Which Government Agency California Can Register Promisory Note

promissory-note-lock2-copy

The Issue

Nonresident individuals and out-of-state companies oft make loans to California-based borrowers. Information technology's not unusual for those promissory notes to exist secured with California real estate. The scenarios take many forms. A person may inherit the annotation from a parent, or they may feel obliged to brand a loan to a kid purchasing their first home. Or the note may be on the books of an out-of-state company as a result of the sale of assets or a subsidiary to a California buyer. Clients in these circumstances often inquire me whether the involvement from the notation is California-source income. The brusque answer is, mostly no. The long answer is, it depends.

Why It Matters

It obviously makes a financial difference if loan involvement is California-source income. Nonresidents are taxed by California on income sourced to this state. If the interest on such loans are California-source income, the nonresident must file a nonresident return and pay California income taxes. An analogous situation applies to out-of-land companies that hold such notes. If the interest is revenue sourced to California, the lender is "doing business organisation in California" and owes California taxes on that revenue. But even if the amount of taxation is minor, there may exist a larger downside. For nonresidents, a California income tax reporting requirement means that the Franchise Tax Board, California'due south tax enforcement agency, will know everything about the taxpayer's global income. That'due south because the nonresident must attach a federal return, Form 1040, to the nonresident land render, Form 540NR. It'south not the end of the globe, and information technology by no means guarantees a residency inspect, simply if the person's global income is specially high, and if at that place are indications of other significant contacts with California, then it could increase the chances of the FTB initiating a residency audit, something that promises unique unpleasantries for nonresidents. See, California Residency Audits: Three Year-End Tasks to Reduce the Run a risk for Nonresidents.

For business entities, having California-source income raises similar complications. An out-of-state company doing business in California has to register every bit a foreign entity and file all appropriate entity tax returns, regardless of how de minimis its California taxable income is. And, if the entity is a pass-through, the reportable California-source income may also require the principals to file nonresident returns. A double whammy.

The goal for nonresidents and entities with an out-of-state business home should exist to obviate reporting requirements completely, if possible.

How Information technology Works

Here are the rules. They are deceptively deceptive.

First, let's discuss entities. If an out-of-state entity is a "financial system," then the rule is straightforward. Interest from a loan to a California resident or California-domiciled entity is California-source income, menstruum. Further, if the loan is secured past California real estate, it is California-source income regardless of the residency or situs of the borrower. A financial organization, for this purpose, ways a bank or a mortgage lender.

Second, all other corporations or entities don't have to worry. They are specifically exempted from this rule. Accordingly, companies with an out-of-state situs not in the business organization of making loans, don't have to report interest from California-based borrowers to California. To give an example, if a Nevada corporation which produces widgets takes back a annotation from the sale of old equipment to a California company or its main, and the notation is collateralized with California real estate, the loan interest is not reportable as California income.

Finally, what about private lenders? Equally I indicated, nonresidents sometimes inherit notes, often from parents who may have fabricated a loan to the taxpayer's siblings, nephews, or nieces. Or the nonresident may take made a loan to a kid who lives in California. Surprisingly, there is no instance law or statute straight on bespeak. Nor practise the regulations exempt individuals from the "financial organisation" rules. Yet, we tin deduce the respond from general constabulary and by analogy to the entity rules.

Interest from a note isn't California-source income as a thing of blackness-letter law – unless the note has caused a "business situs" in California

California Revenue and Tax Code §17952 states that income of nonresidents from stocks, bonds, notes, or other intangible personal property is not income from sources within this land, unless the holding has caused a business organisation situs in California. No mention of the borrower'southward residency condition. No mention of security. Just "business situs." We'll get to that.

Information technology is telling that no FTB case has claimed California-source income results from a note secured by local real estate or entered into by a California-based debtor. Indeed, if an out-of-state (non-financial) corporation tin can receive incidental loan payments for this category of debt without incurring California income tax, so all the more so should a nonresident individual who is not doing business concern in California be exempt.

Just, But, Only

Still, information technology gets complicated. Interest from a note isn't California-source income as a matter of black-letter police force – unless the note has "acquired a business situs" in California. What does that hateful?

A business situs is acquired in California if the belongings is employed as capital in-state. The regulations provide an example: if a nonresident pledges stocks, bonds or other intangible personal belongings in California as security for the payment of indebtedness, taxes, etc., incurred in connection with a business in the state, then a business situs has been established. This language seems to overlap with promissory note terminology. But don't get confused. Notes may be secured past other property, but it'southward rare to use a promissory note itself every bit collateral. For an intangible nugget to acquire a situs in California, the nonresident lender (not the resident borrower) has to encumber the intangible asset. For the most function, this applies to situations where the nonresident owner of stock pledges shares to cover debt or otherwise uses the stock equally capital. That's not the case with a collateralized notation. Although the note may be secured with California existent manor, it'southward the debtor, not the lender, who burdened the property (which already has a California situs past definition if information technology's California existent estate). That'due south non the same as a nonresident pledging stock. The nonresident lender didn't pledge anything. Accordingly, nothing in the regulations indicates that a loan collateralized past California existent estate results in loan payments having a business situs in California.

Just there's a further complexity. The FTB issued new regulations in tardily 2016 claiming the authority to taxation the sale of stock and other business interests owned past a nonresident based on the location of the underlying entity avails. The regulations even mention – passingly and cryptically – some other intangible involvement, dividends. Leaving aside the fact that these regulations are totally reverse to half a century of settled case law and seem to contradict the statutes relevant to this very situation, the regulations don't mention notes. One interpretation of these regulations is that the FTB is keeping its options open to tax the interest from notes secured past California real estate, by analogy. But that's unlikely. The meliorate estimation, one potentially denoting to a disputed instance, is that the FTB'southward failure to include collateralize notes in its new regulations purporting to tax intangible interests is an implied admission that it lacks the dominance to do and so.

Conclusion

To summarize: except for specially defined out-of-state financial companies, business entities with incidental involvement income from notes secured past California real estate or payable from California-based borrowers, take no reporting requirements under straightforward rules. For individuals, in that location's less clarity, but the outcome should be the aforementioned, except in the unlikely event of a h2o landing where the note is used as collateral itself, or if the FTB gets strangely ambitious and claims its new regulations apply to notes, even though information technology didn't bother to include debt instruments in its regulations when it had the run a risk.

________________________

Manes Police is the premier law business firm focusing exclusively on comprehensive, starting time-to-finish California residency tax planning. We assist a clientele of successful innovators and investors, including founders exiting their startups through a sale or IPO, Bitcoin traders and investors, professional person actors and athletes, and global citizens able to live and work anywhere. Learn more than at our website: www.calresidencytaxattorney.com.

________________________

No information contained in this post should exist construed equally legal advice from Justia Inc. or the private author, nor is it intended to exist a substitute for legal counsel on whatever subject affair. No reader of this mail should human activity or refrain from interim on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional person communication on the detail facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient'due south land, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.