There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

Gambling As A Trade Or Business

 

The question came up recently:

How does one convince the IRS that they are a professional gambler?

The answer: it is tough. But not impossible. Here is a quote from a landmark case on the topic:

If one’s gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business.” (Groetzinger)

First, one must establish that the gambling activity is an actual trade or business.  

Believe or not, the term “trade or business” is not precisely defined in the tax Code. This point drew attention when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) introduced the qualified business deduction for – you guessed it – a trade or business. Congress was stacking yet another Code section on top of one that remained undefined.

Court cases have defined a trade or business an activity conducted with the motive of making a profit and conducted with continuity and regularity.

That doesn’t really move the needle for me.

For example, I play fantasy football with the intention of winning the league. Does that mean that I have the requisite “profit motive?” I suppose one could reply that - even if there is a profit motive - there is no continuity or regularity as the league is not conducted year-round.

To which I would respond that it cannot be conducted year-round as the NFL is not played year-round. Compare it to a ski slope – which can only do business during the winter. There is no need for a ski slope during the summer. The slope does business during its natural business season, which is the best it can do. My fantasy football league does the same.

Perhaps you would switch arguments and say that playing in one league is not sufficient. Perhaps if I played in XX leagues, I could then argue that I was a fantasy football professional.

OK, IRS, what then is the number XX?

The tax nerds will recognize the IRS using that argument against stock traders to deny trade or business status. Unless your name rhymes with “Boldman Tacks,” the IRS is virtually predestined to deny you trade or business status. You trade 500 times a year? Not enough, says the IRS; maybe if you traded 1,000 times. The next guy trades 1,000 times. Not enough, says the IRS. Did we say 1,000?  We misspoke; we meant 2,000.

So the courts have gone to the Code section and cases for hobby losses. You may remember those: hobby losses are activities for which people try to deduct losses, arguing that they are in fact true-blue, pinky-swear, profit-seeking trades or businesses.

You want an example? I’ll give you one from Galactic Command: a wealthy person’s daughter is interested in horses and dressage. Mom and dad cannot refuse. At the end of the year, I am pulled into the daughter’s dressage activity because … well, you know why.

Here are additional factors to consider under the (Section 183) hobby loss rules:

1.  The activity is conducted in a business-like manner.
2.  The taxpayer’s expertise
3.  The taxpayer’s time and effort
4.  The expectation that any assets used in the activity will appreciate in value.
5.  The taxpayer’s history of success in other activities
6.  The taxpayer’s history of profitability
7.  The taxpayer’s financial status
8.  The presence of personal pleasure or recreation

I suspect factors (7) and (8) would pretty much shut down that dressage activity.

Let’s look at the Mercier case.

The Merciers lived in Nevada. During 2019 Mrs Mercier was an accountant at a charter school and Mr Mercier operated an appliance repair business. They played video poker almost exclusively, of which they had extensive knowledge. They gambled solely on days when they could earn extra players card points or receive some other advantage. They considered themselves professional gamblers.

Do you think they are?

I see (3), (7) and (8) as immediate concerns.

The Court never got past (1):

We find that although Petitioners are serious about gambling, they were not professional gamblers. Petitioners are both sophisticated in that they are an accountant and a previous business owner. Petitioner wife acknowledged that as an accountant, she would advise a taxpayer operating a business to keep records. Petitioner husband acknowledged that for his appliance repair business, he did keep records.”

COMMENT: In case you were wondering about the sentence structure, this was a bench opinion. The judge made a verbal rather than written decision.

Petitioners did not personally keep track of their gambling activity in 2019 choosing, instead, to rely on third-party information from casinos, even though they further acknowledged that the casino record may be incomplete, as only jackpot winnings, not smaller winnings, are reported. Petitioners also did not keep a separate bank account to manage gambling winnings and expenses, but used their personal account, which is further evidence of the casual nature of their gambling.”

My thoughts? The Merciers were not going to win. It was just a matter of where the Court was going to press on the hobby-loss checklist of factors. We have learned something, though. If you are arguing trade or business, you should – at a bare minimum – open a business account and have some kind of accounting system in place.  

Our case this time was Mercier v Commissioner, Tax Court docket number 7499-22S, June 6, 2023.

Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).

 

A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.

A Good Hire Can Help Prove You Are Serious About A Business

If you have gig, there is a presumption in the Code that it will be profitable.

Mind you, it may not be profitable every year. Not even Fortune 100 companies are profitable every year.  Still, the gig is expected to be profitable on a cumulative basis.

Seems obvious. Why are we talking about this?

Say that you have an internet-based business. The business itself is profitable, but you are spending so much on research, hardware, and infrastructure that - overall – the business shows a loss. You know better. You know that, soon enough, the business will turn the corner, those expenses will taper off, and you will make a fortune.

Or maybe you are funding a promising teenage boxer. Everyone sees the potential for the next Mike Tyson. You see it too.

What if your business is sitting on land that will one day be – if it is not already – absurdly valuable? Even if the business is unprofitable, the sale of the land will eventually trump those losses.

We are talking about hobby losses. You say it is a business. The IRS says it is not. It is one of the trickiest areas in the Code.  

There are several repetitive factors that the IRS looks for, such as:

(1)  You don’t treat it like a business. Little things are a tell, like not having accounting and not pivoting when it seems clear you have a loser.

(2)  You make a ton of money elsewhere, so it is financially insignificant whether that activity ever shows a profit.

(3)  You derive a high degree of personal pleasure from the activity.

Let’s look at a recent hobby loss case.

In 2004 the Wondries bought an 1,100-acre ranch in California. They borrowed at the bank, indicating in the paperwork that they would make money by selling cattle and providing guided hunting expeditions.

Mr. Wondries was a sharp cookie. He had already owned around 23 car dealerships, and he had a track record of turning losing dealerships into profitable ones.

He had no experience in ranching, though, so he hired someone (Mr. Palm) who did. Wondries hired Palm the same day he bought the ranch.

Good thing. Palm was mentoring Wondries on the fly, and they both realized that cattle raising was a no-go. They could not overcome feed prices. They thought about allowing the cattle to graze in the fields and growing their own barley, but a drought soon took away that option.

There was no money there. They sold most of the cattle.

Pivot.

Next was the guided hunting expeditions. The ranch was too small for certain (read: the desirable and profitable) hunts. We haven’t even mentioned insuring a hunting activity.

Bye to hunting.

Pivot again.

Wondries and Palm still thought they could make money by holding the land for investment. Seems that Wondries bought the land at a good price, so there was room to run.

Over three years (2016 to 2017) the ranch lost over $925 grand. You and I would have run for the hills, but Mr. Wondries’ W-2’s for the period totaled over $12 million. He could take a financial hit.

Big W-2. Substantial losses from a gig. Looks like meaningful personal pleasure is involved. The IRS caught scent and went for it.  Hobby loss. No loss deductions for you.

Off to Tax Court they went.

These cases tend to be very fact specific. While there are criteria the courts repetitively consider, that does not mean each court interprets, applies, or weights the criteria in the same manner.

Let’s go over them briefly.

(1)  The way taxpayer conducts the activity

 

The Court saw a business plan, an accounting system, and the hiring of an industry pro.

 

This went in the taxpayers’ favor.

 

(2)  Expertise of taxpayer or advisors

 

Wondries’ expertise was in dealerships, but he recognized that and hired a ranching pro. He also listened to the pro while trying to make the ranch profitable.

 

This went in the taxpayers’ favor.

 

(3)  Time and effort expended by taxpayer

 

The Wondries together spent an average of six days per month at the ranch. It was not much in the scheme of things.

 

To be fair, they had other stuff going on.

 

This still went in the taxpayers’ favor. Why? Because the manager was there full-time, and his time was imputed to the Wondries.

 

(4)  Expectation that assets used in activity will appreciate   

 This went in the taxpayers’ favor.

 

(5)  Taxpayer success in other activities

 

Wondries was a successful businessman.  

 

This went in the taxpayers’ favor.

 

(6)  History of activity income or loss

 

The ranch was a loser.

 

This went against the taxpayers.

 

(7)  The amount of profits compared to losses

 

The concept here is whether there were wee profits against huge losses.

 

This went against the taxpayers.

 

(8)  Taxpayer financial status

 

The Wondries were loaded.

 

This went against the taxpayers.

 

(9)  Elements of personal pleasure in the activity

 

The IRS pounced on this one. A ranch? Does anything say personal pleasure like a ranch?

 

The Court thought otherwise. They noted that the Wondries were working when they were there. They were hiking, biking, or boating when they visited their other properties. This lowers one’s motivation in wanting to visit the ranch.

 

The Court spotted the taxpayers this one.

 

The Tax Court decided the ranching activity was a business and not a hobby.

Not surprisingly, they also noted that:

                  This is a close case.”

What swung it for the Wondries?

Two things stand out to me:

(1)  The Court did not see significant personal pleasure in owning the ranch. In fact, it sounded like any pleasure from showing- off the ranch was more than offset by working every time the Wondries visited.

(2)  Hiring an industry pro to run the place. By my count, the ranch manager swung the Court’s decision in at least three of the above criteria

Hobby loss cases are fickle. What can tax advisors take away from this case?

Hire a pro to run the thing. Give the pro authority. Listen to the pro. Pivot upon that advice.

To say it differently, don’t be this:

Our case this time was Wondries v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-5.

A 1099 Reporting Rule Is Delayed

 

You may have heard that the IRS recently delayed a 1099 reporting rule that was going to otherwise affect a lot of people this filing season.

We are talking about payments apps such as Venmo, PayPal, Square and Cash App. Use Lyft or Uber, purchase something on Etsy or buy lunch at a food truck and you are likely paying cash or using one of these payment platforms.

For years and years, the tax rules require a payment processor to issue a 1099 to a business if two things happened:

(1)  The business received payments exceeding $20,000 and

(2)  There were more than 200 transactions.

This flavor of 1099 is a “1099-K.” It basically means that one received payment for a business transaction by accepting a credit card or mobile payment app. Mind you, this is not the same flavor of 1099 as those for interest or dividend income, rent or stock sales. A 1099-K is issued to a business, not to an individual. However, an individual having a business – think a side gig – can receive a 1099-K for that gig. Think Uber or Etsy – or a teenage babysitter – and you get the distinction.  

I remember when the $20,000/200 rule came in. There was one year when the IRS wanted taxpayers to separate business revenues on their tax return between those reported on a 1099 and those not. Clients were not amused with locating and providing those 1099 forms. Preparers quickly adjusted by reporting all revenues as reported on a 1099, despite IRS protestations that it would render their computer matching superfluous. True, but preparers cannot spend a lifetime preparing one tax return because Congress and the IRS want a DNA match on any economic activity during the year.   

Congress changed the $20,000/200 law. The American Rescue Plan of 2021 reduced the dollar threshold to $600 in the aggregate, with no threshold on the number of transactions.

Fortunately, some of the business apps are trying to minimize the damage. PayPal and Venmo, for example, are allowing users to distinguish whether a payment is personal - think a birthday gift – or a payment for goods and services. Personal payments do not require 1099-K reporting.   

Many tax professionals were concerned how this expanded reporting would mesh with an IRS that is just barely getting itself off the floor from COVID202020212022. The IRS still has unprocessed tax returns and correspondence to wade through – the same IRS that recently destroyed millions of tax documents because they relinquished hope of ever processing them.

The 1099-K reporting has not gone away completely, though. The IRS delayed the $600 rule, but the old rule - $20,000 and 200 transactions – is still in effect. Yeah, it can be confusing.

Have you wondered why that $600 limit has never changed? The $600 has been around since the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and prior to 1954 there was comparable reporting for certain payments exceeding $1,000. Mind you, average annual U.S. income in 1954 was less than $4,000. You could buy a house for twice that amount.  

Had that $600 been pegged for inflation – not an unreasonable request to make of Congress, which caused the inflation - it would be almost $6,700 today.

And Congress would not be burdening everybody with 1099 reporting at dollar thresholds less than you spend monthly on groceries.

 

Can A Business Start Before Having Revenue?

 

It is one of my least favorite issues: when does a business start?

The reason is that expenses incurred before the start-up date are considered either organizational or start-up expenses and cannot be immediately deducted. The IRS allows a small spot (of $5,000) and expenses over that amount are to be amortized over 15 years.

It used to be five years. The issue was less of a blood sport back then.

For many of us, the start-up date is easy: it is when you open your doors to customers or clients. Let’s say you are a chiropractor. Your start-up date is when the office opens. What if you do not have a patient that day? Same answer: it is the day you open the doors.

Let’s kick it up a notch.

Say you open a restaurant. When is your start date?

The day you have first serve customers, right?

Yes, with a twist. Many restaurants have a soft opening, which is a seating for a limited number of people (think family, friends and media critics) to test service and the kitchen. This might be days or weeks before the actual grand opening – that is, when doors open to the general public.  

Many tax accountants – me included – consider a restaurant’s soft opening to be the start date.

The reason we want an earlier rather than a later date is to start deducting expenses. If you are reaching into your pocket or borrowing money to pay rent, utilities, promotion and staff, you want a tax deduction now. You might consider me to be crazy man Michael were I to talk about deducting over 15 years.

Let’s kick it up another notch. Let’s talk about a web-based business.

Gregg Kellett graduated from college in 2002 and opened a website. He went corporate in 2007, and in 2011 he moved to Bloomberg, a publisher of legal and business information. While there he saw an opportunity to better aggregate and access online demographic, social and economic data. If he could pull it off, he could offer a more user-friendly interface and make a couple of bucks in the process.

So in 2013 he bought a website (vizala.com). He formed a company by the same name. He hired remote computer engineers to develop features he wanted in the website. They finished core work in March 2015 and resolved bugs through September 2015. An example of a “bug” was an interactive table that would not presently correctly in the Firefox browser.

Kellett figured to make money at least four ways:

(1)  Selling advertising space

(2)  Implementing a paywall

(3)  Selling personalized charts and other information

(4)  Licensing data

He did not pursue any of those strategies during 2015.

However, he did deduct approximately $26 grand on his 2015 return.

He also did not earn any revenue until 2019.

Sure enough, the IRS disallowed the $26 grand because Kellett was not in an “active” trade or business. They wanted him to deduct the expenses over (almost) the same period as putting a kid though grade school and then college.

Off to Tax Court.

If we pull back to the general rule – the date of first revenues – this is going to hurt.

But the website was available by September 2015. It wasn’t rocking like Netflix upon release of the 2022 season’s second half of Stranger Things, but it was available.

The Court wanted to know what happened between 2015 and 2019.

Kellett explained that maximizing his long-term profit potential required building trust among users. After that would come the advertisers. He started building trust by promoting the website to over a hundred universities and professional organizations. This was enough work that he hired a marketing professional to assist him. The work paid-off, as about 50% on the institutions added Vizala to their lists of research databases. 

The Court understood what he did. The website was available by September 2015. It was not all it could be as Kellett had plans for its long-term profitability, but that did not gainsay that the website was available. Considering that the business was the website, that meant that the business also started in September 2015. Expenses before that date were startup expenses. Expenses after that date were immediately deductible.

Revenues did not play into the decision, fortunately.

It was the website version of the chiropractor opening his/her office, albeit with no patients on the first day.

Kellett won, but it cost a visit to Tax Court.

Our case this time was Kellett v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-62.