When A Tax Audit Is Not An Audit

 

I am cleaning-up files here at Galactic Command. I saw an e-mail from earlier this year chastising someone for running business deposits through a personal account.

I remember.

He wanted to know why his extension payment came in higher than expected.

Umm, dude, you ran umpteen thousands of dollars through your personal account. I am a CPA, not a psychic.

Let’s spend some time in this yard.

If you are self-employed – think gig worker – and are audited, the IRS is almost certain to ask for copies of your bank accounts. Not just the business account(s), mind you, but all your accounts, business and personal.

I have standard advice for gig workers: open a separate business account. Make all business deposits to that account. Pay all business expenses from that account. When you need personal money, draw the needed amount from the business account and deposit to your personal account.

This gives the accountant a starting point: all deposits are income until shown otherwise. Expenses are trickier because of depreciation, mileage, and other factors.

Is it necessary?

No, but it is best practice.

I stopped counting how many audits I have represented over the years. I may not win the examiner’s trust with my record-keeping, but I assure you that I will win their distrust without it.

Does the examiner want to pry money from you? You bet. Examiners do not like to return to their managers with a no-change.

Will the examiner back-off if all the “i’s” are dotted? That varies per person, of course, but the odds are with you.

And sometimes unexpected things happen.

Let’s look at the Showalter case.

Richard Showalter (RS) owned a single-member LLC. The LLC in turn had one bank account with Wells Fargo.

This should be easy, I am thinking.

RS did not file a tax return for 2013.

Yep, horror stories often start with that line.

The IRS prepared a substitute for return (SFR) for 2013.

COMMENT: The IRS prepares the SFR with information available to it. It will add the 1099s for your interest and dividends, the sales price for any securities trades, any 1099s for your gig, and so forth. It considers the sum to be taxable income.

         Where is the issue?

Here’s one: the IRS does not spot you any cost for securities you sold. Your stock may have gone through the roof, but the odds that it has no cost is astronomical.

Here is another. You have a gig. You have gig expenses. Guess what the IRS does not include in its SFR? Yep, you get no gig expenses.

You may be thinking this has to be the worst tax return ever. It is leaving out obvious numbers.

Except that the IRS is not trying to prepare your tax return. It is trying to get your attention. The IRS throws an inflated number out there and hopes that you have enough savvy to finally file a tax return.

So, RS caught an SFR. The IRS sent him a 90-day notice (also known as a statutory notice of deficiency or SNOD), which is the procedure by which the IRS can move your file to Collections. You already know the tender mercies of IRS Collections.

RS responded to the SNOD by filing with the Tax Court. He wanted his business expenses.

Well, yeah.

RS provided bank statements. The IRS went through and – sure enough – found about $250 grand of deductions, either business or itemized.

That turned out rather well for RS. He should have done this up-front and spared himself the headache.

Then the IRS looked at his deposits. Lo and behold, they found another hundred grand or so that RS did not report as income.

It is not taxable, said RS.

Prove it, said the IRS.

RS did not.

COMMENT: It is unclear to me whether this disputed deposit was fully or partially taxable or wholly nontaxable. The deposit came from a closing statement. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I expect a cost for every sale. The closing statement for the sale is not going to show cost. Still, RS did not argue the point, so ….  

Now think about what RS did by getting into IRS dispute.

RS filed with the Tax Court because he wanted his deductions. Mind you, he could have gotten them by filing a return when required. But no, he did this the hard way.

He now submitted invoices and bank statements to support his deductions.

However, using bank statements is an audit procedure. Why is the IRS using an audit procedure?

Well, he is in Tax Court and all. He picked the battleground.

Had RS filed a return, the IRS might have processed the return without examination or further hassle. Since bank statements are an examination step, the IRS would never have seen them.

Just saying.

Was this this fair play by the IRS?

The Court thought so. The IRS cannot run wild. There must be a “minimal evidentiary showing” tying the taxpayer to potential income. The IRS added up his deposits; that exceeded what he reported as income. Seems to me the IRS cleared the required “minimal” hurdle.

By my reckoning, RS should still come out ahead. The IRS bumped his income by a smidgeon less than a hundred grand, but they also spotted him around a quarter million in business and itemized deductions. Unless there is crazy in that return, this should have improved his tax compared to the SFR.

Our case this time was Richard Showalter v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-114.

Keeping Records For More Than Three Years

 

How long should you keep tax records?

We have heard that one should keep records for at least three years, as the IRS has three years to examine your return.

There is a lot of wiggle room there, however.

Let’s look at a wiggle that repeats with some frequency: a net operating loss (NOL) carryover.

An NOL occurs when a business’ tax deductions exceed its tax revenues.

I include the word “business” intentionally. Nonbusiness income - think interest, dividends, royalties – will not generate NOLs, unless you happen to own a bank or something. That would be rare, but it could happen.

An NOL is a negative (net) number from a business.

How does this negative number get on your personal return?

Several ways. Here is one: you own a piece of a passthrough business and receive a Schedule K-1.  

A passthrough normally does not pay taxes on its own power. Its owners do. If that passthrough had a big enough loss, your share of its loss might wipe out all the other income on your personal return. It happens. I have seen it.

You would go negative. Bingo, you have an NOL.

But what do you do with it?

The tax law has varied all over the place on what to do with it. Sometimes you could take it back five years. Sometimes two. Sometimes you could not take it back at all. What you could not take back you could take forward to future years. How many future years? That too has varied. Sometimes it has been fifteen years. Sometimes twenty. Right now, it is to infinity and beyond.

Let’s introduce Betty Amos.

Betty was a Miami CPA and restaurateur.  In the early 1980s she teamed up with two retired NFL players to own and operate Fuddruckers restaurants in Florida.

She wound up running 15 restaurants over the next 27 years.

She was honored in 1993 by the National Association of Women Business Owners. She was named to the University of Miami board of trustees, where she served as chair of the audit and compliance committee.

I am seeing some professional chops.

In 1999 her share of Fudddruckers generated a taxable loss. She filed a joint tax return with her husband showing an NOL of approximately $1.5 million.

In 2000 she went negative again. Her combined NOL over the two years was pushing $1.9 million.

Let’s fast forward a bit.

On her 2014 tax return she showed an NOL carryforward of $4.2 million.

We have gone from $1.9 to $4.2 million. Something is sinking somewhere.

On her 2015 tax return she showed an NOL carryforward of $4.1 million.

That tells me there was a positive $100 grand in 2014, as the NOL carryforward went down by a hundred grand.

Sure enough, the IRS audited her 2014 and 2015 tax years.

More specifically, the IRS was looking at the big negative number on those returns.

Prove it, said the IRS.

Think about this for a moment. This thing started in 1999. We are now talking 2014 and 2015. We are well outside that three-year period, and the IRS wants us to prove … what, specifically?

Just showing the IRS a copy of your 1999 return will probably be insufficient. Yes, that would show you claiming the loss, but it would not prove that you were entitled to the loss. If a K-1 triggered the loss, then substantiation might be simple: just give the IRS a copy of the K-1. If the loss was elsewhere – maybe gig work reported on Schedule C, for example - then substantiation might be more challenging. Hopefully you kept a bankers box containing bank statements, invoices, and other records for that gig activity.

But this happened 15 years ago. Should you hold onto records for 15 years?

Yep, in this case that is the wise thing to do.

Let me bring up one more thing. In truth, I think it is the thing that got Betty in hot water.

When you have an NOL, you are supposed to attach a schedule to your tax return every year that NOL is alive. The schedule shows the year the NOL occurred, its starting amount, how much has been absorbed during intervening years, and its remaining amount. The IRS likes to see this schedule. Granted, one could fudge the numbers and lie, but the fact that a schedule exists gives hope that one is correctly accounting for the NOL.

Betty did not do this.

Betty knew better.

Betty was a CPA. 

The IRS holds tax professionals to a higher standard.

BTW, are you wondering how the IRS reconciles its Indiana-Jones-like stance on Betty’s NOL with a three-year-statute-of-limitations?

Easy. The IRS cannot reach back to 1999 or 2020; that is agreed.

Back it can reach 2014 and 2015.

The IRS will not permit an NOL deduction for 2014 or 2015. Same effect as reaching back to 1999 or 2000, but it gets around the pesky statute-of-limitations issue.

And in the spirit of bayoneting-the-dead, the IRS also wanted penalties.

Betty put up an immediate defense: she had reasonable cause. She had incurred those losses before Carter had liver pills. Things are lost to time. She was certain that she carried numbers correctly forward from year to year.

Remember what I said about tax professionals? Here is the Court:

More significantly, Ms. Amos is a longtime CPA who has worked for high-profile clients, owned her own accounting firm, and been involved with national and state CPA associations. It beggars belief that she would be unaware that each tax years stands alone and that it was her responsibility to demonstrate her entitlement to the deductions she claimed.”

Yep, she was liable for penalties too.

Our case this time was Betty Amos v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-109.

Like-Kind Exchange? Bulk Up Your Files

I met with a client a couple of weeks ago. He owns undeveloped land that someone has taken an interest in. He initially dismissed their overtures, saying that the land was not for sale or – if it were – it would require a higher price than the potential buyer would be interested in paying.

Turns out they are interested.

The client and I met. We cranked a few numbers to see what the projected taxes would be. Then we talked about like-kind exchanges.

It used to be that one could do a like-kind exchange with both real property and personal property. The tax law changed recently and personal property no longer qualifies. This doesn’t sound like much, but consider that the trade-in of a car is technically a like-kind exchange. The tax change defused that issue by allowing 100% depreciation (hopefully) on a business vehicle in the year of purchase. Eventually Congress will again change the depreciation rules, and trade-ins of business vehicles will present a tax issue.

There are big-picture issues with a like-kind exchange:

(1)  Trade-down, for example, and you will have income.

(2)  Walk away with cash and you will have income.

(3)  Reduce the size of the loan and (without additional planning) you will have income.

I was looking at a case that presented another potential trap.

The Brelands owned a shopping center in Alabama.

In 2003 they sold the shopping center. They rolled-over the proceeds in a like-kind exchange involving 3 replacement properties. One of those properties was in Pensacola and becomes important to our story.

In 2004 they sold Pensacola. Again using a like-kind, they rolled-over the proceeds into 2 properties in Alabama. One of those properties was on Dauphin Island.

They must have liked Dauphin Island, as they bought a second property there.

Then they refinanced the two Dauphin Island properties together.

Fast forward to 2009 and they defaulted on the Dauphin Island loan. The bank foreclosed. The two properties were sold to repay the bank

This can create a tax issue, depending on whether one is personally liable for the loan. Our taxpayers were. When this happens, the tax Code sees two related but separate transactions:

(1) One sells the property. There could be gain, calculated as:

Sales price – cost (that is, basis) in the property

(2) There is cancellation of indebtedness income, calculated as:

Loan amount – sales price

There are tax breaks for transaction (2) – such as bankruptcy or insolvency – but there is no break for transaction (1). However, if one is being foreclosed, how often will the fair market value (that is, sales price) be greater than cost? If that were the case, wouldn’t one just sell the property oneself and repay the bank, skipping the foreclosure?

Now think about the effect of a like-kind exchange and one’s cost or basis in the property. If you keep exchanging and the properties keep appreciating, there will come a point where the relationship between the price and the cost/basis will become laughingly dated. You are going to have something priced in 2019 dollars but having basis from …. well, whenever you did the like-kind exchange.

Heck, that could be decades ago.

For the Brelands, there was a 2009 sales price and cost or basis from … whenever they acquired the shopping center that started their string of like-kind exchanges.

The IRS challenged their basis.

Let’s talk about it.

The Brelands would have basis in Dauphin Island as follows:

(1)  Whatever they paid in cash

(2)  Plus whatever they paid via a mortgage

(3)  Plus whatever basis they rolled over from the shopping center back in 2003

(4)  Less whatever depreciation they took over the years

The IRS challenged (3).  Show us proof of the rolled-over basis, they demanded.

The taxpayers provided a depreciation schedule from 2003. They had nothing else.

That was a problem. You see, a depreciation schedule is a taxpayer-created (truthfully, more like a taxpayer’s-accountant-created) document. It is considered self-serving and would not constitute documentation for this purpose.

The Tax Court bounced item (3) for that reason.

What would have constituted documentation?

How about the closing statement from the sale of the shopping center?

As well as the closing statement when they bought the shopping center.

And maybe the depreciation schedules for the years in between, as depreciation reduces one’s basis in the property.

You are keeping a lot of paperwork for Dauphin Island.

You should also do the same for any and all other properties you acquired using a like-kind exchange.

And there is your trap. Do enough of these exchanges and you are going to have to rent a self-storage place just to house your paperwork.

Our case this time was Breland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-59.

A CPA Goes Into Personal Audit

Folks, if you wind up before the Tax Court, please do not say the following:

… petitioner testified that allocating some of the expenses between his personal and business use required more time than he was willing to spend on the activity.”

Our protagonist this time is Ivan Levine, a retired CPA who was trying to get a financial service as well as a marketing business going. He worked from home. He used personal credit cards and bank accounts, as well as a family cellular plan. He also drove two vehicles – a Porsche 911 and a Chevrolet Suburban – for both personal and business reasons. All pretty standard stuff.

The IRS came down like a sack of bricks on his 2011 return. They challenged the following:

(1) Advertising

(2) Vehicle expenses

(3) Depreciation, including the vehicles

(4) Insurance (other than health)

(5) Professional fees

(6) Office expenses

(7) Supplies

(8) Utilities

(9) Cell phone

(10)       Office-in-home

Whoa! It seems to me that some of these expenses are straight-forward – advertising, for example. You show a check, hopefully an invoice and you are done. Same for professional fees, office expenses and supplies. How hard can it be?

It turns out that he was deducting the same expense in two categories. He was also confusing tax years – currently deducting payments made in the preceding year.

The office-in-home brings some strict requirements. One of them is that an office-in-home deduction cannot cause or increase an operating loss. If that happens, the offending deductions carryover to the subsequent year. It happens a lot.

It happened to Mr. Irvine. He had a carryover from 2010 to 2011, the year under audit. The IRS requested a copy of Form 8829 (that is, the office-in-home form) from 2010. They also requested documentation for the 2010 expenses.

COMMENT: Why would the IRS request a copy of a form? They have your complete tax return already, right? This occurs because the IRS machinery is awkward and cumbersome and it is easier for the revenue agent to get a copy from you.

Mr. Irvine refused to do either. The decision does not state why, but I suspect he thought the carryover was safe, as the IRS was auditing 2011 and not 2010. That is not so. Since the carryover is “live” in 2011, the IRS can lookback to the year the carryover was created. Dig in your heels and the IRS will disallow the carryover altogether.

The vehicles introduce a different tax technicality. There are certain expenses that Congress felt were too easily subject to abuse. For those, Congress required a certain level of documentation before allowing any deduction. Meals and entertainment are one of those, as are vehicle expenses.

Trust me on this, go into audit without backup for vehicle expenses and the IRS will just goose-egg you. You do not need to keep a meticulous log, but you need something. I have gotten the IRS to allow vehicle expenses when the taxpayer drives a repeating route; all we had to do was document one route. I have gotten the IRS to accept reconstructions from Outlook or Google calendar. The calendar itself is “contemporaneous,” a requirement for this type of deduction.

BTW the tricky thing about using Outlook this way is remembering to back-up Outlook at year-end. I am just saying.

You know Mr. Irvine did not do any of this.

Why?

Because it would have required “… more time than he was willing to spend on the activity.”

This from a CPA?

Being a CPA does not mean that one practices tax, or practices it extensively. I work tax exclusively, but down the hall is a CPA who has careered in auditing. He can exclaim about myriad issues surrounding financial statements, but do not ask him to do a tax return. There are also nouveau practice niches, such as forensic accountants or valuation specialists. One is still within the CPA tent, but likely far away from its tax corner.

Although a CPA, Mr. Irvine could have used a good tax practitioner. 

How To Lose All Of Your Auto Deduction

I am not a fan of dumb.

And I am reading big dumb.

The IRS wanted over $22 thousand in taxes and $4,000 in penalties. There were several issues, but there was one that racked up the money.

What do you need if you want to claim auto expenses on your tax return?

Answer: some kind of record, like a log.

There is a reason for this. It is not random, chaotic or unfathomable.

The reason has two parts:

(1)  There was a very famous case decided in the 1930s concerning George Cohan. George was a playwright, a composer, a singer, actor, dancer and producer. He was very famous. He was also a terrible record keeper. Given his day job, he spent a ton of money schmoozing people. He deducted some of those expenses on his tax return, as he had to wine and dine to maintain his recognition, connections and earning power. Problem was: he kept lousy records. One had to – essentially – take his word for the expenses.

The Court, knowing who he was, thought it believable that he had incurred significant entertainment expenses. The Court simply estimated what they were and allowed him a deduction.

Ever since, that guesstimate has been referred to in taxation as the “Cohan rule.”

Problem was: everything can be abused. What started out as common sense and mitigation for George Cohan became a loophole for many others.

(2)  Congress got a bit miffed about this, especially when it came to travel, transportation and entertainment expenses. These expenses can be “soft” to begin with, and the Cohan rule made them gelatinous. Congress eventually said “enough” and passed Code Section 274(d), which overrides the Cohan rule for this category of expenses.

BTW, “transportation” is just a fancy tax-word for mileage.

The tax-tao now is: no records = no mileage deduction. Forget any Cohan rule.

Now, you do not need to record every jot and tittle as soon as you get in the car. Records can include your Outlook calendar, for example. You could extend the appointment by mileage from MapQuest and (probably) have the IRS consider it adequate. The point is that you created some record, at or near the time you racked up the mileage, and that record can be reasonably translated into support for your deduction.

Enter Gary Roy.

He was a consultant in Los Angeles. He worked out of his home and drove all over the place for business. He must have made a couple of bucks, as he purchased an Aston Martin Vantage.

This is not a car you see every day. Chances are the last time you saw an Aston Martin was in a James Bond movie.

You know he deducted that car on his tax return.

There are multiple issues in the case, but the one we want to talk about is his car. Roy appeared before the Court and straight-facedly claimed that he kept a mileage record for the Aston. He presented a sheet of paper showing mileage at the beginning of the year and mileage at the end of the year. He helpfully added the description “business use” so the Court would know what they were looking at.

As far as he was concerned, this was all the record-keeping he needed, as the car was 100% business use.

I want to be sympathetic, I really do. I suppose it is possible that he did not understand the rules, but I read in the decision that he used a tax preparer. 

COMMENT: To whom he paid $250. Given that there were complexities in his tax return – the business and a gazillion-dollar car, for goodness’ sake – he really, really should have upgraded on his tax preparer selection.

Roy had no chance. That stretch of tax highway has a million miles on it, and he missed the pavement completely.

Without the Cohan rule, the Court was not going to spot him anything. He just got a big zero. That is what Section 274(d) says. 

And is what Congress wanted back when.

Worst case scenario for Mr. Roy.

Caught In A (IRS Mortgage) Trap

Sometimes it seems that the tax Code is a trap waiting to spring on some unfortunate.  This time let’s talk about a trap involving mortgages.

(1) Chris and Jennifer bought a house in 2001 for $365,000.

(2) In 2003 they borrowed money ($427,333) from Jennifer’s mom. The note carried interest of 4.5%, and there was a document titled “Mortgage Note.”

(3) They also signed a second document titled “Mortgage.” This document included the following language:

“… hereby grant, convey and assign to … the property with the address of …..”

The document was signed, but it was not notarized or recorded at the courthouse.

(4) In 2008 Chris and Jennifer borrowed $200,000 from a bank. The bank required a note and mortgage. The bank recorded the mortgage.

(5) In 2009 Chris and Jennifer paid her mom $19,320 on her note and the bank $1,138 on theirs. They deducted the sum ($20,368) as mortgage interest on their tax return.

(7) The IRS audited their 2009 return.

What is there to look at?

The Code does not allow one to deduct personal interest. It used to, and people could deduct interest on their car loans and credit cards. That law changed in 1986, and the Code now restricts which types of interest are deductible.

One type is qualified residence interest. This is interest paid or accrued during the taxable year on acquisition indebtedness or home equity indebtedness secured by the qualified residence of the taxpayer. You and I call that a mortgage.

On first impression, it seems that Chris and Jennifer met this requirement.

Let’s look further at the definition of “acquisition indebtedness”:

(i)       In general – The term “acquisition indebtedness” means any indebtedness which –

(I)                Is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer, and

(II)             Is secured by such residence.

Regulation 1.163-10T(o) defines secured debt as “… recorded, where permitted, or is otherwise perfected in accordance with applicable State law.’

There is the trap. 

The debt has to be “perfected” under state law. The concept of “perfected” means that the secured creditor has a preferred position relative to an unsecured (or perhaps just a later) creditor. The money from that house goes to that mortgage holder, as he/she is first in line. Anyone else has to wait his/her turn.

Chris and Jennifer lived in Massachusetts, which requires a mortgage be recorded at the courthouse to be “perfected.”

Let’s start the unraveling:

(1) The mortgage was not perfected, meaning

(2) The debt to mom could not be “acquisition indebtedness,” meaning

(3) The interest on the debt could not be mortgage interest

The IRS – adding to its reputation of stabbing the dead – also charged Chris and Jennifer with the accuracy penalty. This is a “super” penalty and applies when the error trips certain dollar or percentage thresholds.

I cannot help but feel that the penalty was unnecessary. Is the IRS expecting people to be tax pros before they can fill-out their own tax returns? What are they going to do with me if I make a mistake on my return – shoot me?

I worry about this mortgage trap when working with intrafamily loans involving someone’s house. It can be tempting to cheat on attorney fees and not properly document or record the loan and mortgage.

If audited, one can expect the IRS to be as sympathetic to them as the IRS was to Chris and Jennifer.