Appeals Court Rules Seattle Income Tax Unconstitutional

In a decision issued on July 15, 2019, Division I of the Court of Appeals of Washington ruled that the 2017 City of Seattle 2.25% tax on high-income residents was unconstitutional because it violated the Washington state constitution’s uniformity requirement (Art. VII, Sect. 1). 

In striking down the tax, the court relied on a series of Washington Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1933, which “unequivocally held that income is property, a tax on income is a tax on property, taxes on property must be uniformly levied, and a graduated income tax is not uniform.”  The court found the Seattle income tax to be graduated and, therefore, unconstitutional. 

A judge of the King County Superior Court previously found that the Seattle’s ordinance that imposed the income tax violated RCW 36.65.030, which specifically prohibits cities from levying a tax on net income.  But, the court ruled this statute to be unconstitutional because it violated the single subject rule of the state constitution (Art. II, Sect. 19) when the statute was originally enacted 35 years ago. 

In the end, the court felt “constrained by stare decisis to follow our Supreme Court’s existing decisions that an income tax is a property tax.  We have no authority to overrule, revise, or abrogate a decision by our Supreme Court,” thus teeing the case up for review by the state Supreme Court. 

The City of Seattle will most certainly appeal this decision.     

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

By: George Mastrodonato

For more related articles, please visit our website, here.

The Rule 701 Math: How to do it

If you are a non-public company granting stock options or other compensatory equity awards, you need to be familiar with Rule 701 Math and in particular its mathematical limitations.

Fortunately, they are pretty simple.

Unfortunately, many entrepreneurs overlook them with sometimes disastrous consequences.

To save you some time, we wrote you a step-by-step guide to make you’re complying with the rule and not running afoul of the SEC.

Step One

Multiply your company’s total assets as of the most recent annual balance sheet date by .15.

Step Two

Multiply the outstanding number of shares of the same class being offered, not counting any securities issued under 701, by .15. This will be common stock, any warrants, and more than likely preferred stock because it is convertible into common stock at any time. Check the cap table for this info. If there’s no updated cap table, take a look at your company’s most recent offering’s reps and warranties.

Step Three

Compare $1,000,000, #2, and #3. Select the largest figure. If you are early-stage, it is likely $1M. If you’re growing, it is likely #2. If you’re a mature company, it is likely #1.

Step Four

Tally up the number of compensatory options and shares your Company has issued within the last twelve months from the time you are planning on issuing the new option/shares compensatory awards.

Step Five

Add #4 to the number of options/shares compensatory awards you are planning on issuing.

Step Six

Make sure that #5 is less than or equal to #3.


This is just the 701 math component of Rule 701’s limits and qualifications. Don’t forget to comply with its other provisions. Be sure to go through this step-by-step process before you issue any stock options.

By: Joe Wallin and James Graves

For more related articles, please visit our website, here.

How to Form a Washington Corporation

[Update: the Washington legislature updated RCW 23B in 2020.  This post, Washington Corporation, is out of date in some respects and was updated here.]

Introduction

If you are going to form a Washington corporation, you need to exercise care and you probably want to hire a lawyer to help you. The reason for this is that Washington corporate law does not have the default settings that you probably want for your startup company. To get the settings you want, you have to specifically include certain provisions in your Articles of Incorporation, which you file with the Secretary of State to create the corporation, or your new company will not be set up right.

If you use the standard form of Articles of Incorporation provided by the Secretary of State on its website (and potentially other services that help you form companies), you will not get what you want, and when you hire a law firm to help you, they will tell you that you have to amend and restate your documents. There might be other problems as well, which you would rather just avoid entirely.

So watch out when you create a new corporation in Washington. If you want to set up the company for growth, hire an attorney to help you who knows Washington corporate law.

What you need to watch out for

With that in mind, the Washington law provisions you want to make sure you include in your Articles are the following:

1) Getting rid of statutory preemptive rights

Under Washington law, if you don’t say anything in your Articles about preemptive rights, all of your shareholders will have the right to buy shares in your corporation when you issue additional shares (subject to just a few limited carveouts). Here is what the statute says:

(1) Unless the articles of incorporation provide otherwise, and subject to the limitations in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the shareholders of a corporation have a preemptive right, granted on uniform terms and conditions prescribed by the board of directors to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to exercise the right, to acquire proportional amounts of the corporation’s unissued shares upon the decision of the board of directors to issue them.

This is problematic for a bunch of different reasons. What if you want to raise a venture funding? Or an angel round? What if you want to issue equity to your employees or independent contractors, or members of your board? You do not want the be bound up, and unable to raise money, because you haven’t included the right provision in your Articles.

For this reason, you want to be careful when you form your Washington corporation to specifically override this default setting.

2) Allowing the shareholders to act by less than unanimous written consent

You want to be able for the shareholders to act without having a formal meeting other than unanimously. If you want to have the shareholders approve an increase in your stock option plan share reserve, for example, you want to be able to get this done by simply circulating a written consent, and you want that consent to be effective as soon as a majority of the shareholders sign it.

Under Washington corporate law, the shareholders cannot act by less than unanimous written consent unless you specifically include a provision to that effect in the company’s Articles of Incorporation. RCW 23B.07.040.

It is not good enough to include this provision in the company’s Bylaws. The provision won’t have any effect if it only appears in the company’s bylaws. So, if you form your company using the Articles of Incorporation provided on the Washington Secretary of State web site you will have missed this.

3) Opting out of cumulative voting

Under Washington law, unless you say something to the contrary in your Articles, your corporation will have what is called “cumulative voting.” RCW 23B.07.280.

Cumulative voting means when the shareholders are voting to elect directors, the shareholders can cumulate all of their votes across all of the director candidates and cast all of those votes for 1 director.

Here is how the statute describes it: “(1) Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, shareholders entitled to vote at any election of directors are entitled to cumulate votes by multiplying the number of votes they are entitled to cast by the number of directors for whom they are entitled to vote and to cast the product for a single candidate or distribute the product among two or more candidates.”

Let me give you an example.

Suppose you have 1,000 shares of common stock. At the annual shareholder meeting, the shareholders are going to vote on 3 different directors. If you have cumulative voting in your charter, instead of casting 1,000 votes for each of the 3 different director position, you can cumulate your 3,000 votes and cast them for 1 of the director positions.

Cumulative voting is designed to help minority shareholders get a voice in corporate governance. But for growth companies, it is never done this way. You do not want cumulative voting. You need to include a specific provision in your charter blotting this out.

4) Reducing Approvals Required to a Simple Majority

Under Washington law, the default is that 2/3rds of the shareholders have to approve things like a sale of the company. The default setting in Delaware is a simple majority. We generally recommend, in your Articles, reducing the approvals required to a simple majority.

Conclusion

If you are looking to start a corporation in Washington, doing it right the first time will save you money, time, and a lot of headache down the road. Pay close attention to the details, sweat the small stuff, and be one of the fortunate few who doesn’t have to call an attorney a few months down the road because they weren’t aware of the changes we recommend above.

By: Joseph Wallin and James Graves 

Repricing Stock Options: The Rule 701 Math

By: James Graves and Joe Wallin

There may be times during the life of your company in which you will want to reprice underwater stock options. Depending on your cap table, however, this may not be as easy as you think.

As you know, Rule 701 sets forth mathematical limitations you must follow when issuing shares under the rule. If you want to reprice your options, you have to be aware of the fact that C&DI 271.10 requires a company that is repricing their options to count them as new grants/sales under Rule 701 as of the date of the repricing. C&DI 271.10 states:

Question: Within 12 months of an original option grant, the issuer reprices the option grant at a lower exercise price, which, in turn, lowers the aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold during the 12-month period. May the issuer exclude the original grant in determining the amount of securities that may be sold and whether it has an obligation under Rule 701 to deliver the additional disclosure called for when its issuance level exceeds $5 million?

Answer: Yes, but the issuer must count the repriced options as a new sale, and include them in determining its aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold within any consecutive 12-month period that includes the repricing date. [Jan. 26, 2009]

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/securitiesactrules-interps.htm

This means that you can hit any of the three mathematical limitations in Rule 701 without issuing a single new option.

An example

Here’s an example. Typically, a growing company that is outside of its initial stages, but without a huge amount of assets, will rely on the 15% of shares test, test number three. Say this company wants to reprice all of their options outstanding, which are 10,000,000. The Company sold 15,000,000 shares of common stock, sold 15,000,000 shares of preferred stock in their Series A round, 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock in their Series B round, and have 5,000,000 warrants for common stock outstanding.

Under the guidance set forth in Rule 701(d)(3)(iii), all of these shares of outstanding stock are to be included in the sum. What can be confusing at times is the inclusion of the preferred stock. This is included because it is most often convertible into common stock. The rule states:

In calculating outstanding securities for purposes of paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, treat the securities underlying all currently exercisable or convertible options, warrants, rights or other securities, other than those issued under this exemption, as outstanding.

Per the rule, the sum of these outstanding stock x .15 must be greater than or equal to the amount of options they wish to reprice, which in this example is 10,000,000 options.

So, (15,000,000 + 15,000,000 + 10,000,000 + 5,000,000) x.15 = 6,750,000.

Therefore, in this example, the Company is out of compliance with Rule 701 even though it has not issued a single new option. If you are going to reprice options, make sure to consider the Rule 701 mathematical limitations.

(On a different note, the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies has recommended that the Rule 701 “hard cap” be eliminated. We couldn’t agree more.)

IP Assignments & Confidentiality Agreements

My colleague Susan Schalla and I put together the below video chat on IP assignments and confidentiality agreements for Founders Live. If you haven’t checked out Founders Live, check it out at https://founderslive.mn.co/.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

By Joe Wallin & Susan Schalla

For more related articles about IP Assignments & Confidentiality Agreements, please visit our website, here

SEC Guidance on Crypto

If you are interested in how the SEC is thinking about crypto tokens as securities, we recommend you watch William Hinman’s recent speech and read its transcript. We’ve included an embed and a link to the speech below.

We think perhaps the most important and interesting part was this:

But this also points the way to when a digital asset transaction may no longer represent a security offering. If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized – where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts – the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful.

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

 

For more related articles on topics such as crypto, please visit our website here.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

Equity Crowdfunding Video Chat

My colleague Danny Neuman and I put together this video about equity crowdfunding for an AMA on Nick Hughes’ Founders Live group.

Equity crowdfunding can proceed along a number of different pathways, including:

  • Rule 506(c)
  • Title III
  • State equity crowdfunding laws
  • Regulation A+

If you want to raise money through an equity crowdfunding, we would be happy to talk to you about the various pathways, the amounts you can raise under each approach, the various complications and expected costs of each approach.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

 

For more related articles or videos, about topics such as equity crowdfunding, please visit our website, here.

Taxation of Stock Options: Senate Bill Update

Taxation of Stock Options

As of now, the Senate has abandoned the idea of taxing stock options as they vest.

This is the modification to the mark, released late yesterday.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.14.17%20Chairman’s%20Modified%20Mark.pdfhttps://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11.14.17%20Chairman’s%20Modified%20Mark.pdf

The modification strikes the proposal–Item III.H.1, Nonqualified deferred compensation–from the Chairman’s Mark.  A new discussion of Treatment of Qualified Equity Grants begins on p. 69.

The new proposal includes does a complete u-turn from what was originally proposed.

By Joe Wallin – The Startup Law Blog

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

For more related articles or videos, about topics such as Taxation of Stock Options, please visit our website, here.

Stock Option Taxation: The Senate’s Tax Bill

Stock option taxation is a sensitive issue in startup land. Fred Wilson recently sounded the alarm about the Senate’s proposal to tax stock options as they vest. TechCrunch has also written about this.

Right now, what we have to work with is the DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S MARK OF THE “TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT”.

The document lays out the proposal as follows:

Under the proposal, any compensation deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan is includible in the gross income of the service provider when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the service provider’s rights to such compensation. For this purpose, the rights of a service provider to compensation are treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture only if the rights are conditioned on the future performance of substantial services by any individual. Under the proposal, a condition related to a purpose of the compensation other than the future performance of substantial services (such as a condition based on achieving a specified performance goal or a condition intended in whole or in part to defer taxation) does not create a substantial risk of forfeiture, regardless of whether the possibility of forfeiture is substantial. In addition, a covenant not to compete does not create a substantial risk of forfeiture.

What is interesting about this is it runs completely counter to how the world works today. Today, if you grant stock options at fair market value, there is no tax to the optionee upon receipt. Nor is there tax on vesting. But the new rule proposes taxing on vesting. This is distressing.

Incentive Stock Options Carved Out

There is some good news here. Apparently “statutory options” would not trigger this new rule. See below. Only nonqualified stock options would be problematic.

The proposal applies to all stock options and SARs (and similar arrangements involving noncorporate entities), regardless of how the exercise price compares to the value of the related stock on the date the option or SAR is granted. It is intended that no exceptions are to be provided in regulations or other administrative guidance. However, it is intended that statutory options are not considered nonqualified deferred compensation for purposes of the proposal.

It will be interesting to see what happens here.

A Better Idea

My proposal would be: Congress should make it easier for companies to share equity with workers. I don’t believe service providers should be taxed at all when they receive stock in a private company. The stock can’t be sold, and generally must be held indefinitely.

If the Congress passed a sensible law, which said that service providers would not be taxed on the receipt of equity of their employer if not a registered security that was freely tradeable, equity sharing would flourish, and the wealth created by startup companies would be more widely shared. This would be good for our economy and our politics.

Founder Tax Issues

In this video, we talk about founder tax issues, primarily:

  1. The 83(b) election — when it applies; when it doesn’t; when it is due; etc.
  2. Qualified Small Business Stock considerations in choosing what type of business entity to form.

We hope you enjoy the video.

My colleague Susan Schalla and I have been making videos for Nick Hughes’ Founders Live Group, followed by AMA chat sessions.

Carney Badley Spellman is about Advocacy, Strategy, Results. Located in Seattle, we are a full-service law firm committed to exceptional client service and professional excellence. Our firm serves individuals, professionals, entrepreneurs, educators, closely-held or family businesses, franchises, Fortune 500 corporations, and insurance companies.  They are in the private sector, public sector, and governments.  Our clients are forward thinkers, creative, collaborative, and deliver high-quality products and business services to their markets.  Their markets extend into almost every industry including, food and beverage, retail, professional services, arts, health care, education, manufacturing, technology, construction, real estate, and more.  We advocate for our clients.  We strategize with them to meet their goals.

By Joe Wallin

For more related articles about Founder Tax Issues, please visit our website, here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me via email in the links above.