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.

Using A Liquidating Trust

I am reading a case where the IRS wanted taxes of almost $1.5 million.

I am not surprised to read that it involved a real estate developer.

Part of tax practice is working within someone’s risk tolerance (including mine, by the way). Some clients are so risk adverse that an IRS notice – on any matter for any reason – can be interpreted as a mistake by the tax practitioner. Then you have the gunslingers at the other end of the spectrum. These are the clients you have to rope-in, for their own as well as your sake.

My experience has been that real estate developers seem to cluster around the gunslinger end of the spectrum. We have one who recently explained to me that “paying taxes means that the tax advisor made a mistake.” That, folks, is a lot of pressure … on my partner.

Jason Sage is a developer in Oregon. He represented several companies, including JLS Customs Homes. You may recall that 2008 – 2009 was a rough time for real estate, and JLS took it in the teeth. It had three projects, dragging behind approximately $18 million in debt.

Eventually the real estate market collapsed. Sage had to do something. He and his advisors decided to utilize liquidating trusts. The idea is that one transfers everything one has into a trust, which might be owned by one’s creditors; then again, it might not. The creditors might accept the settling of the trust (a fancy term for putting money and assets into a trust) as discharge of the underlying debt; then again, they might not. Each deal is its own story, and the tax consequences can vary depending on the telling.

Our story involves the transfer of three projects to three liquidating trusts. Since real estate had tanked, these transfers – treated for tax purposes as sales - threw off huge losses. These losses were so big they created overall losses - called “net operating losses” (NOLs). Tax law at the time allowed the net operating losses to travel back in time, meaning that Sage could recoup taxes previously paid.

COMMENT: I see nothing wrong with this. If the government wants to participate in one’s profits, then it can also participate in one’s losses. To do otherwise smacks more of robbery than taxation.

The IRS took a look at this arrangement and immediately called foul.

Trust taxation looks carefully at whether the trust is a separate tax entity from the person establishing the trust, funding the trust or benefiting from the trust.  There is a type called a “grantor trust” which is disregarded as a separate tax entity altogether. The most common type of grantor trust is probably the “living trust,” which has gained popularity as a probate-mitigating tool. The idea behind the grantor trust is that the grantor – say me, for example – is allowed to put money in, take money out, change beneficiaries, even terminate the trust altogether without anyone being able to gainsay my decision.

Tax law considers this to be too much control over the trust, so the trust and I are considered to be the same person for tax purposes. I would have a grantor trust. Its tax return is combined with mine.

How do I avoid this result? Well, I have to start with limiting my otherwise unrestricted control over the trust. Yield enough control and the IRS will respect the trust as separate from me.

The IRS argued that Sage’s liquidating trusts were grantor trusts. They were not separate tax entities, and one cannot sell and create a loss by selling to oneself. Without that loss, there was no NOL carryover and therefore no tax refund.

Sage had to persuade the Court that the trusts were in fact separate from him and his companies.

After all, the trusts were for the benefit of his creditors. One has to concede that creditors are an adverse party, and the existence of an adverse party is an indicator that the trust is a separate tax entity. Extrapolating, the existence of creditors means that someone with interests adverse to Sage’s own had sway over the trusts. It was that sway that made these non-grantor trusts.

Persuasive, except for one thing.

Sage had never involved the creditors when setting up the trusts.

It was hard for them to be adverse when they did not even know the trusts were there.

Our case this time was Sage v Commissioner.

Can the IRS Disallow Your Net Operating Loss Carryback?

Here is a quiz question:

            Can the IRS reopen a tax year if you file an NOL carryback?

Most tax accountants will remember the intent of IRC Section 7605(b), even if they may not remember the specific citation:

No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations, and only one inspection of a taxpayer's books of account shall be made for each taxable year unless the taxpayer requests otherwise or unless the Secretary, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary.

This language entered the Code in 1921, and its intent was and is to relieve taxpayers from unnecessary annoyance.

The question is whether it is the original year that is being reopened or whether it is the carryback from a later year that is being reviewed.

The IRS expounded on IRC Section 7605 in Rev Procedure 2005-32. The wording we are after is “reopening.” Section 2.04 of the Rev Procedure informs us that new section 4.02 is being added to define the “reopening” of a closed tax case.

The new section 4.02 states:

A reopening of a closed case involves an examination of a taxpayer’s liability that may result in an adjustment to liability unfavorable to the taxpayer for the same taxable period as the closed case, with exceptions, some of which are noted below. The Service’s review, including an inspection of books of account, of a taxpayer’s claim for a refund on an amended excise or income tax return, as well as the Service’s review of a Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, claiming a refund for an overpayment reported on a return, is not a reopening.

Someone ran face-first into this in FAA 20114701F. Here are the facts:

Taxpayer deducted a bad debt loss in Year 1. It was audited and the IRS allowed the loss. Enough time goes by that the statute of limitations for Year 1 expires. In a later year Taxpayer has an NOL, which it carries-back to Year 1. The IRS however was still churlish about that bad debt deduction in Year 1.

The FAA goes on to reason that the IRS did not pick this fight. Rather the Taxpayer did by electing to carryback its net operating loss and claiming a refund. The Taxpayer’s action allowed the IRS to “reopen” the closed year.

There was some saving grace, thankfully. The IRS decided it could deny Taxpayer’s claim for refund dollar-for-dollar – but only to the extent of the refund. The worst that could happen is that the Taxpayer would not receive any refund, resulting of course in a total waste of the net operating loss carryback. But hey, at least the Taxpayer did not have to write a check to the IRS for the audacity of claiming a tax refund.