The European Union (EU) proposed a tax on digital services in the draft package for “Fair and Effective Taxation of the Digital Economy”, which it released on March 21, 2018.
According to the European Commission, top digital companies pay an average tax rate of only 9.5% in EU, which is less than the 23.3% paid by traditional companies. The aim of the proposal is to tax the business in the member state in which value is created, even though the business has little or no physical presence in that state. (more…)
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act), enacted on December 22, 2017, creates some interesting consequences when applying US GAAP principles for income tax accounting related to deferred taxes. FASB guidance requires that deferred income tax assets and liabilities be remeasured as a result of changes in tax laws or tax rates. As commonly known by now, the Act reduced the maximum tax rate for corporations to 21% from 35%. (more…)
As everyone knows by now, the U.S. tax system was widely altered on December 22, 2017 by enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act). The date of enactment is highlighted here because that is the date that triggers financial statement implications. Oh…so close to year-end for most companies. This timing situation is complicated because: (more…)
In the last couple of years, I have witnessed several of my private company clients reorganize their operations, through either a merger, an acquisition or a significant management member buyout. While such situations provide a great stage for all to display their accounting chops, they also present us an opportunity to consult with our clients and help them avoid an accounting faux pas or burdensome and unnecessary disclosures caused by an inadvertent accounting election. So, in no specific order, I thought I would summarize some of the unique accounting issues I’ve encountered in such situations and how to navigate them: (more…)
By Wei Wei, Tax Senior
As you have been made aware from our series of webinars, e-mail updates and blog posts, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just in time for the new year and the Act includes new rules for the taxation of “qualified equity grants”. Internal Revenue Code Section 83(i) allows “eligible employees” to elect to defer taxation on the exercise of certain stock options or the settlement of restricted stock units for up to 5 years. Employees must make the election no later than 30 days after the employee’s rights in “qualified stock” are transferrable or vested. The election only defers income tax, the stock-based compensation received by the employee is still subject to employee and employer payroll taxes when vested. (more…)
Historically a taxpayer selling tangible property was not required to collect a state’s sales tax unless the taxpayer had “nexus” within the state. Nexus is generally defined as a “connection to the state”. My prior blog discussed the changing concept of nexus: Do You Meet the Newest Invisible Tax Filing Requirement?. The landmark 1992 Supreme Court case of Quill v. North Dakota established a physical presence standard. For a state to impose an obligation for a taxpayer to collect sales tax, the taxpayer must have a physical presence within the state. In recent years to generate new sources of tax revenue states have sought to expand the concept of nexus far beyond the physical presence test. These new standards look at economic nexus. (more…)
Life can become a blur when you are devoting so much time to a start-up business or to a new product release. As accountants, our job is to keep recordkeeping as up to date as possible while engineering and marketing move quickly to make sure the product hits the sales window at just the right time. Recordkeeping is especially critical at yearend. Now is a good time to take a minute to make sure all your company’s compliance requirements are being handled. To assist you in this assessment, here is a list of items that should be addressed in the next couple of months to make sure your company’s recordkeeping is maintained at the level expected by investors or other third parties. (more…)
By Josh Cross, Senior Audit Manager
After all the research and analysis put in working through the prior four steps, you are now able to begin the process for recognizing revenue for the transaction price (Step 3) which has been allocated to each performance obligation (Step 4).
Each performance obligation identified in Step 2 can be satisfied by either the transfer of a promised good or by performing a service to the customer. This distinction will be the main driver for the next decision that needs to be made, and that is, whether the revenue needs to be recorded over time or at a point in time. For a good majority of the identified performance obligations, a good or service will be transferred/consumed over a period of time and therefore revenue would be recognized over that same time period. ASC 606 has helped in this analysis by providing guidance, so to recognize revenue over time, one of the following criteria needs to be met: (more…)
If you have been following Steps 1 (Identify the Contract with the Customer) through 3 (Determining a Transaction Price), of the revenue recognition update as eagerly as I have, then I am sure that you keenly await the discussion on Step 4 about the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations in a contract. The wait is over as we explore Step 4 in this blog post. A couple key concepts that we need to understand in this process: the allocation objective and standalone selling price. (more…)