Happy New Year

 

Seeking Tax Exempt Status By Lessening The Burden Of Government

Let’s introduce Captain Obvious: if you want charitable tax-exempt status from the IRS, you need to have a charitable purpose.

Let’s look at New World Infrastructure Organization’s application for tax-exempt status.

It starts with two individuals: Scott and Pam Johnston.

They owned a business called The Pipe Man Corp (TPMC). Scott was the president and Pam the vice-president

TPMC was organized to develop a portable pipe manufacturing system, working and shaping pipe in larger-than-usual sizes. Combine these pipes with road infrastructure and a business opportunity was created.

TPMC never got started. I guess it needed angel investors, and the investors never appeared.

The Johnstons then organized a nonprofit corporation called New World Infrastructure Organization (New World).  Scott and Pam were its only officers and directors. TPMC granted New World permission to use its copyrights and patents, whatever that meant, given that Scott and Pam were the only two officers and were on both sides of the equation.

New World submitted an application for tax-exempt status, stating that its …

… ultimate purpose and core focus will be charitable, with … [its] main beneficiary being Federal, State and Local Government Agencies.

OK, its purpose has something to do with government.

… our research will result in encouraging Economic Development throughout the United States. It will save time, money and lessen the burden of government. The prototype machinery, after testing, will be placed into service making very large corrugated metal pipe. The pipes need to make a Highway Overpass can be made and arched in less than a week. The cost of these pipes represent a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.”

Lessening the burden of government can be a charitable mission. For tax-exempts, this generally means that a governmental unit considers the organization to be acting on its behalf. The organization is freeing up resources – people, material, money – that the governmental unit would have to devote were it to conduct the activity itself.   

It would be helpful to present a prearranged understanding with one or more government units, especially since New World was hanging so much of its hopes on the lessening-the-burden-of-government hook.

Helpful but not happening.

I am not clear how New World was lessening anything.

According to the narrative description, … [New World] intends to fulfill its charitable purpose by working with governmental agencies, engineering firms, and businesses to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects to ‘as little as one fourth current costs.’”

Wait a second. Is New World saying that its exempt purpose was to reduce the cost of projects to the government? That is not really an exempt purpose, methinks. Let’s say that you start a business and guarantee the government that you will beat a competitor’s price by 10%. That may or may not be a good business model, but you are still in business and still for-profit. Maybe a little less profit, but still for-profit.

How about if New World provided its services at cost?

… while petitioner has suggested … that it would be willing to enter into an exclusivity agreement … to sell its product at cost, it has not established through its bylaws or otherwise that it would in fact do so.”

Seems that New World wanted a profit. It is not clear what it would do with a profit, although there is the old reliable saw of paying-out profits via salaries and bonuses to its two officers and directors.

The Court saw a failed business effort slapped into a tax-exempt application. The supposed charitable purpose was to offer a lower price on infrastructure projects, which was not quite as inspiring as clothing the poor or feeding the hungry. It appeared that no governmental unit had asked to have its burdens reduced. It further appeared that there was a more-than-zero possibility of personal benefit and private inurement to the Johnstons.

Why even go to all this effort?    

I suppose the (c)(3) status would have allowed New World to obtain the funding that its predecessor – TPMC – was unable to obtain. TPMC would have issued stock or borrowed money. New World would have raised capital via tax-deductible charitable contributions.   

The Tax Court said no dice.

Our case this time was New World Infrastructure Organization v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-91. 

Merry Christmas

 

Botching An IRS Bank Deposit Analysis

 

What caught my eye was the taxpayer’s name. I am not sure how to pronounce it, and I am not going to try.

I skimmed the case. As cases go, it is virtually skeletal at only 6 pages long.

There is something happening here.

Let’s look at Haghnazarzadeh v Commissioner.

The IRS wanted taxes, penalties and interest of $2,424,100 and $1,152,786 for years 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Sounds like somebody is a heavy hitter.

Here is the Court:

“… the only remaining issue is whether certain deposits into petitioners’ nine bank accounts are ordinary income or nontaxable deposits.”

For the years at issue, Mr H was in the real estate business in California. Together, Mr and Mrs H had more bank accounts than there are days of the week. The IRS did a bank deposit analysis and determined there was unreported income of $4,854,84 and $1,868,212.

Got it.

Here is the set-up:

(1) The tax Code requires one to have records to substantiate their taxable income. For most of us, that is easy to do. We have a W-2, maybe an interest statement from the bank or a brokers’ statement from Fidelity. This does not have to be rocket science.

This may change, however, if one is in business. It depends. Say that you have a side gig reviewing articles before publication in a professional journal. What expenses do you have? I suspect that just depositing the money to your bank account might constitute adequate recordkeeping.

Say you have a transportation company, with a vehicle fleet and workforce. You are now in need of something substantial to track everything, perhaps QuickBooks or Sage, for example. 

(2) Let’s take a moment about being in business, especially as a side gig.

Many if not most tax practitioners will advise a separate bank account for the gig. All gig deposits should go into and all business expenses should be paid from the gig account. What about taking a draw? Transfer the money from the gig account to a personal account. You can see what we are doing: keep the gig account clean, traceable.

  (3) Bad things can happen if you need records and do not keep any.

We know the usual examples: you claim a deduction and the IRS says: prove it. Don’t prove it and the IRS disallows the deduction.

The tax Code allows the IRS to use reasonable means to determine someone’s income when the records are not there.  

(4) One of those methods is the bank deposit analysis.

It is just what it sounds like. The IRS will look at all your deposits, eliminating those that are just transfers from other accounts. If you agree that what is left over is taxable, the exercise is done. If you disagree, then you have to provide substantiation to the IRS that a deposit is not taxable income.

The substantiation can vary. Let’s say that you took a cash advance on a credit card. You would show the credit card statement – with the advance showing – as proof that the deposit is not taxable.

Let’s say that your parents gifted you money. A statement or letter from your parents to that effect might suffice, especially if followed-up with a copy of their cancelled check.

You might be wondering why you would deposit everything if you are going to be flogged you with this type of analysis. There are several reasons. The first is that it is just good financial and business practice, and you should do it as a responsible steward of money. Second, you are not going to wind up here as default by the IRS. Keep records; avoid this outcome. A third reason is that the absence of bank accounts – or minimal use of the same – might be construed as an indicator of fraud. Go there, and you may have leaped from being perceived as a lousy recordkeeper to something more sinister.

Back to the H’s.

They have to show something to the IRS to prove that the $4.8 million and $1.8 million does not represent taxable income.

Mr H swings:

For 2011 he mentioned deposits of $1,556,000 $130,000, and $60,000 for account number 8023 and $1,390,000, $875,000, and $327,000 for account number 4683”

All right! Show your cards, H.

Why would I need to do that? asks Mr H.

Because ……. that is the way it works, H-man. Trust but verify.

Not for me, harumphs Mr H.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner husband did not present evidence substantiating his claim that any of these deposits should be treated as nontaxable.”

Maybe somebody does not understand the American tax system.

Or maybe there is something sinister after all.

What it is isn't exactly clear.

COMMENT: This was a pro se case. As we have discussed before, pro se generally means that the taxpayer was not represented by a tax professional. Technically, that is not correct, as someone could retain a CPA and the decision still remain pro se. With all that hedge talk, I believe that the H’s were truly pro se. No competent tax advisor would make a mistake this egregious.  

Our case (again) was Haghnazarzadeh v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-47.

Giving The IRS A Reason To Reject Your Offer In Compromise

 

Can the IRS turn down your offer in compromise if the offer is truly the best and most you are able to pay?

My experience with OICs and partial payment plans has generally involved disagreement with the maximum a client can pay. I do not recall having the IRS tell me that they agreed with the maximum amount but were going to reject the OIC anyway. Some of that – to be fair – is my general conservatism with representing an OIC.

COMMENT: There are tax mills out there promising pennies-on-the-dollar and inside knowledge of an IRS program called “Fresh Start.” Here is inside knowledge: the IRS Fresh Start program started in 2011, so there is nothing new there. And if you want pennies on the dollar, then you had better become disabled or fully retired with no earning power, because it is not going to happen.

Today we are going to talk about James O’Donnell.

James did not believe in filing tax returns. Sometimes the IRS would prepare a substitute return for him; it did not matter, as he had no intention of paying. This went long enough that he was now dragging over $2 million in back taxes, penalties and interest.

I suppose his heart softened just a bit, as in May, 2016, he submitted an offer in compromise for $280,000. He attached a check for $56,000 (the required 20% chop) and simultaneously filed 12 years’ worth of tax returns.

When reviewing an OIC, the IRS will also review whether one is up-to-date with his/her tax compliance. The IRS did not see estimated tax payments for 2016 or 2017. In September, 2017 the IRS rejected the offer, saying that it would reconsider when James was in full compliance.

Bummer, but those are the ropes.

James must have hired someone, as that someone told the IRS that James did not need to pay estimated taxes.

Odd, but okay. The IRS decided to reopen the case.

The pace quickened.

In October, 2017 the IRS wanted to lien.

James requested a CDP hearing as he - you know – had an offer out there.

I agree. Liens are a bear to remove. It is much better to avoid them in the first place.

In March, 2018 the IRS rejected the offer.

In April, 2018 James appealed the rejection. His representative was still around and made three arguments:

(1)  The unit reviewing the offer erred in concluding the offer was not in the government’s best interest.

(2)  James was in full compliance with his tax obligations.

(3)  James was offering the government all he could realistically afford to pay.

There was paperwork shuffling at the IRS, and James’ case was assigned to a different settlement officer (SO). The SO sent a letter scheduling a telephone conference on May 15, 2018.

James skipped the call.

Sheeesshhh.

James explained that he never received the letter.

The SO rescheduled another telephone conference for June 14, 2018.

Two days before the hearing – June 12 – Appeals sustained the rejection of the offer, reasoning that acceptance of James’ offer was not in the government’s best interest because of his history of “blatant disregard for voluntary compliance.”

James made the telephone conference on June 14. The SO broke the bad news about the offer and encouraged James to resubmit a different collection alternative by June 26.

James filed with the Tax Court on August 20, 2018.

On July 30, 2019 (yes, almost a year later) the IRS filed a motion to return the case to the agency, so it could revisit the offer and its handling. The Tax Court agreed.

The IRS scheduled another conference call, this one for January 28, 2020. The IRS presented and James verbally agreed to a partial-pay with monthly payments of $2,071, beginning March, 2020.

COMMENT: This strikes me as a win for James. Failing the OIC – especially given the reason for the fail – a partial-pay is probably the best he can do.

The SO sent the partial-pay paperwork to James for his signature.

James blew it off.

He now felt that the SO had not considered all his expenses, making $2,071 per month unmaintainable.

OK. Send the SO your updated numbers – properly substantiated, of course – and request a reduction. Happens all the time, James.  

Nope. James wanted that OIC. He did not want a partial-pay.

It would be all or nothing in Tax Court.

COMMENT:  A key difference between the OIC and a partial-pay is that the IRS can review a partial-pay at a later point in time. As long as the terms are met, an OIC cannot be reviewed. If one’s income went up during the agreement period, for example, the IRS could increase the required payment under a partial-pay. This is the downside of a partial-pay compared to an offer.

James was betting all his chips on the following:

Appeals calculated the reasonable collection potential of $286,744. James had offered $280,000. Both sides agreed on the maximum he could pay.

The Tax Court pointed out that – while correct – the IRS is not required to accept an offer if there are other considerations.

Offers may be rejected on the basis of public policy if acceptance might in any way be detrimental to the interest of fair tax administration, even though it is shown conclusively that the amount offered is greater than could be collected by any other means.”

What other consideration did James bring to the table?

For two decades (if not longer) petitioner failed to file returns and failed to pay the tax shown on SFRs that the IRS prepared for him. During this period he was evidently a successful practitioner in the insurance and finance business. As of 2016 his outstanding liabilities exceeded $2 million, and he offered to pay only a small fraction of these liabilities. Because of his lengthy history of ignoring his tax obligations, the Appeals Office determined that acceptance of his offer could be viewed as condoning his ‘blatant disregard for voluntary compliance’ and that negative public reaction to acceptance of his offer could lead to ‘diminished future voluntary compliance’ by other taxpayers.”

The Tax Court bounced James, but it was willing to extend an olive branch:

We note that petitioner is free to submit to the IRS at any time, for its consideration and possible acceptance, a collection alternative in the form of an installment agreement, supported by the necessary financial information.”

Accepted OICs are available for public review. It is one thing to compromise someone’s taxes because of disability, long-term illness and the similar. That is not James’ situation. The Court did not want to incentivize others by compromising for fourteen (or so) cents on the dollar with someone who blew-off the tax system for twenty years.

Our case this time was James R. O’Donnell v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-134

A Tax Refund When The IRS Fails To Process A Return

I am looking at a case involving a tax refund. The IRS bounced it, and I am having a hard time figuring out what the IRS was thinking.

Let’s talk about it.

James Willetts filed an extension for his 2014 individual tax return. He sent a $8,000 payment and extended the return from April 15 to October 15, 2015.

Standard stuff.

He did not file the return by October 15, 2015.

Oh well.

He finally filed the 2014 return on April 14, 2018.

April 15, 2015 to April 14, 2018 is less than three years, and that is not even including the six-month extension on the 2014 return.

The IRS rejected the return because of potential identity theft.

I presume that the IRS sent a notice, but Willetts did not respond. The Court goes on to observe that it was unclear whether Willetts even knew there was an identity issue before bringing suit.

COMMENT: That struck me as odd, as one of the first things a tax professional would do is obtain a transcript of Willett’s tax account. I then noted that Willetts brought suit as “pro se,” generally interpreted as going to Court without professional representation. Technically, that is incorrect, as one can go to Court with a CPA and still be considered “pro se,” but, in Willetts’ case, I am inclined to believe he was truly pro se.

The issue before the Court was straight-forward: did Willetts file his return in time to get his refund?

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment:

(1)  A taxpayer may recoup a tax overpayment by filing a claim within a statutorily-prescribed period of time.

(2)  That period of time is:

a.    Three years from when the return was filed, if the return was filed within three years of when the return was due; otherwise

b.    … two years from when the tax was paid.

(3)  The three years in (2)(a) extends with a valid tax extension.

Let’s parse this.

(1) Willetts' 2014 tax return was due April 15, 2015.

(2) He had a valid extension until October 15, 2015.

(3) His three-year period for filing a refund claim would run – at a minimum - until April 15, 2018. Since he also had a valid extension, the extension period gets tacked-on. He therefore had until October 15, 2018 to file a refund claim within the three-year lookback period.

You can see where the IRS was coming from. It did not have a tax return in its system until after October 15, 2018.

However, Willetts filed - or at least attempted to file - a return on April 14, 2018. It wasn’t his fault that the IRS held up processing.

The Court made short work of this.

A tax return is deemed filed the day it is received by the IRS, regardless of whether it is accepted, processed, ignored or destroyed by the IRS. The IRS’ own records showed Willetts' return as received on May 2, 2018, well within the period ending October 15, 2018.

The return was filed timely. Willetts was due his refund.

I have a couple of observations:

(1)  I do not understand why the IRS pursued this. The rules here are bright-line. The IRS did not have a chance of winning; in fact, the case strikes me as borderline harassment. 

What concerns me is the mountain of paper returns – especially amended returns – waiting unopened and unprocessed at the IRS as I write this. Are we going to see Willetts-like foot-dragging by the IRS on those returns? Is the IRS going to force me to file with the Tax Court to get my clients their refunds?   

(2)  Let’s play what-if.  

Say that Willetts had filed his return on November 1, 2018, so that all parties would agree that he was outside the three-year lookback period. Once that happened, his refund would be limited to any taxes paid within the previous two years. His 2014 taxes would have been deemed paid on April 15, 2015, meaning that none, zero, zip of his 2014 taxes were paid within two years of November 1, 2018. There would be no refund. This, by the way, is the how-and-why people lose their tax refunds if they do not file their returns within three years.   

Our case this time was Willetts v Commissioner, Tax Court November 22, 2021.

Qualifying For Stock Loss Under Section 1244

 

I am looking at a case having to do with Section 1244 stock.

And I am thinking: it has been a while since I have seen a Section 1244.

Mind you; that is not a bad thing, as Section 1244 requires losses. The most recent corporate exit I have seen was a very sweet rollup of a professional practice for approximately $10 million. No loss = no Section 1244.

Let’s set up the issue.

We are talking about corporations. They can be either C or S corporations, but this is a corporate tax thing. BTW there is a technical issue with Section 1244 and S corporations, but let’s skip it for this discussion.

The corporation has gone out of business.

A corporation has stock. When the corporation goes out of business, that stock is worthless. This means that the shareholder has incurred a loss on that stock. If he/she acquired the stock for $5,000, then there is a loss of $5,000 when the corporation closes.

Next: that loss is – unless something else kicks-in – a capital loss.

Capital losses offset capital gains dollar-for-dollar.

Let’s say taxpayer has no capital gains.

Capital losses are then allowed to offset (up to) $3,000 of other income.

It will take this person a couple of years to use up that $5,000 loss.

Section 1244 is a pressure valve, of sorts, in this situation.

A shareholder can claim up to $50,000 of ordinary loss ($100,000 if married filing joint) upon the sale, liquidation or worthlessness of stock if:

 

(1)  The stock is be either common or preferred, voting or nonvoting, but stock acquired via convertible securities will not qualify;

(2)  The stock was initially issued to an individual or partnership;

(3)  The initial capitalization of the corporation did not exceed $1 million;

(4)  The initial capitalization was done with stock and property (other than stock and securities);

(5)  Only persons acquiring stock directly from the corporation will qualify; and

(6)  For the five tax years preceding the loss, the corporation received more than 50% of its aggregate gross receipts from sources other than interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and the sale or exchange of stocks or securities.

The advantage is that the ordinary loss can offset other income and will probably be used right away, as opposed to that $3,000 year-by-year capital loss thing.

Mind you, there can also be part Section 1244/part capital loss.

Say a married couple lost $130,000 on the bankruptcy of their corporation.

Seems to me you have:

                      Section 1244                     100,000

                      Capital loss                         30,000

Let’s look at the Ushio case.

Mr Ushio acquired the stock of PCHG, a South Carolina corporation, for $50,000.

PCHG intended to was looking to get involved with alternative energy. It made agreements with a Nevada company and other efforts, but nothing ever came of it. PCHG folded in 2012.

Ushio claimed a $50,000 Section 1244 loss.

The IRS denied it.

There were a couple of reasons:

(1)  Mr. Ushio still had to prove that $1 million limit.

 

The issue here was the number at the corporate level: was the corporation initially capitalized (for cash and property other than stock and securities) for $1 million or less? If yes, then all the issued stock qualified. If no, the corporation must identify which shares qualified and which shares did not.

        

It is possible that PCHG was not even close to $1 million in capitalization, in which a copy of its initial tax return might be sufficient. Alternatively, PCHG’s attorney or accountant might/should have records to document this requirement.        

 

(2)  PCHG never had gross receipts.

 

This means that PHGC could not meet the 50% of gross receipts requirement, as it had no gross receipts at all.

 

Note that opening a savings or money market account would not have helped. PCHG might then have had gross receipts, but 100% of its gross receipts would have been interest income – the wrong kind of income.

Mr Ushio did not have a Section 1244 loss, as PCHG did not qualify due to the gross-receipts requirement. You cannot do percentages off a denominator of zero.

My first thought when reviewing the case was the long odds of the IRS even looking at the return, much less disallowing a Section 1244 loss on said return. That is not what happened. The IRS was initially looking at other areas of the Ushio return. In fact, Ushio had not even claimed a capital loss – much less a Section 1244 loss – on the original return. The issue came up during the examination, making it easy for the IRS to say “prove it.”

How would a tax advisor deal with this gross-receipts hurdle in practice?

Well, the initial and planned activity of PCHG failed to produce any revenues. It seems to me that an advisor would look to parachute-in another activity that would produce some – any – revenues, in order to meet the Section 1244 requirement. The tax Code wants to see an operating business, and it uses gross receipts as its screen for operations.

Could the IRS challenge such effort as failing to rise to the level of a trade or business or otherwise lacking economic substance? Well, yes, but consider the alternative: a slam-dunk failure to qualify under Section 1244.

Our case this time was Ushio v Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2021-27.

Owning Gold And Silver In Your IRA

 

We have previously talked about buying nontraditional assets in an IRA. We have talked about starting a business with IRA monies (these are the “ROBS”) as well as buying real estate.

Just this week someone reached out to me about buying real estate through their Roth. It would be a vacation home. Mind you, they might never vacation there themselves, but you and I would refer to it generically as a vacation home.

I am not a fan, and I have no hesitation saying so.

Put an asset in an IRA that is susceptible to personal use, and you are courting danger.  Talk to me about a commercial strip mall, and I might be OK with it. Talk to me about a vacation home, and I will (almost) always advise against it. There are a million-and-one alternate investments you can consider. It is not worth it.

I am looking at a case about another category of investments that can go south inside an IRA.

Gold and silver coins and bullion.

Let’s set this up:

(1)  IRAs are not allowed to own collectibles.

(2)  Precious metals are normally considered to be collectibles.

(3)  Therefore we do not expect to see precious metals in an IRA, except that …

(4)  Someone must have had a great lobbyist, as there is an exception for 

a.    Selected coins with a 99.5% fineness level

b.    Selected bullion with a 99.9% fineness level

You may have heard the radio commercials for American Gold Eagle and American Silver Eagle coins as a way “to hedge inflation” within your IRA, for example.

Mind you, I have no problem if you wish to own gold, silver, platinum or palladium. You can even own them in your IRA, but you have to respect the separation of powers that the tax Code expects in an IRA.

(1) The IRA is a trust. When you open an IRA, you are actually creating a self-funded trust. This means that it has a trustee. It will also have a custodian and a beneficiary.

a.    You open an IRA with Fidelity. Fidelity is the trustee.

b.    Someone has to hold the assets, probably stocks and mutual funds. This would be the custodian.

c.    Someone has to prepare the paperwork, including IRS filings such as a Form 5498 for funding the IRA.  This can be either the trustee or custodian. In our example, Fidelity is so huge they are probably both the trustee and custodian, making the two roles seamless and invisible to the average person.

d.    You are the beneficiary.

                                                        i.     Well, until you die. Then someone else is the beneficiary.

There is one more thing the tax Code wants: the beneficiary may not take actual and unfettered possession of IRA assets. More accurately, the beneficiary can take possession, but taking possession has a name: “distribution.” A distribution - barring a Roth or a 60-day rollover – is taxable.

Possession is not an issue for the vast majority of us. If you want your IRA monies, you have to contact Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price or whoever. You do not have possession until they distribute the money to you.

How does it work with coins?

Let’s look at the NcNulty case.

Andrew and Donna McNulty decided to establish self-directed IRAs. The IRAs, in turn, created single-member LLC’s. These entities, while existing for legal purposes, were disregarded for tax purposes. The purpose of the LLCs was to buy gold and silver coins.

Over the course of two years, they transferred almost $750 grand to the IRAs.

The IRAs bought coins.

The coins were shipped to the McNulty’s residence.

Where they were stored in a safe.

With other coins not belonging to an IRA.

But do not fear, the IRA coins were marked as belonging to an IRA.

Good grief.

Where was the CPA during this?

Petitioners did not seek or receive advice from the CPA about tax reporting with respect to their self-directed IRAs or the physical possession of AE coins purchased using funds from their IRAs …. Nor did they disclose to their CPA that they had physical possession of the AE coins at their residence."

The Court decided that mailing the coins to their house was tantamount to a distribution. A beneficiary cannot – repeat, cannot – have unfettered access to IRA assets. There was tax. There were penalties. There was interest. It was a worst-case scenario.

Why did the McNulty’s think they could get away with taking physical possession of the coins?

There were a couple of reasons. One was that merely labelling them as IRA assets was sufficient even if the coins were thrown in a safe with other coins and other stuff that did not belong to the IRA.

Let’s admit, that reason is lame.

The second reason is not as lame – at least on its face.

Remember that IRAs are not allowed to own collectibles. The tax Code includes an exception to the definition of collectibles to allow an IRA to own coins and bullion.

There are people out there who took that exception and tried to graft it to the requirement to have independent custody of IRA assets. Their reasoning was:

The same exception to collectibles status applies to custody, meaning that you are permitted to keep coins at your house, maybe next to your sock drawer for safekeeping.

No, you are not. These people are trying to sell you something. They are not your friends. Review this with an experienced tax advisor before you drop three quarters of a million dollars on a pitch.

So, can an IRA own gold?

Of course, but somebody is going to store it for you somewhere. You will not have it in your possession. This means that you will have to pay for its storage, but that is an unavoidable cost if you want to own physical gold in your IRA. Perhaps you can visit one or twice a year and do a Scrooge McDuck in the vault storing the gold. I will leave that to you and your custodian.

Or you could just own a gold or silver ETF and skip physical ownership.

Our case this time was McNulty v Commissioner, 157 TC 10 11.18.21.

Not Filing A Return and Owing Tax

 

The question comes up periodically, even among accountants: 

Is there a penalty for filing a late return if the taxpayer has a refund?

In general, the answer is no. Mind you, this is not an excuse to skip filing. If anything, you have money due to you. Do not file for three years and you are losing that refund.

Let’s switch a variable:

Is there a penalty for filing a late return if the taxpayer owes taxes?

Uhhhh, yes.

As a rule of thumb, assume an automatic 25% penalty, and it can be more.

So what happens if someone cannot file by the extended due date?

I have a one of these clients. I called him recently to send me his 2020 information.

His comment?

         I thought you took care of it.”

Now, I have been at this a long time, but I cannot create someone’s return out of thin air. Contrast that with estimating a selected number or two on a tax return. That happens with some regularity, although - depending on the size and tax sensitivity of the numbers – I might flag the estimates to the IRS’ attention. It depends.

Let look at the Morris case.

James and Lori Morris were business owners in Illinois. In 2013 James expanded the business, creating a new company to house the same. They had a long-standing relationship with their CPA.

The IRS came in and looked at the 2013 return. It appears that there were issues with the start-up and expansion costs of the new business, but the case does not give us much detail on the matter.

The Morris’ held up filing a return for 2014. They also held up filing 2015 and 2016, supposedly from concern of repeating the issue the IRS was addressing on the 2013 return.

Seems heavy-handed to me.

Well, as long as they were fully paid-in:

They did not make any estimated tax payments during the year at issue and did not have tax withheld from their paychecks during 2015. Petitioner-husband had a minimal amount of tax withheld from his wages during 2016. Petitioner-wife had withholding credits of $10 and $11 during 2015 and 2016, respectively.”

Got it: next to nothing paid-in.

Maybe the businesses were losing money:

For 2015 and 2016 petitioners, respectively, had ordinary income from their S corporations of over $2.2 million and $3 million.”

What was going on here? I am seeing income over $5 million for two years with little more than $21 of tax paid-in.

The Morris’ argued that their long-standing CPA advised that filing a return while an audit for earlier years was happening could subject them to perjury charges.

COMMENT: Huh? There are areas all over the Code where a taxpayer and the IRS might disagree. If it comes to pass, one appeals within the IRS or files with a court. The system does not lock-down because the IRS disagrees with you.

Frankly, I am curious what was on that return that the issue of “perjury” even saw the light of day.

Oh, well. Let’s have the CPA testify. Hopefully the Morris’ will have reasonable cause for penalty abatement because of their reliance on a tax professional.

Mr Knobloch (that is, the CPA) did not testify at trial, and there is no evidence in the record except for petitioner-husband’s testimony of Mr. Knobloch’s alleged advice.”

The Court was not believing this for a moment. 

We need not accept a taxpayer’s testimony that is self-serving and uncorroborated by other evidence, and we do not do so here.”

I find myself wondering why the CPA did not testify, although I have suspicions.

I also do not understand why – even if there were substantive issues of tax law – the Morris’ did not pay-in more for 2015 and 2016.  Did they think they had losses? OK, they would be out the money for a time but they would get it back as a refund when they file the returns.

They instead racked-up big penalties.

Our case this time was Morris v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-120.

Income, Clearly Realized

 

What is income?

Believe it or not, there is a line of cases over decades developing the tax concept of income.

Some instances are clear-cut: if you receive wages or salary, for example, then you have income.

Some instances may not be so clear-cut.

For example, let’s say that you receive a stock dividend. The company has a good year, and you receive – as an example – 1 additional share for every 5 shares you own.  

Do you have income?

Let’s talk this out. Let’s say that the company is worth $25 million before the stock dividend and has 1 million shares outstanding. After the stock dividend it will have 1.2 million shares outstanding. What are those extra 200,000 shares worth?

This is an actual case – Eisner v Macomber - that the Supreme Court decided in 1920. Congress had changed the tax law to tax this stock dividend, and someone (Myrtle Macomber) brought suit arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Her argument:

·      The company was worth $25 million before the dividend

·      The company was worth $25 million after the dividend

·      She may have more shares, but her shares represent the same proportional ownership of the company.

·      She did not have any more money than she had before.

She had a point.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (that is, the IRS) came at it from a different angle:

There was income – the income generated by the company.  The company was “distributing” said income by means of a stock dividend.

The Court reasoned that one could have income from labor or from capital. The first did not apply, and it could find nothing to support the second had happened to Mrs Macomber.

The Court decided that she did not have income.

Let’s continue.

The Glenshaw Glass Company sued the Hartford-Empire Company for damages stemming from fraud and for treble damages for business injury.

The two companies settled, and Hartford was paid approximately $325 thousand in punitive damages.

Glenshaw had no intention of paying tax on that $325 grand. That money was not paid because of labor or because of capital. It was paid because of injury to its business - returning Glenshaw to where it should have been if not for the tortious behavior.

Not labor, not capital. Glenshaw was draped all over that earlier Eisner v Macomber decision.

But the IRS had a point – in fact, 325 thousand points.

Here is the Court:

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income.”

The Court levered away from its earlier labor/capital impasse and clarified income to be:

·      An increase in wealth

·      Clearly realized, and

·      Over which one has (temporary or permanent) discretion or control

In time Glenshaw has come to mean that everything is taxable unless Congress says that it is not taxable. While not mathematically precise, it is precise enough for day-to-day use.

I have a question, though.

At a conceptual level, what are the limits on the “clearly realized” requirement?

I get it when someone receive a paycheck.

I also get it when someone sells a mutual fund.

But what if your IRA has gone up in value, but you haven’t taken a distribution?

Or the house in which you raised your family has appreciated in value?

Do you have an increase in wealth?

Do you have discretion or control over said increase in wealth?

Do you have “income” that Congress can tax under Glenshaw?