WILLAMETTE WEEK: A real break
Real-estate agents want to widen an unusual tax benefit. BY NIGEL JAQUISS A bill introduced by the Oregon Association of Realtors to extend a local income-tax exemption to more of its members could backfire on the whole industry. The aim of House Bill 2541 is simple: to give principal real-estate brokers the same break on local taxes, such as Portland's business license fee, that rank-and-file real-estate brokers already enjoy. Principal brokers are distinguished by their supervisory positions and by their "ownership" of listings, says the Realtors Association's government affairs director, Jana Jarvis. But the bill, now in a Senate committee after the House approved it last month, raises a more fundamental question for Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams: Why aren't all real-estate agents paying local business taxes just like other independent contractors? "I am searching for a legitimate reason why Realtors should be exempt from the business license fee, and other professional service providers, such as lawyers, doctors or physical therapists, should not," Adams says. Currently, most businesses that operate in Portland, from sole proprietorships to large corporations, pay a 2.2 percent business license fee on net business income. The fee last year generated $62 million, or about 17 percent of Portland's discretionary general fund, according to Terri Williams, the city Revenue Bureau's license and tax division manager. According to the City Attorney's office, the real-estate agents' tax break harks back to the early 1980s, when industry lobbyists persuaded legislators to classify brokers as contractors rather than employees. The city responded by charging brokers an annual license fee on net income. But in 1987, the industry took care of that by getting an exemption from the Legislature. That exemption, however, did not include principal brokers. Real estate is a big business locally. In 2006, according to the Regional Multiple Listing Service, 13,986 properties worth more than $4.3 billion sold in Multnomah County. The RMLS says 3,276 brokers and 420 principal brokers do business in the county. The former are already exempt from paying the city tax, which Williams says costs the city up to $250,000 annually. Ironically, Jarvis says, the impetus for the bill doesn't come from Portland. It comes instead from Medford, which has been trying to tax out-of-town brokers. Nonetheless, Adams, who wrote changes this year that will reduce the BLF's impact on some small businesses, says it's time to examine the break for real-estate brokers. "We spent months trying to reform the BLF last year and one of the questions that kept coming up was, why are real-estate brokers exempt?" Adams says. Adding to the perception of inequity, Adams says, is that all real-estate brokers pay the Multnomah County business income tax, a substantially similar tax that costs nearly all companies doing business in the county 1.45 percent of their net business income. Posted Wed, 05/09/2007 - 7:37am.
[[ Categories: Jobs & Economy | Our Initiatives ]]
why not nurses?Submitted by Cynthia Garrett on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 9:55am.
I am a nurse. I have to go to a lot more school than real estate brokers. Why should they get off not paying local taxes? » reply
"I am searching for aSubmitted by Steve on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 5:38pm.
"I am searching for a legitimate reason why Realtors should be exempt from the business license fee, and other professional service providers, such as lawyers, doctors or physical therapists, should not," Because they are independent contractors working for a principal broker who pays the BLF. Every non-principal broker has to put his license with a principal broker. By comparison a lawyer working for a law firm doesn't pay a BLF, but his firm does. I do not think principal brokers should be exempt, but realize most RE brokers are not making big money, especially in the current market, even if they are selling Pearl condos. » reply
Realtors are powerful lobbyists but that does NOT make it fair!Submitted by Glenn on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 4:32pm.
Steve, Your comments miss two important points: The fact that the real estate industry chose to set itself up by making non-principle brokers work with principle brokers has nothing to do with the underlying BLF tax issues (believe me, they could change this set up if they wanted). It has nothing to do with the underlying BLF tax issue because the business relationship between the principle broker and the non-principle broker is the same as the business relationship between any prime contractor and subcontractor. For example, many law firms subcontract out specialty legal work; when they do, both the law firm and the specialty legal subcontractor are subject to the BLF tax. Principle brokers do not pay the BLF taxes of the non-principle brokers that work under them. By state law, nobody does. The principle brokers are subject to the BLF tax only on the payments they get from their non-principle brokers (and only a portion of the non-principle broker’s commission goes to the principle broker) or on the commissions from property they themselves represent. There are plenty of other professional service contractors that make less money than most real estate brokers but still have to pay the BLF. I respect the fact the realtors are one of the most powerful lobbyists in Salem and often able to get what they ask for from the state legislature (this latest tax break expansion passed the Oregon House unanimously!). But that does not make it fair to the rest of us who have to pay the BLF tax. Glenn » reply
For example, many law firmsSubmitted by STeve on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 7:58pm.
For example, many law firms subcontract out specialty legal work; when they do, both the law firm and the specialty legal subcontractor are subject to the BLF tax. Slight issue, those subcontractors can work for other clients while a RE broker can only work for his one principal broker at a time. Maybe a bigger issue is how unfair it is to apply the BLF to other sub-contractors. » reply
BLF and subcontractorsSubmitted by Glenn on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 8:59pm.
Steve, You need to remember that the real estate lobbyists generally get what they want from the Oregon state legislature. They could push legislation that removes the requirement that a non-principle broker work with only one principle broker. Or, they could push changes that allow a non-principle broker to work without principle broker. They chose not to remove these requirements to keep intact the existing powers of the principle brokers. We should not be subsidizing the power plays of the principle brokers. Glenn » reply
prime contractor verses subcontractorSubmitted by Brenda W. on Sun, 05/13/2007 - 9:58am.
The firm I work for at times is both a subcontractor and a prime contractor. We are doing the same type of business activities regardless of whether or not we are being paid as a subcontractor or a prime contractor. Having one tax rate for subcontracting work and another tax rate for prime contracting would not make sense to me -- both are the same business activity. » reply
I believe I said earlierSubmitted by Steve on Sun, 05/13/2007 - 4:29pm.
I believe I said earlier that principal brokers should be charged the BLF if it is a fair tax. As far a brokers reporting to principal brokers, it is for supervision and liability issues. If you pay a commission, the principal brokers gets it and gives the broker a split. Conversely, if you want to sue a broker, you sue his principal who is responsible for his actions. I have no idea why you think this is a power play instead of making sure consumers (those who hire brokers to sell their house) are treated fairly. As far as prime versus subcontractor, if you are able to collect a 1099 from more than one party at the same time, then your are an independent contractor. I have no idea why prime vs. sub is an issue as far as taxes go. » reply
"Having one tax rate forSubmitted by Steve on Sun, 05/13/2007 - 4:31pm.
"Having one tax rate for subcontracting work and another tax rate for prime contracting would not make sense to me" Are you confusing why indepedent contractors pay 15% FICA instead of 7.5% FICA like non-1099 employees? The 1099 recipient does pay different taxes in that case. » reply
Not clear to meSubmitted by Glenn on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 1:13pm.
Steve, Can you tell me a little more by what you mean exactly? Glenn » reply
She had stated prime andSubmitted by Steve on Tue, 05/29/2007 - 7:26pm.
She had stated prime and sub-contractors pay different rates. This is confusing since you are either an independent contractor (1099 income and pay own taxes) or not (taxes withheld.) The tax rate is the same, the only diff is that an independent contractor has to pay both sides of FICA which totals to 15% of income. Which is not a great bargain when you think what people will collect from FICA when they retire. » reply
I do not ordinarily impartSubmitted by Jules Carney` on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 9:16pm.
I do not ordinarily impart comments on posts that I say, but let me tell you, you have a very nice writing style and about your post it is superb to see you here. You wrote very distinctly to realize. I am really looking forward to your next post. Thanks for sharing! » reply
Post new comment |

PRINT


This is outragious
I work my fanny off building my business. I pay taxes. Real estate brokers get off from paying any BLF, just becuase they have a powerful lobby in Salem? This outragious!!!!