Connect with us

Accounting

What are delayed filings? | Accounting Today

Published

on

“Timing is everything.” We’ve heard this turn of phrase often in all sorts of scenarios. And if you have clients who are starting a new business or transitioning from a sole proprietorship or partnership to an LLC or corporation, it’s absolutely relevant!

Whether someone incorporates their business now as the year comes to a close or waits until the new year can affect their company in various ways. In this article, I’ll discuss those impacts and explain why some clients might find the option to do a delayed filing attractive. 

Business formation timing considerations

First things first, let’s discuss the three timing options business owners have when forming an LLC or corporation — midyear, end of year or January 1 (a.k.a., the start of the new year). 

Midyear

Registering a business entity with a midyear effective date means the company will be subject to all the tax and reporting requirements associated with their LLC or corporation for that year. And existing businesses that switch to an LLC or corporation mid-year must submit two sets of income tax returns: one for the business structure it operated as during the months before its incorporation date and another set for the remainder of the year when it operated as an LLC or corporation. 

End of year

December is an extremely hectic month for Secretary of State offices across the country, which can create a backlog of filings and potentially result in an effective date a month or more into the new year. Typically, states must receive and process an entity’s registration form before it’s considered effective. So, even if someone requests an effective date in December or on  January 1, the actual effective date might be later if the state is unable to process the registration before the requested effective date. In other words, states generally do not make effective dates retroactive. 

January 1

A January 1 effective date has some perks. It gives the LLC or corporation a clean start — e.g., existing businesses only have one set of tax forms for the tax year vs. the two required if switching entity types midyear. Also, in states that levy LLC franchise taxes, an LLC that files with an effective date of January 1 would not have to pay those fees for the previous year. For example, if a business files its LLC formation paperwork in November 2024 but requests an effective date in January 2025, the LLC won’t have to pay a state franchise tax for 2024. Likewise, the LLC or corporation’s other corporate formalities kick in for that year rather than for the year before.

How to ensure a January 1 effective date

Typically, a business registration filing will be effective on the date the state processes the forms. The processing time may vary between just a few days to several weeks, with expedited filings completed in five to ten business days. 

A delayed filing, however, gives business owners some control over when their corporation or  LLC goes into effect. In states that allow delayed effective dates, business owners can submit their formation paperwork in advance and set a future date for when they want their entity to be officially registered. Different states have different rules for when they’ll accept a delayed filing.

For example, here are several states’ requirements for how far in advance business owners may request a delayed effective date: 

  • Alabama – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date;
  • California – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date (note that in California, LLCs and corporations that submit their formation paperwork after December 18 will be considered to be in business effective January 1 the next year, provided they do not conduct business between December 18 and December 31 of the current year);
  • Florida – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date;
  • Illinois – Up to 60 days before the requested effective date;
  • Pennsylvania – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date;
  • Rhode Island – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date;
  • Texas – Up to 90 days before the requested effective date;
  • Virginia – Up to 15 days before the requested effective date.

The below states do NOT allow delayed effective dates:

  • Alaska
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Louisiana
  • Maryland
  • Minnesota
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey

How can your clients request a delayed filing?

As your client or their representative completes the forms to establish their LLC or corporation, they should consider their desired effective date and make sure they submit their delayed filing within the state’s acceptable time frame. For instance, if someone wants to form an LLC in Rhode Island with an effective date of January 1, 2025, they can submit their delayed filing as early as Oct. 2, 2024. The company’s Articles of Organization (LLC) or Articles of Incorporation (corporation) should reflect the desired effective date. If the state doesn’t have a designated field on its form to request an effective date, your client can add a provision to request a specific date (if the state will allow it).

Is a delayed filing for everyone?

Whether a delayed filing makes sense for a client depends on their situation. As we discussed, submitting business formation paperwork before the end of this year to request a January 1 effective date next year can make tax filing time less cumbersome and potentially avoid some extra compliance fees. But sometimes, a delayed filing won’t be the way to go. For example, some consultants or other professionals may not want to wait that far in the future to get their entity up and running because they need an earlier effective date to secure a significant client. 

Final thoughts

Delayed filings provide business owners with control over the official registration date of their business entities. By filing business formation ahead of time and requesting a delayed effective date of January 1, business owners may avoid potential paperwork processing backlogs at the state and eliminate extra paperwork at tax filing time. Moreover, it enables entrepreneurs to file their registration forms before the end of the current year for the following year without being on the hook to pay certain fees (like an LLC franchise tax) and submit certain reports (like annual reports) for the year when the registration forms were filed because the entity was not yet effective then. 

As with all business concerns with legal and financial ramifications, your clients should seek expert professional guidance when considering whether a delayed filing will be advantageous for them. That’s where your expertise can make a tremendous difference! And for any questions beyond the scope of the matters you’re licensed to address, please direct your clients to the appropriate resources.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Fraud guilty plea from accountant over $1.4M mortgage loan

Published

on

In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.

A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year. 

The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.  

Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.

On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.  

“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.  

A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million. 

He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19. 

In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution. 

Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit. 

Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.

Aces’ report found overall defect rates of originated mortgages rising in both the first and second quarters. 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AICPA wants SEC to reject PCAOB standard on firm and engagement metrics

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.

The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million,  annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.

“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.

The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes. 

“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”

The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers. “Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”

The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”

The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”

The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Aiwyn raises $113M in funding from KKR, Bessemer

Published

on

Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.

The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.

Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.

Justin Adams, CEO of Aiwyn

Aiwyn CEO Justin Adams

The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.

“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”

The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.

“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.

“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.

Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.

Continue Reading

Trending