Saturday, June 29, 2019
We have been fighting a penalty with the IRS for a while.
What set it up was quite bland.
We have a client. The business had cash flow issues, so both the owner and his wife took withdrawals from their 401(k) to put into the business.
They each took the same amount – say $100,000 for discussion purposes.
They did this twice.
Folks, if you want to confuse your tax preparer, this is a good way to do it.
At least they clued us that the second trip was the same as the first.
They told us nothing.
The preparer thought the forms had been issued in duplicate. It happens; I’ve seen it. Unfortunately, the partner thought the same.
Eventually came the IRS notices.
I got it. The client owes tax. And interest.
And a big old penalty.
Here at CTG galactic command, yours truly seems to be the dropbox for almost all penalty notices we receive as a firm. In a way it is vote of confidence. In another way it is a pain.
I talked to the client, as I wanted to hear the story.
It is a common story: I do not know what all those forms mean. You guys know; that is why I use you.
Got it. However, we are not talking about forms; we are talking about events – like tapping into retirement accounts four times for the exact amount each time. Perhaps a heads up would have been in order.
But yeah, we should have asked why we had so many 1099s.
So now I am battling the penalty.
Far as I am concerned there is reasonable cause to abate. Perhaps that reasonable cause reflects poorly on us, but so be it. I have been at this for over three decades. Guess what? CPA firms make mistakes. Really. This profession can be an odd stew of technicality, endurance and mindreading.
However, the IRS likes to use the Boyle decision as a magic wand to refuse penalty abatement for taxpayer reliance on a tax professional.
Boyle is a Supreme Court case that differentiated reliance on a tax professional into two categories: crazy stuff, like whether a forward contract with an offshore disregarded entity holding Huffenpuffian cryptocurrency will trigger Subpart F income recognition; and more prosaic stuff, like extending the return on April 15th.
Boyle said the crazy stuff is eligible for abatement but the routine stuff is not. The Court reasoned that even a dummy could “check up” on the routine stuff if he/she wanted to.
Talk about a Rodney Dangerfield moment. No respect from that direction.
So I distinguish the client from Boyle. My argument? The client relied on us for … crazy stuff. Withdrawals can be rolled within 60 days. Loans are available from 401(k)s. Brokerages sometimes issue enough copies of Form 1099 to wallpaper a home office.
I was taking the issue through IRS penalty appeal.
The IRS interrupted the party by sending a statutory notice of deficiency, also known as the 90-day letter.
Class act, IRS.
And we have to act within 90 days, as the otherwise the presently proposed penalty becomes very much assessed. That means the IRS can shift the file over to Collections. Trust me, Collections is not going to abate anything. I would have to pull the case back to Appeals or Examination, and my options for pulling off that bright shiny dwindle mightily.
You have to file with the Tax Court within 90 days. Make it 91 and you are out of luck.
I am looking at a case where someone used a private postage label from Endicia.com when filing with the Tax Court. She responded on the last day, which is to say on the 90th day. Then she dropped the envelope off at the post office, which date stamped it the following day.
I get it.
That envelope has an Endicia.com postmark. Then it has a U.S. Postal Service postmark dated the following day.
Then there is another USPS postmark 13 days later.
And the envelope does not get delivered until 20 days after the date on the Endicia.com label.
Who knows what happened here.
But there are rules with the Tax Court. One is allowed to use a delivery service or a postmark other than the U.S. Post Office. If the mail has both, however, the USPS postmark trumps.
In this case, the USPS postmark was dated on the 91st day.
You are allowed 90.
She never got to Tax Court. Her petition was not timely mailed.
BTW always use certified mail when dealing with time-sensitive issues like this. In fact, it is not a bad idea to use certified mail for any communication with the IRS.
And - please - never wait to the last day.
Saturday, June 22, 2019
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.
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Have you ever thought of working remotely?
Whether it is possible of course depends on what one does. It is unlikely a nurse could pull it off, but could an experienced tax CPA…? I admit there have been moments over the years when I would have appreciated the flexibility, especially with out-of-state family.
I am looking at a case where someone pulled it off.
Fred lived in Chicago. He sold his company for tens of millions of dollars.
COMMENT: I probably would pull the (at least semi-) retirement trigger right there.
He used some of the proceeds to start a money-lending business. He was capitalizing on all the contacts he had made during the years he owned the previous company. He kept an office downtown at Archer Avenue and Canal Street, and he kept two employees on payroll.
Fred called all the shots: when to make loans, how to handle defaulted loans. He kept over 40 loans outstanding for the years under discussion.
Chicago has winters. Fred and his wife spent 60% of the year in Florida. Fred was no one’s fool.
But Fred racked up some big losses. The IRS came a-looking, and they wanted the following:
2011 $ 90,699
The IRS said that Fred was not materially participating in the business.
What sets this up are the passive activity rules that entered the Code in 1986. The IRS had been chasing tax-shelter and related activities for years. The effort introduced levels of incoherence into the tax Code (Section 465 at risk rules, Section 704(b) economic substance rules), but in 1986 Congress changed the playing field. One was to analyze an owner’s involvement in the business. If involvement was substantial, then one set of rules would apply. If involvement was not substantial, the another set of rules would.
The term for substantial was “material participation.”
And the key to the dichotomy was the handling of losses. After all, if the business was profitable, then the IRS was getting its vig whether there was material participation or not.
But if there were losses….
And the overall concept is that non-material participation losses would only be allowed to the extent one had non-material participation income. If one went net negative, then the net negative would be suspended and carryover to next year, to again await non-material participation income.
In truth, it has worked relatively well in addressing tax-shelter and related activities. It might in fact one argued that it has worked too well, sometimes pulling non-shelter activities into its wake.
The IRS argued that Fred was not materially participating in 2009, 2011 and 2012. I presume he made money in 2010.
Well, that would keep Fred from using the net losses in those respective years. The losses would suspend and carryover to the next year, and then the next.
Problem: Sounds to me like Fred is a one-man gang. He kept two employees in Chicago, but one was an accountant and the other the secretary.
The Tax Court observed that Fred worked at the office a little less than 6 hours per day while in Chicago. When in Florida he would call, fax, e-mail or whatever was required. The Court estimated he worked 460 hours in Chicago and 240 hours in Florida. I tally 700 hours between the two.
The IRS said that wasn’t enough.
Initially I presumed that Barney Fife was working this case for the IRS, as the answer seemed self-evident to me. Then I noticed that the IRS was using a relatively-unused Regulation in its challenge:
Reg § 1.469-5T. Material participation (temporary).
(a) (7) Based on all of the facts and circumstances (taking into account the rules in paragraph (b) of this section), the individual participates in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during such year.
The common rules under this Regulation are the 500 hours test of (a)(1), the substantially-all-the-activity test of (a)(2) and 100-hours-and-not-less-than-anyone-else test of (a)(3). There are only so many cases under (a)(7).
Still, it was a bad call, IRS. There was never any question that Fred was the business, and the business was Fred. If Fred was not materially participating, then no one was. The business ran itself without human intervention. When looked at in such light, the absurdity of the IRS position becomes evident.
Our case this time was Barbara, TC Memo 2019-50.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
You may be aware that bad things can happen if an employer fails to remit payroll taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. There are generally three federal payroll taxes involved when discussing payroll and withholding:
(1) Federal income taxes withheld
(2) FICA taxes withheld
(3) Employer’s share of FICA taxes
The first two are considered “trust fund” taxes. They are paid by the employee, and the employer is merely acting as agent in their eventual remittance to the IRS. The third is the employer’s own money, so it is not considered “trust fund.”
Let’s say that the employer is having a temporary (hopefully) cash crunch. It can be tempting to borrow these monies for more urgent needs, like meeting next week’s payroll (sans the taxes), paying rent and keeping the lights on. Hopefully the company can catch-up before too long and that any damage is minimal.
I get it.
The IRS does not.
There is an excellent reason: the trust fund money does not belong to the employer. It is the employees’ money. The IRS considers it theft.
Triggering one the biggest penalties in the Code: the trust fund penalty.
We have in the past referred to it as the “big boy” penalty, and you want nothing to do with it. It brings two nasty traits:
(1) The rate is 100%. Yep, the penalty is equal to the trust fund taxes themselves.
(2) The IRS can go after whoever is responsible, jointly or severally.
Let’s expand on the second point. Let’s say that there are three people at the company who can sign checks and decide who gets paid. The IRS will – as a generalization – consider all three responsible persons for purposes of the penalty. The IRS can go after one, two, or all three. Whoever they go after can be held responsible for all of the trust fund taxes – 100% - not just their 1/3 share. The IRS wants its money, and the person who just ponied 100% is going to have to separately sue the other two for their share. The IRS does not care about that part of the story.
How do you defend against this penalty?
It is tough if you have check-signing authority and can prioritize who gets paid. The IRS will want to know why you did not prioritize them, and there are very few acceptable responses to that question.
Let’s take a look at the Myers case.
Steven Myers was the CFO and co-president of two companies. The two were in turn owned by another company which was licensed by the Small Business Administration as a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC). The downside to this structure is that the SBA can place the SBIC into receivership (think bankruptcy). The SBA did just that.
In 2009 the two companies Myers worked for failed to remit payroll taxes.
However, it was an SBA representative – remember, the SBA is running the parent company – who told Myers to prioritize vendors other than the IRS.
Meyers did so.
And the IRS slapped him with the big boy penalty.
QUESTION: Do you think Myers has an escape, especially since he was following the orders of the SBA?
At first it seems that there is an argument, since it wasn’t just any boss who was telling him not to pay. It was a government agency.
However, precedence is a mile long where the Court has slapped down the my-boss-told-me-not-to-pay argument. Could there be a different answer when the boss is the government itself?
The Court did not take long in reaching its decision:
So, the narrow question before us is whether …. applies with equal force when a government agency receiver tells a taxpayer not to pay trust fund taxes. We hold that it does. We cannot apply different substantive law simply because the receiver in this case was the SBA."
Myers owed the penalty.
What do you do if you are in this position?
One possibility is to terminate your check-signing authority and relinquish decision-making authority over who gets paid.
And if you cannot?
You have to quit.
I am not being flippant. You really have to quit. Unless you are making crazy money, you are not making enough to take on the big-boy penalty.
Saturday, June 1, 2019
You may have heard that there are issues with the new kiddie tax.
The kiddie tax has been around for decades.
Standard tax planning includes carving out highly-taxed parental or grandparental income and dropping it down to a child/young adult. The income of choice is investment income: interest, dividends, royalties and the like. The child starts his/her own tax bracket climb, providing tax savings because the parents or grandparents had presumably maxed out their own brackets.
Congress thought this was an imminent threat to the Union.
Which beggars the question of how many trust fund babies are out there anyway. I have met a few over the decades – not enough to create a tax just for them, mind you - but I am only a tax CPA. It is not like I would run into them at work or anything.
The rules used to be relatively straightforward but hard to work with in practice.
(1) The rules would apply to unearned income. They did not apply if your child starred in a Hollywood movie. It would apply to the stocks and bonds that you purchased for the child with the paycheck from that movie.
(2) The rules applied to a dependent child under 19.
(3) The rules applied to dependents age 19 to 23 if they were in college.
(4) The child’s first $1,050 of taxable unearned income was tax-free.
(5) The child’s next $1,050 of taxable unearned income was taxed at the child’s tax rate.
(6) Unearned income above that threshold was taxed at the parent’s tax rate.
It was a pain for practitioners because it required one to have all the returns prepared except for the tax because of the interdependency of the calculation.
For example, let’s say that you combined the parents and child’s income, resulting in $185,000 of combined taxable income. The child had $3,500 of taxable interest. The joint marginal tax rate (let’s assume the parents were married) at $185,000 was 28%. The $3,500 interest income times 28% tax rate meant the child owed $980.
Not as good as the child having his/her own tax rates, but there was some rationale. As a family unit, little had been accomplished by shifting the investment income to the child or children.
Then Congress decided that the kiddie tax would stop using this piggy-back arithmetic and use trust tax rates instead.
Problem: have you seen the trust tax rates?
Here they are for 2018:
Taxable Income The Tax Is
Not over $2,550 10%
$2,551 to $9,150 $ 255 plus 24% of excess
$9,151 to $12,500 $1,839 plus 35% of excess
Over $12,500 $3,011.50 plus 37% of excess
Ahh, but it is just rich kids, right?
How much of a college scholarship is taxable, as an example?
None of it, you say.
Wrong, padawan. To the extent not used for tuition, fees and books, that scholarship is taxable.
So you have a kid from a limited-means background who gets a full ride to a school. To the extent the ride includes room and board, Congress thinks that they should pay tax. At trust tax rates.
Where is that kid supposed to come up with the money?
What about a child receiving benefits because he/she lost a parent serving in the military? These are the “Gold Star” kids, and the issue arises because the surviving parent cannot receive both Department of Defense and Department of Veteran Affairs benefits. It is common to assign one to the child or children.
Bam! Trust tax rates.
Can Congress fix this?
Sure. They caused the problem.
What sets up the kiddie tax is “unearned” income. Congress can pass a law that says that college room and board is not unearned income or that Gold Star family benefits are not unearned income.
However, Congress would have started a list, and someone has to remember to update the list. Is this a reasonable expectation from the same crew who forgot to link leasehold improvements to the new depreciation rules? Talk to the fast food industry. They will burn your ear off on that topic.
Congress should have just left the kiddie tax alone.