Talk:S corporation/Archives/2011

Update for the 2005 S-Corp compliance study
The IRS' 2005 S-Corp Compliance study mentioned in the article is probably of widespread interest, but I was surprised to find no updated information. Apparently, results are expected by June, 2008. I haven't located any significant reports of preliminary results, or any recent references to the study. Here's what I've located.

A document, dated 8/2/07 (with a file name suggesting that it is a final report, see below), entitled "Reducing the Federal Tax Gap" can be found at   www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/tax_gap_report_final_080207_linked.pdf In this report, a "current" S-Corp study is mentioned in passing. However, the only tax data presented comes from ~2001, and S-Corp info is not separately identifiable. Nothing substantial relevant to the Compliance topic.

Slide #18 from a presentation by Kim M. Bloomquist of the IRS Office of Research, dated 9/17/07 can be found at   http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/meet/07rev_est/papers/Bloomquist.pdf and indicates that a report from the 2005 S-Corp study should be available June, 2008.

Based on current information, perhaps it is worth adding a statement such as    "Results from this study are expected in June 2008," with a reference to the Bloomquist talk.

If anyone has updated information, it would be useful to add a summary and reference(s) to the article's section on Compliance.

Wcmead2 (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in explanation of Taxation of S Corporation Distributive Share section
This sentence contains an error: Widgets Inc now has $9,797,187 of net income for 2006, after paying salaries ($10,000,000 - $94,200 * 1.0765 [employer FICA] * 2 employees).

The mistake is with the "1.0765," which should simply be "0.0765." Mecarter (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I think that in the format presented, "1.0765" is correct. Yes, the tax rate itself is 7.65%, which of course is indeed "0.0765" when expressed as a decimal. However, we are doing a "gross up" here, which means that you multiply by "1.0765" rather than just "0.0765." However, I changed the wording to clarify the text a bit. I'm not sure that the average reader will follow it though, even as "clarified" by me. Famspear (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of the term S Corporation
Is it written "S Corporation" or "S corporation?" There's inconsistency in the article but I'm not sure which of the two is correct, or if both are acceptable.Zengakuren (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html) writes "S corporation," expect where they are using the term as a heading. I'll reformat the article along those lines.Zengakuren (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)