Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Did You Know that Certain Expenses May Not Be Deductible if You Received a PPP Loan?

Client Alert
May 1, 2020

On April 30, 2020, the IRS issued a Notice stating that for Federal income tax purposes, certain expenses that would otherwise be deductible in a taxpayer’s trade or business may not be deductible if the taxpayer received a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

Specifically, the IRS states that no deduction is allowed for an otherwise deductible expense if the expense’s payment resulted in forgiveness of the PPP loan pursuant to Section 1106(b) of the CARES Act. The income associated with the PPP loan forgiveness is also excluded from gross income pursuant to Section 1106(i) of the CARES Act.

For example, if a business received $400,000 in PPP loan proceeds and used the proceeds to pay $350,000 in payroll expense, $50,000 in qualifying rent and utility payments, and met all other applicable terms and conditions within the 8-week applicable period, the entire $400,000 would be forgiven. Therefore, the $400,000 PPP loan proceeds are not included in gross income. However, the $400,000 in payroll, rent, and utility expenses would also not be deductible for Federal income tax purposes.

For additional questions related to the taxability of specific income and expenses in relation to the PPP loan forgiveness, please contact BMD Tax Law Attorney Tracy Albanese at tlalbanese@bmdllc.com or (330) 253-9195.

PPP Loanpaycheck protection programsmall businessFederal Income TaxdeductionsIRSTracy L. Albaneseexpenses
Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

February 28, 2025Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.Client Alert

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

February 26, 2025Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.Client Alert

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

February 25, 2025In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

February 20, 2025The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.Client Alert

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

February 11, 2025Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.
Older posts
Newer posts