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 IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements

In his study -The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, Michigan State University, Tarras initially states: “The collection division of the internal revenue service is often the point of contact for many hospitality businesses. The author describes how the division operates, what the hospitality firm can expect when contacted by it, and what types of strategies firms might find helpful when negotiating a settlement with the IRS.” The author will have you know that even though most chance meetings with the IRS Collection Division are due to unfortunate tax payment circumstances, there are actually more benign reasons for close encounters of the IRS kind. This does not mean, however, that brushes with the IRS Collection Division will end on an ever friendlier note. “…the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with its added complexity will cause some hospitality firms to inadvertently fail to make proper payments on a timely basis,” Tarras affords in illustrating a perhaps less pugnacious side of IRS relations. Should a hospitality business owner represent himself/herself before the IRS? Never, says Tarras. “Too many taxpayers ruin their chances of a fair settlement by making what to them seem innocent remarks, but ones that turn out to be far different,” warns Professor Tarras. Tarras makes the distinction between IRS the Collection Division, and IRS the Audit Division. “While the Audit Division is interested in how the tax liability arose, the Collection Division is generally only interested in collecting the liability,” he informs you. Either sounds firmly in hostile territory. They don’t bluff. Tarras does want you to know that when the IRS threatens to levy on the assets of a hospitality business, they will do so. Those assets may extend to personal and real property as well, he says. The levy action is generally the final resort in an IRS collection effort. Professor Tarras explains the lien process and the due process attached to that IRS collection tactic. “The IRS can also levy a hospitality firm owner's wages. In this case, it is important to realize that you are allowed to exempt from levy $75 per week, along with $25 per week for each of your dependents (unless your spouse works),” Professor Tarras says with the appropriate citation. What are the options available to the hospitality business owner who finds himself on the wrong side of the IRS Collection Division? Negotiate in good faith says Professor Tarras. “In many cases, a visit to the IRS office will greatly reduce the chances that a simple problem will turn into a major one,” Tarras advises. He dedicates the last pages of the discussion to negotiation strategies.

Planning Buy-Sell Agreements In The Hospitality Industry

In the article - Planning Buy-Sell Agreements In The Hospitality Industry - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management at Michigan State University, the author initially observes: “The vast majority of hospitality firms (restaurants, hotels, etc.) would be considered closely-held corporations. As such, they have unique planning problems compared to large, publicly-traded hospitality firms. One area of special concern to the closely-held hospitality firm is the planning and adoption of a buy-sell agreement.” The above thesis statement outlines the heart of the article; the buy-sell agreement in regard to smaller [closely held, as Tarras calls them] corporations. The theory is narrow and pro-active, spanning the gap between personal-to-corporate stock manipulations. “The primary purpose of a buy-sell agreement is to contribute to the orderly transfer of a shareholder's stock in a hospitality firm upon some future incident [typically retirement, withdrawal of a shareholder, disability, or death], as Tarras defines the concept. “The hospitality firm or the other shareholders would be committed to purchase the departing shareholder's stock at an agreed upon price and method, and to ensure that ample cash will be obtainable for such an impending sale. The buy-sell agreement provides a market for the shareholder or the shareholder's estate for the sale of otherwise illiquid stock,” the author further provides as canons of buy-sell agreements. In defining the buy-sell agreement with restrictive clauses, Tarras demonstrates, “…many closely-held hospitality firms desire to limit ownership to those individuals, either family or principal corporate employees, who are essential to the well-being of the firm.” Tarras says, another element of the buy-sell agreement is to furnish the departing shareholder with liquidity. “…there typically is some form of cash down payment with the remainder denoted by an interest-bearing promissory note [usually 5 to 15 years],” he informs. “The departing shareholders may require that the hospitality firm pledge the assets of the firm and that the remaining shareholders personally guarantee the promissory note.” “…the most frequent reason for establishing buy-sell agreements is for estate planning purposes,” Tarras says. There are tax advantages and liabilities for both the seller and buyer of stock via the buy-sell agreement, and the author enumerates many of these. One, big advantage of the buy-sell agreement is that it provides for the running of the company with a minimum of disruption through the stock-cash transition process, Tarras offers.

The Five Foundations of Leadership in Japan's Lodging Industry

This article discusses the results of pioneer research done by Michigan State University's School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management researchers, in cooperation with the Japanese Management Association, on the foundations of Japanese lodging industry leadership. While the results presented here simply represent the opinions of CEOs and presidents in Japan's lodging industry, the research offers an insight into leadership foundations and the results provide a guide for developing leadership skills in those who aspire to be future leaders in Japan’s lodging industry

The Emotional Intelligence of National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) Vending and Coffee Services Industries Executives: A Pilot Study

The authors report the pilot study focused on identifying the emotional intelligence (El) of leaders in the automatic merchandising and coffee service industries. The data were collected from 39 executives, members of National Automatic Merchandising Association (NM), who attended 2005 Executive Development Program on the campus of Michigan State University. Three elements of EI- IN, OUT, RELATIONSHIP for these leaders are discussed.

The Food Service Industry: Beliefs Held by Academics

In his study - The Food Service Industry: Beliefs Held by Academics - by Jack Ninemeier, Associate Professor, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management at Michigan State University, Associate Professor Ninemeier initially describes his study this way: “Those in the academic sector exert a great deal of influence on those they are training to enter the food service industry. One author surveyed educational institutions across the country to ascertain attitudes of teachers toward various segments of the industry.” Those essential segments of the industry serve as the underpinnings of this discussion and are four-fold. They are lodging, institutional, multi-unit, and single-unit properties. For each segment the analysis addressed factors relating to Marketing, management and operating concerns: Marketing, operations, fiscal management, innovation, future of the segment Employee-related concerns: quality of work life, training/education opportunities, career opportunities The study uses a survey of academicians as a guide; they point to segments of the food service industry students might be inclined to enter, or even ignore. The survey was done via a questionnaire sent from the campus of the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management at Michigan State University to 1850 full-time faculty members in two and four-year hospitality programs in the United States. Through the survey, Ninemeier wishes to reasonably address specific problems now confronting the food service industry. Those problems include but are not limited to: reducing employee turnover, retaining staff, increasing productivity and revenue, and attracting new staff. “Teachers in these programs are, therefore, an important plank in industry's platform designed to recruit students with appropriate background knowledge and interest in their operations,” Ninemeier says. Your author actually illustrates the survey results, in table form. The importance to an employee, of tangibles and intangibles such as morale, ego/esteem, wages, and benefits are each explored through the survey. According to the study, an interesting dichotomy exists in the institutional property element. Although, beliefs the academics hold about the institutional element suggest that it offers low job stress, attractive working conditions, and non-demanding competitive pressures, the survey and Ninemeier also observe: “Academics do not believe that many of their graduates will enter the institutional segment.” “If academic beliefs are incorrect, an educational program to educate academics about management and employee opportunities in the segment may be in order,” Ninemeier waxes philosophically.