You receive
unemployment benefits.
You repay
unemployment benefits.
Do you have
taxable income?
To start
with: did you know that unemployment benefits are taxable? I have long
considered this a dim bulb in taxation. Taxing the little you receive as unemployment
seems cruel to me.
Back to our
question: it depends.
It depends
on when you pay it back.
Let’s look
at the Yoklic case.
Yoklic
applied for unemployment benefits in 2012.
He received $3,360, and then the state determined that he was not entitled
to benefits. The state sent him a letter in October, 2012 requesting repayment.
Yoklic sent
a check in September, 2013.
And he left
the unemployment off of his 2012 return. How could it be income, he reasoned,
if he had to pay it back. It was more of a loan, or alternatively monies that he
received and to which he was not entitled.
Makes sense.
But tax
theory does not look at it that way.
Enter the
“claim of right” doctrine. It is an oldie, tracing back to a Supreme Court case
in 1932.
The problem starts
with accounting periods. You and I file taxes every year, so our accounting
period is the calendar year. Sometimes something will start in one period (say
October, 2012) but not resolve until another period (say September, 2013).
This creates
a tax accounting issue: what do you do with that October, 2012 transaction? Do
you wait until it resolves (in this case, until September, 2013) before you put
it on a tax return? What if it doesn’t resolve for years? How many years do you
wait? Does this transaction hang out there until the cows come home?
Enter the
claim of right. If you receive monies – and you are not restricted in how you
can use the monies – then you are taxable upon receipt. If it turns out that
you are restricted – say by having to repay the monies - then you have a
deduction in the year of repayment.
If you think
about it, this is a reason that a bank loan is not income to you: you are immediately
restricted by having to repay the bank. There is no need to wait until
repayment, as the liability exists from the get go.
Find a bag
of money in a Brooks Brothers parking lot, however, and you probably have a
different answer.
Unless you
repay it by the end of the year. Remember: you have a deduction in the year of
repayment. If you find the bag of money and the police require you to return
it, then the income and deduction happen in the same year and they fizzle out.
What if you
promise to return the bag of money by year-end, but you do not get around to it
until January 5th? You may have an argument here, albeit a weak one.
You could reduce your promise to writing, say by signing a contract. That seems
a better argument.
What did
Yoklic do wrong?
He repaid
the monies in the following year.
He had
income in 2012.
He had a
deduction in 2013.
The problem,
of course, is that the 2012 income may hurt more than the 2013 deduction may help.
There is –
by the way - a Code section that addresses this situation: Section 1341, aptly
described as the “claim of right” section. It allows an alternate calculation
to mitigate the income-hurt-more-than-the-deduction-benefited-me issue. We have
talked about Section 1341 before, but let me see if I can find a fresh story
and we can revisit this area again.
No comments:
Post a Comment