Another Runaway FBAR Case

 

Let’s talk about the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts). It currently goes by the name “FinCen Form 114.”

This thing has been with us since 1970. It came to life as an effort to identify foreign financial transactions that might indicate money laundering or tax evasion. 

Sounds benign.

The filing requirement applies to a United States person, defined as

·      A citizen or resident of the U.S.

·      A domestic partnership

·      A domestic corporation

·      A domestic trust or estate

 We’ll come back that first one in a moment.

Next, one needs a financial interest or signature authority in a foreign financial account to trigger this thing.

A foreign financial account includes a bank account, which is easy enough to understand. It would also include a broker account (think Charles Schwab, but overseas). Some are not so intuitive, though.

·      A foreign insurance policy with cash value is reportable.

·      A foreign hedge fund is not.

·      A foreign annuity policy is reportable.

·      A foreign private equity fund is not.

·      A foreign cryptocurrency account is not reportable.

Some require a google search to understand what is being said.

·      A Canadian registered retirement savings plan is reportable.

·      A Mexican fondo para retiro is reportable.

Next, the foreign financial account has to exceed a certain dollar balance ($10,000) at some point during the year.

That $10,000 balance has been there for as long as I can remember. You will have a hard time persuading me that $10,000 in 1986 is the same as $10,000 now, but that number is apparently eternal and unchanging.

The $10,000 is tested across all foreign financial accounts. If it takes your fourth foreign account to put you over $10 grand, then you are over. Testing is done. All your accounts are reportable on a FBAR.

Like so many things, the FBAR started with reasonable intentions but has morphed into something near unrecognizable.

Fail to file an FBAR and the standard penalty is $10 grand. Fail to file for two years and the penalty is $20 grand. Have two foreign accounts and fail to file for two years and the penalty is $40 grand.

And that is assuming the error is unintentional. Do it on purpose and I presume they will execute you.

I exaggerate, of course. They will just bankrupt you.

It puts a lot of pressure on defining “on purpose.”

Let’s look at Osamu Kurotaki (OK).

OK was born in Japan and lives in Japan. He obtained a U.S. green card, making him a U.S. permanent resident. One of the pleasures of being a permanent resident is filing an annual tax return with the United States, irrespective of whether you live in the U.S. or not. One can talk about a foreign income exclusion or foreign tax credit – which is fine – but that annual filing makes sense only if someone intends to eventually return to the U.S. It does not make as much sense if someone does not intend to return, someone like OK.

OK paid someone to prepare his annual U.S. tax return. He found a CPA who was bilingual.

In 2021 the U.S. Treasury assessed civil penalties against OK for more than $10 million. His footfall? He failed to file FBARs. Treasury also upped the ante by saying that his failure was “willful.”

Huh?

Treasury is requesting summary judgement that OK willfully failed to file FBARs, prefers waffle over sugar cones and rooted for the Diamondbacks in the World Series. 

The Court wanted to know how Treasury climbed the ladder to get to that “willful” step.

So do I.

Here is what the Court saw:

·      OK is a Japanese speaker and does not speak English “at all.”

·      OK relied on his bilingual CPA to make sense of U.S. tax filing obligations.

·      His CPA provided annual tax questionnaires in both English and Japanese. The English was for theater, I suppose, as OK could not read English.

·      The CPA’s translation now becomes critical. Here are instructions to the FBAR in English:

U.S. taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income; that is, income from both U.S. and foreign sources.”

·      Here is the Japanese translation:

U.S. resident taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income, that is, income from both US. and foreign sources."

OK told the Court that he did not think he had a filing obligation because he was not a “U.S. resident.”

I get it. He lives in Japan. He works in Japan. His kids go to school in Japan. He is as much a “U.S. resident” as I am a Nepalese Sherpa.

Except …

OK was green card – that is, a “permanent” resident of the U.S.

Technically …

The Court cut OK some slack. Technically - and in a law school vacuum - he was a “resident.” Meanwhile - in the real world – no one would think that. Furthermore, OK hired a CPA who made a mistake. Even a trained professional erred interpreting the Treasury’s word salad. 

The Court said “no” to summary judgement.

Treasury will have to argue its $10 million-plus proposed penalty.

And I believe the Court just outlined reasonable cause.

Perhaps OK should consider turning in that green card. 

Our case this time was Osamu Kurotaki v United States, U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii.

 

A Model Home As A Business

 

What does a tax CPA do a few days after the filing deadline?

This one is reviewing a 17-page Tax Court case.

Yes, I would rather be watching the new Batman movie. There isn’t much time for such things during busy season. Maybe tomorrow.

Back to the case.

There is a mom and dad and daughter. Mom and dad (the Walters) lived in Georgia. They had launched three successful business in Michigan during the 70s and 80s. They thereafter moved to Georgia to continue their winning streak by developing and owning La-Z-Boy stores.

During the 90s dad invested in and subsequently joined the board of an environmentally oriented Florida company. He followed the environmental field and its technology, obtained certifications and even guest lectured at Western Carolina University.

Daughter received an undergraduate degree in environmental science and then a law degree at a school offering a focus on environmental law.

After finishing law school, daughter informed her parents that she was not interested in the furniture business. Mom and dad sold the La-Z-Boy businesses but kept the real estate in an entity called D&J Properties. They were now landlords to La-Z-Boy stores.

The family decided to pivot D&J by entering the green real estate market.

Through the daughter’s connections, mom and dad became aware of a low-density housing development in North Carolina, emphasizing land conservation and the incorporation of geothermal and solar technologies.

You know this caught dad and daughter’s attention.

They bought a lot. They built a house (Balsam Home). They stuck it in D&J Properties. The house received awards. Life was good.

They received an invitation to participate in a “Fall Festival of Color.” Current and potential property owners would tour Balsam Home, meet with members of the team and attend a panel discussion. Word went out to the media, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Balsam Home became a model home for the development. Awards and certificates were hung on the walls, pamphlets about green technology were placed on coffee tables. A broker showed Balsam Home when mom and dad were back at their regular residence.

Sometimes the line blurred between model home and “home” home. Mom and dad registered cars at the Balsam Home address, for example, and dad availed himself of a golf membership. On the flip side, the green technology required one to be attentive and hands-on, and mom and dad did most of that work themselves.

Where is the tax issue here?

Balsam Home never showed a profit.

The La-Z-Boy stores did.

The IRS challenged D&J Properties, arguing that Balsam Home was not a business activity conducted for profit and therefore its losses could not offset the rental income from the furniture stores.

This “not engaged in for profit” challenge is more common than you may think. I am thinking of the following from my own recent-enough experience:

·      A mom supporting her musically inclined twin sons

·      A young golfer hoping to go pro

·      A model certain to be discovered

·      A dancer determined she would join a professional company

·      A dressage rider meeting “all the right people” for later success

The common thread is that some activity does not make money, seems likely to never make money but is nonetheless pursued and continued, normally by someone having (or subsidized by someone having) enough other income or wealth to do so. It can be, in other words, a tax write-off.

But then again, someone will be the next Bruno Mars, Scottie Scheffler or Stevie Nicks. Is it a long shot? Sure, but there will be someone.

Not surprisingly, there is a grid of questions that the IRS and courts go through to weigh the decision. It is not quite as easy as having more “yes” than “no” answers, but you get the idea.

Here is a (very) quick recap of the grid:

·      Manner in which taxpayer carried on the activity

·      Taxpayer’s expertise

·      Taxpayer’s advisors’ expertise

·      Time and effort expended by the taxpayer

·      Expectation that activity assets will appreciate in value

·      Success of the taxpayer on carrying on similar activities

·      History of activity income and loss

·      Financial status of the taxpayer

·      Elements of personal pleasure or recreation

Let’s review a few.

·      Seems to me that mom, dad and daughter had a fairly strong background in green technology. The IRS disagreed, arguing “yes this but not that.”  The Court disagreed with the IRS.

·      Turns out that mom and dad put a lot of time into Balsam House, and much of that time was as prosaic as fertilizing, weeding and landscaping. The Court gave them this one.

·      Being real estate, it was assumed that the asset involved would appreciate in value.

o  BTW this argument is often used in long-shot race-horse challenges. Win a Kentucky Derby, for example, and all those losses pale in comparison to the future income.

·      I expected financial status to be a strong challenge by the IRS. Mom and dad owned those La-Z-Boy stores, for example. The Court took pains to point out that they had sold the stores but kept the real estate, so the ongoing income was not comparable. The Court called a push on this factor, which I considered quite generous.

The Court decided that the activity was conducted for profit and that losses could be used to offset income from the furniture stores.

A win for the taxpayers.

Could it have gone differently?

You bet. Court decisions in this area can be … quixotic.  

Our case this time was Walters v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-17.

Self-Renting a Big Green Egg

Sometimes tax law requires you to witness the torture of the language. Other times it herds you through a sequence of “except for” clauses, almost assuring that some future Court will address which except is taking exception.

And then you have the laughers.

I came across an article titled: Corporation’s self-leasing rental expense deduction denied.”

I was curious. We tax nerds have an exceptionally low threshold for curiosity.

Before reading the article, I anticipated that:

(1)  Something was being deducted

(2)  That something was rent expense

(3)  Something was being self-leased, whatever that means, and

(4)  Whatever it means, the deduction was denied.

Let us spend a little time on (3).

Self-lease (or self-rental) means that you are renting something to yourself or, more likely, to an entity that you own. It took on greater tax significance in 1986 when Congress, frustrated for years with tax shelters, created the passive activity (PAL) rules. The idea was to separate business activities between actually working (active/material participation) and living the Kennedy (passive activity).

It is not a big deal if all the activities are profitable.

It can be a big deal if some of the activities are unprofitable.

Let’s go back to the classic tax shelter. A high-incomer wants to shelter high income with a deductible tax loss.

Our high-incomer buys a partnership interest in a horse farm or oil pipeline or Starbucks. The high-incomer does not work at the farm/pipeline/Starbucks, of course. He or she is an investor.

In the lingo, he/she is passive in the activity.

Contrast that with whatever activity generates the high income. Odds are that he/she works there. We would refer to that as active or material participation.

The 1986 tax act greatly restricted the ability of the high-incomer to use passive losses to offset active/material participation income.

Every now and then, however, standard tax planning is flipped on its head. There are cases where the high-incomer wants more passive income.

In the name of all that is holy, why?

Has to do with passive losses. Let’s say that you had $10,000 in passive losses in 2015. You could not use them to offset other income, so the $10,000 carried over to 2016. Then to 2017. They are gathering dust.

If we could create passive income, we could use those passive losses.

How to create passive income?

Well, let’s say that you own a company.

You rent something to the company.

Let’s rent your car, your office-in-home or your Big Green EGG XXL.

Rent is passive income, right? The tax on our passive income will be zero, as the losses will mop up every dollar of income.

That is the “self-rental” the tax Code is after.

But it also triggers one of those “except for” rules: if the self-rental results in income, the income will not qualify as passive income.

All your effort was for naught. Thank you for playing.

Back to the article I was reading.

There is a doctor. He is the only owner of a medical practice. He used the second story of his house solely for the medical practice. Fair be fair, he had the practice pay him rent for that second floor.

I have no problem with that.

The Tax Court disallowed the corporation a rent deduction.

Whaaat? That makes no sense.

The purpose of the passive/active/material participation rules is not to deny a deduction altogether. The purpose is to delay the use of losses until the right type of income comes around.

What was the Tax Court thinking?

Easy. The doctor never reported the rental income on his personal return.

This case has nothing to do with self-rental rules. The Court simply was not permitting the corporation a deduction for rent that its shareholder failed to report as income.

The case for the home gamers is Christopher C.L. Ng M.D. Inc.

Mental Illness And The Statute Of Limitations

Many people and most tax practitioners (hopefully) know the statute of limitations on refunds from the IRS:

§ 6511 Limitations on credit or refund.

(a)  Period of limitation on filing claim.

Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.

We can shorthand this as the “3 and 2” rule.

Then there was the Brockamp case in 1997, which many felt was unfair and which led Congress to write this beauty:

§ 6511 Limitations on credit or refund.

(h)  Running of periods of limitation suspended while taxpayer is unable to manage financial affairs due to disability.

(1)  In general.

In the case of an individual, the running of the periods specified in subsections (a) , (b) , and (c) shall be suspended during any period of such individual's life that such individual is financially disabled.

(2)  Financially disabled.

(A)  In general. For purposes of paragraph (1) , an individual is financially disabled if such individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. An individual shall not be considered to have such an impairment unless proof of the existence thereof is furnished in such form and manner as the Secretary may require.

Like so much of the tax Code, the heavy lifting is in the details. Brockamp had been senile. Congress addressed the issue by introducing the phrase “medically determinable,” and then handed the baton to the IRS to define what that verbal salad meant.

COMMENT: And there you have a capsule summary of how the Code has gotten away from us over the years. Congress writes words and then leaves it to the IRS and courts to determine what they mean. Congress did the pooch again with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Google “qualified business income” and tell me that isn’t an elmore waiting to happen.

           

The IRS issued its interpretation of “medically determinable” in Rev Proc 99-21:

SECTION 4. PROCEDURE Unless otherwise provided in IRS forms and instructions, the following statements are to be submitted with a claim for credit or refund of tax to claim financial disability for purposes of § 6511(h).

(1)   a written statement by a physician (as defined in § 1861(r)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(r)), qualified to make the determination, that …

The IRS is pointing to the Social Security rules to define what a physician is. Methinks this is poor work. Why not reference Beat Bobby Flay to define meal expenses or Car Talk to define transportation expenses?

Let’s look at the Green case.

Richard Green and his wife (Hae Han) went to Tax Court in 2009. There were taxes due and tax refunds and quite the debate about offsetting one against the other.  The case eventually got to Sec 6511(h), and here is what the Court had to say about it:

An individual will not, however, be considered financially disabled unless proof of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment is provided in such form and manner as the Commissioner may require. More specifically, the Commissioner requires a written statement from a physician. Ms. Han, however, did not establish that she was financially disabled. In addition, she was treated by a clinical psychologist, not a physician, and thus could not and did not provide the requisite documentation.

Ms. Han’s letter was written by a psychologist. 

COMMENT: I am thinking: why is a psychologist not considered a “physician?” An optometrist is considered one for this purpose, although an optometrist has an O.D. and not an M.D.

There was no relief for Green and Han.

A number of practitioners considered this decision to be nonsense. The IRS had grafted a Medicare definition concerning payment for services onto Sec 6511(h), which was supposed to be a relief provision in the tax Code.

Enter the Estate of Stauffer, which is presently in Court.

Carlton Stauffer died in 2012 at the age of 90. His son is administering the estate. He discovered that his dad had not filed tax returns for 2006 through 2012. He filed those returns on behalf of his dad. One year alone – 2006 – had a refund of approximately $137,000.

The IRS denied the refund as outside the 3-year window.

The son appealed and pointed at Sec 6511(h).

His father had been seeing a psychologist, who treated him from 2001 until his death in 2012. The psychologist wrote a persuasive letter explaining how Carlton had suffered from psychological problems in addition to ailments including congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leukemia, and chronic pneumonia. He explained how all these factors negatively impacted Carlton’s mental capacity, cognitive functioning, decision making and prevented him from successfully managing his affairs.

The IRS said: show us the “M.D.”

Why wouldn’t they? They had won with that play before.

The estate sued in District Court.

The IRS motioned to dismiss, order boneless chicken wings and watch the NBA over a pitcher of beer.

The District Court denied the IRS motion.

The Court pointed out that – for all the IRS’ power – that it could still review Rev Proc 99-21 under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that government agencies are held to. The IRS had to articulate a rational connection for its standard, as well as explain why it rejected any reasonably obvious alternatives to the challenged rule.

The Court pointed out that Social Security does not restrict the types of professionals who may opine on whether someone has a disability qualifying for disability benefits. In fact, the opinion of a psychologist is given great weight in such a determination.

The Court did not see how the IRS dismissal of a psychologist’s letter passed the “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

Mind you, the Estate of Stauffer won a motion only; this does not mean that it will win the overall case.  

I for one hope it does.