Important Disclaimer: The materials appearing below are intended for general information purposes only and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. These materials are not legal advice, and persons should consult an attorney for legal advice pertinent to his or her situation. Your use of the information in these articles is at your own risk and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Articles are not updated for developments occurring after the article is written.
By Dirk Bartram
On January 1, 2020, substantial changes in the Washington’s real estate excise tax (REET) will take effect. The REET applies to sales of real property in the state and to transfers of controlling interests in entities that own such real estate. The changes will reduce the tax paid by most selling homeowners, but many other property sellers, particularly those in the Seattle metropolitan area, could see a significantly higher tax. The changes also lengthen the time period over which a transfer of a controlling interest is measured. The latter change has the potential for complicating transfers of minority interests in entities that own Washington real estate.
Under the current law, a state REET and a local REET are imposed on the sale of Washington real property (with limited exceptions). The state REET is currently a flat 1.28% of the selling price, and the local REET varies by local jurisdiction. In Seattle (and in many other jurisdictions), the local REET is .5%, which when combined with the state REET produces a total REET of 1.78%.
The new law imposes new graduated state REET rates as follows, except for property classified as timberland or agricultural land. (Local jurisdictions will continue to apply their own REET on top of the state REET):
The state rate for land classified as timberland or agricultural land remains at 1.28%.
To illustrate, suppose that commercial property in Washington is sold for $10,000,000 and that no exemption applies. Under the existing law, the sale would trigger a state REET of $128,000 plus the local REET. Under the new law, the sale would trigger a state REET of $269,550 plus the local REET. The calculation of the state REET portion under the new law is shown below:
$500,000 at 1.1 % $5500
$1 million at 1.28% $12,800
$1.5 million at 2.75% $41,250
$7 million at 3% $210,000
Total state REET $269,550
Starting in 2022, and every four years thereafter, the state may adjust the selling price thresholds of the graduated rates. Adjustments are based on the growth of the consumer price index for shelter or 5%, whichever is less. The rate adjustments will apply to sales occurring after the adjustment year.
The REET is not only imposed on the direct sale of Washington real property, but also on the transfer or acquisition of a controlling interest in an entity owning such property. That rule exists to prevent sellers from evading the REET by selling real estate indirectly, through the sale of ownership interests in LLCs, corporations, partnerships, trusts, associations or other entities that hold title to the real estate. A controlling interest is 50% or more of the entity interests (as described in the statute).
Under the current law, the tax is triggered by the transfer of a controlling interest within any twelve-month period. Under the new law, the measurement period is thirty-six months instead of twelve. That means that under the new law, in an entity owning Washington real estate, a series of transfers of minority interests over a 3-year period can trigger the tax if the total of those minority interests constitutes a controlling interest. This extension of the measurement period, together with the increase in rates at higher thresholds, will require entities holding Washington real property to pay extra attention to the REET in any plan to transfer minority interests over time.
Important: The materials appearing below are intended for general information purposes only and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. These materials are not legal advice, and persons should consult an attorney for legal advice pertinent to his or her situation. Your use of the information in these articles is at your own risk and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Articles are not updated for developments occurring after the article is written.
By Dirk Bartram
October 17, 2017
Thinking about expanding your business out of state? Do you already have out-of-state customers or clients and wonder what issues lurk? Read on if you answered yes to either of these questions.
This article explains the following issues you need to manage when doing out-of-state business:
This article covers issues that apply to all businesses. However, issues that apply only to a specific type of business or industry are beyond the scope of this article.
Here’s a brief explanation of terminology used in this article. The word (i) “company” means a for-profit corporation or an LLC; (ii) “foreign state” means a state other than the one in which your company was formed. For instance, Oregon would be a foreign state to your Washington company; (iii) “foreign company” means a company formed in another state or country. For example, your Washington corporation would be a “foreign corporation” to the State of California.
The general rule is yes–your existing Washington for-profit corporation or LLC will be eligible to do its business in the other state. However, there are limited exceptions to the rule. For instance, California doesn’t allow LLCs to render many types of professional services, such as law and accounting, though they may be rendered by a professional corporation. Be sure to verify that no exception to the general rule applies to your company.
Even if your company is eligible to conduct activities in another state, it still must qualify to conduct those activities if they constitute “doing business.” Qualification procedures vary from state to state. Most states require a foreign company seeking qualification to file paperwork before doing business in the state and every year thereafter. The paperwork will often require disclosure of the names of its officers and directors and other basic information. Also, qualification usually requires the company to pay fees every year (typically $100-$300), to appoint an agent with an office in that state to receive service of process for the company, and to follow certain rules and regulations.
So what activities constitute “doing business” that require qualification in the foreign state? The term is not specifically defined. However, there are activities that states almost always consider to be “doing business” within their borders. For instance, the Oregon Secretary of State’s website (as of the date this article was written) lists the following activities, conducted in Oregon, as “doing business” in Oregon:
Most other states would agree with Oregon that the activities above constitute doing business in their states, and thus require qualification.
Oregon also lists activities that do not constitute doing business and thus do not, without more, require qualification. Many other states take the same position:
So what are the penalties if your company fails to qualify in a foreign state when required? In all or nearly all states, your company would be barred from bringing a lawsuit in that state’s courts. Your company would be barred, for instance, from suing a business in the foreign state’s courts for breach of its contract with you or for supplying a defective product or service to your company. In many cases, a foreign company can remove the bar to sue by qualifying to do business any time before the suit, after paying all unpaid registration fees and penalties. In some states, the penalties for failing to qualify when required can be substantial, especially if the failure to qualify persists for a significant period of time.
Some states also penalize the individual acting on behalf of a corporation that was required to qualify but didn’t. For instance, California statute provides that any person who transacts business on behalf of an unqualified foreign corporation that was required to qualify, knowing that it wasn’t qualified, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
For many companies, the consequences of failing to qualify in a foreign state outweigh any potential advantages of not filing, so they qualify in the foreign state when in doubt as to whether it’s required. However, qualifying to do business might, in some states, bolster the argument that the company can be required to collect and/or pay tax to the state. If you have doubts about whether your company should qualify in a foreign state, contact a business attorney familiar with representing multi-state businesses.
This question actually comprises two questions: (1) can my company qualify to do business using its company name; and (2) can my company use its company name as its trademark?
In most states, a Washington company can qualify to do business under its company name if it’s “distinguishable on the record” from all company names already registered with that state. The states impose the requirement to insure there won’t be two or more companies with identical names filing with state agencies, thus causing confusion within the agencies. It usually doesn’t take much to meet the “distinguishable” standard. For instance, say your company name is Ornery Bikes Corp., and an Ornery Cycles Corp. is already on file with the foreign state. In many states, the names would be distinguishable since the primary parts of the names, “Ornery Bikes” and “Ornery Cycles”, can be distinguished by their spellings.
If your company applies to qualify in a foreign state, the state will inform it whether it’s company name is distinguishable on the record and thus available for qualification. If your company’s name is not distinguishable, your company will be required to do business in the state under a distinguishable name. After qualification is complete, your company will be issued a foreign qualification certificate showing the name under which the company qualified (call it the “qualification name”). The company will be required to use the qualification name for filing with state agencies, and should be included when the company signs contracts in the state.
However, even if your company is allowed to use its company name for qualification, that doesn’t mean it can use its company name as a trademark. As explained above, a purpose of assigning a qualification name is to avoid confusion at state agencies. A trademark, on the other hand, must avoid confusion of the purchasing public. A trademark serves the purpose of identifying to actual and potential customers the source of the goods or services the company offers. Trademarks are used on websites, store signage and displays, advertising, and products and their packaging and tags. If trademarks are confusingly similar, there is the potential for confusion in the markets for goods and services.
Your company should not use its name as a trademark in another state if a business is already using a confusingly similar trademark there, unless your company has priority under a federal trademark registration. The confusingly similar standard was developed to prevent confusion among customers as to who is providing the goods or services. Many factors are considered when deciding if trademarks are confusingly similar, such as whether they are used for the same or related products or services, and whether the two names are similar in sight, sound or meaning.
The confusing similarity standard for trademarks is usually harder to meet than the distinguishable standard for qualification names. For example, though “Ornery Bikes Corp.” is distinguishable on the record from “Ornery Cycles Corp.”, the two names are confusingly similar assuming the products or services offered by the two businesses are the same or related. The reason: the two names are very similar in sound and appearance, and have the same meaning. Contact an attorney with appreciable trademark experience if you have questions about using your trademark in a foreign state.
We’re happy to help if you have questions about your multi-state business. Give us a call at 206 624 4788.
Important: The materials appearing below are intended for general information purposes only and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. These materials are not legal advice, and persons should consult an attorney for legal advice pertinent to his or her situation. Your use of the information in these articles is at your own risk and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Articles are not updated for developments occuring after the article is written.
By Dirk Bartram
September 10, 2015
The state legislature recently overhauled Washington’s Limited Liability Company Act (the “Act”). The new Act, which takes effect on January 1, 2016, will affect all limited liability companies formed under the laws of the State of Washington, whether formed before or after the effective date. LLCs have become the leading type of entity for new businesses, so the law will affect a lot of businesses. This article sets out some of the changes in the new Act. It is written to inform existing or prospective LLC members, managers and key personnel, as well as people who do business with LLCs.
Before talking about the new changes, some preliminary explanations will help. Under the current Act, the LLC members may, but are not required to, enter into an agreement among themselves concerning the LLC, known as an “LLC agreement.” The LLC agreement addresses issues like member voting, how to admit new members, whether and how a member may transfer his/her membership interests, how members share profits and losses, and other issues important to the members. If there is no LLC agreement, then the LLC is governed entirely by the current Act. For that reason, the current Act’s provisions are called “default rules,” because they apply in the absence of—or in default of—an LLC agreement.
If there is an LLC agreement, then in most cases its provisions will govern the LLC rather than any contrary provision in the current Act. However, there are certain default rules that may not be changed by the LLC Agreement. Those particular default rules were made “nonwaivable” by the legislature to protect the public or LLC members. They apply even if the LLC agreement purports to change them.
The new Act works within the same framework. That is, it has waivable and nonwaivable default rules, and the waivable default rules may be changed in an LLC agreement. However, you will see below that the new Act has made some important changes within that framework.
Under the current Act, the default rule is that the LLC members manage the business, and any LLC member may bind the LLC to legal obligations in the ordinary course of business within the scope of their authority. However, the LLC may be designated as manager-managed rather than member-managed. If that’s the case, then managers (who are selected by the members) rather than members manage the business, and only a manager may bind the LLC to such obligations within the scope of his or her authority.
The same is true under the new Act. However, under the current Act, the status of the LLC as member-managed or manager-managed is designated in the Certificate of Formation filed with the Secretary of State. Under the new Act, the designation must be made in the LLC agreement. If there is no LLC agreement or it is silent on the matter, the LLC will be deemed to be member-managed.
Take away for LLC members and managers: If you want your LLC to be manager-managed, make sure you have an LLC agreement that says so.
Take away for people dealing with LLCs: If you’re engaging in a major transaction with an LLC through its manager, make sure its LLC agreement sets out manager-management. Get a representation and warranty that the LLC agreement you’ve been provided remains in full force and effect. Verify that the manager with whom you are dealing has been duly appointed.
Under the current Act, if the members wish to alter the waivable default rules, they may do so in a written LLC agreement. However, under the new Act, the waivable default rules may be altered by either a written or oral LLC Agreement (except for one limited exception pertaining to a member’s rights to dissent from a merger).
To illustrate, under the current Act and new Act, the default rule is that no new member may be admitted to the LLC without the consent of all existing members. Under the current Act, this default rule can be changed only by a written LLC Agreement between the members. Under the New Act, the members can also orally agree to change this rule.
Take away for LLC members and managers: In spite of the new Act’s allowance for non-written agreements, we recommend that any LLC with more than one member have a written LLC agreement. Otherwise there is more potential for dispute, since any member could try to argue that a default rule in the new Act was modified by oral conversation or course of conduct. Moreover, the LLC agreement should contain a clause that says the agreement may only be amended by subsequent written agreement, so as to reduce the risk of inadvertent amendment in conversation or course of conduct.
These are just two of the important changes made by the new Act. We’ll present more in our October installment of Washington Bizlaw.
We help entrepreneurs and businesses buy, sell and create companies, and help them complete other transactions that are key to their advancement. We are:
Our service approach is entrepreneurial–we provide creative, proactive, high caliber legal work. See more about us at www.henkebartram.com. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org to find out if we’re the right lawyers for you. Initial consultations are free.