Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

Business


Proposed boost in federal income taxes could hurt some small businesses

Analyses disagree on how many taxpayers will pay more

A new national study has found that a proposed boost in federal income taxes could hurt the small companies that employ the most people.

The report, from Gallup and the National Federation of Independent Business, found that although higher tax rates on personal income wouldn't affect more than 10 percent of all small businesses, the higher levies would ensnare the most-successful small businesses, and the operations with the biggest labor forces.


Most Popular Stories
  • REAL ESTATE: Housing analyst predicts increase in sales, median price in the coming year
  • REAL ESTATE: Housing analyst predicts increase in sales, median price in the coming year
  • SOUTHERN NEVADA ECONOMY: Survey says recession's worst has passed for Las Vegas
  • SOUTHERN NEVADA ECONOMY: Holding off on hiring
  • Blue Heron remains aloft with custom features
  • Rental housing prices down 8.2 percent in Las Vegas
  • Rental housing prices down 8.2 percent in Las Vegas
  • UFC investment won't be used to help bail out Station Casinos, owners say
  • UFC investment won't be used to help bail out Station Casinos, owners say
  • Penn National maintains interest in Strip property
  • Penn National maintains interest in Strip property
  • INSIDE GAMING: 'Total nonsense' makes a lot of sense
  • Harrah's gets preliminary approval to acquire Planet Hollywood
  • Harrah's gets preliminary approval to acquire Planet Hollywood
  • MGM to divest from Atlantic City




  • About half of small-business owners with 20 to 249 employees earned more than $200,000 in 2007, the groups' survey reported. Around 40 percent made more than $250,000.

    Just 3 percent of all U.S. companies employ 20 or more people, the Census Bureau says. But that 3 percent has a major impact on job formation: Small companies created 70 percent of the country's net new jobs in the last decade, said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business.

    "If the Nevada economy is struggling, it's really going to be up to small businesses to take those risks and create those jobs," Rys said. "If they don't have the resources to do that, it's going to be difficult for them to lead any recovery."

    The Obama administration has argued that the vast majority of small-business owners wouldn't face tax increases, because most entrepreneurs simply don't earn the $200,000 to $250,000 a year that would qualify them for the higher levies. Nor are their companies big enough, the thinking goes, to affect broad swaths of workers.

    But Dianna Russo, a local certified public accountant and managing principal of accounting firm Houldsworth, Russo & Co., said her experiences show otherwise.

    "Most people think of small business as someone working out of their home making $100,000 a year and taking expenses," Russo said. "But I'm a small business, and I employ 17 people."

    What's more, Russo said, about 95 percent of her business clients declare business income on their personal returns, and roughly half of those filers earn enough to see their tax rates rise under the proposed budget, she estimated.

    Avoiding personal income tax by shifting business earnings from an individual return to a corporate return isn't an option for many smaller companies, because such a move could result in double taxation. A company owner would pay corporate income tax first. If he then paid his personal income directly from those corporate profits, he'd have to take the cash either as a dividend or a wage, which means a second income tax. The twin levies could mean a tax burden of 50 percent to 70 percent, Russo said. The result: Most business owners don't see any realistic alternative to including business income on their individual returns. And that means they'd have no choice but to pay the higher personal income tax.

    Under the proposal, the two highest personal income tax brackets would jump. The top rate, which kicks in at $373,000 a year for a couple filing jointly, would increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the rate in place when Bill Clinton was president.

    The second-highest rate, which applies to marginal income between $209,000 and $373,000, would rise from 33 percent to 36 percent.

    Meeting that higher tax burden would require businesses to pare expenses in other areas, perhaps reducing charitable contributions, slashing employee benefits or even laying off workers, Russo said.

    "People will find ways to make up those tax dollars, and it's usually not in good ways," she said. "I think it's going to have a negative impact."

    Rys agreed.

    After-tax income represents the No. 1 source of capital for small businesses, so boosting income levies on entrepreneurs takes away their best financing prospect for new equipment, expansion and even paying salaries.

    "Something has to give," Rys said.

    For Richard Amar, what will give, at least temporarily, are new hires and equipment purchases.

    Amar, president and owner of the 39-employee Ritz Cleaners in Las Vegas, said any bump in taxes would force him to wait a few months to bring on new workers or buy new machinery.

    But Amar added that he would find a way to expand regardless.

    "Anytime there's a tax increase, it affects someone," Amar said. "But you have to grow. You have to spend money to make money. I will not hesitate to buy more equipment. I just have to adjust how and when I buy it. Whether you like it or not, your business has to grow."

    But Larry Monkarsh, owner of LM Construction in Las Vegas, said any noticeable bump in tax rates on small businesses would encourage many entrepreneurs to reconsider expanding.

    "People will be analyzing things and making conscious decisions as to whether they want to make more money," said Monkarsh, a business owner since 1996 who now employs about 40 workers. "And good entrepreneurs also find new ways to keep their money. I don't mind paying taxes, but I don't like paying taxes when I feel like I'm being singled out. He (Obama) would be singling out me and my peers."

    Monkarsh said business owners could decide upgrading an operation wouldn't be worth the cost in added taxes. If buying new machinery translates into 9 percent or 10 percent in additional levies, some managers might skip the improvements, he said.

    "Based on what Mr. Obama is planning, the small-business guy could be a thing of the past," he said. "The middle class might be a thing of the past. Look at a guy like me who's middle class. I either want to go up or down. But there wouldn't really be a whole lot for me to go up to. We need to be very careful about changing the climate and makeup of this country by singling out the small-business owner and cutting them out of business."

    The higher tax rates look increasingly likely. Both the House and Senate budget outlines debated last week assume Obama's tax increase will pass.

    The tax boost will come from allowing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush to expire in 2011.

    On tap would be new limits on itemized deductions, including those for home mortgage interest and charitable donations. Obama's proposal also calls for eliminating capital gains taxes on certain small-business stock held for at least five years. He would, however, increase the top capital gains rate paid on other securities from 15 percent to 20 percent.

    Supporters and opponents of the plan cite dueling analyses of just how many taxpayers would pony up more under the proposal.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says 97 percent of small-business owners would see their taxes drop or stay the same under Obama's plan. The plan counts on Congress extending Bush's middle-income tax rates beyond 2010, as well as a new tax credit that withholds $400 to $800 less per year from workers' paychecks.

    Geithner's numbers jibe with a widely cited analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a collaboration of two liberal-leaning think tanks, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. According to the analysis, only 1.9 percent of taxpayers who report business income on their individual returns would fall into the top two income-tax brackets.

    Republicans cite a different analysis, by the Treasury Department in 2007. That study showed that 8 percent of taxpayers with small-business income fell into the top two tax brackets in 2006 -- about 2.1 million taxpayers. Roughly 1.1 million of those taxpayers received more than half their income from a small business.

    Benjamin Harris, a senior research associate at Brookings, said the studies used different definitions for business income and different methods to estimate the percentage of taxpayers in each bracket.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4512.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 26 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Mana Chaffin wrote on April 06, 2009 09:36 AM: What many don't realize is that for small business owners or small to medium privately held corporations, the owners are requred to hold major assets and real estate in their names for bank lenders. The business pays them rent and they in return pay as individuals the mortagages, 2nd liens, etc. This pushes us, at least, over the $250K even though it is an "in and out". Take away the rent and related expenese and we are below the $250K. Although we will not refuse to grow our business, paying higher taxes will effect the funds we have to purchase new assets and give employees raises. It has to, regardless of our income, we have budgets and expenses just like everyone else. Changing "overnight" is not a viable option.


    Leric Goodman wrote on April 05, 2009 08:56 PM: This is fear mongering at its most uninformed and stupid. There is a 10% tax credit on new equipment. There are dollar for dollar deductions on new equipment to the maximum most small businesses can buy. If you buy equipment, you can depreciate it. The tax credits put money back in your pocket. And the deductions and depreciation do the same, by reducing taxable income.

    This article is dum. It is so dum it hasn't even got a b.

    Spare us the editorializing masquerading as news.


    Jennifer Robison wrote on April 05, 2009 08:18 PM: ghm: Please note the following paragraph from the above story. I had the same thought when I was writing this story. Why can't businesspeople just shift their income off their personal return and onto a corporate return? It seems like the obvious solution. But I asked an accountant about the scenario you describe and she says in the story above that taking income through a corporation-type structure would more than double a businessperson's taxes:

    >>Avoiding personal income tax by shifting business earnings from an individual return to a corporate return isn't an option for many smaller companies, because such a move could result in double taxation. A company owner would pay corporate income tax first. If he then paid his personal income directly from those corporate profits, he'd have to take the cash either as a dividend or a wage, which means a second income tax. The twin levies could mean a tax burden of 50 percent to 70 percent, Russo said. The result: Most business owners don't see any realistic alternative to including business income on their individual returns. And that means they'd have no choice but to pay the higher personal income tax.<<


    ghm wrote on April 05, 2009 07:38 PM: SIMPLY INORPERATE (NO LONGER IS IT PERSONAL INCOME)AND YOU NO LONGER HAVE THE PROBLEM- THESE GUYS MUST BE STUPID OR STUPID REPUBLICANS TRYING TO MAKE THE PRESEDENTS PLAN LOOK BAD.


    GHM wrote on April 05, 2009 06:40 PM: This is republican propaganda!!
    This so called newpaper is nothing more the a republican Proaganda machine. When will these jerks wise up amd realize that Las Vegas is A democrat CITY and we democrats will stop buying they will be out of business like the rest of the stupid news papers. Stop being political and get rid of those stupid propagands news columns ann coulter, Charles Krauthammer make me sick!!!!


    linxlvr wrote on April 05, 2009 06:29 PM: So the right wingers are trying to convince me I wouldn't want to earn 375,000 any more because my taxes would go back to normal... a 3% increase.

    Yea.

    Send me the difference, I'll get the 501 papers started...


    Axman wrote on April 05, 2009 01:01 PM: Rational Thinking- I have heard the theory that Bush acquired a surplus from Clinton and Bush created a deficit. I heard this is due to Bush reducing Taxes, yet not reducing Spending, and declaring WAR after 9/11. Obama is not pulling troops out that I am aware of. I have also heard some refer to Bush as evil lol, and have heard some refer to Obama as the anti-christ. I don't think either is evil, nor do I think either speaks better than the other.

    Of certainty, Clinton is a multi-millionaire, despite being a Democrat who pandered to the poor. He now gives $50,000-$200,000 speeches around the globe, and never visits a poor neighborhood that I am aware of. That was done only for votes and propaganda. I am sure Obama is the same. If anyone knows that Clinton visits any poor neighborhood (like Carter), let me know.

    Perhaps any surplus was created from the policies from administrations previous to him, and maybe the present deficit is to an extent related to Clinton? There might also be other factors involved outside of any Administration's control.

    Finally, the "accounting" METHODS used by the Federal Government might be changed to manipulate the figures. Yeah, imagine that! And you thought this would be so simple as to say Clinton = Surplus and Bush = Deficit. Not so simple, my dear co-citizen. I wish it were. I would like to know more about these "methods", but I am not so interested in accounting and calculators as mentioned below. In other words, the deficit could be stated at over $20 Tillion, or perhaps less than it is currently stated.


    say what wrote on April 05, 2009 12:43 PM: clinton didn't count food and energy as inflation and he used social security funds to balance the budget etc etc.


    Rational Thinker wrote on April 05, 2009 12:28 PM: Again... Clinton had a balanced federal budget...


    AxMan wrote on April 05, 2009 12:22 PM: Quiz: what is the purpose of our FEDERAL Government?

    I know they are involved in the noble act of keeping our Air and Water clean (environmental functions) through the EPA, BLM etc. They provide a military (protection), treasury (taxing) and highly-questionable business regulation through SEC, FTC etc. They also respond to the occasional natural disaster relief, and reseach (space, medical etc). Aside from these fundamentals, most of which are concurrently handled by LOCAL and STATE governments, should there be a massive reduction? For example, what if we had NO MILITARY? In some countries, there really is no military. We would save BILLIONS. Would we eventually be invaded and slaughtered? I also see little or no good being done by the SEC.

    Different theories might NEED to be tested with a 12 TRILLION dollar deficit from years of accumulating debt (too much spending/government), right? If this deficit is relevant, a massive Government reduction will be necessary, unless Government can Tax the way out of it and still stay competitive in international system. From what I understand, the Taxes that the Treasury collects just pays the INTEREST on our deficit, and does not do anything to even reduce the deficit. Check it out two years from now, and see...


    Read All Comments