Owning Gold And Silver In Your IRA

 

We have previously talked about buying nontraditional assets in an IRA. We have talked about starting a business with IRA monies (these are the “ROBS”) as well as buying real estate.

Just this week someone reached out to me about buying real estate through their Roth. It would be a vacation home. Mind you, they might never vacation there themselves, but you and I would refer to it generically as a vacation home.

I am not a fan, and I have no hesitation saying so.

Put an asset in an IRA that is susceptible to personal use, and you are courting danger.  Talk to me about a commercial strip mall, and I might be OK with it. Talk to me about a vacation home, and I will (almost) always advise against it. There are a million-and-one alternate investments you can consider. It is not worth it.

I am looking at a case about another category of investments that can go south inside an IRA.

Gold and silver coins and bullion.

Let’s set this up:

(1)  IRAs are not allowed to own collectibles.

(2)  Precious metals are normally considered to be collectibles.

(3)  Therefore we do not expect to see precious metals in an IRA, except that …

(4)  Someone must have had a great lobbyist, as there is an exception for 

a.    Selected coins with a 99.5% fineness level

b.    Selected bullion with a 99.9% fineness level

You may have heard the radio commercials for American Gold Eagle and American Silver Eagle coins as a way “to hedge inflation” within your IRA, for example.

Mind you, I have no problem if you wish to own gold, silver, platinum or palladium. You can even own them in your IRA, but you have to respect the separation of powers that the tax Code expects in an IRA.

(1) The IRA is a trust. When you open an IRA, you are actually creating a self-funded trust. This means that it has a trustee. It will also have a custodian and a beneficiary.

a.    You open an IRA with Fidelity. Fidelity is the trustee.

b.    Someone has to hold the assets, probably stocks and mutual funds. This would be the custodian.

c.    Someone has to prepare the paperwork, including IRS filings such as a Form 5498 for funding the IRA.  This can be either the trustee or custodian. In our example, Fidelity is so huge they are probably both the trustee and custodian, making the two roles seamless and invisible to the average person.

d.    You are the beneficiary.

                                                        i.     Well, until you die. Then someone else is the beneficiary.

There is one more thing the tax Code wants: the beneficiary may not take actual and unfettered possession of IRA assets. More accurately, the beneficiary can take possession, but taking possession has a name: “distribution.” A distribution - barring a Roth or a 60-day rollover – is taxable.

Possession is not an issue for the vast majority of us. If you want your IRA monies, you have to contact Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price or whoever. You do not have possession until they distribute the money to you.

How does it work with coins?

Let’s look at the NcNulty case.

Andrew and Donna McNulty decided to establish self-directed IRAs. The IRAs, in turn, created single-member LLC’s. These entities, while existing for legal purposes, were disregarded for tax purposes. The purpose of the LLCs was to buy gold and silver coins.

Over the course of two years, they transferred almost $750 grand to the IRAs.

The IRAs bought coins.

The coins were shipped to the McNulty’s residence.

Where they were stored in a safe.

With other coins not belonging to an IRA.

But do not fear, the IRA coins were marked as belonging to an IRA.

Good grief.

Where was the CPA during this?

Petitioners did not seek or receive advice from the CPA about tax reporting with respect to their self-directed IRAs or the physical possession of AE coins purchased using funds from their IRAs …. Nor did they disclose to their CPA that they had physical possession of the AE coins at their residence."

The Court decided that mailing the coins to their house was tantamount to a distribution. A beneficiary cannot – repeat, cannot – have unfettered access to IRA assets. There was tax. There were penalties. There was interest. It was a worst-case scenario.

Why did the McNulty’s think they could get away with taking physical possession of the coins?

There were a couple of reasons. One was that merely labelling them as IRA assets was sufficient even if the coins were thrown in a safe with other coins and other stuff that did not belong to the IRA.

Let’s admit, that reason is lame.

The second reason is not as lame – at least on its face.

Remember that IRAs are not allowed to own collectibles. The tax Code includes an exception to the definition of collectibles to allow an IRA to own coins and bullion.

There are people out there who took that exception and tried to graft it to the requirement to have independent custody of IRA assets. Their reasoning was:

The same exception to collectibles status applies to custody, meaning that you are permitted to keep coins at your house, maybe next to your sock drawer for safekeeping.

No, you are not. These people are trying to sell you something. They are not your friends. Review this with an experienced tax advisor before you drop three quarters of a million dollars on a pitch.

So, can an IRA own gold?

Of course, but somebody is going to store it for you somewhere. You will not have it in your possession. This means that you will have to pay for its storage, but that is an unavoidable cost if you want to own physical gold in your IRA. Perhaps you can visit one or twice a year and do a Scrooge McDuck in the vault storing the gold. I will leave that to you and your custodian.

Or you could just own a gold or silver ETF and skip physical ownership.

Our case this time was McNulty v Commissioner, 157 TC 10 11.18.21.

The Sale of "American Pie"

Did you see where Don McLean sold his original manuscript for “American Pie” at Christie’s? He sold the work for $1.2 million, and it included his handwritten notes and deletions from the 1971-72 hit that – at 8 ½ minutes – was the longest song to ever top the U.S. charts.

The song of course is famous for its allusions. The “day the music died” refers to the death of Buddy Holly, whereas “the king” supposedly refers to Elvis Presley while “the jester on the sidelines” refers to Bob Dylan after his motorcycle accident. It became an anthem to disillusionment, to the sense of our best days being behind us and the ennui and hopelessness of a society being carted off in the wrong direction.

Sounds eerily contemporary.

He explained that he had forgotten he had the manuscript. He found it in the proverbial old box that had survived several moves. The sale allowed him to provide for his family, now and into the future.

Yes, $1.2 million will do that.

So what are the tax consequences from the sale of his manuscript?

We are talking about intellectual property and a subset we will call creative properties.

For the most part, self-created properties cannot be a capital asset in the hands of its creator. This causes a problem, as one requires a capital asset if one wants capital gains.

Take it a step further. If someone else owns the asset but its tax basis (that is, its cost for purposes of calculating gain or loss) is determined by reference to the creator’s basis, then it cannot be a capital asset.  How can this happen? Easy. You could gift the property, for example, or you could contribute the property to a family limited partnership. In either case the recipient will “take over” your basis in the creative property. Since the basis remains the same, it cannot be a capital asset.

The vocabulary gets tricky when discussing creative property. For example, an author (say Stephen King) may receive a “royalty.” Coincidently, find oil in your backyard and chances are an oil company will also pay you a royalty. Since the word “royalty” is the same, are the tax consequences the same?

The answer is no. If you write a book or score a movie soundtrack, that royalty is probably ordinary income to you. In fact, it is reported on Schedule C of your individual tax return, the same as your self-employment income from Uber. The oil royalty, on the other hand, is reported on Schedule E, along with rents. The Schedule C royalty will trigger self-employment tax. The Schedule E will not. 

OBSERVATION: We have discussed before that sometimes a word will have different meanings as it travels through the tax Code. Here is an example.

As always, there are exceptions. Let’s say you write one book and never write again. The IRS will likely consider that to be ordinary income but not self-employment income. Why? Supposedly it takes two or more books to establish that you are in the trade or business of writing books.

OBSERVATION: I am curious how the IRS would apply this standard to Harper Lee. She published, you will recall, To Kill a Mockingbird in 1960. It was only this year that she published her second work (Go Set a Watchman) – 55 years later. What do you think: is this self-employment income or not?

Remember when Michael Jackson bought the catalog of Beatles music? He bought it as a non-alternative investment, akin to stocks and bonds. Like a stock or bond, Michael Jackson would have had capital gains had he sold the catalog.

This created a fuss among songwriters. If they sold their own compositions, they would have ordinary and self-employment income. Introduce Michael Jackson and the tax result transmuted to capital gains.

So Congress passed Section 1221(b)(3), which incorporated a provision from the Songwriter’s Capital Gains Equity Act, promoted by the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NASI). It extended capital gains to self-created music owned for more than one year. It requires an election, and the songwriter/creative can elect for one musical composition and not for another. It does require the transfer of a musical composition or a copyright in the same; transfer something less and the result defaults to ordinary income.

NASI argued that the industry had changed. By the 1990s many music artists were acting as their own publishers or co-publishers, meaning they had some control over the exploitation of their songs. Gone were the days of Hank Williams and Bill Monroe, when songwriters sold their songs outright to music publishers with no right to ongoing income.

Congress listened.

Don McLean now has a tax option that he did not have years ago when he recorded “American Pie.” I suppose that there could be a scenario where it would be more advantageous to recognize the $1.2 million as ordinary income rather than as capital gains, but I cannot easily think of any that do not require low-probability tax considerations.

I would say he is making the election.

Why Audit Veterans Organizations?

I suppose that any examination of an exempt organization by the IRS nowadays is going to be viewed in harsh light.

What got me thinking about this is the controversy concerning IRS audits of veterans organizations. While it hasn’t garnered the attention of the 501(c)(4) imbroglio, there has nonetheless been harsh criticism. U.S. Senator Moran (Kansas) for example has stated:

On the heels of Americans' anger over revelations that the IRS intentionally targeted certain groups, it has been brought to my attention that the IRS is now turning their sights toward our nation's veterans. The IRS seems to be auditing veteran service organizations by requiring private member military service forms. If a post is unable or not willing to turn over this personal information, it is possible they could face a fine of $1,000 per day.

I am deeply concerned about this revelation and will insist on answers. This policy ... deserves, at a minimum, a thorough look to make certain the IRS is not overstepping bounds of privacy and respect for our nation's heroes."

For its part, the House Veterans Affairs committee has threated to investigate what the IRS is up to.

So why would the IRS – in a time of budget restraints – be auditing these groups?

A couple of reasons come to mind:

•  The IRS has to audit exempt groups occasionally, if only in the interest of enforcing tax compliance among all exempt groups.

• Veterans organizations have unique tax requirements that are relatively easy to run afoul of.

Reason (1) is easy to understand, even if we would rather have a root canal than undergo a tax audit. Reason (2) is a bit more involved.

Tax-exempt organizations come in multiple flavors, depending on what the organization does. For example, a veterans organization could qualify as a social welfare group – that is, a 501(c)(4) – given its purpose of promoting patriotism, championing the issues of veterans, assisting needy and disabled veterans and conducting social and recreational activities among its membership.   

Let’s go a step further, and you will understand how the sausage of tax law comes to be.

Let’s say the veterans organization buys a building. Let’s say it puts a kitchen and bar in said building. We may now have a social club under Sec 501(c)(7), the same as a college fraternity or private golf course. Had you and I gotten together and built our own golf course, our activity (of playing golf) would not be taxable. The tax Code acknowledges this and allows for larger groups to do what you and I could have done together if only we were multibillionaires. There could be tax consequences if we did other things, but let’s keep our discussion general.

In 1969 Congress expanded the reach of the unrelated business income tax (UBT). UBT by definition relates to tax-exempt organizations, and it means that the organization has to pay tax on profitable business activities that are not in furtherance of its tax-exempt purpose.

What does that mean? Let’s go back to that golf course you and I built. Let’s say that we rent out our course to the PGA annually for a major tournament. We of course charge the PGA big bucks for using our course. We apply as a (c)(7), albeit a small one, considering it is only you and me. The IRS is not going to let us pocket all that money and not pay tax. Why? Because it is not our exempt purpose to rent our course to the PGA.

The veterans organizations became upset with the UBT. It was not even the kitchen and bar, truthfully, as much as it was the insurances – life, health and so on – that they were offering to their members. That was a big deal, and their insurance activity was now being pulled into the orbit of the UBT because of that (c)(4) or (c)(7) status.

Congress, thinking that the answer to everything problem is yet another law, passed Code section 501(c)(19): 

(19)  A post or organization of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or a trust or foundation for, any such post or organization—

(A)  organized in the United States or any of its possessions,

(B)  at least 75 percent of the members of which are past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States and substantially all of the other members of which are individuals who are cadets or are spouses, widows, widowers, ancestors, or lineal descendants of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of cadets, and

(C)  no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

And veterans organizations now had an escape clause from the UBT – as long as they could fit into (c)(19).

It worked well enough for long enough. And now it is starting to work less well.

Why?

It’s the math. Code section (c)(19) states that at least 75% of the members must be veterans  and substantially all other members  (generally defined as 90% or more) must be spouses, widows and descendants. Let’s go through the math. To start, at least 75% of the members must be veterans. Of the remaining, 90% or more must be related to a veteran. Doing the math, only 2.5% of the total membership (25% times 10%) may consist of non-veterans or persons unelated to a veteran.

That is a tight window.

Statistics show over 19 million veterans in the United States. More than 9 million are age 65 or over. Veterans are aging, and every year there are fewer of them. Those demographics are pushing on the percentage tests of (c)(19).

Let’s point out another problem.

How do you prove the 75%? I suppose you could (and probably should) obtain documentation from the veterans. The same could be said for proving the other 90%.  It would be business- standard procedure to keep files and maintain a policy and post signs that only members and families are admitted. I suppose we could boost documentation even more by requiring sign-in books, but you get the idea.

Is it intrusive? You bet. We are talking about IDs and proof of military service, for example. The IRS aggravated the matter recently by asking for DD 214 forms, which is the paperwork accompanying military discharge. The IRS had not routinely asked for this before, so many organizations were caught flat-footed. To exacerbate the matter, the IRS then threatened $1,000 per day penalties.

Cue the resentment and anger of organizations like the American Legion. These generally are not organizations that can easily accommodate drastic changes in tax rules. Many are small, reliant on volunteers and operating on a tight budget.  One cannot approach them as though one were dealing with the tax department of an Apple or Pfizer.

What is the answer? I don’t know. The 501(c) area is a motley of tax grab-bag accreted over the years. Some (c)’s can receive tax-exempt contributions; others cannot. Some organizations are (c)’s just by existing; others have to formally apply and get approval. Some do not pay income tax unless they get carried away and flat-out run a for-profit business. Others pay tax on income “not sufficiently related” to their exempt purpose, a standard sometimes bordering on the mystical. Some are huge, own buildings and have tens of thousands of employees. Others are tiny, have space donated and do everything through volunteers.

It is maddening, but they all have to be (at least in theory) auditable by the IRS.

And there is the rub.

A TIGTA Report on IRS Contractor Payments

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released a new report titled “Deficiencies Continue to Exist in Verifying Contractor Labor Charges Prior to Payment.”

What happened is that the IRS received appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. You may remember this Act by another name – the “Stimulus.” TIGTA was auditing certain expenditures and also reviewing IRS internal controls over contract review, approval and payment.

TIGTA selected a statistical sample of $1 million in labor charges. What did it find?

(1)   The IRS could not document $394,430 of invoiced labor hours that were paid.

(2)   The labor rates paid were not verified to the contract for the qualification level of the individual paid.

(3)   Although the IRS verified the qualification and experience of key contract personnel, they did not do so for other personnel. The IRS was supposed to do this by the contract.

My Take: I am glad that someone is keeping an eye on these expenditures. An error rate of 39.4% is not too reassuring, however.