A Psychiatrist, Chauffer, Physician, Peace Officer, Pheasant Hunter

 

He said that his patients often called him a psychiatrist, chauffer, physician, peace officer, or even a pheasant hunter.”

He is David Laudon, a chiropractor in Minnesota and the subject of one of the more entertaining Tax Court opinions of the last decade. Laudon, however, reached too far for too long, and he was about to learn about snapback.

Back to the Court:

But not a ghostbuster. The Commissioner rhetorically asserted that some of Laudon’s trips might have made more sense if he was claiming to be a ghostbuster. Laudon then disclaimed any employment as a ghostbuster. In his reply brief the Commissioner conceded that Laudon was not ‘employed or under contract to perform work as a ghostbuster during the tax years at issue in this case.’”

Methinks Laudon missed the joke.

How did Laudon get to court?

Easy: he was audited for years 2007 through 2009.

His records were … colorful, humorous, inadequate.

Laudon did not keep records of his income in any decipherable form.”

The IRS did a reconstruction of his business income by analyzing his bank accounts. The rule of thumb is straightforward: all deposits are income unless one can prove otherwise. A common otherwise is when a taxpayer transfers money between accounts.

Laudon contends that the Commissioner failed to classify certain deposits as nontaxable, including insurance payments for damage to several vehicles, one of which was involved in a ‘high speed police chase’ with a man ‘high on meth and cocaine.’”

There is something you do not see every day. The other thing the Court did not see was “any evidence” that the deposits were what and as Laudon described.

We therefore accept the Commissioner’s reconstruction of income.”

On to deductions.

He treats some of his patients in his home and claims to use roughly half of his house – the basement and half of the garage – for business.”

This could be a problem. Rember that an office in home deduction requires exclusive business use of the space. He claimed a lot of space, ratcheting the pressure on “exclusive.”

Like many chiropractic offices, Laudon’s has beds, tables, and a waiting area. But unlike most, his also comes equipped with a Wii, Xbox 360, big-screen TVs and, for a time, a working hair salon.”

Hair salon? What kind of chiropractic office is this?

I see that Laudon represented himself at Tax Court. I would also guess that he represented himself during the audit. Why do I say that?

We particularly disbelieve his claim that the Xbox, Wii, big-screen TVs and other electronics in his basement were used exclusively for chiropractic purposes since this claim conflicts with his much more plausible admission to the IRS examiner during audit that his daughter and his girlfriend’s son would play these video games while he was on the phone.”

There is an example of why I almost never have a client meet or speak directly with the IRS – I cannot control the exchange.

Laudon was deducting between 40,000 and 60,000 miles per year for business purposes.

.. for example, driving to a ‘schizophrenic’ patient who was – on more than one occasion – ‘running scared of demons’ down a rural Minnesota highway .…”

That last part should be incorporated into a folk or country song. I can almost hear the melody.

Laudon apparently had a penchant for adult beverages.

Laudon claimed to have driven hundreds of miles per day – sometimes without a valid license ….”

I’ll bite. What happened to his license?

Even his testimony about multiple entries in the logs where he wrote “DUI” was not credible: He claimed that these were not references to being stopped by the police while under the influence, or driving while his license was suspended .…”

Then what were they?

They “instead were his misspellings of a patient named: 'Dewey' - a supposed patient of his.'"

This is starting to read like a sit com script. I am waiting for the reference to tiger blood.

But he had a mileage log, right? Did that count for anything?

Laudon had a mileage log, but it fails to meet section 274(d)’s standards. The … entry, for example, describes his purpose as ‘travel to and from places.’”

Zen-like. Nice.

The Court also looked at other expenses, including “Other Expenses” for the three years under audit.

Most of this amount - $22,665 – was a deduction for the value of Laudon’s labor, supplies and stolen goods ….”

Wait on it.

… related to the renovation of a home that Laudon neither lived nor worked in, or even owned.”

It fits. Well done, sir.

Laudon was getting clipped on almost every deduction.

But wait.

You know the IRS wanted penalties.

Laudon asserts the defense that he reasonably relied on the advice of a tax professional.”

Yep, that is a defense, but you must use a tax professional, provide all information – good or bad – to the professional and actually rely on the professional.

Moreover, while he claimed to have brought all of his receipts to H&R Block along with his summaries, he later stated that his preparers didn’t want him to just walk in with his receipts and have them add it up ….”

Folks, accountants do not add up grocery bags of receipts. Considering that the profession usually bills based on work time, I doubt you want to pay someone for adding up your receipts.

The Court was direct:

We don’t need to address the …. because we don’t believe that Laudon provided ‘necessary and accurate information’ to his advisor.”

At this point, the Court did not believe anything Laudon was saying.

Having blinded H&R Block to the details and peculiarities of his chiropractic enterprise, Laudon cannot now claim that he relied on H&R Block’s advice. We sustain the penalty.”

Our case this time was David William Laudon v Commissioner. T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-54.

If you read only one, make it this one.

Penalties For Cash Reporting Failures

 

It would be a vast understatement to say that the plucky Rebellion had software issues this busy season.

We saw (some of) it coming … given the merger and all. Short of Excel and Word, there was little overlap between our softwares - that is, our preparation software, research software, time reporting, invoicing and receipt, monitoring the accounting practice and whatnot.

We are still working through the shock.

And I see a Tax Cout decision issued about a week ago concerning software.

I can tell you before reading it how the Court will decide:

Software – unless involving matters exceeding the minds of mortal men – will not save one from penalties. If one purchases and installs software, one is under obligation to learn and master it.

My thoughts?

I am divided. An ordinary taxpayer does not – should not - need my services. Reach a certain point though, and a tax professional becomes as necessary as a primary physician or a dentist.

Still, the Code has become increasingly complex since I came out of school. The very computerization that has allowed professionals to streamline and systematize their work has simultaneously allowed the Congressional tax committees to draft and score increasing complex and near-unworkable changes to the Code. Far too many of these changes can potentially reach ordinary taxpayers. That taxpayer would probably not know that he/she wandered into a minefield. He/she would learn of it when the penalty notice arrived, however. The IRS (and too often the courts) presume that you have a graduate degree in taxation – ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that flourish. They do not care that you don’t.

Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest LLC (Dealers) was an Arizona company selling vehicles through auction houses. It frequently received cash in the ordinary conduct of its business. Not surprisingly, the cash from a sale would often exceed $10,000.

There is a Code section involved here:

          Section 6050I

(a)  Cash receipts of more than $10,000

Any person

(1)  Who is engaged in a trade or business, and

(2)  Who in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions),

shall make the return described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) at such time as the Secretary may by Regulations prescribe.

Once Sec 6050I is triggered, the company files Form 8300 with the IRS. It is an information return (no taxes go with it), but there are penalties for failure to file the return.

Not surprisingly, it has its own rules and subrules.

You know the Forms 8300 were an issue for Dealers.

They bought software (AuctionMaster) to deal with it.

They bought the software after flubbing the 2014 Form 8300 filings. The IRS assessed penalties of over $21 grand, and Dealers realized that buying software was cheaper than paying penalties.

And … the IRS was back in 2016.

Why?

Dealers filed 116 Forms 8300. The IRS argued that Dealers should have filed 382.

The IRS wanted over $118 grand in penalties.

Yipes!

Here is the Court:

Dealers Auto was not immediately aware of its failures. Instead, it was not until the Commissioner began the examination that Dealers Auto became aware of its noncompliance.”

Dealers was blindsided.

It took immediate steps:

·       It contacted the software provider and learned that improved aggregation features were available starting in 2017 (the year following the audit year).

·       Dealers quizzed the auditor on the subtleties of Form 8300 and its filing requirements.

·       Dealers changed its procedures and internal control for filing 8300s.

·       Dealers changed to electronic filing of the 8300s. They let the software cook.

No way the IRS was going to retract that $118 grand-plus assessment, though.

Dealers appealed the penalty. It wanted abatement for reasonable cause.

COMMENT: So would I, frankly.

Dealers’ argument was straightforward: we relied on software, and the software malfunction was outside of our control.

The IRS responded: there was no malfunction. You never mastered the software. If you had, you would have realized that it was not functioning as you thought.

Harsh, methinks. Probably honest, though.

Here is the Court:

Dealers Auto failed to establish that there was a software failure.”

The instructions for the software suggest that the software prepared Forms 8300 for printing, but Dealers Auto asserts that the software files the forms on the user’s behalf.”

Even assuming Dealers Auto met its burden to show a failure beyond the filer’s control, the record does not support a finding that Dealers Auto acted reasonably before or after the failure. For example, Dealers Auto did not establish that it was correctly using the software or that data was being entered correctly into the system.”

Dealers Auto argues that it reasonably believed the software was working as intended because it was generating some information returns. But the record shows that Dealers Auto software prepared only 116 Forms 8300 in 2016. The record also shows that Dealers Auto was required to file at least 212 Forms 8300 in 2014.”

This is going poorly.

What do I see?

I see a small business that was surprised in 2014. It responded with technology, but its familiarity with technology appears limited. It got surprised again. Normally that would indicate recidivism, but I don’t think that is what happened here. I think Dealers had only so many resources to throw at a problem. In addition, they may not have realized the extent of the problem if they were quizzing the IRS auditor on the ins and outs.

What did the Court see?

While it is not necessary to show that Dealers Auto made every data entry correctly, the record offers the Court no insight as to Dealer Auto’s installation, training, or use of the software.”

Here it comes:

Dealers Auto failed to establish that it has reasonable cause for its failure to file information returns for 2016.”

What disappoints me about cases like this is the failure to reward a taxpayer’s effort. Dealers tried. It bought software. It was filing, albeit not as much as it was supposed to. Should it have expended more money and resources on the matter? Clearly, but then I should have played in the NFL and retired as a Hall of Famer. The IRS is punishing Dealers like a scofflaw who did not care, made things up and never intended to follow the rules. To me, applying the same penalties to both situations is abusive.

Our case this time was Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest LLC v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-38.

Valuing a Questionable Business

 

Starting with a 46-page case soon after finishing tax season may not have been my best idea.

Still, the case is a hoot.

Here is the Court:

Backstabbing, infidelity, and blackmail – not the first words that come to mind in relation to a baby products company.”

We are talking about Kaleb Pierce and his (ex) wife Ms. Bosco.

Early on Pierce sought to make money any way he could. At age 16 he purchased an ice cream truck, for example. He met Bosco and they married in 2000. Several children soon followed.

That ice cream truck was not going to suffice. He switched to selling timeshares. He then switched to painting houses.

In 2005 they had another child. Bosco had an idea relating to nursing newborns, and Pierce had his next business idea. He reached out to Chinese manufacturers to make wristbands for nursing mothers. He set up a website, attended tradeshows and whatnot.

His idea was not an initial success.

But there was someone at the tradeshow who was successful. Pierce wanted to partner with them, but they were not interested, Pierce then decided to duplicate their company and run them out of business.

The model was easy enough: he would manufacture the product in China, undercut the existing retail price and then reduce that already-undercut price to zero by use of promotional codes. Where is the money, you ask? He would charge a shipping fee. Considering that the price was already reduced to zero, he figured he could press his thumb on the shipping fee as his profit point.

He was right, but not fully. In the early days, the products were sometimes shipped to customers showing the actual shipping cost. Those customers were not amused.

But Pierce could make money.

And the model was simple: appropriate someone’s product, create a website to pitch it, have the product manufactured cheaply, make money hand over fist. Mind you, the products were all directed at nursing mothers, so the window to market and sell was limited. He had to strike hard and fast. He also had to keep introducing new products, as he continually needed something on which to hang a shipping charge.

The company was called Mothers Lounge (ML). ML sold each product through a different subsidiary. This separation of business was vital to give the appearance that the companies were unrelated. Even so, many customers found that the same company was selling the products. They requested that different orders be shipped together, which ML could not do, of course. ML had reached a point where 97% of its revenues came from that free- just-pay-shipping model.

How did it turn out?

In his own words:

He “never imagined that he was going to be this successful.”

But then ….

Pierce had an extramarital affair.

Someone added a tracker to Pierce’s software that tracked his keystrokes and found out about the affair.

Someone sent a box with a letter demanding $100,000 by the following week or said someone would tell Bosco about the affair.

Pierce told Bosco about the affair first. The news shattered her. She no longer trusted him. She forbade him from attending tradeshows. He responded by sending employees in his place, but it was not the same. His employees were not as … creative … at recognizing … opportunities as Pierce. Eventually he stepped down as CEO to deal with his family.

The business was not the same.

But Pierce and Bosco were still printing money. He did what a nouveau-riche entrepreneur would do: he started estate planning.

It is here that we get back to tax.

They created a trust. The trust in turn created an operating company. Pierce and Bosco each gifted 29.4% ownership to the trust. They also sold a 20.6% interest to the operating company owned by the trust.

The tax lawyers were busy.

There was a gift tax return, which meant that ML needed a valuation.

The IRS selected the gift tax returns (one by each spouse) for audit.

Pierce and Bosco fired their valuation expert and hired another.

That is different, methinks.

The new expert came in with a lower number. Pierce and Bosco told the IRS that – if anything – they had overreported the gift. What was the point of the audit?

The IRS was not buying this. The IRS argued that the two had underreported the gift by almost $5 million. Remember that the gift tax rate is 40%, so this disagreement translated into real money. The IRS also wanted penalties of almost $2 million.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court discussed valuation procedures for over twenty pages, the detail of which I will spare us. The Court liked some things about Pierce and Bosco’s valuations (remember they had two) and also liked some things about the IRS valuation. Then you had the unique facts of Mothers Lounge itself, a business which was not really a business but was nonetheless quite profitable. How do you value a business like that, and how do you adjust for the business decline since the blackmail attempt? The IRS argued that ML could return to a more traditional business model. The Court noted that ML could not; it was a different animal altogether.

The decision is a feast for those interested in valuation work. The Court was meticulous in going through the steps, but it was not going to decide a number. Truthfully, it could not: there was too much there.

The Court instead made an interim decision under Rule 155, a Tax Court arcana requiring the two parties to perform – and agree to – calculations consistent with the Court’s reasoning.

And the Court will review those results in a future hearing.

Our case this time was Pierce v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-29.

Electronic Signatures And The Tax Court

I had a moment of dual disbelief and laughter.

At the expense of the IRS and the Tax Court.

Electronic records, cloud computing and work from home (WFH) have and continue to revolutionize the way we practice and work. I have been working, for example, with a CPA firm sponsoring a very robust WFH policy, as well as outsourcing selected tax functions overseas. Mind you, the infrastructure protecting that data transmission and retention is formidable, but woe to the accountant - especially if over age 40 – learning it for the first time.

Let’s go back to 2020. The Tax Court was rolling-in its new electronic platform – called DAWSON - which in turn was based on PACER, used for dockets in other courts. The Court was embracing electronic records, albeit in fits and starts. For example, the initial launch included only records created by the Court itself. It did not include taxpayer-submitted documents, for example. While the intent to protect taxpayer privacy was clear, it was also clear that some compromise was required. Filings containing confidential information could be sealed. If not otherwise pertinent, any confidential information could be redacted in the filing copy.

DAWSON did allow for electronic filing of the court petition itself.               

This was a big deal.

We have spoken many times about a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) or Statutory Notice of Deficiency (SNOD). This is an IRS notice, and it is also known as the 90-Day Letter. That 90 days may well be cast in concrete, as you have 90 days to file with the Tax Court should you choose to contest the matter. The IRS is very unforgiving here: miss the deadline by one day and it is guaranteed that the IRS will move to toss out your petition.

The electronic filing provides some piece of mind, but accidents still happen.

EXAMPLE: Antawn Jaal Sanders was filing electronically with the Tax Court, but Antawn cut it close. The last day to file was December 12, 2022, and Antawn had started downloading the Court forms onto his Android shortly before 10 p.m. Unable to file from his phone, he switched to his computer at 11:56 p.m. It took him a minute to log in and several to return to where he had been. It was after midnight by the time he started uploading to DAWSON. The IRS of course moved to dismiss his petition, and the Court agreed. Antawn might challenge the IRS, but he was not doing it in Tax Court. After midnight was the next day, meaning his petition was late.

Do you wonder how the taxpayer signs that petition in DAWSON?

If it were a paper file, there would be a handwritten signature.

DAWSON does not allow (for now, at least) for a handwritten signature. What it does do is allow a block-letter facsimile of your signature.

Here is the Court:

The combination of DAWSON username (email address) and password serves as the signature of the individual filing the document.”

The Court says it will accept the facsimile as a signature, so that should be the end of it.

Except when it isn’t.

Robert and Kegan Donlan filed their petition on DAWSON, and they took advantage of the electronic signature.

The IRS immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the petition was not property signed.

The Court bounced the IRS motion, of course.

And I find myself wondering – why did the IRS go there? I suppose it simply had to test the lock, fully expecting it to be locked.

And – here is years of CPA practice speaking – whether it was a new attorney who drew the short straw to look foolish in front of the Court.

Our case this time was Donlan v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court Docket 16579-24, Feb. 19, 2025.

Government Forces Sale to Cover Partner’s Tax Debt

 I was reading a case recently that bothered me. It involves something that – fortunately – I rarely see in practice.

Here is the Code section:

§ 7403 - Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax

(a) Filing. In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability. For purposes of the preceding sentence, any acceleration of payment under section 6166(g) shall be treated as a neglect to pay tax.

(b) Parties. All persons having liens upon or claiming any interest in the property involved in such action shall be made parties thereto.

(c) Adjudication and decree. The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may decree a sale of such property, by the proper officer of the court, and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of the United States. If the property is sold to satisfy a first lien held by the United States, the United States may bid at the sale such sum, not exceeding the amount of such lien with expenses of sale, as the Secretary directs.

(d) Receivership. In any such proceeding, at the instance of the United States, the court may appoint a receiver to enforce the lien, or, upon certification by the Secretary during the pendency of such proceedings that it is in the public interest, may appoint a receiver with all the powers of a receiver in equity.

And here is where you leave your tax CPA and hire a tax attorney.

Section 7403 permits a court to authorize the sale of property when a delinquent person owns property with a nondelinquent person. The IRS cannot do this on its own power, however; it must first go to district court and obtain approval.

To be fair, one is deep into the IRS Collection machinery before Section 7403 is even an issue. I would be screaming at you – and likely fired you as a client – long before we got here, unless bad fortune was involved. If there was bad fortune, we likely would be submitting an offer in compromise.

The heavyweight case in this area is United States v Rodgers. Rodgers was a Texas gambler who died, leaving a $900,000 tax debt. He (well, now his estate) and his wife owned their home. Under Texas law the surviving spouse had a lifetime right to live in the home. The government of course wanted its money.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which identified four issues before the government could force any sale to collect taxes.

 (1) Statutory authority

Does the taxpayer have any “right, title or interest” to the property in question?

 

In Rodgers, yes. The deceased had the same rights to the entire home as did the widow.

 

The type of ownership can have a drastic effect on the government’s ability to reach the asset. A tenancy by the entirety, for example, might result in a different answer from a tenancy in common (which we will see below). 

            (2) Constitutional authority

This goes back to eminent domain. The government is not an ordinary creditor in this situation; rather it is exercising the prerogatives of a sovereign. Think of the government as a super creditor.

            (3) Practical undercompensation

Think actuarial calculations. For example, one could think that a 50/50 split of marital assets is fair. However, the value of a life estate to a surviving spouse aged fifty can be up to 95% of the home’s sales price. The spread between 95% and 50% is referred to as “practical undercompensation.”

            (4) Four-factor balancing test

             (a)  Will a non-sale prejudice the government?

   (b) Does the spouse have a legally recognized expectation of the house not being sold?

   (c)  Will the spouse suffer prejudice from practical undercompensation and dislocation costs?

   (d)  What are the relative characters and values of the two ownership interests?

Subsequent application of Rodgers focuses on these four factors.

Let’s move on to Driscoll.

Thomas Driscoll was a dentist. He owned a dental practice with Dr Vockroth. Together they also owned the building in which the dental practice was located.

Common enough.

Dr Driscoll became substantially delinquent with his tax obligations.

In April 2023, the government filed a motion for forced sale of both the practice and the building.

Meanwhile. Dr V had no tax issues. He may have made the mistake of partnering with someone who did, but that was the extent of his culpability.

The government – to its credit – allowed additional time to sell both assets.

But there were issues: trying to sell a dental practice in a small town and a building housing said practice in said small town. Let’s just say there was limited interest in buying either.

The government now wanted a forced sale.

Let’s go through the Rodgers four factors:

One

The Court decided Dr V could not show that the government would not be prejudiced by going after 50% rather than 100% of the practice and building.

Yes, the double negative is a bit difficult to follow.

This was a practice in a small town. It was going to be tough enough to sell without trying to sell half rather than the whole.

         The court decided that factor one weighed in favor of a sale.

         Two

Was Dr V as a tenant in common subject to a forced sale?

Here is the Court discussing the real estate:

This conclusion is also supported by the fact that, unlike tenants by the entirety or joint tenants, tenants in common enjoy no protections from forced sales or partition actions.”

Tough to be a tenant in common in New Jersey.

The court decided factor two weighed in favor of a sale.

Three

 Was there prejudice to Dr V in terms of personal dislocation of costs and undercompensation of interest?

Here is the Court:

 Dr Vockroth asserts that he will be ‘forced to lay off all of [his] employees,’ and that he will ‘no longer be able to see [his]  patients.'”

OK, Dr V may be laying it on thick, but that does not mean there is no truth here. Relocating a practice costs money. There are – for example - additional electrical and plumbing needs before a building can house a dental practice. Patients may not follow. Employees may not follow. The court is playing cavalierly with other people’s lives.

Here is the court in its best Frasier Crane voice:

 Furthermore, even if Dr Vockroth is negatively affected by the LLC in some way, this is not an undue prejudice of a magnitude to prevent a forced sale. It is axiomatic that LLCs and partnerships change, fail, dissolve and are bought and sold with regularity. Partners die or sell their shares The reality is simply part of being in business, and Dr. Vockroth is not exempt from this fact, especially when he fails to offer any reliable evidence to support his contentions.”

What is Dr V to do: poll his patients and employees to see whether they would follow? Oh, that will go swimmingly.

BTW the sale of a dental practice will certainly include a noncompete, meaning that Dr V could not open a dental practice within so many miles of the existing practice. Well, he could, but he would be sued.

One would think a judge would know that.

Four

  The relative character and value of the property owned by the two owners.

There was not much play here as both doctors owned 50%.

The court decided that the government could foreclose on both the practice and the real estate.

Technically right, but lousy law. Consider this menacement from Rodgers:

We do emphasize, however, that the limited discretion accorded by § 7403 should be exercised rigorously and sparingly, keeping in mind the Government's paramount interest in prompt and certain collection of delinquent taxes.

Section 7403 is not taxpayer friendly.

Our case this time was United States v Driscoll, 2025 BL 2655, D.N.J. No. 3:18-cv-11762, 1/6/25.

Section 643 and MSTs

 

I came across the following recently on LinkedIn:

 

The line of tax code that 99% of CPAs can’t understand for some reason.

And because they don’t understand this they make their clients tax planning convoluted and unnecessary.

26 U.S. Code § 643

(3) Capital gains and losses
Gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets shall be excluded to the extent that such gains are allocated to corpus and are not (A) paid, credited, or required to be distributed to any beneficiary during the taxable year, or (B) paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for the purposes specified in section 642(c). 

Stop, just stop.

There is a lot of nonsense going around on social media concerning something called - among other things – a “nongrantor, irrevocable, complex, discretionary, spendthrift trust.”

I just call it a “643 trust.” It is probably unfair as Section 643 has its legitimate place in the Code, but I simply cannot repetitively spray multisyllabic spittle when referring to these.

They have many forms, but one thing is key: Section 643. I met last year with someone who was hawking these things but was unable to find a CPA with his elevated mastery of the tax Code.

Uh huh. Elevator is down the hall, pal.

Let’s walk through these trusts.

The tax Code has numerous sections. Go to Chapter 1 Subchapter J and you will find sections dealing with trusts. You will note that they all have numbers between 641 and 692.

Section 643 is between 641 and 692. We are in the right place.

Trust taxation is not the easiest thing to understand. There are weird concepts. Then there are uncommon terms, such as:

 

·       The grantor – the person who transfers assets to the trust.

·       The income beneficiary – the person entitled to income distributions.

·       The residuary beneficiary – the person entitled to the remainder of the trust when the income beneficiaries are done.

·        Irrevocable trust – a trust where the grantor cannot amend or end the trust after its creation.

·       Complex trust – a trust that can accumulate (that is, retain) its profit.

·       Trustee – the person managing trust assets for the benefit of trust beneficiaries. A trustee is required to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries.

·       Discretionary trust – a trust allowing a trustee the power to decide how and when to distribute assets (including income) to beneficiaries.

Believe it or not, there are also several definitions of income, such as:

 

·       Fiduciary accounting income – income as defined by the trust instrument and state law.

·       Distributable net income – the maximum income available to the trustee for distribution to beneficiaries.

·       Taxable income – income as defined by the tax Code.

And - yes - you can get different answers depending on which definition of income you are looking at.

Why is that?

One reason is possible tension between different beneficiary classes. Say that you create a trust for your son and daughter as income beneficiaries. Upon their death, the remaining trust assets (called corpus) goes to the grandkids, who are the residuary beneficiaries. Your kids may want something to be considered income, as they are entitled to income distributions. The grandkids may prefer something not be considered income, as that something would not be distributed and thereby remain in the trust until eventual distribution to them.

What are common friction points between income and residuary beneficiaries? Here are two repetitive ones: capital gains and depreciation.

For example, one may consider depreciation as a reserve to replace deteriorating physical assets. In that case, it makes sense to allocate depreciation to the residuary beneficiaries, as the assets will eventually go to them. Then again, accountants routinely include depreciation as a current period expense. In that case, depreciation should go to the income beneficiaries along with other current period expenses.

Back to our multisyllabic spittle trust (MST).

Look at Section 643(b):

    26 U.S. Code § 643 - Definitions applicable to subparts A, B, C, and D

(b) Income.

For purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D, the term "income", when not preceded by the words "taxable", "distributable net", "undistributed net", or "gross", means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law. Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law shall not be considered income.  

What is this Section trying to do?

Looks like it is trying to define “income” and failing rather badly at it.

Look at the last sentence:

… which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, … shall not be considered income.”

Hmmmmm.

But read the first sentence:

… when not preceded by the words “taxable ….”

Seems to me that last sentence could be the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis and it would not matter once you put the word “taxable” in front of “income.”

Let’s move on to Section 643(a):

Distributable net income.

For purposes of this part, the term “distributable net means, with respect to any taxable year, the taxable income of the estate or trust computed with the following modifications —  

(3) Capital gains and losses         

Gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets shall be excluded to the extent that such gains are allocated to corpus and are not (A) paid, credited, or required to be distributed to any beneficiary during the taxable year, or (B) paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for the purposes specified in section 642(c).  

(4) Extraordinary dividends and taxable stock dividends  

… there shall be excluded those items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, does not pay or credit to any beneficiary by reason of his determination that such dividends are allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law.

I see the words “shall be excluded.”

I see the extraordinary dividends and taxable stock dividends from Section 643(b). And there is new wording about gains from the sale or exchange of capital assets. Is it possible …?

I also see the words “Distributable net income” at the top.

Let’s go back to our definitions of trust income.

Section 643(a) addresses distributable net income. Think of DNI as Mint Chocolate Chip.

Section 643(b) addresses taxable income. Think of TI as Cookies and Cream.

Mint Chocolate Chip is not Cookies and Cream.

Maybe capital gains are excludable from DNI. Maybe they are not. Either way, that conundrum has nothing to do with capital gains being excludable from taxable income.

The IRS is quite aware of the game being played.

Here is AM 2023-006:

 

One is dancing on the slippery beveled edge of a possible tax shelter.

Just leave these trusts alone. If I could make income nontaxable by running it through a string-a-bunch-of-words-together trust, I would have done so years ago. I might have even retired by now.