Setting Up A Museum

Have you ever wondered why and how there are so many private art museums in the United States: The Brant Foundation, The Broad, The Warehouse?

Let’s posit the obvious immediately: wealthy people with philanthropic objectives.

This however is a tax blog, meaning there is a tax hook to the discussion.

Let’s go through it.

We already know that the tax Code allows a deduction for charitable contributions made to a domestic corporation or trust that is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes.  There are additional restrictions: no part of the earnings can inure to the benefit of a private individual, for example.

Got it: charitable and no sneak-arounds on the need to be charitable.

How much is the deduction?

Ah, here is where the magic happens. If you give cash, then the deduction is easy: it is the amount of cash given, less benefits received in return (if any).

What if you give noncash? Like a baseball card collection, for example.

Now we have to look at the type of charity.

How many types of charities are there?

Charities are also known as 501(c)(3)s, but there several types of (c)(3)s:

·      Those that are publicly supported

·      Those that are supported by gifts, dues, and fees

·      The supporting organization

·      The nonoperating private foundation

·      The operating private foundation

What happens is that the certain noncash contributions do not mix will with certain types of (c)(3)s. The combination that we are concerned with is:

 

·      Capital gain property (other than qualified stock), and

·      The nonoperating private foundation

 Let’s talk definitions for a moment.

 

·      What is capital gain property?

 

Property that would have generated a long-term capital gain had it been sold for fair market value. Say that you bought $25,000 of Apple stock in 1997, for example, when it traded at 25 cents per share.

 

By the way, that Apple stock would also be an example of “qualified stock.”

 

·      What is not capital gain property?

The easiest example would be inventory to a business: think Krogers and groceries. A sneaky one would be property that would otherwise be capital gain property except that you have not owned it long enough to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment.

 

·      What is a nonoperating private foundation?

 

The classic is a family foundation. Say that CTG sells this blog for a fortune, and I set up the CTG Family Trust. Every year around Thanksgiving and through Christmas the CTG family reviews and decides how much to contribute to various and sundry charitable causes.  Mind you, we do not operate any programs or activities ourselves. No sir, all we do is write checks to charities that do operate programs and activities.

Why do noncash contributions not mix well with nonoperating foundations?

Because the contribution deduction will be limited (except for qualified stock) to one’s cost (referred to as “basis”) in the noncash property.

So?

Say that I own art. I own a lot of art. The art has appreciated ridiculously since I bought it because the artist has been “discovered.” My cost (or “basis”) in the art is pennies on the dollar.

My kids are not interested in the art. Even if they were interested, let’s say that I am way over the combined estate and gift tax exemption amount. I would owe gift tax (if I transfer while I am alive) or estate tax (if I transfer upon my death). The estate & gift tax rate is 40% and is not to be ignored.

I am instead thinking about donating the art. It would be sweet if I could also keep “some” control over the art once I am gone. 

I talk to my tax advisor. He/she tells me about that unfortunate rule about art and nonoperating foundations.

I ask my tax advisor for an alternate strategy.

Enter the operating foundation.

Take a private foundation. Slap an operating program into it.

Can you guess an example of an operating program?

Yep, an art museum.

I set-up the Galactic Command Family Museum, donate the art and score a major charitable contribution deduction.

What is the museum’s operating program?

You got it: displaying the art.

Let’s be frank: we are talking about an extremely high-end tax technique. Some consider this to be a tax loophole, albeit a loophole with discernable societal benefits.

Can it be abused? Of course.

How? What if the Galactic Command Family Museum’s public hours are between 3:30 and 5 p.m. on the last Wednesday of April in leap years? What if the entrance is behind a fake door on an unnumbered floor in a building without obvious ingress or egress? What if a third of the art collection is hanging on the walls of the CTG family business offices?

That is a bit extreme, but you get the drift.

One last point about the deduction if this technique is done correctly. Let’s use the flowing example:

                  The art is worth             $10,000,000

                  I paid                            $          1,000

We already know that I get a $10,000,000 charitable deduction.

However, what becomes of the appreciation in the art – that is, the $9,999,000 over what I paid for it? Does that get taxed to me, to the museum, to anybody?

Nope.

RERI-ng Its Ugly Head - Part Two

Let’s continue our story of Stephen Ross, the billionaire owner of the Miami Dolphins and of his indirect contribution of an (unusual) partnership interest to the University of Michigan.

What made the partnership interest unusual was that it represented a future ownership interest in a partnership owning real estate. The real estate was quite valuable because of a sweet lease. When that ship came in, the future interest was going to be worth crazy money.

That ship was a “successor member interest” or “SMI.”

We talked about the first case, which went before the Tax Court in 2014 and involved legal motions. The case then proceeded, with a final decision in July, 2017.

COMMENT: Yes, it can take that long to get a complex case through Tax Court. Go after Apple, for example, and your kid will likely be finishing high school before that tax case is finally resolved.

The SMI was purchased for $2.95 million.

Then donated to the University of Michigan for approximately $33 million.

COMMENT: This is better than FaceBook stock.

After two years, the University of Michigan sold the SMI (to someone related to the person who started this whole story) for around $2 million.

OBSERVATION: Nah, FaceBook stock would have been better.

Now RERI was in Court and explaining how something that was and will be worth either $2 or $3 million is generating a tax deduction of $33 million.

And it has to do with the SMI being “part of” of something but not “all of” something.  SMI is the “future” part in “all of” a partnership owning valuable leased real estate in California.

The concept is that someone has to value the “all of” something. Once that is done, one can use IRS tables to value the “part of” something. Granted, there are hoops and hurdles to get into those tables, but that is little obstacle to a shrewd tax attorney.

Ross found a shrewd tax attorney.

Virtually all the heavy lifting is done when valuing the “all of” part. One then dumps that number into the IRS tables, selects a number of years and an interest rate and – voila! The entrée round, my fellow tax gastronomes, featuring a $33 million tasty secret ingredient.

The pressure is on the first number: the “all of.”

This will require a valuation.

There are experts who do these things, of course.

Their valuation report will go with your tax return.  No surprise. We should be thankful they do not also have to do a slide presentation at the IRS. 

And there will be a (yet another) tax form to highlight the donation. That is Form 8283, and – in general – you can anticipate seeing this form when you donate more than $5,000 in property.

There are questions to be answered on Form 8283. We have spoken about noncash donations in the past, and how this area has become a tax minefield. Certain things have to be done a certain way, and there is little room for inattention. Sometimes the results are cruel.

Form 8283 wants, for example:

·      A description of the property

·      If a partial interest, whether there is a restriction on the property

·      Date acquired

·      How acquired

·      Appraised fair market value

·      Cost

I suspect the Court was already a bit leery with a $3 million property generating a $33 million donation.

And the Court noticed something …

The Form 8283 left out the cost.

Yep, the $3 million.

Remember: there is little room for inattention with this form.

Question is: does the number mean anything in this instance?

Rest assured that RERI was bailing water like a madman, arguing that it “substantially complied” with the reporting requirements. It relied heavily on the Bond decision, where the Court stated that the reporting requirements were:

“… directory and not mandatory”

The counterpunch to Bond was Smith:

“ the standard for determining substantial compliance under which we ‘consider whether … provided sufficient information to permit … to evaluate the reported contributions, as intended by Congress.’”

To boil this down to normal-speak: could RERI’s omission have influenced a reasonable person (read: IRS) to question or not question the deduction. After all, the very purpose of Form 8283 was to provide the IRS enough information to sniff-out stuff like this.

Here is the Court:

“The significant disparity between the claimed fair market value and the price RERI paid to acquire the SMI just 17 months before it assigned the SMI to the University, had it been disclosed, would have alerted respondent to a potential overvaluation of the SMI”

Oh oh.

“Because RERI failed to provide sufficient information on its Form 8283 to permit respondent to evaluate its purported contribution, …we cannot excuse on substantial compliance grounds RERI’s omission from the form of its basis in the SMI.”

All that tax planning, all the meetings and paperwork and yada-yada was for naught, because someone did not fill-out the tax form correctly and completely.

I wonder if the malpractice lawsuit has already started.

The Court did not have to climb onto a high-wire and juggle dizzying code sections or tax doctrines to deny RERI’s donation deduction. It could just gaze upon that Form 8283 and point-out that it was incomplete, and that its incompleteness prejudiced the interests of the government. It was an easy way out.

And that is precisely what the Court did.

RERI-ng Its Ugly Head - Part One

Here is the Court:

The action involves RERI Holdings I, LLC (RERI). On its 2003 income tax return RERI reported a charitable contribution of property worth $33,019,000. Respondent determined that RERI overstated the value of the contribution by $29,119,000.”

That is considerably more than a rounding error.

The story involves California real estate, a billionaire and a university perhaps a bit too eager to receive a donation.

The story is confusing, so let’s use a dateline as a guide.

February 6, 2002 

Hawthorne bought California real estate for $42,350,000. Technically, that real estate is in an LLC named RS Hawthorne LLC (Hawthorne), which in turn is owned by RS Hawthorne Holdings LLC (Holdings).

Holdings in turn is owned by Red Sea Tech I (Red Sea). 

February 7, 2002 

Red Sea created two types of ownership:

First, ownership for a period of time (technically a “term of years,” abbreviated TOYS).

Second, a future and successor interest that would not even come into existence until 2021. Let’s call this a “successor” member interest, or SMI. 

QUESTION: Why a delayed ownership interest? There was a great lease on the California real estate, and 2021 had significance under that lease.

March 4, 2002     

RERI was formed.

March 25, 2002

RERI bought the SMI for $2,950,000.

August 27, 2003

RERI donated the SMI to the University of Michigan.

A key player here is Stephen Ross, a billionaire and the principal investor in RERI. He had pledged to donate $5 million to the University of Michigan. 

Ross had RERI donate the SMI. 

The University agreed to hold the SMI for two years, at least, before selling.

Do you see what they have done? Start with a valuable piece of leased real estate, stick it in an LLC owned by another LLC owned by another … ad nauseum, then create an LLC ownership stake that does not even exist (if it will ever exist) until 2021.

What did RERI donate to the University of Michigan?

You got it: the thing that doesn’t exist for 18 years.

I find this hard to swallow.

“Successor” LLC interests are sasquatches. You can spend a career and never see one. The concept of “successor” makes sense in a trust context (where they are called “remaindermen”), but not in a LLC context. This is a Mary Shelly fabrication by the attorneys.

So why do it?

Technically, the SMI will someday own real estate, and that real estate is not worth zero.

RERI hired a valuation expert who determined it was worth almost $33 million. This expert argued that the lease on the property – and its reliable series of payments – allowed him to use certain IRS actuarial tables in arriving at fair market value (the approximately $33 million).

Wait. It gets better.

The two years pass. The University sells the property … to an entity INDIRECTLY OWNED by Mr. Ross for $1,940,000.

This entity was named HRK Real Estate Holdings, LLC (HRK).

More.

HRK had already prearranged to sell the SMI to someone else for $3 million.

Still more.

That someone donated the same SMI and claimed yet another deduction of $29,930,000.

REALITY CHECK: This thing sells twice for a total of approximately $5 million but generates tax deductions of approximately $63 million.

Yet more.

Who did the valuation on that second donation? Yep, the same guy who did RERI’s valuation.

The IRS disallowed RERI’s donation to zero, zip, zilch, nada. The IRS was clear: this thing is a sham.

And there begins the litigation.

How something can simultaneously be worth $33 million and $2 million?

This is all about those IRS tables.

Generally speaking, the contribution of property is at fair market value, usually described as the price arrived at between independent buyers and sellers, neither under compulsion to sell or buy and both informed of all relevant facts.

Except …

For annuities, life estates, remainders, reversions, terms of years and similar partial interests in property. They are not full interests so they then have to be carved-out and adjusted to present value using IRS-provided tables.

OBSERVATION: Right there, folks, is why the attorneys created this Frankenstein. They needed to “separate” the interests so they could get to the tables.

RERI argued that it could value that real estate 18 years out and use the tables. Since the tables are concerned only with interest rates and years, the hard lifting is done before one gets to them.

Not so fast, said the IRS.

That real estate is in an LLC, so it is the LLC that has to be valued.  There are numerous cases where the value of an asset and the value of an ownership interest in the entity owning said asset can be different – sometimes substantially so. You cannot use the tables because you started with the wrong asset.

But the LLC is nothing but real estate, so we are back where we started, countered RERI.

Not quite, said the IRS. The SMI doesn’t even exist for 18 years. What if the term owner mortgages the property, or sells it, or mismanages it? That SMI could be near worthless by the time some profligate or incompetent is done with the underlying lease.

Nonsense, said RERI. There are contracts in place to prohibit this.

How pray tell is this “prohibited?” asked the IRS.

Someone has to compensate the SMI for damages, explained RERI.

“Compensate” how? persisted the IRS.

The term owner would forfeit ownership and the SMI would become an immediate owner, clarified RERI.

So you are making the owner of a wrecked car “whole” by giving him/her the wrecked car as recompense, analogized the IRS. Can the SMI at least sue for any unrecovered losses?

Uhhhh … no, not really, answered RERI. But it doesn’t matter: the odds of this happening are so remote as to not warrant consideration.

And so it drones on. The case goes into the weeds.

Who won: the government or the billionaire?

It was decided in a later case. We will talk about it in a second post.

Would You Believe?

It is a specialized issue, but I am going to write about it anyway.

Why?

Because I believe this may be the only time I have had this issue, and I have been in practice for over thirty years. There isn’t a lot in the tax literature either.

As often happens, I am minding my own business when someone – someone who knows I am a tax geek – asks:

          “Steve, do you know the tax answer to ….”

For future reference: “Whatever it is - I don’t. By the way, I am leaving the office today on time and I won’t have time this weekend to research as I am playing golf and sleeping late.”

You know who you are, Mr. to-remain-unnamed-and-anonymous-of-course-Brian-the-name-will-never-pass-my-lips.

Here it is:

Can a trust make a charitable donation?

Doesn’t sound like much, so let’s set-up the issue.

A trust is generally a three-party arrangement:

·      Party of the first part sets up and funds the trust.

·      Party of the second part receives money from the trust, either now or later.

·      Party of the third part administrates the trust, including writing checks.

The party of the third part is called the “trustee” or “fiduciary.” This is a unique relationship, as the trustee is trying to administer according to the wishes of the party of the first part, who may or may not be deceased. The very concept of “fiduciary” means that you are putting someone’s interest ahead of yours: in this case, you are prioritizing the party of the second part, also called the beneficiary.

There can be more than one beneficiary, by the way.

There can also be beneficiaries at different points in time.

For example, I can set-up a trust with all income to my wife for her lifetime, with whatever is left over (called the “corpus” or “principal”) going to my daughter.

This sets up an interesting tension: the interests of the first beneficiary may not coincide with the interests of the second beneficiary. Consider my example. Whatever my wife draws upon during her lifetime will leave less for my daughter when her mom dies. Now, this tension does not exist in the Hamilton family, but you can see how it could for other families. Take for example a second marriage, especially one later in life. The “steps” my not have that “we are all one family” perspective when the dollars start raining.

Back to our fiduciary: how would you like to be the one who decides where the dollars rain? That sounds like a headache to me.

How can the trustmaker make this better?

A tried-and-true way is to have the party of the first part leave instructions, standards and explanations of his/her wishes. For example, I can say “my wife can draw all the income and corpus she wants without having to explain anything to anybody. If there is anything left over, our daughter can have it. If not, too bad.”

Pretty clear, eh?

That is the heart of the problem with charitable donations by a trust.

Chances are, some party-of-the-second-part is getting less money at the end of the day because of that donation. Has to, as the money is not going to a beneficiary.

Which means the party of the first part had better leave clear instructions as to the who/what/when of the donation.

Our case this week is a trust created when Harvey Hubbell died. He died in 1957, so this trust has been around a while. The trust was to distribute fixed amounts to certain individuals for life. Harvey felt strongly about it, because - if there was insufficient income to make the payment – the trustee was authorized to reach into trust principal to make up the shortfall.

Upon the last beneficiary to die, the trust had 10 years to wrap up its affairs.

Then there was this sentence:

All unused income and the remainder of the principal shall be used and distributed, in such proportion as the Trustees deem best, for such purpose or purposes, to be selected by them as the time of such distribution, as will make such uses and distributions exempt from Ohio inheritance and Federal estate taxes and for no other purpose.”  

This trust had been making regular donations for a while. The IRS picked one year – 2009 – and disallowed a $64,279 donation.

Here is IRC Sec 642(c):

(c)Deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside for a charitable purpose

(1)General rule

In the case of an estate or trust (other than a trust meeting the specifications of subpart B), there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing its taxable income (in lieu of the deduction allowed by section 170(a), relating to deduction for charitable, etc., contributions and gifts) any amount of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument is, during the taxable year, paid for a purpose specified in section 170(c) (determined without regard to section 170(c)(2)(A)). If a charitable contribution is paid after the close of such taxable year and on or before the last day of the year following the close of such taxable year, then the trustee or administrator may elect to treat such contribution as paid during such taxable year. The election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by regulations.

The key here is the italicized part:        

“which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument…”

The Code wants to know what the party of the first part intended, phrased in tax-speak as “pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument.”

The trustees argued that they could make donations via the following verbiage:

in such proportion as the Trustees deem best, for such purposes or purposes, to be selected by them as the time of such distribution….”

Problem, said the IRS. That verbiage refers to a point in time: the time when the trust enters its ten-year wrap-up and not before then. The trustees had to abide by the governing instrument, and said instrument did not say they could distribute monies to charity before that time.

The trustees had to think of something fast.

Here is something: there is a “latent ambiguity” in the will. That ambiguity allows for the trustees’ discretion on the charitable donations issue.

Nice argument, trustees. We at CTG are impressed.

They are referring to a judicial doctrine that cuts trustees some slack when the following happens:

(1) The terms of the trust are crystal-clear when read in the light of normal day: when it snows in Cincinnati during this winter, the trust will ….

(2) However, the terms of the trust can also be read differently in the light of abnormal day: it did not snow in Cincinnati during this winter, so the trust will ….

The point is that both readings are plausible (would you believe “possible?”).

It is just that no one seriously considered scenario (2) when drafting the document. This is the “latent ambiguity” in the trust instrument.

Don’t think so, said the Court. That expanded authority was given the trustees during that ten-year period and not before.

In fact, prior to the ten years the trustees were to invade principal to meet the annual payouts, if necessary. The trustmaker was clearly interested that the beneficiaries receive their money every year. It is very doubtful he intended that any money not go their way.

It was only upon the death of the last beneficiary that the trustees had some free play.

The Court decided there was no latent ambiguity. They were pretty comfortable they understood what the trustmaker wanted. He wanted the beneficiaries to get paid every year.

And the trust lost its charitable deduction.

For the home gamers, our case this time was Harvey C. Hubbell Trust v Commissioner.