Bill | KRG Hospitality

March 29, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

What’s Up with the Restaurant Tax Credit?

What’s up with the Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit?

by David Klemt

If you’re wondering what’s going on with the Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit bills in the House and Senate, you’re probably not alone.

And if you find yourself wondering about them, that’s likely because there isn’t much news about the bills. Unfortunately, it appears that no meaningful progress has been made on HR 9574 or S.5219.

A quick check shows that both bills share the same status: Introduced. As for the House bill, HR 9574, that was introduced on December 15, 2022 by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). The Senate bill, S.5219, was introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) on December 8, 2022.

It’s important to note that Sens. Cardin, Patty Murray (D-A), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) reintroduced S.5219 in January of this year. However, that apparently didn’t mean much as the Congress.gov trackers show no progress.

Last year, some opined that neither bill would receive a vote until January 2023 at the earliest. That “prediction” has proven true, of course—it’s now the end of March.

Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit Act Summary

Let’s take a quick look at HR 9574 and S.5219.

Both bills propose a $25,000 payroll offset for restaurants. Eligibility requirements are also identical: applicants must have applied for but not awarded a Restaurant Revitalization Fund grant.

Additional, eligible applicants are:

restaurants with operating losses of at least 30 percent in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to 2019; or
restaurants with losses of at least 50 percent in either 2020 or 2021 in comparison to 2019.

So, those are elements that both the Senate and House bills share. What about the differences between the two bills?

Mainly, differences come down to the number of employees. For S.5219, restaurants with ten employees or fewer could be eligible for the maximum payroll tax credit. That credit, as a reminder, is up to $25,000 for 2023. For every employee over ten, the refund cap drops by $2,500.

Now, HR 9574. Restaurants with ten or fewer employees would receive the full $25,000 payroll tax offset. For restaurants with between 11 and 20 employees, the offset would be “partially refundable.”

Now What?

If you believe that you’re eligible for this tax credit, it’s time to let your representatives know you want them to act.

To make things simple for everyone, I’m including the links you need to find and contact senators and representatives.

For senators, click here. And for representatives, click here.

Let them know that it’s time for action on S.5219 and HR 9574. And let them know exactly what action you expect them to take.

Image: Karolina Grabowska on Pexels

December 27, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

FAST Act Dealt Knockdown Blow

FAST Act Dealt Knockdown Blow

by David Klemt

A bill we think is one to watch, California’s Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, may be on the ropes already.

Assembly Bill 257, known as the FAST Act, is “on hold” until 2024. So, while the Save Local Restaurants coalition and voters have yet to kill the bill, it may be out on its feet.

We reported two months ago that fast food chains were moving quickly to kill the FAST Act. It appears that the initial attack on AB-257 was successful.

That is, the chains and coalition got what they want: the ballot initiative vote has knocked down AB-257.

For those unfamiliar with the Save Local Restaurants Coalition, the following organizations are members: The National Restaurant Association (NRA), US Chamber of Commerce (USCC), and International Franchise Association (IFA). Further, fast-casual and QSR chain coalition members—including Starbucks, In N Out, McDonald’s, and Chipotle—threw nearly $13 million at the ballot measure that halted FAST.

What’s FAST?

To read AB-257, the FAST Act, in its entirety, click here.

In summary, FAST:

FAST does the following:

establishes the Fast Food Council, ten members appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee. The council will operate until January 1, 2029;
defines “the characteristics of a fast food restaurant“;
gives the Fast Food Council the authority to set “minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including standards on wages, working conditions, and training“;
provides the council the power to “issue, amend, and repeal any other rules and regulations, as necessary”; and
allows the formation of a Local Fast Food Council by a county, or a city that has a population of more than 200,000.

Voters effectively stopped California from implementing FAST until November 2024 at the earliest. (That is, if the California Secretary of State verifies that the referendum effort did indeed secure the required amount of signatures.)

Opposition

A statement from Save Local Restaurants reads, in part:

The quick-service restaurants targeted by the law – which include coffee shops, juice bars, pizzerias, delis, and salad shops – already operate on small, single-digit profit margins. These include more than 10,000 small businesses, including thousands of women- and minority-owned businesses.

If these restaurants are forced to absorb the costs, the result will be bad for workers and local communities. To survive, many restaurant owners will have no choice but to reduce worker hours or introduce automation. Some may choose to leave their communities entirely or go out of business.

As is often the case with overreaching California policies, this is likely only the beginning.

Additionally, the National Restaurant Association, a member of the coalition, has said the following:

The impacts of the FAST Act won’t be limited to quick service restaurants in California. The law allows the new regulating council to set a higher minimum wage for quick service restaurants. Independent restaurants will, however, be forced to increase their pay to match, so they can remain competitive when recruiting and retaining workforce.

Takeaway

We believe this bill is one to watch because similar efforts could spring up in other states. Also, just because the bill is on hold until 2024 in California doesn’t mean other states aren’t working on similar legislation right now.

Now, there are obviously two sides to consider. Opponents, as we see above, say FAST will raise prices, eliminate jobs, and hurt families.

Proponents believe FAST will protect the health, safety, and welfare of fast-food workers. Additionally, the Fast Food Council could increase the minimum wage for fast food workers above California’s $15.50 minimum (effective January 1, 2023).

We’ll keep an eye on FAST over the next couple of years. Perhaps the coalition can work with California on a bill that protects fast food workers and doesn’t hurt operators and the communities they serve.

At any rate, FAST is down but certainly not yet out.

Image: Johann Walter Bantz on Unsplash

October 28, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Two

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Two

by David Klemt

As we approach Election Day on November 8, it’s important to keep in mind that the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022 is still in play.

In fact, reports predict that another attempt to pass the bipartisan bill will take place in November. If reports are accurate, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) will try to include the bill in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Now, that sentence and strategy may have you scratching your head. What, you may be asking yourself, do credit card fees have to do with defense spending?

Well, not much, truthfully. But you’re probably well aware that politicians will try to amend bills in bids to pass legislation they want. The common term for such a provision is “rider.”

It’s not difficult to understand why the Credit Card Competition Act has gone nowhere when we view Sens. Durbin and Marshall’s rider tactic.

Earlier this month, the senators attempted to include their bill within the NDAA. The reason is simple: the bill specifies the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget and expenditures each year. In other words, this is a “must-pass” bill.

However, Sens. Durbin and Marshall aren’t the only senators sponsoring bills. And they’re certainly not the only senators attempting to attach riders to the NDAA.

“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton.”

I will say, at least Sen. Durbin’s effort to attach the Credit Card Competition Act rider to the NDAA is somewhat related to the DoD.

You see, he and Sen. Marshall tried to tack on two amendments to push their bill through. The first amendment theorizes that veterans are being hurt by credit card fees. According to the senators, when military veterans make purchases at a military commissary, they are sometimes subjected to surcharges related to merchant interchange fees.

The second amendment brings the US Treasury Department and US Defense Department into the mix. This effort directs the departments to research just how much veterans are paying (annually, one would assume) in surcharges, and which companies these fees benefit. Then, the departments are to issue this report to Congress.

So, hey, points for attempting to make including the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022 relate to the NDAA for FY 2022. Of course, other senators are attempting to include their own riders. Should reporting prove accurate, some 900 amendments have been proposed. Supposedly, a few dozen might just make it.

This strategy didn’t work this month because the NDAA vote isn’t taking place in October. Instead, the plan is for the vote to take place sometime mid-November, when the US Senate reconvenes.

To learn more about the Credit Card Act of 2022, click here. If it’s a bill you support, let your elected officials know. Should you oppose the bill, let that be known to lawmakers as well.

Image: CardMapr.nl on Unsplash

September 19, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Swipe Fees Cost Over $77 Billion in 2021

Swipe Fees Cost Merchants Over $77 Billion in 2021

by David Klemt

A bill that intends to lower the credit card fees merchants pay by creating more competition within the industry is before Congress.

This bill, the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022, has bipartisan support. The two sponsors behind it are Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Marshall (R-KS).

Of particular note, the bill seeks to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Specifically, the amendment targets the networks that merchants use to process electronic credit card transactions.

In short, banks that issue credit cards would have to merchants at least two processing networks. According to experts in this space, the bill prohibits banks from making those networks Visa and MasterCard.

Billions in Fees

So, why are Visa and MasterCard in the crosshairs of this bill?

According to the Merchants Payments Coalition (MPC), Visa and MasterCard control 87 percent of credit (and debit) card markets. Per the MPC, Visa and MasterCard account for about 576 million credit cards.

In the U.S. alone, transactions amounted to $3.49 trillion in 2021. Eye-wateringly, those transactions were accompanied by $77.48 billion in merchant fees for the two processing behemoths in the same year.

For additional context, Visa and MasterCard swipe fees totaled $61.6 billion in 2020. That represents an increase of 137 percent over the decade prior. Adding the merchant fees for all cards, the 2020 total was $110.3 billion, which is an increase of 70 percent from the previous ten years.

As veteran operators are well aware, swipe fees are among the highest costs for restaurants and bars.

Merchants Payments Coalition Sends Letter to Congress

Compellingly, the MPC is urging Congress to investigate the Visa-MasterCard duopoly. In their view, the two processors’ dominance is stifling competition; harming business owners and consumers; and contributing to inflation.

“The two giant card networks and their partner mega-banks routinely use their market power to stifle competition and charge merchants the highest swipe fees in the industrialized world,” reads the MPC’s letter to Congress.

Further, the letter states, “It is difficult to imagine any other market in the U.S. economy in which two entities set prices for thousands of businesses that should be competitors. That lack of competition or downward pricing pressure has resulted in out-of-control swipe fees and increases inflation throughout the economy.”

The MPC is urging Congress to act quickly and effectively: “It is crucial for Congress to act swiftly and implement real reforms to bring true competition, transparency and equity to the U.S. payments market.”

National Restaurant Association Supports the Bill

Interestingly, the National Restaurant Association says they’re working with the MPC.

The NRA is also working with other organizations to drum up support for the the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022.

You can read about their support for the bill on their website. Additionally, you can tell Congress to pass the bill here. As it stands currently, no action beyond the bill’s introduction to the Senate on July 28 has taken place.

Image: Pixabay

The United States Capitol Building with cloudy sky in background

August 10, 2021by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

What’s the RRF Replenishment Act?

What’s the RRF Replenishment Act?

by David Klemt

The ENTREE Act isn’t the only bill seeking to replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. In fact, a bipartisan bill predates the ENTREE Act by a month.

So, what’s the difference between that bill and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund Replenishment Act of 2021?

Let’s take a look.

Additional Funding

Clearly, the biggest similarity between the two bills is the amount of money both are after.

Both the RRF Replenishment Act and ENTREE Act seek $60 billion.

As people familiar with the RRF will recall, the fund launched with $28.6 billion. Obviously, that was nowhere near enough funding to meet the demand for grants.

The RRF Replenishment Act was introduced in June by the same bipartisan group that first introduced the RRF. Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-PA) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the bill on June 3.

Per a press release, nearly $50 billion in grant applications were left outstanding. The RRF application portal was closed just 21 days after launching.

$60 Billion

The biggest difference between the RRF Replenishment and ENTREE acts? Sourcing the $60 billion to replenish the RRF.

Per the text of the bill, the ENTREE Act would use unspent funds from the American Rescue Plan and Economic Injury Disaster Loans.

As for the RRF Replenishment Act, the funding would essentially come from “printing” an additional $60 billion.

Clearly, Americans will have differing opinions when it comes how the RRF is funded. However, using unspent, previously allocated funds does seem like a more logical approach.

So far, there’s no word on how these two bills may impact one another. There’s no news about the bills working in conjunction, just as there’s no news yet about a preference for one over the other.

With all eyes on the Senate and the progress of the infrastructure bill, we’re still awaiting answers on the RRF Replenishment and ENTREE acts.

Image: oljamu from Pixabay

February 12, 2021by krghospitality krghospitality No Comments

On the Menu for 2021: The RESTAURANTS Act

On the Menu for 2021: The RESTAURANTS Act

by David Klemt

Much like restaurants themselves, the RESTAURANTS Act has faced multiple starts and stops.

The bill received huge bipartisan support in 2020, landing dozens upon dozens of co-sponsors.

However, that widespread support didn’t materialize into any actual progress—the bill was never signed into law. That must change now.

A Long Road

It’s February 2021. The House and Senate must work together to provide the targeted relief of the Real Economic Support That Acknowledges Unique Restaurant Assistance Needed to Survive (RESTAURANTS) Act.

The RESTAURANTS Act was first introduced to the House of Representatives on June 15, 2020. The bill was eventually included in the revised Heroes Act, which was passed by the House on October 1, 2020 on a vote of 214 to 207.

Unfortunately, that bill was “dead on arrival” and didn’t receive a vote on the Senate floor. A $900 billion stimulus package was negotiated in December of 2020 but the RESTAURANTS Act wasn’t included in it.

It has been more than long enough—it’s beyond time for action.

Where are We Now?

Throughout all of this, from inception to current status, the Independent Restaurant Coalition (IRC) has never faltered in their campaign to ensure this industry receives the targeted relief it so desperately needs.

It’s wise given how the number of times we’ve been let down by our elected officials to be guarded and cautiously optimistic about the RESTAURANTS Act finally being signed into law this month.

On February 5, Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) formally (re)introduced the RESTAURANTS Act to the 117th Congress.

What’s in the Bill?

In its current form, the RESTAURANTS Act:

establishes a $120 billion relief fund for foodservice and drinking establishments;
makes groups that operate up to 20 units eligible for relief from that fund;
provides operators access to grants of up to $10 million for eligible expenses; and
makes the grants retroactive to February 15, 2020 and ends them eight months after the legislation is signed into law.

New provisions in the February 2021 RESTAURANTS Act include:

updates to the award calculation based on annual loss from calendar year 2020 instead of quarterly;
grant eligibility for new restaurants that opened after January 1, 2020;
paid sick leave as an eligible expense for employees, with a bonus amount to cover the cost of voluntarily providing ten days of sick leave to employees;
providing the Department of the Treasury the discretion to help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse;
imposing reporting obligations on the Department of the Treasury to share who gets loans and demographic information about recipients; and
ensuring that restaurants can use both the Employee Retention Tax Credit and the RESTAURANTS Act grant program, provided they are not used for the same expenses.

What’s Next?

We must all act to give the RESTAURANTS Act the best chance of becoming law. We have been patient for long enough.

We must let our representatives know we expect them to pledge their support for this bill formally.

The IRC provides several methods for ensuring our representatives understand they need to co-sponsor and pass the RESTAURANTS Act:

Email your representatives and ask them for their co-sponsorship.
Call your representatives directly and tell them why restaurants and bars need the RESTAURANTS Act to be voted on, passed, and signed into law. This is the number to dial: (202) 224-3121. The IRC has provided talking points here.
Share the graphic below on your social channels and encourage your followers to also contact their representatives and ask them to co-sponsor the RESTAURANTS Act. Use the following caption when posting: It’s official: the RESTAURANTS Act of 2021 is on the menu in both chambers of Congress. Call your representatives today and tell them that independent restaurants, bars, and workers can’t wait any longer for direct relief: 202-224-3121 #SaveRestaurants

All of that will take less than 20 minutes. That’s not a lot of time to help finally get this industry the support and relief it needs.

The RESTAURANTS Act is needed to prevent more permanent restaurant and bar closures, and to revitalize the industry. The road to recovery is a long one and getting this bill signed into law is a major step forward.

Please email and call your representatives. Please share the post and caption above on your social media. Please help save the restaurants, bars, and millions of people they employ.

Image: