When Bidding Is Not Marketing

I was talking with a client recently. He is a real estate developer, and he was telling me about a tense run-in several years ago with the county about a proposed development. Think NIMBY (not in my backyard) and you have the context.

Believe it or not, there is a tax issue there.

Let’s set it up by discussing Hisham Ashkouri (HA).

HA was an architect. He was bidding on projects in Washington state and Utah. He was also bidding on projects in Libya and in the Republic of Tartarstan, which is in Russia.

Those last two are certainly off the beaten path.

Using different companies, he submitted development bid proposals. I am not sure what was in these bid proposals, but over three years (2009 – 2011), he deducted over $500 grand in bid expenses.

Sounds expensive.

The IRS audited the three years.

And disallowed the bid expenses.

That doesn’t sound right, thought I.

HA argued that he had deducted marketing and promotion expenses.

Then HA went foot-in-mouth:

“If any of those projects had resulted in ‘a real estate transaction …, I would be having 20 percent ownership.’”

Let’s introduce Code Section 263A. That bad boy generally deals with the acquisition of property, and its intention is to make you capitalize everything under the sun when you acquire – including constructing or developing – property. “Capitalize” is accounting-speak for depreciating something rather than deducting it immediately.

If you depreciate over one year, then I suppose the net effect is approximately the same. If you have to depreciate over 39 years, well, it is going to hurt.

HA fired off first and strong:

The deductions …"could not be capitalized as they were used for marketing and promotion with no real estate transaction." Although petitioners fail to cite any authority in support of that claim, they are correct that section 263A does not require the capitalization of "marketing, selling, advertising, and distribution costs." 

The Court however nailed the issue:

Mr. Ashkouri's testimony regarding the projects he pursued was not particularly detailed, but we take him as having acknowledged that, had he been awarded any of the projects, he would have acquired an ownership interest in the property being developed. He did not identify any project for which he claimed deductions in which he would not have received an ownership interest had he been awarded the contract.”

Every project would have resulted in the acquisition of an ownership interest. This is not marketing or promotion in a conventional sense. HA’s possible ownership interest at the end lands these transactions within the Section 263A dragnet.

So what? He did not win any of these bids, and he would get to deduct the bid costs when the contract was awarded to someone else. Granted, the deduction might be held-up a year or two – until the bid was awarded – but HA would eventually get his deduction.

Here comes the Scooby Doo mystery portion of the case:

But petitioners have not established when (if ever) the development contracts Mr. Ashkouri sought were awarded to others, when Mr. Ashkouri received written notice that no contract would be awarded, or when he abandoned his bid or proposal for each project.”

Seriously? He could not show that the bid went to someone else or was withdrawn entirely? I am not getting this at all.

The Tax Court then backed-up and ran over the body a second time – apparently to make sure that it had stopped breathing:

Even if we were to accept that the expenses in issue were not subject to deferral under section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(ii)(T), Income Tax Regs., we would still conclude that respondent properly disallowed the deductions for architectural or contract services claimed on the Schedules C for Mr. Ashkouri's proprietorship because petitioners did not adequately substantiate the expenses underlying the claimed deductions. In general, section 162(a) allows a deduction for "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business". When called upon by the Commissioner, however, a taxpayer must substantiate his expenses.”

Bam! Even if HA provided evidence about the bid outcomes, the Court was still going to say “No.”

Back to my real estate guy.

What was the tax issue back when?

His transaction involved real estate development. There is no question that he would have had an ownership interest if the project went through; in fact, he would be the only owner.

Let’s say he incurred significant expenses – legal, engineering and the like – while battling the county.

Would have had to capitalize those expenses rather than deduct them right away?

Faxing A Return To The IRS

We recently prepared a couple of back California tax returns for a client.

The client had an accounting person who lived in California – at least on-and-off -for part of one year. The client itself is located in Tennessee and had little to do with California other than perhaps shipping product into the state. It is long-standing tax doctrine that having an employee in a state can subject a company to that state’s income tax, so I agreed that the client had to file for one year.

The second year was triggered by a one-off Form 1099 issued by someone in Los Angeles. The dollar amount was inconsequential, and I am still at a loss how California obtained this 1099 and why they burned the energy to trace it back to Tennessee. I am not convinced the client sold anything into California that second year. One could sell into Texas, for example, but have the check issued by corporate in Los Angeles.

The client did not care about the details. Just get California off their back.

California requested that we fax the returns to a unit rather than sending them through the regular system

And therein can exist a tax trap.

Let’s talk about it.

Seaview Trading LLC got itself into Tax Court for transacting in a tax shelter. The tax-gentle term is “listed transaction,” but you and I would just call it a shelter. At issue was a $35 million tax deduction, so we are talking big bucks.

The transaction happened in 2001.  The examination started in 2005. On July 27, 2005 the IRS sent Seaview a letter stating that it had never received its 2001 return.

Oh, oh.

This was a partnership, and for the year we are talking about there existed rather arcane audit rules. We will not need to get into the weeds about these rules, other than to say that failing to file a return was bad news for Seaview.

In 2005 Seaview’s accountant faxed a copy of the 2001 tax return to the IRS agent, stating that the return had been timely filed and that Seaview was providing a copy of what it had filed in 2002. He also included a certified mail receipt for the return.

The IRS maintained its position that it had never received the 2001 return. In 2010 the IRS issued its $35 million disallowance.

Fast forward to the Tax Court.

$35 million will do that.

The Court decided to review the case in two steps:

(1)  Did faxing the return to the agent in 2005 constitute “filing” the return?

(2)  If not, does the certified mail receipt constitute evidence of timely filing?

Personally, I would have reversed the order, as I consider certified mailing to be presumptive evidence of timely filing. That is why accountants recommend certified mail. It is less of an issue these days with electronic filing, but every now and then one may decide – or be required – to paper file. In that situation I would still recommend that one use certified mail.

The Court held that faxing the return to the agent did not constitute the filing of a return.

The tax literature observed and commented that faxing does not equal filing.

But there is a subtlety here: Seaview’s accountant indicated that he was supplying the agent a copy of a timely-filed 2001 return. By calling it a copy, the accountant was saying – at least indirectly – that the agent did not need to submit the return for regular processing. That said, it would be unfair for Seaview to later reverse course and argue that it intended for the agent to submit the return for processing.

The IRS won this round.

Now they go to round two: does the certified mail receipt provide Seaview with presumptive proof of timely mailing?

Seaview presents issues that we do not have with our client. We are not playing with listed transactions or obscure audit rules. California just wants its $800 minimum fee for a couple of years. They do not really care if our client actually owes. They want money.

Our administrative staff tried to fax the returns this past Friday but had problems with the fax number. I called the unit in California to explain the issue and discuss alternatives, but I never got to speak with an actual human being. I will try again (at least briefly; I have other things to do) on Monday. If California blows me off again, we will mail the returns.

I fear however that mailing the returns to general processing will cause issues, as the unit will probably issue some apocalyptic deathnote before gen pop routes the returns back to them. We will mail the returns to the specific unit and cross our fingers that not everyone there is “busy serving other customers.”

How I wish I had one of those jobs.

BTW, you can bet we will certify the mail.

Marijuana And Tax-Exempt Status

I am not surprised.

I am looking at a Private Letter Ruling on a tax -exempt application for an entity involved with marijuana and CBD.

I doubt the CBD plays any role here. It is all about marijuana.

I have become sensitive to the issue as I have two friends who are dealing with chronic pain. The pain has risen to the level that it is injuring both their careers. The two have chosen different ways to manage: one does so through prescriptions and the other through marijuana.

Through one I have seen the debilitating effect of prescription painkillers.

The other friend wants me to establish a marijuana specialization here at Command Center.

I am not. I am looking to reduce, not expand, my work load.

What sets up the tax issue?

Federal tax law. More specifically, this Code section:

        § 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs.

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, so it runs full-face into Section 280E. There is “no deduction or credit” allowed on that tax return.

There is one exception, and that has to do with the cost of the marijuana itself. Accountants refer to this as “cost of sales,” and it would include more than just the cost of the product. It would include costs associated with buying the product or storing it, for example. Still, the big bucks would be with the cost of the product itself.

There is a Court decision which defines taxable revenues as revenues after deduction for cost of goods sold. The decision applies to all businesses, not just marijuana.

What it leaves out is everything other than cost of sales, such as rent, utilities or the wages required to staff and run the business.

That gets expensive. One is paying taxes on business profit, without being allowed to deduct all the costs and expenses normally allowed in calculating business profit. That is not really “profit” in the common usage of the word.

I am reading that someone applied for tax exempt status. They argued that their exempt purpose was:

·      To aid financially disadvantaged patients and families affected by the cost of THC and CBD medical treatment

·      To educate health providers about THC and CBD medical treatments

·      To support research into said THC and CBD medical treatments

The entity anticipated the usual stuff:

·      It will be supported by contributions and gifts

·      It will develop a website, which will give it another venue to educate about its mission as well as fundraise

·      It will develop relevant medical and treatment literature

·      It will conduct relevant seminars and classes

·      It will organize support groups for patients and their families

·      It will track and publish relevant medical data

The IRS led with:

You were formed to aid financially disadvantaged patients and patient’s families who are affected by the costs of THC and CBD medical treatment by providing financial support to cover costs of living and other expenses that the patients may incur.”

It continued:

… you are providing funding to the users of these substances who may be struggling to pay living and/or travel expenses because of their use of these illegal substances. Furthermore, your financial assistance is only available to users of these substances.”

In response the entity argued that it did not directly provide THC or CBD to individuals nor did it provide direct funding for the same.

The IRS was unmoved:

You were formed for the purpose of providing financial assistance to individuals who are engaged [in] an illegal activity which is contrary to public policy.”

The IRS rejected the tax-exempt application.

There are numerous tax-exempts throughout the nation that counsel, research, educate and proselytize concerning their mission. A substance abuse clinic can provide methadone, for example. What it cannot do is provide the heroin.

The entity could, I suppose, withdraw the financial support platform from its mission statement, greatly increasing the likelihood for tax-exempt status.

If its core mission was to provide such financial support, however, this alternative might be unacceptable.

If I were advising, I might consider qualifying the entity as a supporting organization for a pain clinic. The clinic would likely address more than marijuana therapy (it would have to, otherwise we are just circling the block), which represents a dilution of the original mission. In addition, a supporting organization transfers some of its governance and authority to the supported organization. It may be that either or both of these factors could be deal-breakers.

It has been interesting to see the continuing push on this area of tax law.

The IRS And Lack Of A Postmark

The IRS botches things every now and then.

I walked in Friday morning to a botch.

And before leaving Friday I was reading a near-botch that a taxpayer was able to rescue.

Let’s talk about it.

I received a client collection notice for approximately $25 grand. The entire amount represents penalties, and we are appealing the penalties. Generally speaking, an appeal puts a stay on collection activity.

I did what you would do: I called the phone number.

About an hour and a half later (seriously, IRS?) I spoke with an IRS representative.

I explained what happened and inquired about the stay. He asked for a few minutes while he investigated.

He found our appeal arriving in Memphis and then transferring to Kansas City. The file then went cold.

Got it: Kansas City never opened the file. Once Memphis closed, the IRS collection machinery went back online.

This was easy to resolve: I faxed him the appeal while on the phone; he forwarded the appeal; he then granted a stay on collection activity.

Point is: the IRS makes mistakes. Protect yourself.

One of the easiest ways to protect yourself is to certify your mailings. Granted, I would not certify an estimated tax payment, but I would certify more significant transactions with the IRS, such as (paper) filings, responding to correspondence audits or entering the procedural carousel.

Some procedural steps (think notices) have defined response periods. Miss them and you make your advisor’s job much more difficult – if not near impossible.

The granddaddy of defined response periods is the Statutory Notice of Deficiency, sometimes called a “NOD” or a “SNOD” and also known as the 90-day letter.

The 90-day letter means that the IRS intends to assess, a necessary procedural step (generally, there is always an exception) before the IRS can bring its full Collections weaponry to bear. If you want to contest the assessment without paying it first, you had better file with the Tax Court. 

You have 90 days.

Not 91.

Let’s talk about Seely v Commissioner.

The IRS audited Michael and Nancy Seely’s 2013, 2014 and 2015 tax returns. The IRS issued the SNOD. The last day to respond was June 26, 2017.

The taxpayers’ attorney prepared and mailed a Tax Court petition in response to the SNOD.

The Tax Court received the petition on July 17, 2017.

Oh, oh.

Like night follows day, the IRS motioned to dismiss.

The taxpayer will lose this argument 999 times out of 1,000.

But there was something peculiar about the Seely’s petition. It had all the necessary postage but had no discernable postmark. For all practical purposes, it was like it was never mailed.

There is a special rule for this unlikely occasion: the Court looks at extrinsic evidence, and both parties (the taxpayer and IRS) are allowed to present such evidence.

The Seelys came out strong: their attorney filed a declaration with the Court that his office had mailed the petition on June 22, 2017 at a specified mail location.

The IRS came with their argument:

(1)  It takes approximately 8 to 15 days for the Postal Service to deliver mail from the Seeley’s city to Washington, D.C.

(2)  If mailed on June 26, then it would have arrived at the Tax Court no later than Friday, July 14.

(3)  It didn’t. It arrived instead on Monday, July 17.

This argument is standard IRS play.

But the Court allowed for one more factor: unusual volumes of mail or staffing issues due to the intervening July 4^th  holiday.

The Court reasoned that might explain the one day the IRS was disallowing.

The Court decided for the Seelys.

This is a rare taxpayer win.

You know what else would constitute extrinsic evidence and have also handcuffed the IRS?

Certify the mailing with the Post Office.