Loan Warehousing And The Claim of Right

 

Tax returns are generally filed in one-year increments.

That raises an accounting question: what if the transaction being accounted for stretches over more than one year?

A variation is:

Set aside whether the whether the transaction resolved in the same period. Was there doubt as to a material fact affecting the transaction? If one were to redo the accounting knowing what one knows now, would there be a different answer?

This is the backdrop for the claim of right doctrine. Judge Brandeis referred to it in North American Oil Consolidated v Burnet (1932):

If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.”

You can immediately see a couple of requirements:

(1) The taxpayer is later required to return the money.

(2) The taxpayer, however, initially received the money without restriction upon its use.

If you are preparing a tax return and learn of the above, what do you do?

(1)  Amend the original tax return?

(2)  Deduct the repayment in the year of repayment?

It might not seem significant upon first hearing, but it can be. Here are two common ways it can be significant:

(1) The original year (that is, the year the income was reported) is closed under the statute of limitations.

(2) Tax rates have changed substantially between the years.

Congress finally passed a Code section codifying the claim of right doctrine in 1954:

26 U.S. Code § 1341 - Computation of tax where taxpayer restores substantial amount held under claim of right

(a) General rule If—

(1) an item was included in gross income for a prior taxable year (or years) because it appeared that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item;

(2) a deduction is allowable for the taxable year because it was established after the close of such prior taxable year (or years) that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to such item or to a portion of such item; and

(3) the amount of such deduction exceeds $3,000,

then the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be the lesser of the following:

(4) the tax for the taxable year computed with such deduction; or

(5) an amount equal to—

(A) the tax for the taxable year computed without such deduction, minus

(B) the decrease in tax under this chapter (or the corresponding provisions of prior revenue laws) for the prior taxable year (or years) which would result solely from the exclusion of such item (or portion thereof) from gross income for such prior taxable year (or years).

This is a rare find in the tax Code, as Congress actually expanded the claim of right to make it more taxpayer friendly. The Code still allows a deduction in the year of repayment, but it also allows a recalculation using the original year’s tax rates. If tax rates have decreased (overall or yours personally), the recalculation of the original year may be the better way to go.

Let’s look at Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner.

Here is the first sentence of the decision:

P overreported more than $7 million in income on its 2007 through 2013 federal income tax returns."

Big number. It caught my attention.

Norwich was a residential mortgage loan originator. It engaged in warehouse lending, a term that may sound mysterious but is really not. Here is what warehousing means in a lending context: 

• Norwich (call it the warehouse) borrows money, likely on a line of credit, to start the transaction. 
• The warehouse lends the money to a customer (in this case, a home buyer) in exchange for a promissory note. 
• The warehouse sells the promissory note to an investor. The money received from the sale is (almost certainly) deposited with the lender the warehouse itself borrowed the money from. 
• The lender does its calculations: how much is owed, how much interest is due and other charges, if any. It subtracts this amount from the amount deposited. Whatever is leftover is returned to the warehouse as gross profit (in this context called: mortgage fee income).

If you think about it, this is an inventory accounting of sorts, except that the inventory is money lent.

So, Norwich was a warehouse.

Liberty was Norwich’s primary lender. There were others, but let’s sidestep as they are not necessary to understand the tax issue at play.

Norwich had to design an accounting procedure for its mortgage fee income. It did the following: 

• First, all mortgage deposits were posted to Mortgage Fee Income.
• Second, the amounts kept by Liberty reduced Mortgage Fee Income.
• Third, Norwich would adjust Mortgage Fee Income to whatever Liberty said it was.
• Fourth, the difference was assumed to be Unsold Mortgages.

I get it, but Norwich should backstop its critical accounts.

Let’s see:

(1)  Cash

a.     Well, that is easy to backstop with a bank statement.

(2)  Loan payable to Liberty.

a.     Again: easy. Liberty should be able to tell them that number.

(3)  Unsold Mortgages.

a.     Liberty cannot help Norwich here, as these have not entered Liberty’s accounting system. They are off the radar as far as Liberty is concerned.

We have identified the weak spot in the accounting, as Unsold Mortgages are just a subtraction. Best practice would involve keeping detail – more or less, as required – to have a reality check on the running balance.

In 2014 Norwich started using new accounting software.

It could not reconcile certain accounts.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

Norwich contacted Liberty, who in turn provided detail and balances to help with reconciliations. One of those numbers was collateral held by Liberty to secure the line of credit. The collateral included everything, including loans in process or otherwise but not yet sold by Norwich.

If that sounds a lot like Norwich’s Unsold Mortgages account, that is because it is.

Liberty’s number was significantly less than Norwich’s – by over $7 million. Mind you, all this stuff was collateral for the line of credit. If the actual Unsold Mortgages balance was substantially less than previously reported, Norwich might be undercollateralized. The term for this is “out of trust,” and it could also cause problems for Liberty on the regulator side.

BTW Liberty did not initially believe that Norwich was correct or that the situation was urgent. Norwich tried repeatedly to schedule meetings with Liberty. Liberty in turn delayed, expecting nothing to be amiss.

We will fast forward through the banking side of this.

Norwich filed its claim of right refund – for $7.5 million – on its 2014 tax return.

The IRS denied the refund entirely.

You know this went to Court.

And the arguments are easy to predict:

Norwich: We had an unrestricted right to that income in prior years. It was not until 2014 that we discovered otherwise. Under claim of right, 2014 is the proper year for the deduction.

IRS: Everything here is a loan. Norwich issued loans. Norwich borrowed on loans. When originated loans were sold, Norwich in turn paid back its loans. Everything that happened here circles around loans of one type or another. The claim of right has nothing to do with loans.

Both sides had a point.

Here is the Court:

This, the Commissioner focuses on the origin of the funds rather than the origin of the transaction ….”

I agree. The business activity required extensive use of loans, but the intended result of all the loans was to generate a profit, not to maintain a loan into perpetuity.

The Court noted that everybody - including Liberty - thought that Norwich was entitled to the money when Norwich received it.

The repayment was also deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense and was not barred by another Code section.

2014 was also the correct year for the deduction. It was the year Norwich found the error, which discovery was memorialized in paperwork between Norwich and Liberty. Norwich agreed to either (1) provide more collateral or (2) pay down its line of credit with Liberty.

The Court did tweak some numbers, but overall Norwich prevailed in its claim of right refund request.

Our case this time was Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-43.

Is It Income If You Pay It Back?

You receive unemployment benefits.

You repay unemployment benefits.

Do you have taxable income?

To start with: did you know that unemployment benefits are taxable? I have long considered this a dim bulb in taxation. Taxing the little you receive as unemployment seems cruel to me.

Back to our question: it depends.

It depends on when you pay it back.

Let’s look at the Yoklic case.

Yoklic applied for unemployment benefits in 2012.  He received $3,360, and then the state determined that he was not entitled to benefits. The state sent him a letter in October, 2012 requesting repayment.

Yoklic sent a check in September, 2013.

And he left the unemployment off of his 2012 return. How could it be income, he reasoned, if he had to pay it back. It was more of a loan, or alternatively monies that he received and to which he was not entitled.

Makes sense.

But tax theory does not look at it that way.

Enter the “claim of right” doctrine. It is an oldie, tracing back to a Supreme Court case in 1932.

The problem starts with accounting periods. You and I file taxes every year, so our accounting period is the calendar year. Sometimes something will start in one period (say October, 2012) but not resolve until another period (say September, 2013).

This creates a tax accounting issue: what do you do with that October, 2012 transaction? Do you wait until it resolves (in this case, until September, 2013) before you put it on a tax return? What if it doesn’t resolve for years? How many years do you wait? Does this transaction hang out there until the cows come home?

Enter the claim of right. If you receive monies – and you are not restricted in how you can use the monies – then you are taxable upon receipt. If it turns out that you are restricted – say by having to repay the monies - then you have a deduction in the year of repayment.

If you think about it, this is a reason that a bank loan is not income to you: you are immediately restricted by having to repay the bank. There is no need to wait until repayment, as the liability exists from the get go.

Find a bag of money in a Brooks Brothers parking lot, however, and you probably have a different answer.

Unless you repay it by the end of the year. Remember: you have a deduction in the year of repayment. If you find the bag of money and the police require you to return it, then the income and deduction happen in the same year and they fizzle out.

What if you promise to return the bag of money by year-end, but you do not get around to it until January 5^th? You may have an argument here, albeit a weak one. You could reduce your promise to writing, say by signing a contract. That seems a better argument.

What did Yoklic do wrong?

He repaid the monies in the following year.

He had income in 2012.

He had a deduction in 2013.

The problem, of course, is that the 2012 income may hurt more than the 2013 deduction may help.

There is – by the way - a Code section that addresses this situation: Section 1341, aptly described as the “claim of right” section. It allows an alternate calculation to mitigate the income-hurt-more-than-the-deduction-benefited-me issue. We have talked about Section 1341 before, but let me see if I can find a fresh story and we can revisit this area again.

Paying Tax Twice On The Same Income

Let me set up a scenario for you, and you tell me whether you spot the tax issue.

There is a fellow who is involved with health delivery services. He is paid by an insurance company, and he in turn pays out claims against that reimbursement. Whatever is left over is his profit.

In the first year, he received reimbursements from Cigna. There were issues, and in a second year he had to repay those monies. There was of course litigation. It turned out he was right, and Cigna – in yet a third year – paid him approximately $258,000.

Is the $258,000 taxable to him?

There is a doctrine in the tax Code that every tax year stands on its own. One has to resolve all the numbers that go into income for that year, even if some debate about an "exact" number exists. More commonly this is an issue for an accrual-basis taxpayer, meaning that one pays tax on amounts receivable even before receiving cash. Fortunately one is also able to deduct amounts payable (with exceptions) before writing the check. This is generally accepted accounting and is the way that almost all larger businesses report their income.

There is an alternative way. One can report income when cash is received and deduct expenses when bills are paid. This is the cash basis of accounting, and it too is generally accepted accounting.

For the most part, cash basis is the domain of smaller businesses. Depending upon the type of business, however, it may not matter if one is large or small. For example, an inventory-intensive business is required to use accrual accounting.

Our taxpayer is Udeobong, and he uses the cash basis of accounting.

When Cigna paid him the first time, he would have reported income in year one - the year he received the check.

When he repaid Cigna in year two, he had two options:

(1) He could deduct the payment in that second year, as he was repaying amounts previously taxed to him; or

(2) He could file his taxes for the second year using Section 1341, known in tax-speak as the “claim of right.”

The Code recognizes that just deducting the repayment in a second year could be unfair.  Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you received a very large bonus in 2014, large enough for you to retire. You invest the money and live comfortably, but 2014 was your bellwether year and is never to be repeated. Something happens – say that there is clawback - and you have to return some of the bonus in 2016. Sure, you could deduct the repayment, but that repayment could overwhelm your income in 2016. It is possible that you would lose any tax advantage once your income goes negative. If one looks at the two years together (2014 and 2016), you would have paid tax on income you did not get to keep.

That is where Section 1341 comes in. The Code allows you to do a special calculation:

·        You start off with the tax you actually paid in 2014

·        You then do a pro forma calculation, subtracting the repaid amount from your income in 2014. This gives you a revised tax amount.

·        You subtract the revised tax amount from the actual tax you paid in 2014.

·        The IRS allows you to claim that difference as tax paid in 2016.

The Code is trying to be fair, and for the most part it works.

There is one more piece you need to know. Udeobong did not either deduct the repayment or use the claim-of-right in year two. He did ... nothing.

Is the $258,000 in year three taxable to him?

Unfortunately, it is.

But why?

Because the Code gives him two options: deduct the payment in year two or use the claim of right alternative.

COMMENT: You may be wondering if he could amend his year-one return. This is the technical problem with every tax year standing on its own. Unless there were exceptional circumstances, the Code takes the position   that he received and had control over the income in year one, even if something occurs later requiring him to repay some or all of that income. Since he had control in year one, he had income in year one. Should he repay in a later year, then the repayment is reported in the later year.

The Code does not give him a third option of excluding the $258,000 in year three.

So he has to pay tax again.

It is a harsh result. One can understand the reasoning without the conclusion feeling fair or just ... or right.  I am also frustrated with Udeobong. There is no mention that he used a tax advisor. He had no idea of what he walked into.

He tried to save professional fees, perhaps because he saw his tax return as a simple matter of cash in and cash out. I understand, and I do not – in general – disagree. Still, one has to be cognizant when something unusual happens, like swapping real estate, exercising stock options or repaying Cigna a lot of money. The combination of "unusual" and "a lot" probably means it is a good time to see a tax expert.  

Lance Armstrong’s Tax Problem

You may have read or heard that Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France victories because of doping. The UCI Management Committee stated that it would not award the titles stripped from Armstrong to any other riders. History books will show no winner of the race between the years 1999 and 2005. UCI has demanded that Armstrong return his winnings from the vacated years, an amount estimated at approximately $4 million.

SCA Promotions, a Dallas insurance firm, has indicated that it will demand repayment of bonuses it insured for Armstrong’s wins in 2002, 2003 and 2004. It is reportedly seeking approximately $12 million.

There wasn’t much goodwill between SCA and Armstrong to begin with. SCA delayed paying a $5 million bonus for his 2005 win, responding to then-swirling allegations and controversies surrounding possible drug use. Armstrong sued, and SCA settled the case.

Then there are the endorsements. Armstrong earned more than $17 million in endorsements and speaking fees in 2005, when he won his last Tour de France. That amount grew to an estimated $21 million in 2010. And do not forget that Armstrong was the founder and driving force behind the Livestrong Foundation, which assists those struggling with cancer. Nike, Honey Stinger and Easton Bell Sports have dropped his endorsement, for example, and make seek clawback of prior monies.

Let us suppose that Armstrong has to repay some of these monies. What are the tax consequences to Armstrong?

The first step is easy: Armstrong will be entitled to a deduction. The repayment is tied to monies originally earned in his trade or business as a cyclist or spokesman, so the tax linkage is clear.

The second question is one of tax benefit. Armstrong paid taxes on these monies in prior years. Can he go back and have the IRS refund those monies? There is the rub. What would be your argument for amending those tax years?

You:     He had to repay those monies.

Me:      Did he not have unrestricted access to those monies in the prior year?

You:     I am not saying that. He did, but now he has to pay it back.

Me:      So is the transaction we are talking about for the year he received the money or the year he   pays it back?

You:     What is the difference?

Me:      He earned it in 2004 but pays it back in 2013. What year do you amend?

You:     You cannot amend 2013. It hasn’t happened yet.

Me:      So you would amend 2004?

You:     Yep.

Me:      There are two issues. The IRS is going to have a problem with your argument that he did not receive the money and owe tax. He did receive the money. And the IRS will expect its tax, because in 2004 he had no reason to think that he wasn’t entitled to keep the money.

You:     What is the second issue?

Me:      You cannot amend 2004. Remember, a tax year is open for only three years. The statute period has long since expired.

You:     So I am stuck with 2013?

Me:      That’s right.

Let’s pursue this point of tax benefit a bit further. Let’s say that Armstrong was in the maximum tax bracket in 2004. Let’s also say that his income for 2013 is not what it was in 2004. How much tax does he recoup from repaying prior winnings? You guessed it: whatever the deduction saves him in 2013, which can be a very different – and much smaller – amount than what he actually paid in 2004.

You:     That doesn’t seem fair!

Me:      There is one more tax option.

That option is IRS Section 1341, sometimes referred to the “claim of right” section. The “claim of right” concept is something akin to “I thought at the time that the money was mine to keep.” Section 1341 gives one the option to:   

            

(1)    Deduct the payment in the year of repayment, or

(2)    Calculate a hypothetical tax, excluding the repaid income from the tax year originally received. That gives one a change in tax. One then calculates the tax for the year of repayment, not including the repayment itself, and subtracts the previously-calculated change in tax from that tax.

You:     Huh?

Me:      Let’s use an example. Say that Armstrong repays $3 million in 2013. Let’s further say (to keep this easy) that the entire $3 million was attributable to 2004 winnings and endorsements. We go back and recompute his 2004 income tax excluding that $3 million. Let’s say his tax goes down by $1,050,000 (3,000,000 * 35%).

You:     OK, so he gets a $1.05 million tax break.

Me:      Not yet. There is another step.

Let’s say that his 2013 taxable income is also $3 million. We estimate his 2013 tax on the $3 million to be $1,027,000 (granted, no one can guess what taxes will be).  His tax benefit is limited to $1,027,000, not the $1,050,000 from 2004.

You:     So he loses over $22 grand. That isn’t too bad, all things considered.

In our example, you are right. The $22 grand is small potatoes. But we used a very simple example. 

Let us complicate the scenario. What if the athlete’s knock-it-out-of-the-park income years are behind him or her? Let’s use a football player. Say that he had an 8-year NFL career. What if he has to pay back $2 million several years after retirement? It is very possible that he will never again be in the same tax bracket as when he was playing. That said, he would never get back the actual tax he paid on the income, whether one uses Section 1341 or not.

Let’s use another example. What if our athlete was frugal and saved his/her career earnings? He/she now has a very attractive portfolio of tax-exempt securities and dividend-paying stocks. Let’s say that the portfolio will generate $2 million in 2013. He/she pays back $2 million. What do you see? Tax-exempts are – well, tax-exempt. Their tax rate is zero. Next year tax rates on dividends may go to the maximum rate. Let’s say they do. He/she will offset the maximum rate on the dividends, but remember that dividends are only a part of the $2 million the portfolio is earning. He/she is still not whole.

Section 1341 many times helps, but there is no guarantee that one will get a tax break equal to the tax actually paid when one received the income.

P.S. Armstrong resigned from the Livestrong board of directors on November 4. He had previously resigned as chairman on October 17 but had kept a seat on the board.