Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

Offer In Compromise And Reasonable Collection Potential

Command Central is working two Collections cases with the same revenue officer.

For the most part, I am staying out of it. There is a young(er) tax guy here, and we are exposing him to the ins-and-outs of IRS procedure. This is a subject not taught in school, and training today is much like it was when I went through: a mentor and mouth-to-ear. Friday morning we spent quite a bit of time trying to determine whether someone’s tax year was still “open,” as it would make a substantial difference in how we approach the situation.

COMMENT: This is the statute of limitations. The IRS has three years to assess your return and then ten years to collect. Hypothetically one could get to thirteen years, but that would require the IRS to run the three-year gamut before assessing and then the ten-year stretch to collect. I do not believe I have ever seen the IRS do that. No, of greater likelihood is that the taxpayer has done things to suspend the statute (called “tolling”), things such as requesting payment plans or submitting offers in compromise. Do this repetitively and you might be surprised at how long ten years can stretch. 

Personally, I suspect one of these two clients is dead in the water.

Why?

Let’s like at some inside baseball for an offer in compromise.

Collections looks at something called reasonable collection potential (RCP). As a rule of thumb, figure that the IRS is looking at a bigger number than you are. RCP has two components:

(1)  Net realizable equity in your assets

The classic example is a paid-off house.

To be fair, the IRS does spot you some room. It will use 80% (rather than 100%) of the house’s market value, for example, and then allow you to reduce that by any mortgage. Yes, the IRS is pushing you to refinance the house and take out the equity. It is not unavoidable, however. The push could be mitigated (if not stopped altogether) in special circumstances.

(2)  Future remaining income

This is a multiple of your monthly disposable income.

Monthly disposable income (MDI) is the net of

·      Monthly income less

·      Allowable living expenses (ALE)

Trust me, what you consider your ALE is almost certain to be significantly higher than what the IRS considers your ALE. There are tables, for example, of selected expense categories such as allowable vehicle ownership and operating costs. The IRS is not going to spot you $1,000/month to drive a luxury SUV when calculating your ALE. You may owe it, but they are not going to allow it. Yep, the math has to give, and when it gives, it is going to fall on you.

MDI is then multiplied by either 12 or 24, depending on which flavor offer in compromise you are requesting.

The vanilla flavor, for example, requires you to submit a 20% deposit with the offer request.

That is a problem if you are broke.

Then you have to pay the remaining 80% payments over five months.

 But – you say – that 80% includes twelve months of income. How am I to generate twelve months of income in five months?

I get it, but I did not write the rules.

Let’s look at a recent case. We will then have a quiz question.

Mr. D owed taxes for 2009 through 2011, 2013 through 2017, and payroll tax trust fund penalties for quarter 2, 2014 and quarters 3 and 4, 2015. These totaled a bit under $410 grand.

Shheeessshhh.

Mrs. D owed taxes for 2011 and 2013 through 2017.

OK. Those were joint income tax liabilities and would already have been included in Mr. D’s $410 grand.

They filed and owed with their 2018 return.

In March 2020 they requested a Collection Due Process Hearing.

They filed and owed with their 2019 return.

In July 2020 they offered $45,966 to settle their personal taxes for 2009 through 2011 and 2013 through 2019. Total personal tax was about $437 grand.

Now began the Collections dance.

Their offer was submitted to the specialized unit that works with offers. The unit wanted more information. The D’s had disclosed, for example, that they had retirement accounts.

The IRS asked: could you send us paperwork on the retirement accounts? 

The D’s send information for her IRA but not for his 401(k).

COMMENT: It almost never works to play this game.

The IRS calculated RCP based on their best available information.

Let’s look at just one facet: the house.

The D’s said the house was worth $376,600 on their original application. It had a mortgage of $310,877.

The IRS said that the house was worth $680,816.

COMMENT: Really? Did they think the IRS had never heard of Zillow or Movoto?

Following is the taxpayers’ comment:

On September 24, 2021, petitioners acknowledged that this value did not reflect the actual fair market value of the personal residence, stating that ‘we always start low as the initial starting point of the negotiation.’”         

COMMENT: Again, it almost never works to play this game.

Here is the math for NRE:

FMV	680,816
	80%
Adjusted	544,653
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	233,776

                                          

 

 

The D’s argued that the $680,816 value for the house was ridiculous.

They had it appraised at $560,000.

The IRS said: OK. Even so, here is the NRE:              

FMV	560,000
	80%
Adjusted	448,000
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	137,123

The IRS of course determined the D’s could pay significantly more than their proposed offer. I want to stop our discussion here and go to our quiz question:

I have given you enough information to know the IRS would turn down their offer of $45,966. How do you know?

Go back and review how RCP is calculated.

It is the sum of realized assets and some multiple of income.

The offer was less than RCP.

In fact, it was less than the asset component of RCP.

Could it happen? Of course, but it would take exceptional circumstances: think elderly taxpayers, maybe severe if not terminal illness, the residence being the only meaningful asset, etc.

That is not what we have here.

So the D’s tried a gambit:

Petitioners propose that this Court find as fact their allegations that the SO was ‘hostile, irate [and] yelling’ and ‘not qualified to be impartial and honest in this case.’”

That might work. Must prove it though.

Jawboning the SO when gathering information does not seem like such a brilliant idea now.

Here is the Court:

Since the record before us (which we are bound by) is silent as to any of the SO’s alleged acts of impropriety or bias, we find this argument by petitioners to be unsubstantiated.”

Offer denied.

Our case this time was Dietz v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 203-69.

Gambling As A Trade Or Business

 

The question came up recently:

How does one convince the IRS that they are a professional gambler?

The answer: it is tough. But not impossible. Here is a quote from a landmark case on the topic:

If one’s gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business.” (Groetzinger)

First, one must establish that the gambling activity is an actual trade or business.  

Believe or not, the term “trade or business” is not precisely defined in the tax Code. This point drew attention when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) introduced the qualified business deduction for – you guessed it – a trade or business. Congress was stacking yet another Code section on top of one that remained undefined.

Court cases have defined a trade or business an activity conducted with the motive of making a profit and conducted with continuity and regularity.

That doesn’t really move the needle for me.

For example, I play fantasy football with the intention of winning the league. Does that mean that I have the requisite “profit motive?” I suppose one could reply that - even if there is a profit motive - there is no continuity or regularity as the league is not conducted year-round.

To which I would respond that it cannot be conducted year-round as the NFL is not played year-round. Compare it to a ski slope – which can only do business during the winter. There is no need for a ski slope during the summer. The slope does business during its natural business season, which is the best it can do. My fantasy football league does the same.

Perhaps you would switch arguments and say that playing in one league is not sufficient. Perhaps if I played in XX leagues, I could then argue that I was a fantasy football professional.

OK, IRS, what then is the number XX?

The tax nerds will recognize the IRS using that argument against stock traders to deny trade or business status. Unless your name rhymes with “Boldman Tacks,” the IRS is virtually predestined to deny you trade or business status. You trade 500 times a year? Not enough, says the IRS; maybe if you traded 1,000 times. The next guy trades 1,000 times. Not enough, says the IRS. Did we say 1,000?  We misspoke; we meant 2,000.

So the courts have gone to the Code section and cases for hobby losses. You may remember those: hobby losses are activities for which people try to deduct losses, arguing that they are in fact true-blue, pinky-swear, profit-seeking trades or businesses.

You want an example? I’ll give you one from Galactic Command: a wealthy person’s daughter is interested in horses and dressage. Mom and dad cannot refuse. At the end of the year, I am pulled into the daughter’s dressage activity because … well, you know why.

Here are additional factors to consider under the (Section 183) hobby loss rules:

1.  The activity is conducted in a business-like manner.
2.  The taxpayer’s expertise
3.  The taxpayer’s time and effort
4.  The expectation that any assets used in the activity will appreciate in value.
5.  The taxpayer’s history of success in other activities
6.  The taxpayer’s history of profitability
7.  The taxpayer’s financial status
8.  The presence of personal pleasure or recreation

I suspect factors (7) and (8) would pretty much shut down that dressage activity.

Let’s look at the Mercier case.

The Merciers lived in Nevada. During 2019 Mrs Mercier was an accountant at a charter school and Mr Mercier operated an appliance repair business. They played video poker almost exclusively, of which they had extensive knowledge. They gambled solely on days when they could earn extra players card points or receive some other advantage. They considered themselves professional gamblers.

Do you think they are?

I see (3), (7) and (8) as immediate concerns.

The Court never got past (1):

We find that although Petitioners are serious about gambling, they were not professional gamblers. Petitioners are both sophisticated in that they are an accountant and a previous business owner. Petitioner wife acknowledged that as an accountant, she would advise a taxpayer operating a business to keep records. Petitioner husband acknowledged that for his appliance repair business, he did keep records.”

COMMENT: In case you were wondering about the sentence structure, this was a bench opinion. The judge made a verbal rather than written decision.

Petitioners did not personally keep track of their gambling activity in 2019 choosing, instead, to rely on third-party information from casinos, even though they further acknowledged that the casino record may be incomplete, as only jackpot winnings, not smaller winnings, are reported. Petitioners also did not keep a separate bank account to manage gambling winnings and expenses, but used their personal account, which is further evidence of the casual nature of their gambling.”

My thoughts? The Merciers were not going to win. It was just a matter of where the Court was going to press on the hobby-loss checklist of factors. We have learned something, though. If you are arguing trade or business, you should – at a bare minimum – open a business account and have some kind of accounting system in place.  

Our case this time was Mercier v Commissioner, Tax Court docket number 7499-22S, June 6, 2023.

The Gallenstein Rule

 

It is a tax rule that will eventually go extinct.

It came to my attention recently that it can – however – still apply.

Let’s set it up.

(1)  You have a married couple.

(2)  The couple purchased real estate (say a residence) prior to 1977.

(3)  One spouse passes away.

(4)  The surviving spouse is now selling the residence.

Yeah, that 1977 date is going to eliminate most people.

We are talking Section 2040(b).

(b)  Certain joint interests of husband and wife.

(1)  Interests of spouse excluded from gross estate.

Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case of any qualified joint interest, the value included in the gross estate with respect to such interest by reason of this section is one-half of the value of such qualified joint interest.

(2)  Qualified joint interest defined.

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified joint interest" means any interest in property held by the decedent and the decedent's spouse as-

(A)  tenants by the entirety, or

(B)  joint tenants with right of survivorship, but only if the decedent and the spouse of the decedent are the only joint tenants.

In 1955 Mr. and Mrs. G purchased land in Kentucky. Mr. G provided all the funds for the purchase. They owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

In 1987 Mr. G died.  

In 1988 Mrs. G sold 73 acres for $3.6 million. She calculated her basis in the land to be $103,000, meaning that she paid tax on gain of $3.5 million.

Someone pointed out to her that the $103,000 basis seemed low. There should have been a step-up in the land basis when her husband died. Since he owned one-half, one-half of the land should have received a step-up.

COMMENT: You may have heard that one’s “basis” is reset at death. Basis normally means purchase cost, but not always. This is one of those “not always.” The reset (with some exceptions, primarily retirement accounts) is whatever the asset was worth at the date of death or – if one elects – six months later.  Mind you, one does not have to file an estate tax return to trigger the reset; rather, it happens automatically. That is a good thing, as the lifetime estate tax exemption is approaching $13 million these days. Very few of us are punching in that weight class.

Someone looked into Mrs. G’s situation and agreed. In May 1989 Mrs. G filed an amended tax return showing basis in the land as $1.8 million. Since the basis went up, the taxable gain went down. She was entitled to a refund.

Three months later she filed a second amended return showing basis in the land as $3.6 million. She wanted another refund.

This time she caught the attention of the IRS. They could understand the first amended but not the second. Where were these numbers parachuting from?

I am going to spare us both a technical walkthrough through the history of Code section 2040.

There was a time when joint owners had to track their separate contributions to the purchase of property, meaning that each owner would have his/her own basis. I suppose there are some tax metaphysics at play here, but the rule did not work well in real life. Sales transactions often occur decades after the purchase, and people do not magically know that they need to start precise accounting as soon as they buy property together. Realistically, these numbers sometimes cannot be recreated decades after the fact. In 1976 Congress changed the rule, saying: forget tracking for joint interests created after 1976. From now on the Code will assume that each tenant contributed one-half.

That is how we get to today’s rule that one-half of a couple’s property is included in the estate of the first-to-die. By being included in an estate, the property is entitled to a step-up in basis. The surviving spouse gets a step-up in the inherited half of the property. The surviving spouse also keeps his/her “old” basis in his/her original one-half. The surviving spouse’s total basis is therefore the sum of the “old” basis plus the step-up basis.

Mr. G died before 1977.

Meaning that Mrs. G was not subject to the new rule.

She was subject to the old rule. Since Mr. G had put up all the money, all the property (yes, 100%) was subject to a step-up in basis when Mr. G died.

That was the reason for the second amended return.

The Court agreed with Mrs. G.

It was a quirk in tax law.

The IRS initially disagreed with the decision, but it finally capitulated in 2001 after losing in court numerous times.

Mind you, the quirk still exists. However, the population it might affect is dwindling, as this law change was 47 years ago. We only live for so long.

However, if you come across someone who owned property with a spouse before 1977, you might have something.

BTW this tax treatment has come to be known by the widow who litigated against the IRS: the tax-nerds sometimes call it “the Gallenstein rule.”