I
was looking at a case where someone won the New York State Lottery.
I
could have worse issues, methinks.
But
there was a tax issue that is worth talking about.
Let’s
say you won $17.5 million in the lottery.
You
elect to receive it 26 years.
QUESTION: How is this going to be
taxed?
Easy
enough: the tax Code considers lottery proceeds to be the same as gambling
income. It will be taxed the same as a W-2 or an IRA distribution. You will pay
ordinary tax rates. You will probably be maxing the tax rates, truthfully.
Let’s
say you collected for three years and then sold the remaining
amounts-to-be-received for $7.1 million.
QUESTION: How is this going to be
taxed?
I
see what you are doing. You are hoping to get that $7.1 million taxed at a
capital gains rate.
You
googled the definition of a capital asset and find the following:
§ 1221 Capital asset defined.
For purposes of this subtitle, the term "capital
asset" means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with
his trade or business), but does not include-
(1) stock in trade
of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in
the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or
property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary
course of his trade or business;
(2) property, used in his
trade or business, of a character which is subject to the allowance for
depreciation provided in section 167 ,
or real property used in his trade or business;
(3) a patent, invention,
model or design (whether or not patented), a secret formula or process, a
copyright, a literary, musical, or artistic composition, a letter or
memorandum, or similar property, held by-
(B) in the case of
a letter, memorandum, or similar property, a taxpayer for whom such property
was prepared or produced, or
(C) a taxpayer in
whose hands the basis of such property is determined, for purposes of
determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or part by reference to the
basis of such property in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) ;
(4) accounts or notes
receivable acquired in the ordinary course of trade or business for services
rendered or from the sale of property described in paragraph (1) ;
(5) a publication of the
United States Government (including the Congressional Record) which is received
from the United States Government or any agency thereof, other than by purchase
at the price at which it is offered for sale to the public, and which is held
by-
(B) a taxpayer in
whose hands the basis of such publication is determined, for purposes of
determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or in part by reference to
the basis of such publication in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A)
;
(6) any commodities
derivative financial instrument held by a commodities derivatives dealer,
unless-
(A) it is established
to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such instrument has no connection to
the activities of such dealer as a dealer, and
(B) such instrument
is clearly identified in such dealer's records as being described in subparagraph (A)
before the close of the day on which it was acquired, originated, or
entered into (or such other time as the Secretary may by regulations
prescribe);
(7) any hedging
transaction which is clearly identified as such before the close of the day on
which it was acquired, originated, or entered into (or such other time as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe); or
(8) supplies of a type
regularly used or consumed by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of a trade or
business of the taxpayer.
Did
you notice how this Code section is worded: a capital asset is property that is
not …?
You
don’t see anything there that looks like your lottery, and you are thinking
maybe you have a capital asset. The sale of a capital asset gets one to capital
gains tax, right?
You
call me with your tax insight and planning.
If
tax practice were only that easy.
You
see, over the years the Courts have developed doctrines to fill-in the gaps in
statutory Code language.
We
have spoken of several doctrines before. One was the Cohan rule, named after George
Cohan, who showed up at a tax audit long on deductions and short on supporting documentation.
The Court nonetheless allowed estimates
for many of his expenses, reasoning that the Court knew he had incurred expenses
and it would be unreasonable to allow nothing because of inadequate paperwork.
Congress
felt that the Cohan rule could lead to abuses when it came to certain expenses such
as meals, entertainment and travel. That is how Code section 274(d) came to be:
as the anti-Cohan rule for selected expense types. No documentation means no
deduction under Sec 274(d).
Back
to our capital gains.
Look
at the following language:
We do not see here any conversion of a capital investment. The lump sum consideration seems essentially a substitute for what would otherwise be received at a future time as ordinary income."
The substance of what was assigned was the right to receive future income. The substance of what was received was the present value of income which the recipient would otherwise obtain in the future. In short, consideration was paid for the right to receive future income, not for an increase in the value of the income-producing property."
This
is from the Commissioner v PG Lake case in 1958.
The
Court is describing what has come to be referred to as the “substitute for
ordinary income” doctrine.
The
easiest example is when you receive money right now for a future payment or
series of future payments that would be treated as ordinary income when
received.
Like
a series of future lottery payments.
Mind
you, there are limits on this doctrine. For example, one could argue that the
value of a common stock is equal to its expected stream of future cash
payments, whether as dividends or in liquidation. When looked at in such light,
does that mean that the sale of stock today would be ordinary and not capital
gain income?
The
tax nerds would argue that it is not the same. You do not have the right to
those future dividends until the company declares them, for example. Contrast
that to a lottery that someone has already begun collecting. There is nothing
left to do in that case but to wait for the mailman to come with your check.
I
get the difference.
In
our example the taxpayer got to pay ordinary tax rates on her $7.1 million. The Court
relied on the “substitute for ordinary income” doctrine and a case from before
many of us were born.
Our
case this time was Prebola v Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-240.
No comments:
Post a Comment