The IRS Causing Economic Hardship

 

It is a famous case. It is also an example of different Collection rules not playing well together.

We find Kathleen Vinatieri and the IRS in Tax Court.

Life had been unkind to Kathleen:

I don’t know what you want to know cause I do not understand all the legal stuff you sent me. I can’t afford a lawyer. And the closest legal aid is in Knoxville 30 miles away. My poor car will not go that far.”

The IRS was chasing her 2002 federal taxes.

She requested a Collection hearing.

When the Settlement Officer (SO) asked Kathleen whether she wanted a payment plan, she replied that she could not pay. She had $14 in the bank; a 1996 Toyota with 243,000 miles and worth $300; she had pulmonary fibrosis; was dying; and was taking care of kids.

COMMENT:  This is a sad case to read and extremely unflattering to the IRS. It should have drawn an immediate currently not collectible (CNC) status.

The SO agreed on CNC status, but there was a problem: The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) required one to have filed all tax returns before obtaining CNC status. Kathleen had not filed 2005. She had tried, but the payroll company that (was supposed to) issue her a W-2 had gone out of business. She had previously contacted the IRS for a transcript, but the IRS had no information on that W-2 either.

You can see the issue. Unless Kathleen had retained that last 2005 pay stub, there was no way for her to file that tax return. The IRS could not help, as they did not have a copy of the W-2 either. Kathleen was stranded.

BTW, the IRM is internal to the IRS.

Here is the Regulation – and external to the IRS.

§ 301.6343-1 Requirement to release levy and notice of release.

(a) In general. A district director, service center director, or compliance center director (director) must promptly release a levy upon all, or part of, property or rights to property levied upon and must promptly notify the person upon whom the levy was made of such a release, if the director determines that any of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section (conditions requiring release) exist. The director must make a determination whether any of the conditions requiring release exist if a taxpayer submits a request for release of levy in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section; however, the director may make this determination based upon information received from a source other than the taxpayer. The director may require any supporting documentation as is reasonably necessary to determine whether a condition requiring release exists.

(b) Conditions requiring release. The director must release the levy upon all or a part of the property or rights to property levied upon if he or she determines that one of the following conditions exists—

(1) Liability satisfied or unenforceable

(2) Release will facilitate collection.

(3) Installment agreement.

(4) Economic hardship—(i) General rule. The levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of an individual taxpayer. This condition applies if satisfaction of the levy in whole or in part will cause an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay his or her reasonable basic living expenses. The determination of a reasonable amount for basic living expenses will be made by the director and will vary according to the unique circumstances of the individual taxpayer. Unique circumstances, however, do not include the maintenance of an affluent or luxurious standard of living.

The Regulation requires the IRS to release a levy in the event of economic hardship. There was no question that Kathleen was in economic hardship. It seems absurd to issue a levy under the IRM to only have it stayed by a Regulation – that is, if Kathleen had the staying power to continue her fight against IRS Collections.

Which one overrides: the IRM or the Regulation?

The Tax Court decided:

A determination in a hardship case to proceed with a levy that must immediately be released is unreasonable and undermines public confidence that tax laws are being administered fairly.”

Well, fairly and sanely, I would add.

In a section 6330 pre-levy hearing, if the taxpayer has provided information that establishes the proposed levy will create economic hardship, the settlement officer cannot go forward with the levy and must consider an alternative.”

The Regulations to the Code take precedence over an internal IRS publication. The IRS cannot itself cause economic hardship when pursuing a levy. It took time and treasure, but the Court eventually got to the correct result.

I note that the reason for nonfiling was likely important. In this case the payroll company had gone out of business, and even the IRS did not have a copy of the W-2. Consequently, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Tax Court questioned whether Kathleen was acting in good faith. Substitute a taxpayer who simply refused to file – an extreme example would be a protestor – and I doubt the result would be the same.

Our case this time was Vinatieri v Commissioner, 133 T.C. 392 (2009).

A Like-Kind Exchange To Avoid Tax

 

Let’s talk about like-kind exchanges.

A key point is - if done correctly - it is a means to exchange real estate without immediate tax consequence.

There was a time when one could exchange either personal property or real property and still qualify under the tax-deferral umbrella of a like-kind exchange. Congress removed the personal property option several years ago, so like-kinds today refer only to real estate.

The Code section for like-kinds is 1031, but today let’s focus on Section 1031(f):

(f) Special rules for exchanges between related persons

(1) In general If—

(A) a taxpayer exchanges property with a related person,

(B) there is nonrecognition of gain or loss to the taxpayer under this section with respect to the exchange of such property (determined without regard to this subsection), and

(C) before the date 2 years after the date of the last transfer which was part of such exchange—

(i)  the related person disposes of such property, or

(ii) the taxpayer disposes of the property received in the exchange from the related person which was of like kind to the property transferred by the taxpayer,

there shall be no nonrecognition of gain or loss under this section to the taxpayer with respect to such exchange; except that any gain or loss recognized by the taxpayer by reason of this subsection shall be taken into account as of the date on which the disposition referred to in subparagraph (C) occurs.

(2) Certain dispositions not taken into accountFor purposes of paragraph (1)(C), there shall not be taken into account any disposition—

(A) after the earlier of the death of the taxpayer or the death of the related person,

(B) in a compulsory or involuntary conversion (within the meaning of section 1033) if the exchange occurred before the threat or imminence of such conversion, or

(C) with respect to which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that neither the exchange nor such disposition had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of Federal income tax.

(3) Related person

For purposes of this subsection, the term “related person” means any person bearing a relationship to the taxpayer described in section 267(b) or 707(b)(1).

(4) Treatment of certain transactions

This section shall not apply to any exchange which is part of a transaction (or series of transactions) structured to avoid the purposes of this subsection.

This verbiage came into the tax Code in 1989.

What is the issue here?

Let’s use an easy example:

CTG owns a hotel building worth $1 million. Its adjusted basis is $175,00.

CTG II owns a warehouse worth $1 million and an adjusted basis of $940,000.

If CTG sells its building, the gain is $825,000 ($1 million minus 175,000).

If CTG II sells its building, the gain is $60,000 ($1 million minus 940,000).

Say that someone wants to buy CTG’s hotel. Can we beat down that $825,000 gain?

What if we have CTG and CTG II swap buildings? CTG Jr would then own the hotel but keep its $940,000 adjusted basis. CTG II would then sell the hotel at a gain of $60,000.

Yeah, no. Congress already thought of that.

You better wait at least two years before the (second) sale, otherwise you have smashed right into Section 1031(f)(1)(C). The Code then says that- unless you can sweet talk the IRS - there was never a like-kind exchange. You instead have taxable income. Thanks for playing.

Let’s look at the Teruya Brothers case.

This case requires us to determine whether two like-kind exchanges involving related parties qualify for nonrecognition treatment under 26 U.S.C. § 1031.

This appeal concerns the tax treatment of real estate transactions involving two of Teruya's properties, the Ocean Vista condominium complex (“Ocean Vista”), and the Royal Towers Apartment building (“Royal Towers”).

We will look at the Ocean Vista (OV) transaction only.

Someone wanted to buy OV.

Teruya was initially not interested. It relented – IF it could structure the deal as a Section 1031 like-kind exchange.

So far this is relatively commonplace.

Teruya wanted to buy property from Times Super Market (Times) as the replacement.

Issue: Teruya owned 62.5% of Times.

The gain (which Teruya was trying to defer) was in excess of $1.3 million.

Teruya exchanged and filed its tax return accordingly.

The IRS balked.

The IRS argued that Teruya went foul of Section 1031(f)’s “established to the satisfaction” and “structured to avoid” prohibitions.

Teruya argued that the IRS was making no sense: Times reported the gain on its tax return. It had no deferred gain from the like-kind exchange. Who would structure a transaction to avoid tax when one of the parties reported gain?

On first impression, the argument makes sense.

The Court noted that Times had a net operating loss that wiped out the gain from the sale. There was no tax.

Teruya had a problem. It sold the property within two years, meaning that the IRS had a chance to challenge. The IRS challenged, both under Section 1031(f)(2)(C) and (f)(4).

Here is the Court:

We conclude that these transactions were structured to avoid the purposes of Section 1031(f).

Teruya lost.

Teruya went into this transaction in 1995, when Section 1031(f) was relatively new. There would not have been much case law on working and planning with this Code section.

Teruya provided practitioners some of that case law. 

We now know that an advisor must expand his/her perspective beyond just the Section 1031 exchange and consider other tax attributes sitting on the tax returns of the related parties.

And sales within two years are courting death.

Dodge that and Section 1031(f)(4) might still nab you.

Our case this time was Teruya Brothers, LTD v Commissioner, 124 TC No. 4.