I have worked with a number of brilliant attorneys over
the years. It takes quite a bit for a tax attorney to awe me, but it has happened.
But that law degree by itself does not mean that one
has mastered a subject area, much less that one is brilliant.
Let’s discuss a case involving an attorney.
Lateesa Ward graduated from law school in 1991. She
went the big firm route for a while, but by 2006 she opened her own firm. For
the years at issue, the firm was just her and another person.
She elected S corporation status.
We have discussed S status before. There is something referred
to as “passthrough” taxation. The idea is that a business – an S corporation, a
partnership, an LLC – skips paying its own tax. Rather the tax-causing numbers
are pushed-out to the owners – shareholders, partners, members – who then
include those numbers on their personal return and pay the taxes thereon personally.
Why would a rational human being do that?
Sometimes it makes sense. A lot of sense, in fact.
I will give you one example. Say that you have a
regular corporation, one that the tax nerds call a “C.” Say that there is real
estate in there that has appreciated insanely. It wouldn’t hurt your feelings
to sell the real estate and pocket the money. There is a problem, though. If
the real estate is inside a “C,” the gain will be taxed to the corporation upon
sale.
That’s OK, you reason. You knew taxes were coming.
When you take the money out of the corporation, you
pay taxes again.
Huh?
If you think about, what I just described is commonly
referred to as a “dividend.”
That second round of income taxes hurts, unless one is
a publicly-traded leviathan like Apple or Amazon. More accurately, it hurts
even then, but ownership is so diluted that it is unlikely to greatly impact any
one owner.
Scale down from the behemoths and that second round of
tax probably locks-in the asset inside the C corporation. Not exactly an efficient
use of resources, methinks.
Enter the passthrough.
With some exceptions (there are always exceptions),
the passthrough allows one – and only one – round of tax when you sell the real
estate.
Back to Lateesa.
In 2011 the S corporation deducted salary to her of
$62,388.
She reported no salary on her personal return.,
In 2012 the S deducted salary to her of $73,448.
She reported salary of $47,171.
In 2011 her share (which was 100%, of course) of the
firm’s profits was $1,373.
She reported that.
Then she reported the numbers again as though she was
self-employed.
She reported the numbers twice, it seems.
The IRS could not figure out what she was doing, so
they came in and audited several years.
There was the usual back-and-forth with documenting
expenses, as well as quibbling over travel and related expenses. Standard
stuff, but it can hurt if one is not keeping adequate records.
I was curious why she left her salary off her personal
return. I have a salary. Maybe she knew something that has escaped me, and I too
can run down my personal taxes.
She explained that only some of the officer
compensation was salary or wages.
Go on.
The rest of the compensation was a distribution of “earnings
and profits.” She continued that an S corporation shareholder is allowed to
receive tax-free distributions to the extent she has basis.
Oh my. Missed the boat. Missed the harbor. Nowhere near water. Never heard of water.
What we are talking about is a tax deduction, not a
distribution. The S corporation took a tax deduction for salary paid her. To
restore balance to the Force, she has to personally report the salary as income.
One side has a deduction; the other side has income. Put them together and they
net to zero. The Force is again in balance.
Here is the Court:
Ward also took an eccentric approach to the compensation that she paid herself as the firm’s officer.”
It did not turn out well for Ms. Ward. Remember that
there are withholdings and employer-side payroll taxes required on salary and
wages, and the IRS was already looking at other issues on those tax returns. This
audit got messy.
There was no awe here.
Our case this time was Lateesa Ward v Commissioner
and Ward & Ward Company v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-32.
No comments:
Post a Comment