CTG University: Part One

Let's discuss a famous tax case, and then I will ask you how you would decide a second case based on the decision in the first.

We are going back to 1944, and Lewis received a $22 thousand bonus.  He reported it on his 1944 tax return. It turns out that the bonus had been calculated incorrectly, and he returned $11,000 in 1946. Lewis argued that the $11,000 was mistake, and as a mistake it should not have been taxed to him in 1944. He should be able to amend his 1944 return and get his taxes back. This had an extra meaning since his tax rate in 1946 was lower (remember: post-war), so if he could not amend 1944 he would never get all his taxes back.

The IRS took a very different stand. It pointed out that the tax Code measures income annually. While arbitrary, it is a necessary convention otherwise one could not calculate income or the tax thereon, as there would (almost) always be one or more transactions not resolving by the end of the year. Think for example of writing a check to the church on December 31 but the check not clearing until the following year. The Code therefore taxes income on a "period" concept and not a "transactional" concept. With that backdrop, Lewis would have a deduction in 1946, when he returned the excess bonus.

The case went to the Supreme Court, which found that the full bonus was taxable in 1944. The Court reasoned that Lewis had a "claim of right," a phrase which has now entered the tax literature. It means that income is taxable when received, if there are no restrictions on its disposition. This is true even if later one has to return the income. The reasoning is that there are no limits on one's ability to spend the money, and there is also no immediate belief that it has to be repaid. Lewis had a deduction in 1946.

Looks like the claim of right is a subset of "every tax year stands on its own."

Let's roll into the 1950s. There was a company by the name of Skelly Oil. During the years 1952 through 1957 it overcharged customers approximately $500 thousand. In 1958 it refunded the $500 thousand.

You can pretty much see the Lewis and claim-of-right issue.

But there was one more fact.

Skelly Oil had deducted depletion of 27.5%. Depletion is a concept similar to depreciation, but it does not have to be tied to cost. Say you bought a machine for $100,000. You would depreciate the machine by immediately expensing, allocating expense over time or whatever, but you would have to stop at $100,000. You cannot depreciate more than what you spent. Depletion is a similar concept, but without that limitation. One would deplete (not depreciate) an oil field, for example. One would continue depleting even if one had fully recovered the cost of the field. It is a nice tax gimmick.

Skelly Oil had claimed 27.5% depletion against its $500,000 thousand or so, meaning that it had paid tax on a net of $366,000.

Skelly Oil deducted the $505,000 thousand.

Skelly Oil had a leg up after the Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks and Lewis decisions, as every tax year was to stand on its own. It refunded $505,000, meaning it had a deduction of $505,000. Seemed a slam dunk.

The IRS said no way. The $505,000 had a trailer attached - that 27.5% depletion - and wherever it went that 27.5% went. The most Skelly Oil could deduct was the $366,000.

But the IRS had a problem: the tax Code was based on period reporting and not transactional reporting. The 27.5% trailer analogy was stunning on the big screen and all, but it was not tax law. There was no ball hitch on the $505,000 dragging depletion in its wake.

Here is the Supreme Court: 

[T]he Code should not be interpreted to allow respondent 'the practical equivalent of double deduction,' *** absent a clear declaration of intent by Congress."

The dissent argued (in my words):           

So what? Every year stands on its own. Since when is the Code concerned with the proper measurement of income?

Odd thing, though: the dissent was right. The Lewis decision does indicate that Skelly Oil had a $505,000 deduction, even though it might not have seemed fair. The Court reached instead for another concept - the Arrowsmith concept. 

[T]he annual accounting concept does not require us to close our eyes to what happened in prior years."

There is your ball hitch. The concept of "net items" would drag the 27.5% depletion into 1958. "Net items" would include revenues and deductions so closely related as to be inseparable. Like oil revenues and its related depletion deduction.

The Court gave us the following famous quote: 

In other situations when the taxes on a receipt do not equal the tax benefits of a repayment, either the taxpayer or the Government may, depending on circumstances, be the beneficiary. Here, the taxpayer always wins and the Government always loses."

And over time the Skelly Oil case has come to be interpreted as disallowing a tax treatment where "the taxpayer always wins and the Government always loses." The reverse, however, is and has always been acceptable to the Government.

But you can see something about the evolution of tax law: you don't really know the law until the Court decides the law. Both Lewis and Skelly Oil could have gone either way.

Now think of the tax law, rulings and Regulations being published every year. Do we really know what this law means, or are we just waiting our turn, like Lewis and Skelly Oil?

Why Does The IRS Want A Disabled Veteran To Work Faster?

Sometimes I read a tax case and ask myself “why did the IRS chase this?”

Lewis is one of those cases.

Let’s explain the context to understand what the IRS was after.

It will soon be three decades that Congress gave us the “passive activity” (PAL) rules. A PAL is a trade or business that you do not sufficiently participate in – that is, you are “passive” in the business. This means more when you have losses from the activity, as income is going to be taxed in any event. It was Congress’ intention to take the legs out from the tax shelters, and with PALs they have been largely successful.

The PAL rules got off to a rocky start. One of the early problems was Congress’ decision to classify real estate activities as passive activities. Now, that concept may make sense if one own a duplex a few streets over, but it doesn’t work so well if one is a home builder or property manager.

Say, for example, that a developer builds a hundred condo units. The real estate market reverses, and he/she cannot sell them as quickly as planned. The developer rents the units, waiting for the market to improve.

Most of us would see one activity. Congress saw two, as the rental had to be segregated. There was no harm if both were profitable. There was harm if only the development was profitable, however, as the rental loss would just hang in space until there was rental income to absorb it.

That was the point of the passive activity rules – to disallow the use of passive losses against nonpassive income.

Real estate professionals screamed about the unfairness of the law as it applied to their industry.

And Congress changed the law by making an exception for real estate people who:

(1) Work more than 750 hours during the year in real estate, and

(2) More than one-half of all hours worked were in real estate.

If you meet both of the above tests, you can deduct losses from your real estate activities to your heart’s content.

Bill Lewis is a Vietnam veteran. He took injuries as a Marine, retaining 50 percent use of his right arm and 70 percent of his feet, requiring him to wear orthopedic shoes. The military gave him a disability pension. He now needs knee surgery, and he has difficulty seeing. He is married.

He and his wife own a triplex next door to their residence. The property also has a washhouse, although I am uncertain what a washhouse is. There are six 64-gallon recycling bins, and several large walnut trees. Mr. Lewis does not ask anyone to take care of his property. He takes care of it himself.

1.  Every morning he walks around and inspects for trash, as they are located very close to a homeless area.  This takes him about a half hour daily.
2. Also on Mondays he scrubs down the washhouse. That requires him to haul water and takes him about three hours. 
3. On Tuesdays and Thursdays he landscapes, cleans the outside of the buildings and the garbage cans and rakes the yard. This takes about two hours on each day.
4. Depending on the season, he has more raking to do, as he has walnut trees on the property.
5. On Wednesdays he takes the recycling bins out to the curb. One by one, as he has mobility issues.
6. On Thursdays he returns the recycling bins. Same mobility issues.
7. He prefers to do repairs himself. If he needs outside help, he schedules and meets with that person. 
8. He follows a set routine, rarely if ever taking a vacation.

The Lewis’ claimed rental losses for 2010 and 2011. The IRS disallowed the losses and wanted almost $11,000 in taxes in return. The IRS said this was the classic passive activity.

The IRS should have also taken candy from a child and kicked a dog and made this a trifecta of bad choices.

Mr. Lewis was disabled. He did not have a job. As a consequence, he did not have to worry about spending more than half of his work hours in real estate. For him, all of his work hours were in real estate.

But Mr. Lewis ran into two issues:

(1)  He did not keep a journal, log or record of his activities and hours; and

(2)  The IRS did not believe it could possibly take more than 750 hours to do what he did.

Issue (1) is classic IRS. I have run into it myself in practice. The IRS wants contemporaneous records, and few people keep time sheets for their real estate activities. The IRS then jumps on after-the-fact records as “self-serving.” The IRS has been aided by people who truly could not have spent the hours they claimed (because, for example, they have a full-time job) as well as repetitively fabulist time records, and the courts now routinely side with the IRS on this issue.

But not this time. The judge was persuaded by the Lewis’ testimony and the few records they could provide. This was a rare win for the taxpayer.

The IRS had a second argument though: it should not have taken as long as it took Mr. Lewis to perform the tasks described.

The judge dismissed this point curtly:

Petitioner husband and petitioner wife testified credibly that because of petitioner husband’s disabilities all of the activities took him significantly longer than might ordinarily be expected.”

The Lewis’ won and the IRS lost.

Good.

These were very unique facts, though. Unless one truly works in the real estate industry, many if not most are going to lose when the IRS presses on contemporaneous records for the 750 hours. Mr. Lewis was a sympathetic party, and the judge clearly gravitated to his side.

Which raises the question: why did the IRS pursue this? They were anything but sympathetic chasing a disabled veteran for taking too long while performing his landlord responsibilities.

Yes, I am sympathetic to Mr. Lewis too.