Racing As A Trade Or Business

 I am reading a case that made me grimace. The following is a total NO-NO if you are unfortunate enough to be selected for audit:

As part of the audit RA Chavez issued information document requests to petitioners requesting their accounting records for 2013, but petitioners did not respond. RA Chavez completed his audit without receiving any additional information from petitioners …”

The abbreviation “RA” means revenue agent; those are the IRS folks who do the examinations.

This is not going to turn out well.

… respondent issued … revenue agent reports (RARs) to petitioners with proposed adjustments to tax and accuracy-related penalties. Petitioners did not respond to the … RARs.

Chances are very good that I would have resigned from this representation or refused to accept the client in the first place.

We have, for example, a client who has not filed returns for years. There are mitigating reasons, but not that many or reasons that persuasive for the number of years. My partner brought them in; I looked at their stuff and gave them a list and timetable of what we needed. I reached out to the IRS, explained that they had just hired tax representation and requested time.

I am not going to say that the IRS is always hospitable, but in general they tend to be reasonable if someone is truly trying to get back into the system (except during COVID; the COVID procedural issues have been extensive, unrelenting and extremely frustrating. The IRS really should have stopped issuing notices like government stim checks until it could at least open its mail on a timely basis).

What did my partner’s client do?

They gave us nothing. Two weeks became two months. Two months became three. I received exculpatory e-mails that read like a Grateful Dead tour.

My - and our - credibility with the IRS took a hit.

If they were my client, I would have dismissed them. They are not, however, so I did the next emphatic thing I could do: I will not work with them. We have a younger tax pro here at Galactic Command, and he will take this matter over. He has a nice background in preparation, and I would like to expose him to the representation side of practice. He is somewhat interested (at least, not uninterested), and if he remains in a CPA firm as a career it will be a nice addition to his skill set.

Back to our case.

There is a lot going on, but I want to focus on one issue.

Two families own a construction S corporation (Phoenix). The IRS disallowed $121,903 in 2013 related to car racing activities. More specifically, the racing was by a son of the owners, and his car of choice was a 1968 Camaro.

He started racing it in 2014.

One has to be very careful here. One is taking an activity with a high level of personal interest and gratification and jamming it into a profitable company. It would take minimal tax chops to argue that the racing activity is a hobby or is otherwise personal. The purported advertising cannot be “merely a thin cloak for the pursuit of a hobby.”   

The company fired back with three arguments:

(1)  The racing expenses were ordinary and necessary advertising expenses.

(2)  Phoenix purchased the car as an investment.

(3)  Racing was a separate trade or business from Phoenix and was engaged in for profit.

I do not know if these arguments existed when the return was prepared or dredged-up after the fact, but still … kudos.

Except …

The racing was not conducted under the Phoenix name. There was no company logo on the car, with the possible exception of something minimal on the rear window. There were no photographs or videos of the car on the company’s advertising.

One more thing.

Phoenix did not even separate the car racing expenses as Advertising on its tax return. Instead, it just buried them with “Construction Costs.”

Folks, the IRS does NOT like it when one appears to be hiding something iffy in a big, enveloping category of other expenses. It is, in fact, an indicium of fraud.

The first argument whiffed.

One BTW does not race a car that is held for investment. One stores a car that is held for investment, perhaps taking it to an occasional show.

The second argument collapsed.

That leaves a lot of pressure on the third argument: that the car was its own separate trade or business.

You know what the car did not do in 2013 (the year of examination)? It did not race, that is what it did not do. If one were to argue that the car was a separate trade or business, then one would have to concede that the activity started the following year – 2014 – and not in 2013. All those expenses are what the tax Code calls “startup expenses,” and – with a minimal exception - they have to be amortized over 15 years.

Let me check: yep, this is a pro se case, meaning that the taxpayers represented themselves.

We have said it before: hire a pro, spend a few dollars. You do not know what you do not know.

What would I have advised?

They should have posted photos and videos of that car everywhere they advertised, and I would have recommended adding new advertising venues. I am thinking a video diary: the purchase of the car, its modification, interviews with principal parties, technical issues encountered and resolved, anticipated future race sites and dates.

And yes, I would have put the company name on the car.

Our case this time is Berry v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-42.

Pouring Concrete In Phoenix

I read the tax literature differently than I did early in my career. There is certainly more of “been there, read that,” but there is also more consideration of why the IRS decided to pursue an issue.

I am convinced that sometimes the IRS just walks in face-first, as there is no upside for them. Our recent blog about the college student and her education credit was an example. Other times I can see them backfilling an area of tax law, perhaps signaling future scrutiny. I believe that is what the IRS is doing with IRAs-owning-businesses (ROBS).

A third category is when the IRS goes after an issue even though the field has been tilled for many years. They are signaling that they are still paying attention.

I am looking at a reasonable compensation case.  I believe it is type (3), although it sure looks a lot like type (1).

To set up the issue, a company deducts someone’s compensation – a sizeable bonus, for example. In almost all cases, that someone is going to be an owner of the company or a relation thereto. 

There are two primary reasons the IRS goes after reasonable compensation:

(1)  If the taxpayer is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), the deduction means that the compensation is being taxed only once (deducted by the corporation; taxed once to the recipient). The IRS wants to tax it twice. In a C environment, the IRS will argue that you are paying too much compensation. It wants to move that bonus to dividends paid, as there is no tax deduction for paying dividends.

(2) If the taxpayer is an S corporation (and its one level of tax), the IRS will argue that you are paying too little compensation. There is no income tax here for the IRS to chase. What it is chasing instead is social security tax. And penalties. Some of the worst penalties in the tax Code revolve around payroll.

There is a world of literature on how to determine “reasonable.” The common judicial tests have you run a gauntlet of five factors:

(1) The employee’s role in the company

(2) Comparison to compensation paid others for similar services

(3) Character and condition of the company

(4) Potential conflict of interest

(5) Internal consistency of compensation

Let’s look at the Johnson case as an example.

Mom and dad started a concrete company way back when. They had two sons, each of which came into the business. They specialized in Arizona residential development. As time went on, the brothers wound up owning 49% of the stock; mom owned the remainder. The family was there at the right time to ride the Phoenix housing boom, and the company prospered.

A downside to the boom was periodic concrete shortages. The company did not produce its own concrete, and the brothers came to believe it to be a business necessity. They presented an investment opportunity in a concrete supplier to mom. Mom wanted nothing to do with it; she argued that the company was a contractor, not a supplier. This was how companies overextend and eventually fail, she reasoned.

The brothers went ahead and did it on their own. They invested personally, and mom stayed out. They even guaranteed some of the supplier’s bank debt.

Who would have thought that concrete had so many problems? For example, did you know that concrete becomes unusable after 

(1) 90 minutes or

(2) If it reaches 90 degrees.

I am not sure what to do with that second issue when you are in Phoenix. 

The brothers figured out how to do it. They developed a reputation for specialized work. They worked 10 or 12 hours a day, managed divisions of 100 employees each, were hands-on in the field and often ran job equipment themselves. Sometimes they even designed equipment for a given job, having their fabrication foreman put it together.

Not surprisingly, the developers and contractors loved them.

That concrete supplier decision paid off. They always had concrete when others would not. They could even charge themselves a “friendly” price now and then.

We get to tax years June 30, 2003 and 2004 and they paid themselves a nice bonus. The brothers pulled over $4 million in 2003 and over $7 million in 2004.

COMMENT: I really missed the boat back in college.

The brothers were well-advised. They maintained a cumulative bonus pool utilizing a long-time profit-sharing formula, and they had the company pay annual dividends.

The IRS disallowed a lot of the bonus. You know why: they were a C corporation and the government was smelling money.

The Court went through the five tests:

(1) The brothers ran the show and were instrumental in the business success. Give this one to the taxpayer.

(2) The IRS argued that compensation was above the average for the industry. Taxpayer responded that they were more profitable than the industry average. Each side had a point. Having nothing more to go on, however, the Court considered this one a push.

(3) Company sales and profitability were on a multi-year uptrend. This one went to the taxpayer.

(4) The IRS appears to have wagered all on this test. It brought in an expert who testified that an “independent investor” would not have paid so much compensation and bonus, because the result was to drop the company’s profitability below average.

Oh, oh. This was a good argument.

The idea is that someone – say Warren Buffett – wants to buy the company but not work there. That investor’s return would be limited to dividends and any increase in the stock price. Enough profitability has to be left in the company to make Warren happy.

This usually becomes a statistical fight between opposing experts.

It did here.

And the Court thought that the brothers’ expert did a better job than the government’s expert.

COMMENT: One can tell that the Court liked the brothers. It was not overly concerned that one or two years’ profitability was mildly compromised, especially when the company had been successful for a long time. The Court decided there was enough profitability over enough years that an independent investor would seriously consider the company. 

Give this one to the taxpayer.

(5) The company had a cumulative bonus program going back years and years. The formula did not change.

This one went to the taxpayers.

By my count the IRS won zero of the tests.

Why then did the IRS even pursue this?

They pursued it because for years they have been emphasizing test (4) – conflict of interest and its “independent investor.” They have had significant wins with it, too, although some wins came from taxpayers reaching too far. I have seen taxpayers draining all profit from the company, for example, or changing the bonus formula whimsically. There was one case where the taxpayer took so much money out of the company that he could not even cash the bonus check. That is silly stuff and low-hanging fruit for the IRS.

This time the IRS ran into someone who was on top of their game.