Discussion:FICA limits with 2 companies paying wages
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 23:29, 23 June 2008 TheTinCook (Talk | contribs) (Sorry, forgot th) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 21:57, 24 June 2008 RJM (Talk | contribs) (Can the sharehol) Next diff → |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=TheTinCook|Date=23 June 2008|Text=Sorry, forgot the -1}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=TheTinCook|Date=23 June 2008|Text=Sorry, forgot the -1}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=RJM|Date=24 June 2008|Text=Can the shareholder simply be an employee of only one corp, and then have the other corp reimburse the first for the salary and benefits? I have clients do this when they have employees working for more than one of the owners' companies, to avoid any ERISA and DOL problems with having different benefits for employees of common-ownership companies. But seems like this would also solve the double-dip company FICA problem. -Bob}} | ||
Revision as of 21:57, 24 June 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> FICA limits with 2 companies paying wages
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> FICA limits with 2 companies paying wages
Bomber9996 (talk|edits) said: | 23 June 2008 |
| I have client that has 2 S-Corps, both paying wages to >2% S/H. The IRS has told us that both companies must pay EE and ER portion of FICA until each company pays wages to the 102,000 limit. When done this way it appears there is no recourse for the company to get back the ER portion that they have over paid (we know the S/H gets credit on return when filed). Does anyone know the proper way to handle this or how to get the funds back and still have the 941 correct? I searched the site for previous questions on this topic so please forgive me if I somehow missed it. Thanks for your help! | |
TheTinCook (talk|edits) said: | 23 June 2008 |
| §31.3121(s) | |
| 23 June 2008 | |
| I think that cite would be Code Sec. 3121(s). I can't find a Reg. 31.3121(s).
BTW, Bomber, if you tell us who you are you're more likely to get advice with a smile. -- Larry Hess, CPA | Albuquerque, NM | Talk to me | |
| 23 June 2008 | |
| a reg would probably start with 1.something look for a 1.3121(s) | |
| 23 June 2008 | |
| Thanks for prodding me, Kevin. I had searched for 31.3121 & came up empty. But with a cross-reference I found Reg. 31.3121(s)-1. -- Larry Hess, CPA | Albuquerque, NM | Talk to me | |
TheTinCook (talk|edits) said: | 23 June 2008 |
| Sorry, forgot the -1 | |
| 24 June 2008 | |
| Can the shareholder simply be an employee of only one corp, and then have the other corp reimburse the first for the salary and benefits? I have clients do this when they have employees working for more than one of the owners' companies, to avoid any ERISA and DOL problems with having different benefits for employees of common-ownership companies. But seems like this would also solve the double-dip company FICA problem. -Bob | |
