A Bank Of America Horror Story

A major corporation hounds you almost to the point of death. You sue. You receive a settlement. Is it taxable?

Like so much of tax law, it depends. For example, did the attorney include the magic words that complete the incantation?  

Mr. and Mrs. French received a deficiency notice for their 2012 tax year. The IRS wanted $7,231 in taxes and $1,446 in penalties.

At issue was whether a settlement payment was taxable.

Let’s lay out the story:

·      In 2008 the French’s bought a house.

·      Shortly thereafter Bank of America bought their mortgage.

·      In August, 2009 Bank of America transferred their loan to a subsidiary, BAC Home Loan Servicing.

·      In December, 2009 Mr. and Mrs. French signed a loan modification agreement. The modification was to become effective February 1, 2010.

A loan modification means that that payments were temporarily suspended, an interest rate was changed, the loan term was lengthened and so on. There was a lot of modifications going on around that time.

·      Mrs. French suffered from a very bad back. She was admitted to the hospital in October, 2009 for surgery.

·      From late 2009 into early 2010 Bank of America began calling the French’s on a routine basis, sometimes up to 5 times a day. They were hounding the French’s that their mortgage was about to go into foreclosure.

·      Mr. French was concerned about the effect of these endless calls on his wife. He requested that Bank of America call him on another line, that way he could shield his wife from the stress. Bank of America couldn’t care less. If anything, they were continued receiving multiple calls from multiple people across multiple BAC offices.

·      Mrs. French went into the hospital in December, 2009 and again in January, 2010.

·      In January, 2010 Mr. French spoke with a BAC representative. He explained the loan modification. The representative had no idea what Mr. French was talking about. He explained that – whoever Mr. French sent the modification to – it was not BAC. He instructed Mr. French to redo the paperwork, stop payment on the old check and enclose a new check.

·      After much hassle, Mr. French was told that the modification was accepted and that he should start making payments per the new agreement. He made 10 payments of $1,067.10.

·      When she was finally discharged from the hospital on January 21, 2010, a Bank of America representative called to tell Mrs. French that “officers were on their way to evict” them.

·      On January 23, she started experiencing chest pain and shortness of breath. She went back to the hospital. He suffered two pulmonary emboli, passed away twice but was resuscitated. She was discharged February 4, 2010.

·      BAC did not process the first modification as they promised Mr. French. BAC kept their higher monthly payments and interest rate. To make matters worse, they posted their monthly payments to a non-interest- bearing escrow account and treated the payments as if they were processing fees.

·      In October 2010 BAC told Mr. French that they were not honoring the first modification and that the loan was severely delinquent. They sent a second modification, with conditions and terms injurious to the French’s. For example, the second modification did not even address the 10 payments the French’s had previously sent. Mr. French, his back to a wall, signed the second modification in November, 2010.

·      BAC continued, increasing their monthly payment from $1,067.10 to $1,081.49. In September, 2011, BAC sent the French’s a notice that their checks would not be applied and would instead be returned if not for the higher amount.

Finally, the French’s hired an attorney.

The phone calls stopped.

The French’s sued on six claims, alleging fraud, integration of the first and second loan modifications, punitive damages, additional damages, attorney fees and so forth.

What they did not sue for was personal damages to Mrs. French’s health. 

They settled in 2012. The French’s received $41,333, and the attorneys received $20,666.

The French’s did not report the settlement as income on their 2012 tax return.

The IRS wanted to know why.

The French’s presented several arguments:

(1)  $7,500 of the settlement was not taxable under the “disputed debt” doctrine.

If one party does not agree to the terms of a debt, later settlement does not necessarily mean income. It may mean repayment of amounts improperly charged the borrower, for example. An interesting argument, but the Court noted that the settlement agreement never mentioned disputed or contested debt.

(2)  They were being repaid their own money.

(3)  IRC Section 104(a)(2)

 § 104 Compensation for injuries or sickness.

 (a)  In general.

Except in the case of amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include-

(1)  amounts received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness;

(2) the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness;

To me, this was – by far – their best argument.

But it is one that BAC would never, ever put in writing.

The Court was however willing to look back to the six claims the attorneys filed for Mr. and Mrs. French. Unfortunately, the only language it found was the following:

… suffered lost time, inconvenience, distress [and] fear, and have been denied the benefit of the loan modification they were promised, and are being charged too much on their loan.”

These, folks, are not the magic words to open the Section 104(a)(2) door. For one thing, the words referred to both Mr. and Mrs. French.

The French’s owed the tax, but the IRS relented on the penalties.

Too bad the attorneys did not run the paperwork past a competent tax practitioner before it was too late.

Our case this time was French v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2018-36.

Would You Like To Buy a Tax Credit?

Let’s talk about an esoteric tax topic: selling tax credits.

You didn’t know it could be done, did you? To be fair, we have to divide this discussion between federal tax credits and state tax credits. Some states by statute allow the sale of their tax credits. Massachusetts will allow the sale its “motion picture” tax credit and Colorado will allow its “conservation easement” tax credit.

The federal rules are a bit different. These transactions usually involve the use of partnerships and LLCs, and the purchaser takes on the role of a “partner” in the deal. The business problem commonly present is that the purchaser (the “investor”) has little interest in the project other than the credit and a great deal of interest in getting out of the project as soon as possible. It is somewhat like a Kardashian marriage. There are technical problems lurking here, not the least of which is the IRS determining that a genuine partnership never existed. Tax planners and attorneys have stretched this specialized area to unbelievable lengths, and – in most cases – the IRS has gone along. Congress has said that it wants to incentivize the construction of low-income housing, for example, and to do so it has provided a tax credit. Say that someone decides to develop low-income housing, and to make the deal work that someone decides to “sell” the credit. If the IRS come in and nixes the deal, there are negative consequences - to the participants, to the industry and to the advisors to the industry. The IRS may also be called in before a Congressional tax committee for a lecture on overreach.  

Which makes the recent decision in Historic Boardwalk Hall LLC v Commissioner unnerving to tax pros. The property in question was the Atlantic Center convention center (known as the Historic Boardwalk Hall or the East Hall). We know it as the home of the Miss America pageant. The Boardwalk was owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA). The NJSEA solicited bids for the historic rehabilitation tax credit. The winner was Pitney Bowes.

They put a deal together. NJSEA would be the general partner with a 0.1% partnership interest.  Pitney Bowes would be the limited partner with a 99.9% partnership interest, including a 99.9% right to profits, losses and tax credits. Goodness knows that NJSEA – a government agency – did not need tax credits. Government agencies do not pay tax.

Pitney Bowes agreed to make capital contributions of approximately $16 million.  Each installment depended on attaining certain benchmarks. Pitney Bowes was to receive 3% preferred return on its cash investment and approximately $18 million in historic tax credits

In case Pitney Bowes and the NJSEA had a falling-out, the NJSEA could buy-out Pitney Bowes for an amount equal to the projected tax benefits and cash distributions due them. 

NJSEA also had a call option to buy-out Pitney Bowes at any time during the 12-month period beginning 60 months after East Hall was placed in service.  Pitney Bowes decided to make certain on this point, and they included a put option to force NJSEA to buy them out during the 12-month period beginning 84 months after East Hall was placed in service. 

To make sure they had beaten this horse to death, Pitney Bowes also obtained a “tax benefits guaranty” agreement.  This agreement assured Pitney Bowes that, at minimum, it would receive the projected tax benefits from the project.  The guarantee also indemnified Pitney Bowes for any taxes, penalties, interest and legal fees in case of an IRS challenge. 

The IRS challenged. Its principal charge was simple: the partnership had no economic substance. That arrangement was as likely as Charlie Sheen and Chuck Lorre spending a golf weekend together. The Tax Court did not see it the IRS’ way and decided in favor of Pitney Bowes. Not deterred, the IRS appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit reversed the Tax Court and decided in favor of the IRS.

More specifically, the Circuit Court decided that Pitney Bowes had virtually no downside risk. Pitney Bowes was not required to make capital contributions until a certain amount of rehabilitation work had been done. This meant they knew they would be receiving an equivalent amount of tax credits before writing any checks.   Then you have the tax benefits guaranty, which gave them a “get out of jail free” card.

The Court did not like that the funds contributed by Pitney Bowes were unnecessary to the project. NJSEA had been appropriated the funds before it began the renovation. NJSEA had been approached by a tax consultant with a “plan” to generate additional funds by utilizing federal historic tax credits.

Still, Pitney Bowes could argue that it had upside potential. That is a powerful argument in favor of the validity of a partnership arrangement. Wait, Pitney Bowes could not argue that it had any meaningful upside potential. While It was entitled to 99.9% of the cash flow, Pitney Bowes had to wait until all loan payments, including interest, as well as any operating deficits had been repaid.  The put and call options also did not help. NJSEA could call away any upside potential from Pitney Bowes. The Court decided Pitney Bowes had no skin in the game. 

This tax pro’s opinion: The deal was over-lawyered. The problem is that many of these deals are constructed in a very similar manner, which fact has thrown the industry (rehabilitation credit, low-income housing credit, certain energy credits, etc.) and their tax advisors into tumult. The advisors have to back this truck up a little, at least enough to giving the illusion that a valid partnership is driving the transaction.

Do not feel bad for Pitney Bowes. Remember that they have a tax indemnity agreement with NJSEA. I wonder how much this tax case just cost the state of New Jersey.