Section 1202 Stock And A House Tax Proposal

I am not a fan of fickleness and caprice in the tax law.

I am seeing a tax proposal in the House Ways and Means Committee that represents one.

It has been several years since we spoke about qualified small business stock (QSBS). Tax practice is acronym rich, and one of the reasons is to shortcut who qualifies – and does not qualify – for a certain tax provision. Section 1202 defines QSBS as stock:

·      issued by a C corporation,

·      with less than $50 million in assets at time of stock issuance,

·      engaged in an active trade or business,

·      acquired at original issuance by an eligible shareholder in exchange for either cash or services provided, and

·      held for at least five years.

The purpose of this provision is to encourage – supposedly – business start-ups.

How?

A portion of the gain is not taxed when one sells the stock.

This provision has been out there for approximately 30 years, and the portion not taxed has changed over time. Early on, one excluded 50% (up to a point); it then became 75% and is now 100% (again, up to a point).

What is that point?

The amount of gain that can be excluded is the greater of:

·      $10 million, or

·      10 times the taxpayer’s basis in the stock disposed

Sweet.

Does that mean I sell my tax practice for megabucks, all the while excluding $10 million of gain?

Well, no. Accounting practices do not qualify for Section 1202. Not to feel singled- out, law and medical practices do not qualify either.

I have seen very few Section 1202 transactions over the years. I believe there are two primary reasons for this:

                 

(a)  I came into the profession near the time of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which single-handedly tilted choice-of-entity for entrepreneurial companies from C to S corporations. Without going into details, the issue with a C corporation is getting money out without paying double tax. It is not an issue if one is talking about paying salary or rent, as one side deducts and the other side reports income. It is however an issue when the business is sold. The S corporation allows one to mitigate (or altogether avoid) the double tax in this situation. Overnight the S corporation became the entity of choice for entrepreneurial and closely-held companies. There has been some change in recent years as LLCs have gained popularity, but the C corporation continues to be out-of-favor for non-Wall Street companies. 

 

(b)  The sale of entrepreneurial and closely-held companies is rarely done as a stock purchase, a requirement for Section 1202 stock. These companies sell their assets, not their stock. Stock acquisitions are more a Wall Street phenomenon.

So, who benefits from Section 1202?

A company that would be acquired via a stock purchase. Someone like … a tech start-up, for example. How sweet it would have been to be an early investor in Uber or Ring, for example. And remember: the $10 million cap is per investor. Take hundreds of qualifying investors and you can multiply that $10 million by hundreds.

You can see the loss to the Treasury.

Is it worth it?

There has been criticism that perhaps the real-world beneficiaries of Section 1202 are not what was intended many years ago when this provision entered the tax Code.

I get it.

So what is the House Ways and Means Committee proposing concerning Section 1202?

They propose to cut the exclusion to 50% from 100% for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) over $400 grand and for sales after September 13, 2021.

Set aside the $400 grand AGI. That sale might be the only time in life that someone ever got close to or exceeded $400 grand of income.

The issue is sales after September 13, 2021.

It takes at least five years to even qualify for Section 1202. This means that the tax planning for a 2021 sale was done on or before 2016, and now the House wants to retroactively nullify tax law that people relied upon years ago.

Nonsense like this is damaging to normal business. I have made a career representing entrepreneurs and their closely-held businesses. I have been there – first person singular - where business decisions have been modified or scrapped because of tax disincentives. Taxing someone to death clearly qualifies as a business disincentive. So does retroactively changing the rules on a decision that takes years to play out. Mind you – I say that not as a fan of Section 1202.

To me it would make more sense to change the rules only for stock issued after a certain date – say September 13, 2021 – and not for sales after that date. One at least would be forewarned.   

Should bad-faith tax proposals like this concern you?

Well, yes. If our current kakistocracy can do this, what keeps them from retroactively revoking the current tax benefits of your Roth IRA?  How would you feel if you have been following the rules for 20 years, contributing to your Roth, paying taxes currently, all with the understanding that future withdrawals would be tax-free, and meanwhile a future Congress decides to revoke that rule - retroactively?

I can tell you how I would feel.

Receiving An IRS Lock-In Letter

 

A client recently picked up his personal tax return. He asked to see me.

There was tax due with the return. I thought he had adjusted his withholding to increase his take-home pay, as he had spoken to me of financial stress. I am not a fan of doing this, as tax is due whether one withholds or not.   

He could not have tax due with his return, he explained, as he had received a lock-in letter from the IRS.

There is something I do not often see.

There are two versions of the lock-in letter: one sent to the employee and another to the employer. The IRS is telling both that it wants additional withholding from each paycheck, commonly meaning single withholding with no dependents.

The lock-in surprised me, as my client is not one to game the system. What he did was fall behind on his taxes due to a failed business. There are liens – IRS and private - that he is working through.

The IRS sends the employee a letter informing him/her that his/her withholdings are too low. The IRS wants the employee to self-adjust by increasing their withholding.

If that fails, the IRS sends the employer a letter. An employer has 60 days from the date of the letter to unilaterally adjust the employee’s withholdings.

The employee can quit, but the lock is good for 12 months. The employee will have to go somewhere else for a year before returning if he/she wishes to avoid the lock.

The 60 days has two purposes:

(1)  To allow the employer time to make the changes, and 

(2)  To prompt the employee to contact the IRS. If so – and if the employee can persuade the IRS – the IRS may modify the lock.

If the employee keeps his/her nose clean, he/she can request the IRS remove the lock-in. Figure that it will take about three years of tax returns, however, so it is best to avoid the lock altogether.

The employer is extremely unlikely to buck the IRS, as the employer might then draw surrogate liability. One might be a valued employee, but one is not that valued. 

Let’s look at a case.

Charles G worked for Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA). He submitted a W-4 to VTNA claiming that he was exempt from income tax withholding. He also requested VTNA to stop withholding social security taxes.

VTNA was surprisingly tolerant. It spotted Charles a 99-dependent W-4 (affecting income tax withholding), although it could not do anything about the social security.

Charles went a couple of years or so before the IRS contacted him. He blew it off, so the IRS sent VTNA a lock-in letter.

Charles went ballistic.

Charles accused the IRS and VTNA of “acting in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”

Wow. I wonder how it went come employee review time.

The Court of course dismissed Charles’ claim against VTNA. In general, an employer must follow an employee’s request concerning withholding. If the employee asserts that he/she is exempt from withholding, then the employer must comply with such request unless certain situations occur. A lock-in letter is one of those situations.

It sounds rather self-evident, truthfully.

It also sounds like Charles was a bit of a tax protestor. A word of advice: don’t go there with Charles. Your chances of success are between zero and none, and the list of dead bodies on that hill stretches interminably. Several years ago, we represented a business having an officer the IRS considered a protestor. I did not agree with the IRS on this, but I admit that he was getting close to the line.  The audit was … unpleasant. There was no question that school was in session, and the IRS was looking to teach a lesson.

Our case this time was Giles v Volvo Trucks of North America, 551 F. Supp 2^nd 359.

Becoming Personally Liable For An Estate’s Taxes

 

I had lunch with a friend recently. He is executor for an estate and was telling me about some … questionable third-party behavior and document discoveries. I left the conversation underwhelmed with his attorney and recommending a replacement as soon as possible. There are two other beneficiaries to this estate, and he has a fiduciary responsibility as executor.

Granted, all are family and get along. The risk - it seems to me - is minimal.

It is not always that way. I have a client whose family was ripped apart by an inheritance. I shake my head, as there was not enough money there (methinks) to spat over, much less exact lifelong grudges. However, he was executor and so-and-so received such-and-such back when Carter first started making liver pills and he should have offset someone for … oh, who knows.

Being executor can be a thankless job.

It can also get one into trouble.

Let’s take a look at the Lee estate.

Kwang Lee died testate in September, 2001.

         COMMENT: Testate means someone died with a will.

A municipal court judge was named executor.

The judge filed the estate return in May, 2003.

COMMENT: The return was late, but there was some complexity as both spouses died within six months. There was language in the will about a-spouse-is-considered-to-survive-if that created some confusion.

COMMENT: It doesn’t matter. You know the IRS is coming in with penalties.

The IRS audited the return.

 In April 2006 the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for over $1,000,000. 

COMMENT: The IRS also wanted a penalty over $255 grand for late filing.

The executor filed with the Tax Court.

 In February, 2007 the executor distributed $640,000 to the beneficiaries.

COMMENT: Pause on what happened here. The IRS wanted additional tax and penalties. The executor was contesting this in Tax Court. The issue was live when the executor distributed the money.

Is there a risk?

You bet.

What if the estate lost its case and did not have enough money left to pay the tax and penalties?

The Tax Court gave the executor a partial win: the estate owed closer to a half million dollars than a million. The Court also waived the penalties.

The estate did not have a half million dollars. It did have $182,941.

The estate submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS for $182,941.

The IRS looked at the offer and said: are you kidding me? What about that $640,000 you distributed before its time?

The IRS pointed out this bad boy:

31 U.S. Code § 3713.Priority of Government claims

(a)

(1) A claim of the United States Government shall be paid first when—

(A) a person indebted to the Government is insolvent and—

(i) the debtor without enough property to pay all debts makes a voluntary assignment of property;

(ii) property of the debtor, if absent, is attached; or

(iii) an act of bankruptcy is committed; or

(B) the estate of a deceased debtor, in the custody of the executor or administrator, is not enough to pay all debts of the debtor.

(2) This subsection does not apply to a case under title 11.

(b) A representative of a person or an estate (except a trustee acting under title 11) paying any part of a debt of the person or estate before paying a claim of the Government is liable to the extent of the payment for unpaid claims of the Government. 

The effect of Section 3713 is to make the executor personally liable for a debt to the U.S. when: 

o  The estate was rendered insolvent by a distribution, and

o  The executor had knowledge or notice of the government’s claim at the time of the distribution.

The judge/executor did the only thing he could do: he challenged the charge that he had actual knowledge of a deficiency when he distributed the $640,000.

The executor was hosed. I am not sure what more of a wake-up-call the executor needed than an IRS Notice of Deficiency. For goodness’ sake, he filed a petition with the Tax Court in response.

Maybe he thought that he would win in Tax Court.

He did, by the way, but partially. The tax was cut in half, and the penalties were waived.

Notice that the estate would not have had enough money had it lost the case in full. The tax would have been over a million, with additional penalties of a quarter million. Under the best of circumstances, the estate would have had cash of approximately $822 thousand and unable to pay in full.

In that case I doubt Section 3713 would have applied. The estate would have conserved its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

But the estate did not conserve its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

The executor became personally liable.

Mind you, this may work out. Perhaps the beneficiaries return the cash; perhaps there is a claim under a performance bond.

Still, why would an executor – especially a skilled attorney and municipal judge – go there?

Our case this time was Estate of Lee v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-92.