer The Insurance Business in Transition to the Physical-Cyber Market: Communication, Coordination and Harmonization of Cyber Risk Coverages
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1