Helpful insights on good business practices, commercial loans, alternative forms of financing and planning your company’s future.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal

January 3, 2011

Compared to ideal tax policy, the deal announced this week between congressional Republicans and President Obama is terrible.  But compared to what many expected to happen, the deal is pretty good.  In other words, grading this package depends on your benchmark.  This is why reaction has been all over the map, says Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The Good.

The good part of the agreement is the avoidance of bad things, sort of the political version of the Hippocratic oath — do no harm.

Tax rates next year are not going to increase.

The main provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax acts are extended for two years — including the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Another bit of good news is that the death tax will be 35 percent for two years, rather than 55 percent, as would have happened without an agreement.

Last but not least, there is a one-year provision allowing businesses to”expense” new investment rather than have it taxed.

The Bad.

The burden of government spending is going to increase.

Unemployment benefits are extended for 13 months.

And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden.

The Ugly.

As happens so often when politicians make decisions, the deal includes all sorts of special-interest provisions.

Moreover, the temporary nature of the package is disappointing, and there will be very little economic boost from this deal.

Source: Daniel J. Mitchell, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal,” Cato-at-Liberty.org, December 7, 2010.

For text:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-tax-deal/

source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20118&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

What Is Fed’s QE2, and What Will It Do? Experts Explain in Everyday English.

November 16, 2010

QE2 sounds like a luxury ocean liner.  But many wonder if the Federal Reserve’s second round of “quantitative easing” would be more aptly named the Titanic, says the Dallas Morning News.

“The book has not been written whether QE2 is a good idea or a bad idea,” said Sam Manning, general partner of the Blagden Fund in Dallas. “There are many highly educated, brilliant minds on both sides of the argument.”

But here are some basics about quantitative easing that most agree on:

The way it’s supposed to work is that the Fed buys securities in the open market, paying with a government “check.” The sellers deposit those checks into their banks.

The banks redeploy those deposits as loans to consumers and business. The money supply expands and, in turn, so does the economy — or so the theory goes. The likely — and intended — effect is inflation.

The Fed is worried about deflation and the psychological effect of our seeing assets such as 401(k)s, houses and stocks devalue.  It’s the “wealth effect” in reverse, says the Dallas Morning News.

But some fear that the cure could be worse than the disease.

Bob McTeer, distinguished fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, disagrees:  “Everybody’s treating this as a very unusual, draconian thing that’s extremely risky, probably won’t work and likely to have adverse consequences.  I think they’re overdoing it.”

If successful, the action will create a manageable inflation rate that could push the stock market and housing prices higher, entice businesses to go ahead with projects and banks to lend to them.

If QE2 is too successful at unleashing money, inflation could shift into hyperdrive.  Then the Fed will have to engage a completely different set of steering mechanisms.

Source: Cheryl Hall, “What Is Fed’s QE2, and What Will It Do? Experts Explain in Everyday English,” Dallas Morning News, November 10, 2010.

For full text:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/chall/stories/DN-Hallonline_10bus.State.Edition1.3d7e691.html

.

Huge Tax Hikes Coming Unless Congress Acts

September 22, 2010

Budget & Tax News > October 2010

Written By: Alyssa Carducci

Published In: Budget & Tax News > October 2010

Publisher: The Heartland Institute


President Obama campaigned on the promise that middle-income earners—those earning $250,000 or less annually—would experience no tax increases. On the upcoming New Year’s Day, however, virtually every American will be facing the possibility of higher taxes.
Lowered tax rates on a wide variety of items including personal income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes that became law in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire on January 1 unless Congress extends them.

“Everyone’s tax rates will go up; everyone will see significantly higher taxes,” said Curtis Dubay, a senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. “For the middle class that were promised not to pay tax increases, they’ll certainly see a much smaller paycheck starting in January.”

$1,540 per Family
Nationally, the typical middle-income family, which has a median income of $63,366, would see its federal income tax burden increase by $1,540 if the tax cuts expire, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.
“The Democrats are falling all over themselves promising the press and the American people that they will extend certain of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, patch the AMT, etc.  However, there seems to be no solid plans for doing so before the election [in November],” said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform.

“In essence, they are asking people to trust that Congress will act after people have had [their only] chance to punish Congress if they don’t,” he said. “There are many of us on the right who believe that they don’t care to extend any of the tax cuts. They need the revenue to fund their permanently higher government spending.”

Business Burdens
American families and individual taxpayers would not be the only ones affected by the tax hike that will result if Congress takes no action. Ellis says both large and small businesses also have no certainty right now. 

“If you’re a large employer, the expiration of the tax extenders—particularly the research and experimentation credit—gives you no ability to plan,” he said. “So there’s no sense of stability there,” he said.

He also pointed out many small businesses pay taxes at the rates applied to individuals.
“No one is sure where those rates are going to be, but there’s an increasing sense among business owners that rates are going up in January. There’s also uncertainty about small business expensing and the death tax,” he said.

Hundreds of Billions More
He said the combination of letting the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provisions expire, failing to “patch” the alternative minimum tax, and implementing the ObamaCare tax hikes would raise the nation’s tax burden hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
The alternative minimum tax was created 40 years ago to apply only to a handful of wealthy taxpayers to ensure they would pay a minimum amount of income tax, but it now affects millions of taxpayers because it has never been indexed for inflation. It does away with most deductions and tax credits, forcing people to pay more income tax.
Congress has been “patching” the tax code in recent years to help some people who would otherwise be hit by the AMT avoid its higher taxes.

“The tired old myth that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were just tax cuts for the rich will finally, once and for all, be proven false,” Dubay said.

Alyssa Carducci (adc.republican@yahoo.com) writes from Florida.

SIDEBAR

If Congress allows the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, these are major changes that would happen:

  • Income tax would increase by 3 to 5 percentage points for every bracket, including an end to the lowest tax bracket, currently 10 percent.
  • Capital gains tax rates would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent, and dividends taxes would jump from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
  • The death tax would rise from zero to 55 percent on estates over $1 million.
  • The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500 per child.

Economy 101: Who benefits from new banking rules?

September 14, 2010

By PALLAVI GOGOI (AP)

NEW YORK — At the core of an international agreement to head off future financial meltdowns is a requirement that banks keep more money on hand in case of trouble.The new rule released Sunday by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision aims to fortify banks worldwide and prevent them from spiraling into the kind of global financial crisis that brought the world to its knees in 2008.Banks will have about eight years to comply fully with the rules, but the proposed changes could have immediate effects on the U.S. economy. Some questions and answers about the new global banking rules: 

Q. What is Basel and how does it have so much power?

A. The Basel Committee is a group of top central bankers from 27 nations who meet regularly and look for ways to manage risk for banks worldwide. The U.S. is represented by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. It is the only forum that the world relies on to create a common standard for large global banks.

Q. What’s the main change this year?

A. The most dramatic change proposed by the Basel Committee was a more than three-fold increase, from 2 percent to 7 percent, in the “core capital ratio,” or the amount of money banks need to set aside to help absorb losses on loans. The fear is that if banks have less capital than their losses, they cannot meet payments on their own debt, and they usually fail. Capital is expressed as a percentage of a bank’s assets.

Q. Who stands to benefit?

A. Consumers and some shareholders, perhaps. Most American banks already meet the new standard, and some actually exceed it, according to Richard Bove, banking analyst at investment firm Rochdale Securities. Many of the larger U.S. banks raised enormous amounts of capital after American regulators required them to do so last year on the heels of the financial crisis.That means the rules could help free up some capital for lending to American consumers, in the form of mortgages or credit cards. It will also benefit shareholders of the stronger banks who will likely see higher dividends.It “should be a positive catalyst for banks with strong capital and in a position to increase dividends,” Fred Cannon, banking analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a report.

Q. Who stands to lose?

A. Smaller community banks or credit unions that are already struggling with high loan losses and foreclosures. Many of them have found it hard to raise capital, and they will struggle with the new requirements.

Small businesses that rely on community banks for their borrowing needs could have an even tougher time getting loans. That could hurt job creation.

“Right now, we need banks to lend in local economies, not focus on new requirements,” said Sean Egan, managing director of Egan Jones Rating Agency. Egan believes that smaller banks will rush to comply with the rules rather than waiting years to comply. “They will try to make up for the higher capital requirements by lending at higher rates and stiffer terms,” Egan said.

Q. Will these new rules prevent another meltdown?

A. Possibly. If banks are forced to hold a higher percentage of capital for all the loans they write, it will prevent the kind of zero-down, zero-interest loans that were offered during the real estate boom. And if banks are stronger, they will be able to withstand the kind of losses that they faced during the last financial crisis.

However, not everyone agrees that the capital requirements are strong enough to avoid another meltdown.

Said Simon Johnson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former International Monetary Fund chief economist: “Lehman Brothers had 11.6 percent (of the same kind of) capital one day before it failed. The new capital requirements will not even reach that inadequate level.”

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Allied Affiliated Funding Announces Second Funding for July

July 19, 2010

Facility Amount: $500,000

Date Funded: 7/16/10

The Company:  A Rockwall, TX based company established in 2009 to initiate digital projection system installation and service contracts with exhibitors or their implementation partners.  The company was established to address the growing need within the digital cinema industry for qualified, experienced and efficient provision of installation services.

The IssueThis start-up company needed working capital to grow and expand their services. 

The Solution:  A banker, unable to assist this company due to a lack of history, knew that Allied Affiliated Funding provides funding for start-up companies and referred the deal to Eli Gross.  

The Win:  By factoring with Allied Affiliated Funding, this start-up company now has the opportunity to obtain additional contracts and potentially double their monthly sales due to newly available working capital.

Clients’ Failure to Pay State Franchise Taxes is Risky Business for Factors

July 12, 2010

 

A guest blog by Scot Pierce

Factors need to be aware whether their clients are in good standing with the states where the clients conduct business.  Most entities doing business in a particular state are required to pay state franchise taxes.  Paying the taxes helps maintain an entity’s legal standing to do business in the state.  Failure to pay, however, ultimately leads to tax forfeitures which can be a big problem for factors.

Tax forfeitures affect an entity’s liability protection.  You are all familiar with the various entity forms.  You know that some entity forms provide limited liability for owners, shareholders and partners.  These include limited liability companies, S corporations, C corporations, limited liability partnerships, and professions corporations.  You also know that sole proprietorships, general partnerships, joint ventures and DBAs have no limit on liability.  Entities can lose their liability protection by failing to pay state franchise taxes.

Using Texas as an example, entities have three levels of standing.  They are (1) “Good Standing,” (2) “Not in Good Standing,” (3) and ‘Temporary Good Standing.”  Most states have the same or similar designations.  “Good Standing” means the entity has filed all franchise tax reports and paid its franchise taxes in full.  This allows the entity to continue doing business in the state.  “Temporary Good Standing” is really no reflection on the entity itself.  This simply means that the state has not yet processed the franchise tax reports. Until it does, all entities are granted temporary good standing.

“Not in Good Standing,” however, is very different. “Not in Good Standing” is a red flag for factors.  It means that the entity has not paid its state franchise taxes and has, therefore, forfeited its right to do business in Texas.  In practical terms, this means the entity is now operating as an assumed name or DBA so any shareholders, owners or partners are not protected personally from liability for debts incurred while the entity was “Not in Good Standing.”  Or, to be more direct, you are now factoring a sole proprietorship or general partnership.  My experience is that this not only can affect how you factor the client and perfect your security interest, but it is also a red flag that you may very well be factoring into a liquidation.

Because of the effect of failure to pay state franchise taxes, I recommend factors be vigilant in checking this.  Usually, the state comptroller’s office will have this information.  If you have a client whose account status changes for the worse, you should immediately contact the client to learn why this has happened and whether the client intends to correct the problem.  This may allow you to catch a failing business early on and take appropriate steps to protect yourself. Or, it may allow you to avoid factoring a business that just wants your money while intending to file for bankruptcy protection. The bottom line is factoring a client who is not paying its state franchise taxes can be a recipe for disaster.

About the author:

Scot Pierce is a partner with the lawfirm of Bracket & Ellis, P.C. located in Fort Worth, Texas.  He has represented a number of factors with commercial litigation and bankruptcy issues.  He also regularly writes articles and presents speeches on creditor issues, including an upcoming teleconference on Issues to Consider when Litigating against Account Debtors.  He can be reached at 817/339-2474 or spierce@belaw.com.

Allied Funds New Client Aiding in the Oil Spill Clean Up

July 7, 2010

Facility Amount: $2,500,000

Date Funded: 7/2/10

The Company:  A New Orleans based labor contractor specializing in marine work. The company has recently obtained new contracts to provide certified haz-mat workers to assist in the BP oil spill clean up in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Issue: With the unexpected surge in their business as a result of this disaster, the company needed working capital to accommodate their growth and to meet payroll. 

The Solution:  An independent broker referred the deal to Tanya Fontenot at Allied.  Tanya was able to win the deal despite the company having a commitment from another financing source.  Allied received the company’s signed proposal on Monday at 4:00 pm and then funded the company on Friday morning. 

The Win:  With the expedited funding provided by Allied, this company is now able to meet their weekly payroll and facilitate their unprecedented growth as a result of this crisis.  Allied was able to fulfill our commitment to quickly assist businesses involved in the oil spill clean up process.

Small Businesses Face Dangerous Tax Hikes Ahead

February 1, 2010

Author: Michael Hosemann, Managing Director, Enterprise Consulting Solutions

In the “brave new world” following the November 2008 elections, small businesses face a phalanx of challenges in the tax arena. First of all, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress plan to allow some of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, thus raising taxes on top earners. Secondly, the health care overhaul being debated in Congress contains proposals that pose a huge financial threat to small businesses. Finally, the Cap and Trade legislation that awaits debate in Congress proposes an energy tax in disguise that promises to artificially explode the cost of energy and, therefore, the cost of overhead in small businesses.
Read the rest of this entry »

Allied Affiliated Funding
Corporate Headquarters

5151 Beltline Road, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75254

Tel: 972-776-5300
Fax: 972-404-9955