S Corporations Can Benefit Many Closely-Held Hospitality Firms

In his discussion - S Corporations Can Benefit Many Closely-Held Hospitality Firms - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor, School of Hotel, Restaurant & Institutional Management at Michigan State University, Assistant Professor Tarras initially offers: “Organization as an S corporation has many advantages for hospitality firms since passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The author discusses those advantages and lists the disadvantages as well.” In the opening paragraphs Tarras alludes to the relationship between hospitality firms, S corporations, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and then defines what an S corporation is. “An S corporation is a form of business entity that combines many of the tax advantages of partnerships with the legal attributes of a corporation, including limited liability for its shareholders. Its name is obtained from a subchapter of the Internal Revenue Code. Except for tax purposes, the S corporation is treated in the same manner as any regular corporation. Like a partnership, income and losses for an S corporation are generally passed through directly to shareholders for inclusion on their individual returns. An S corporation thus avoids the double tax problem facing regular corporations.” There are certain criteria to be met and caveats to be avoided in qualifying for S corporation status. Tarras lists and cites these for you. “Due to the complicated nature of S corporations, the election may be inadvertently terminated if the eligibility requirements are violated,” Tarras expands and cites. As the article suggests at the outset, there are advantages and disadvantages to S corporation status; the author outlines some examples for you. “Traditionally, the S corporation has been used by hospitality firms wishing to avoid the "double tax" problem of a regular corporation,” Tarras informs you. “Regular corporations are taxed once at the corporate level, and again at the shareholder level when income is distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends.” Tarras advises you as to why an S corporation is an advantage in this situation. “Since the S corporation generally is not subject to any corporate taxes, it generally makes no difference whether distributions to shareholders of S corporations are characterized as compensation or dividends,” thus the double tax is avoided. This is just one such positive illustration. Assistant Professor Tarras wants you to know: “Perhaps the most important reason to consider the S corporation has to do with the downward revision of tax rates for both individuals and corporations.” He highlights a case study for you. Some of the disadvantages of S corporation affiliation are the caveats alluded to earlier. They include, “the limitation of an S corporation of 35 shareholders,” Tarras cites. “Also, there are limits as to who may own stock in an S corporation.” These are but two of the limitations of an S corporation. Tarras closes with a further glimpse of the down-sides of an S corporation.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Impact On Hospitality Industries

In her discussion - The Tax Reform Act Of 1986: Impact On Hospitality Industries - by Elisa S. Moncarz, Associate Professor, the School of Hospitality Management at Florida International University, Professor Moncarz initially states: “After nearly two years of considering the overhaul of the federal tax system, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The impact of this legislation is expected to affect virtually all individuals and businesses associated with the hospitality industry. This article discusses some of the major provisions of the tax bill, emphasizing those relating to the hospitality service industries and contrasting relevant provisions with prior law on their positive and negative effects to the industry. “On October 22, 1986, President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86) with changes so pervasive that a recodification of the income tax laws became necessary…,” Professor Moncarz says in providing a basic history of the bill. Two, very important paragraphs underpin TRA 86, and this article. They should not be under-estimated. The author wants you to know: “With the passage of TRA 86, the Reagan administration achieved the most important single domestic initiative of Reagan's second term, a complete restructuring of the federal tax system in an attempt to re-establish fairness in the tax code…,” an informed view, indeed. “These changes will result in an estimated shift of over $100 billion of the tax burden from individuals to corporations over the next five years [as of this article],” Professor Moncarz enlightens. “…TRA 86 embraces a conversion to the view that lowering tax rates and eliminating or restricting tax preferences (i.e., loopholes) “would be more economically and socially productive.” Hence, economic decisions would be based on economic efficiency as opposed to tax effect,” the author asserts. “…both Congress and the administration recognized from its inception that the reform of the tax code must satisfy three basic goals,” and these goals are identified for you. Professor Moncarz outlines the positive impact TRA 86 will have on the U.S. economy in general, but also makes distinctions the ‘Act will have on specific segments of the business community, with a particular eye toward the hospitality industry and food-service in particular. Professor Moncarz also provides graphs to illustrate the comparative tax indexes of select companies, encompassing the years 1883-through-1985. Deductibility and its importance are discussed as well. The author foresees Limited Partnerships, employment, and even new hotel construction and/or rehabilitation being affected by TRA 86. The article, as one would assume from this type of discussion, is liberally peppered with facts and figures.

Municipal accountability: Should regulations similar to the Sarbanes -Oxley Act apply to the local sector?

As America moved into the 2lst century financial scandals associated with large publicly traded corporations brought widespread concern about the reliability of financial reporting. In response the U.S. Congress adopted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Undergirding SOX was the belief that improvements in the reliability of an organization's financial disclosures would lead to increased trust in the issuing organization. While SOX is aimed at publicly traded private sector organizations, the value of adopting SOX-like practices in the public and the nonprofit sectors have been recognized. Although SOX-like auditing practices have not at the time of this research become part of the auditing regime for municipalities, the results of this research provide a baseline "read" of municipal finance officers' perceptions of the value and obstacles associated with adoption of two major components of SOX: Principal Officer(s) Certification (POC) and the Independent Audit Committee (IAC) requirements. The author mailed surveys to all finance officers of municipalities in Florida and Ohio with populations of 10,000 or greater which did not contract out the operation of their finance departments. Post-survey "elite" interviews were conducted in an effort to obtain a deeper understanding of revealed issues and contradictions found in the analysis of the results of the mails survey. The findings suggest municipal finance officers are willing to adopt POC but have reservations about implementing IAC. With both POC and IAC the respondents appeared to consider intangible, non-pecuniary consequences as much or more than tangible, pecuniary consequences. Consistent with prior research, attitudes regarding POC and IAC were found to be unrelated to prior adoptive behavior, or personal and organizational demographic variables. Although accounting and auditing are inexorably intertwined, views of the recently implemented GASB 34 reporting model were found to be unrelated to the willingness to adopt POC or IAC. Findings dovetail with current discourse in public sector accounting suggesting local finance professionals may see benefits—both tangible and intangible—to some but not all accounting practices adopted in the private sector. This is consistent with the commonly accepted belief that public sector accounting maintains fundamental differences from its private counterpart.