A Ponzi Scheme And Filing Late

I am reading a case involving a late tax return, a Ponzi scheme, and an IRS push for penalties.

It made me think of this form:

It is used for one of two reasons:

(1)  Someone is filing a tax return with numbers different from a Schedule K-1 received from a passthrough entity (such as a partnership).

(2)  Someone is amending a TEFRA partnership return.

That second one is a discussion for another day. Let’s focus instead on the first reason. How could it happen?

Easy. You are a partner in a partnership. You bring me your Schedule K-1 to prepare your personal return. I spot something wrong with the K-1, and the numbers are large enough to matter. We contact that partnership to amend the return and/or your K-1. The partnership refuses.

COMMENT: We would use Form 8082 to inform the IRS that we are not using numbers provided on your K-1.

This is a tough spot to be in. File the form and you are possibly waiving a flag at the IRS. Fail to file it and the IRS has procedural rights, and those include the right to change your numbers back to the original (and disputed) K-1.

There is another situation where you may want to file Form 8082.

Let’s look at the Rosselli case.

Mr. Roselli (Mr. R) was a housing appraiser. Mrs. Rosselli was primarily a homemaker. Together they have five children, three of whom have special needs.

Through his business, Mr. R came to know the founder of a solar energy company (DC Solar). Turns out that DC Solar was looking for additional capital, and Mr. R knew someone looking to invest. The two were introduced and – in gratitude – Mr R became a managing member in DC Solar via his company Halo Management Services LLC.

This part turned out well for the R’s. In 2017 DC Solar paid Halo approximately $300 grand. In 2018 DC Solar paid approximately $414 grand. Considering they had no money invested, this was all gravy for the R's.

COMMENT: Notice that Halo was paid for management services. Halo in turn was Mr. R, so Mr. R got paid over $700 grand over two years for services performed. This was a business, and Mr. R needed to report it on his tax return like any other business.

In late 2018 the FBI raided DC Solar’s offices investigating whether the company was a Ponzi scheme. The owners of DC Solar were eventually indicted and pled guilty, so I guess the company was.

Let’s roll into the next year. It was tax time (April 15, 2019) and there was not a K-1 from DC Solar in sight.

COMMENT: You think?

The accountant filed an extension until October 15. It did not matter, as the R’s did not file a tax return by then either.

The IRS ran a routine check on DC Solar and its partners. It did not take much for the IRS to flag that the R’s had not filed a 2018 return. The IRS contacted the R’s, who contacted their accountant, eventually filing their 2018 return in January 2022.

You know what was on that 2018 return? The $414 grand in management fees.

You know what was not on that 2018 return? A big loss from DC Solar.

Here is Mr. R:

Mr. Carpoff informed me that I was to receive Schedule K-1s showing large ordinary losses for 2018 from DC Solar, and as a result I would not have a tax liability for that year. However, before the K-1s could be issued … DC Solar’s offices were raided by the FBI.”

All of DC Solar’s documents and records were seized by federal authorities in the ensuing investigation. As a result, I was unable to determine any tax implications because I did not receive a K-1 or any other tax reporting information from DC Solar.”

Got it: Mr. R was expecting a big loss to go with that $414 grand. And why not? DC Solar had reported a big loss to him for 2017, the prior year.

But the IRS Collections machinery had started turning. By August 2022, the IRS was moving to levy, and the R’s filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing.

COMMENT: There is maddening procedure about arguing underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing, which details we will skip. Suffice to say, a taxpayer generally wants to fight any proposed tax liability like the third monkey boarding Noah’s ark BEFORE requesting a CDP hearing.

At the conclusion of the CDP hearing, the IRS decided that they had performed all the required procedural steps to collect the R’s 2018 tax. The R’s disagreed and filed with the Tax Court.

The R’s presented three arguments.

• They reasonably assumed that they would not be required to file or pay tax for 2018 because of an expected loss from the DC Solar K-1.

The Court was not buying this. Not owing any taxes is not the same as not being required to file. This was not a case where someone did not work, meaning they dd not have enough income to trigger a filing requirement. The Rs instead had a more complicated return, with income here and deductions or losses there. Granted, it might compress to no tax due, but they needed to file so one could follow how they got to that answer.

• The R’s reasonably relied on advice from their accountant and others.

The Court did not buy this either. For one thing, the Rs had never informed their accountant about the $414 grand in management fees. If one wants to rely on a professional’s advice, one must provide all available pertinent information to the professional. The Court was not amused that the R’s had not shared the LARGEST number on their return with their accountant.

• The R’s argued that they would experience “undue hardship” from paying the tax on its due date.

The R’s argued that their income died up when DC Solar was raided. Beyond that, though, they had not provided further information on what “drying up” meant. Without information about their assets, liabilities and remaining sources of income, the Court found the R’s argument to be self-serving.

Also, the Court did not ask – but I will – what the R's had done with the $700 grand in management fees they received in 2017 and 2018.

Yeah, no. The Court found for the IRS, penalties and all.

And here is what I am thinking:

What if they had timely filed their 2018 return, showing a loss from DC Solar equal to the management fees?

Problem: there was no K-1 from DC Solar.

Answer: attach the 8082.

I think the tax would eventually have turned out the same.

But I also think they would have had a persuasive case for abatement of penalties for late filing and late payment. The penalty for late file and pay is easily 25%, so that abatement is meaningful.

Our case this time was Rosselli v Commissioner, TC Bench Opinion, October 23, 2023.

Basis Basics

I am looking at a case involving a basis limitation.

Earlier today I accepted a meeting invite with a new (at least to me) client who may be the poster child for poor tax planning when it comes to basis.

Let’s talk about basis – more specifically, basis in a passthrough entity.

The classic passthrough entities are partnerships and S corporations. The “passthrough” modifier means that the entity (generally) does not pay its own tax. Rather it slices and dices its income, deductions and credits among its owners, and the owners include their slice in their own respective tax returns.

Make money and basis is an afterthought.

Lose money and basis becomes important.

Why?

Because you can deduct your share of passthrough losses only to the extent that you have basis in the passthrough.

How in the world can a passthrough have losses that you do not have basis in?

Easy: it borrows money.

The tax issue then becomes: can you count your share of the debt as additional basis?

And we have gotten to one of the mind-blowing areas of passthrough taxation.  Tax planners and advisors bent the rules so hard back in the days of old-fashioned tax shelters that we are still reeling from the effect.

Let’s start easy.

You and I form a partnership. We both put in $10 grand.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

 

The partnership buys an office condo for $500 grand. We put $20 grand down and take a mortgage for the rest.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

         Mortgage        240,000       240,000

                                250,000       250,000

So we can each have enough basis to deduct $250,000 of losses from this office condo. Hopefully that won’t be necessary. I would prefer to make a profit and just pay my tax, thank you.

Let’s change one thing.

Let’s make it an S corporation rather than partnership.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash               10,000        10,000                   

         Mortgage             -0-              -0-

                                10,000        10,000

Huh?

Welcome to tax law.

A partner in a general partnership gets to increase his/her basis by his/her allocable share of partnership debt. The rule can be different for LLC’s taxed as a partnership, but let’s not get out over our skis right now.       

When you and I are partners in a partnership, we get to add our share of the mortgage - $480,000 – to our basis.

S corporations tighten up that rule a lot. You and I get basis only for our direct loans to the S corporation. That mortgage is not a direct loan from us, so we do not get basis.

What does a tax planner do?

For one thing, he/she does not put an office condo in an S corporation if one expects it to throw off tax losses.

What if it has already happened?

I suppose you and I can throw cash into the S. I assure you my wife will not be happy with that sparkling tax planning gem.

I suppose we could refinance the mortgage in our own names rather than the corporate name.

That would be odd if you think about. We would have personal debt on a building we do not own personally.

Yeah, it is better not to go there.

The client meeting I mentioned earlier?

They took a partnership interest holding debt-laden real estate and put it inside an S corporation.

Problem: that debt doesn’t create basis to them in the S corporation. We have debt and no tax pop. Who advised this? Someone who should not work tax, I would say.

I am going to leverage our example to discuss what the Kohouts (our tax case this time) did that drew the Tax Court’s disapproval.               

Let’s go back to our S corporation. Let’s add a new fact: we owe someone $480,000. Mind you, you and I owe – not the S corporation. Whatever the transaction was, it has nothing to do with the S corporation.

We hatch the following plan.

We put in $240,000 each.

You: OK.

We then have the corporation pay the someone $480,000.

You: Hold up, won’t that reduce our basis when we cut the check?

Ahh, but we have the corporation call it a “loan” The corporation still has a $480,000 asset. Mind you, the asset is no longer cash. It is now a “loan.”  Wells Fargo and Fifth Third do it all the time.

You: Why would the corporation lend someone $480,000? Wells Fargo and Fifth Third are at least … well, banks.

You have to learn when to stop asking questions.

You: Are we going to have a delay between putting in the cash and paying - excuse me - “loaning” someone $480,000?

Nope. Same day, same time. Get it over with. Rip the band-aid.

You: Wouldn’t a Court have an issue with this if we get caught … errr … have the bad luck to get audited?

Segue to our court case.

In Kohout the Court considered a situation similar enough to our example. They dryly commented:

Courts evaluating a transaction for economic substance should exercise common sense …”

The Court said that all the money sloshing around could be construed as one economic transaction. As the money did not take even a breather in the S corporation, the Court refused to spot the Kohouts any increase in basis.

Our case this time was Kohout v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-37.

ProShares Bitcoin ETF and Futures Taxation

 

This week something happened that made me think of a friend who passed away last year.

I remember him laboring me on the benefits of CBD oil and the need to invest in Bitcoin.

When he and I last left it (before COVID last year), Bitcoin was around $10 grand. It is over $60 grand presently.

Missed the boat and the harbor on that one.

This past week ProShares came out with a Bitcoin ETF (BITO). I read that it tripped the billion-dollar mark after two or three days of trading.

With that level of market acceptance, I suspect we will see a number of these in the near future.

This ETF does not hold Bitcoin itself (whatever that means). It instead will hold futures in Bitcoin.

Let’s talk about the taxation of futures.

First, what are futures and what purpose do they serve?

Let’s say that you are The Hershey Company and you want to lock-in prices for next year’s cacao and sugar. These commodities are a significant part of your costs of production, and you want to have some control over the price you will pay. You are a buyer of futures commodity contracts – in cacao and sugar – locking in volume, price and date of delivery.

Whereas you do not own the cacao and sugar yet, if their price goes up, you would have made a profit on the contract. The reverse is true, of course, if the price goes down. Granted, the price swing on the futures contract will likely be different than the swing in spot price for the commodity, as there is the element of time in the contract.  

That said, there is always someone looking to make a profit. Problem: if commodity traders had to actually receive or deliver the commodity, few people would do it. Solution: separate the contract from actual product delivery.  The contract can then be bought and sold until the delivery date; the buyers and sellers just settle-up any price swings between them upon sale.

It would be also nice to have a market that coordinates these trades. There are several, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The Exchange allows the contracts to be standardized, which in turn allows traders to buy and sell them without any intent to ever receive or deliver the underlying commodity.

The ETF we are discussing (BITO) will not own any Bitcoin itself. It will instead buy and sell futures contracts in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin futures are considered “Section 1256 contracts” in tax law.

Section 1256 brings its own idiosyncrasies:

* There is a mark-to-market rule.

The term “mark” to an accountant means that something is reset to its market price. In the context of BITO, it means that – if you own it at year-end – it will be considered to have been sold. Mind you, it was not actually sold, but there will be a “let’s pretend” calculation of gain or loss as if it had been sold. Why would you care? You would care if the price went up and you had a taxable gain. You will soon be writing a very real check to the IRS for that “let’s pretend” mark.

* The 60/40 rule

This rule is nonintuitive. Whether you have capital gains or losses, those gains and losses are deemed to 60% long-term and 40% short term. The tax Code (with exceptions we will ignore for this discussion) does not care how long you actually owned the contracts. Whether one day or two years, the gain or loss will be deemed 60/40.

Mind you, this is not necessarily a bad result as long-term capital gains have favorable tax rates.

* Special carryback rule

If you have an overall Section 1256 loss for the year, you can carryback that loss to the preceding three years. There is a restriction, though: the carryback can only offset Section 1256 gains in those prior years.

This is a narrow rule, by the way. I do not remember ever seeing this carryback, and I have been in tax practice for over 35 years.

I do not know but I anticipate that BITO will be sending out Schedules K-1 rather than 1099s to its investors, as these ETFs tend to be structured as limited partnerships. That does not overly concern me, but some accountants are wary as the K-1s can be trickier to handle and sometimes present undesired state tax considerations.

Similar to my response to Bitcoin investing in early 2020, I will likely pass on this opportunity. There are unusual considerations in futures trading – google “contango” and “backwardation” for example – that you may want to look into when considering the investment.

What’s Fair Got To Do With It?

I am reading a tax case with an unfortunate result.

It does not seem that difficult to me to have planned for a better outcome.

I have to wonder: why didn’t they?

Let’s set it up.

We have a law firm in New York. There is a “heavy” partner and the other partners, which we will call “everybody else.” The firm faced hard times, and “everyone else” kept-up their bleed rate (the rate at which they withdraw cash), with the result that their capital accounts went negative.

COMMENT: A capital account is increased by the partner’s share of the income and reduced by cash withdrawn by said partner. When income goes down but the cash withdrawn does not, the capital account can (and eventually will) go negative. 

Let’s return to our heavy partner.

He was concerned about the viability of the firm. He was further concerned that New York law imposed on him a fiduciary responsibility to assure that the firm be able to pay its bills. I applaud his sense of responsibility, but I have to point out that any increased uncertainty over the firm’s capacity to pay its bills might have something to do with “everybody else” taking out too much cash.

Just sayin’.

Our partner’s share of firm income was almost $500 grand.

Problem is that the cash did not follow the income. His “share” of the income may have been $500 grand, but he left around $400 grand in the firm to make-up for the slack of his partners.

And you have one of those things about partnership taxation:   

·      The allocation of income does not have to follow the allocation of cash.

There are limits to how far one can push this, of course.

Sometimes the effect is beneficial to the partner:

·      A partner tales out more cash than his/her share of the income because the partnership owns something with big-time depreciation. Depreciation is a non-cash expense, so it doesn’t affect his/her distribution of cash.

Sometimes the effect is deleterious to the partner:

·      Our guy took out considerably less cash than the $500K income.

Our guy did not draw enough cash to even pay the taxes on his share of the income.

OBSERVATION: That’s cra-cra.

What did he do?

He reported $75K of income on his tax return. Seeing how did not receive the cash, he thought the reduction was “fair.”

Remember: his partnership K-1 reported almost half a million.

The number on his personal return did not match what the partnership reported.

COMMENT: By the way, there is yet one more form to your tax return when you do not use a number reported by a partnership. The IRS wants to know. He might as well just have booked the audit.

Sure enough, the IRS sent him a notice for over $140,000 tax and $28,000 in penalties.

Off to Tax Court they went.

And he had … absolutely … no … chance.

Partnerships have incredibly flexible tax law. There is a reason why the notorious tax shelters of days past were structured around partnerships. One could send income here, losses there, money somewhere else and muddy the waters so much that you could not see the bottom.

In response, Congress and the IRS tightened up, then tightened some more. This area is now one of the most horrifying, unintelligible stretches in the tax Code.  It can – with little exaggeration – be said that all the practitioners who truly understand partnership tax law can fit into your family room.

Back to our guy.

The Court did not have to decide about New York law and fiduciary responsibility to one’s law firm or any of that. It just looked at tax law and said:

Your income did not match your cash. You set this scheme up, and – if you did not like it – you could have changed it. Once decided, however, live with your decision.

Those are my words, by the way, and not a quote.

Our law partner owed the tax and penalties.

Ouch and ouch.

I must point out, however, that the law firm’s tax advisors warned our guy that his “fiduciary” theory carried no water and would be disregarded by the IRS, but he decided to proceed nonetheless. He brought much of this upon himself.

What would I have recommended?

For goodness’ sake, people, change the partnership agreement so that the “everybody else” partners reported more income and our guy reported less. It is fairly common in more complex partnerships to “tier” (think steps in a ladder or the cascade of a fountain) the distribution of income, with cash being the second – if not the first – step in the ladder. The IRS is familiar with this structure and less likely to challenge it, as the movement of income would make sense.

Another option of course would be to close down the law firm and allow “everybody else” to fend for themselves.

I would argue that my recommendation is less harsh.