Another Runaway FBAR Case

 

Let’s talk about the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts). It currently goes by the name “FinCen Form 114.”

This thing has been with us since 1970. It came to life as an effort to identify foreign financial transactions that might indicate money laundering or tax evasion. 

Sounds benign.

The filing requirement applies to a United States person, defined as

·      A citizen or resident of the U.S.

·      A domestic partnership

·      A domestic corporation

·      A domestic trust or estate

 We’ll come back that first one in a moment.

Next, one needs a financial interest or signature authority in a foreign financial account to trigger this thing.

A foreign financial account includes a bank account, which is easy enough to understand. It would also include a broker account (think Charles Schwab, but overseas). Some are not so intuitive, though.

·      A foreign insurance policy with cash value is reportable.

·      A foreign hedge fund is not.

·      A foreign annuity policy is reportable.

·      A foreign private equity fund is not.

·      A foreign cryptocurrency account is not reportable.

Some require a google search to understand what is being said.

·      A Canadian registered retirement savings plan is reportable.

·      A Mexican fondo para retiro is reportable.

Next, the foreign financial account has to exceed a certain dollar balance ($10,000) at some point during the year.

That $10,000 balance has been there for as long as I can remember. You will have a hard time persuading me that $10,000 in 1986 is the same as $10,000 now, but that number is apparently eternal and unchanging.

The $10,000 is tested across all foreign financial accounts. If it takes your fourth foreign account to put you over $10 grand, then you are over. Testing is done. All your accounts are reportable on a FBAR.

Like so many things, the FBAR started with reasonable intentions but has morphed into something near unrecognizable.

Fail to file an FBAR and the standard penalty is $10 grand. Fail to file for two years and the penalty is $20 grand. Have two foreign accounts and fail to file for two years and the penalty is $40 grand.

And that is assuming the error is unintentional. Do it on purpose and I presume they will execute you.

I exaggerate, of course. They will just bankrupt you.

It puts a lot of pressure on defining “on purpose.”

Let’s look at Osamu Kurotaki (OK).

OK was born in Japan and lives in Japan. He obtained a U.S. green card, making him a U.S. permanent resident. One of the pleasures of being a permanent resident is filing an annual tax return with the United States, irrespective of whether you live in the U.S. or not. One can talk about a foreign income exclusion or foreign tax credit – which is fine – but that annual filing makes sense only if someone intends to eventually return to the U.S. It does not make as much sense if someone does not intend to return, someone like OK.

OK paid someone to prepare his annual U.S. tax return. He found a CPA who was bilingual.

In 2021 the U.S. Treasury assessed civil penalties against OK for more than $10 million. His footfall? He failed to file FBARs. Treasury also upped the ante by saying that his failure was “willful.”

Huh?

Treasury is requesting summary judgement that OK willfully failed to file FBARs, prefers waffle over sugar cones and rooted for the Diamondbacks in the World Series. 

The Court wanted to know how Treasury climbed the ladder to get to that “willful” step.

So do I.

Here is what the Court saw:

·      OK is a Japanese speaker and does not speak English “at all.”

·      OK relied on his bilingual CPA to make sense of U.S. tax filing obligations.

·      His CPA provided annual tax questionnaires in both English and Japanese. The English was for theater, I suppose, as OK could not read English.

·      The CPA’s translation now becomes critical. Here are instructions to the FBAR in English:

U.S. taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income; that is, income from both U.S. and foreign sources.”

·      Here is the Japanese translation:

U.S. resident taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income, that is, income from both US. and foreign sources."

OK told the Court that he did not think he had a filing obligation because he was not a “U.S. resident.”

I get it. He lives in Japan. He works in Japan. His kids go to school in Japan. He is as much a “U.S. resident” as I am a Nepalese Sherpa.

Except …

OK was green card – that is, a “permanent” resident of the U.S.

Technically …

The Court cut OK some slack. Technically - and in a law school vacuum - he was a “resident.” Meanwhile - in the real world – no one would think that. Furthermore, OK hired a CPA who made a mistake. Even a trained professional erred interpreting the Treasury’s word salad. 

The Court said “no” to summary judgement.

Treasury will have to argue its $10 million-plus proposed penalty.

And I believe the Court just outlined reasonable cause.

Perhaps OK should consider turning in that green card. 

Our case this time was Osamu Kurotaki v United States, U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii.

 

IRS Wants Near $9 Million Penalty From A Holocaust Survivor

 

I’ll tell you what caught my eye:

This is a tax case in which the Government alleges that Defendant Walter Schik, a Holocaust survivor, failed to file a foreign bank account reporting form with the Internal Revenue Service …, which now seeks by this action to collect an almost nine-million-dollar civil penalty assessed against him for that failure.”

There are so many things wrong with that sentence.

Let’s talk about Form TD F 90-22.1, also known as the FBAR (“Eff- Bar”). The form existed before I took my first course in accounting years ago, but it has gathered steam and interest when Treasury started to chase overseas bank accounts during the aughts. If one has a foreign account, or has authority over a foreign account, which exceeds $10,000 during the taxable year, one is required to disclose on one’s individual income tax return (on Schedule B) and file Form TD F 9-22.1 with the Treasury.

Up to this point, it is just another form to file. We are drowning in forms, so what is the big deal?

The deal is the penalties for not filing the form. Let’s separate not filing the form because you did not know you had to file from knowing you had to file but deciding not to. That second one is considered “willful” (which makes sense) and can cost you a penalty from $100,000 to 50% of the account balance at the time of violation.

This is VERY expensive money.

The IRS assessed a penalty of almost $9 million against Schik for failure to file an FBAR.

Some background:

·      Mr Schik is a Holocaust survivor.

·      His education was cut short by, how shall we say this …, being in a concentration camp.

·      After the war, he immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen.

·      After becoming a citizen, he opened a Swiss bank account where he deposited monies recovered from relatives who were slaughtered during the Holocaust.

·      He left the monies in Switzerland as he was fearful that another Holocaust-like event could occur.

·      Schik did not touch or manage the money. That was done by his son and a Swiss money manager.

·      Schik did talk with the money manager occasionally, though.

·      By 2017 one of those Swiss accounts had over $15 million.

·      His accountant never asked Schik if he had overseas bank accounts or explained the recently heightened IRS interest in the area.

I am sympathetic with the accountant. What are the odds of having a client who is a Holocaust survivor and having over $15 million in a Swiss bank account? One could go a career. I have.

The year at issue is 2007. There is a question on the individual tax return whether one has an interest or signature authority over a foreign bank account. Schik’s accountant answered it “No.” Schik did not correct his accountant. More fairly, Schik did not even notice the question.

Wouldn’t you know that Schik’s Swiss money manager got pulled into the UBS investigation?

UBS entered into a deferred prosecution arrangement with the United States. It however had to provide identities of U.S. citizens and residents who were customers of the bank.

At which point Schik submitted a voluntary disclosure to the IRS.

Which the IRS denied.

Without an alternative, Schik submitted a late FBAR.

The IRS then slapped the 50% penalty we are talking about.

Which brings us up to speed.

The penalty requires one’s behavior to be “willful.” Not surprisingly, the word has specific meaning under the law, and the Court evaluated whether Schik’s behavior was willful.

Treasury argued that “willful” means “objectively reckless.”

Got it. Ignoring an issue to an extreme degree is the same as knowing and not caring.

Schik argued that willful means “intentional disregard.”

The difference?

Schik argued that the underlying law was opaque, long-ignored and now quickly – if somewhat capriciously – conscripted into action. He no more intentionally disregarded his tax reporting obligations than he intentionally disregarded the newest developments in cosmological galaxy formation. There was no conspiracy by hundred-year-old Holocaust survivors: he just didn’t know.

And such is tax law. Nine million dollars hangs on the meaning of a word.

The Court noted that other courts – relying on records similar to those available to it - have found willfulness.

Not good for Schik. 

However, the Court was concerned about the many countervailing factors:

·      Schik was nearly 100 years old.

·      Schik had minimal formal education.

·      Schik did not manage the money.

·      Schik did not prepare his own tax returns.

·      Schik had no idea about a disclosure requirement.

·      Schik’s accountant did not explain the disclosure requirement.

·      The question answered “No” was pre-filled by the accountant’s software and did not represent any assertion made by Schik.

The Court denied the IRS summary judgement, noting there was a substantial question of fact.

I agree.

Who will review and clarify the facts?

“The Court believes that the Parties in this case would benefit from mediation. By separate order the Court will refer the Parties to the Southern District of New York’s Mediation Program. … the assigned District Judge … may determine that a case is appropriate for mediation and may order that case to mediation, with or without the consent of the parties.”

Methinks the IRS should just have allowed the voluntary disclosure.  

Was the IRS encouraging compliance, promoting education and providing a ramp to enter/reenter the tax system? Or is this something else, something with the purpose of terrifying the next person?

Our case this time was United States of America v Walter Schik, 20-cv-02211 (MKV)

No Required Minimum Distributions For 2020

There is a tax deadline coming up. It may matter to those who are taking required minimum distributions (MRDs) from your IRAs and certain employer-based plans.

You may recall that there is a trigger concerning retirement plans when one reaches age 72.

COMMENT: The trigger used to be age 70 ½ for tax years before 2020.

The trigger is – with some exception for employer-based plans – that one has to start withdrawing from his/her retirement account. There are even IRS-provided tables, into which one can insert one’s age and obtain a factor to calculate a required minimum distribution.

COMMENT: There are severe penalties for not withdrawing a minimum distribution. Fortunately, the IRS is fairly lenient in allowing one to “catch-up” and avoid those penalties. At 50% of the required distribution, the MRD penalty rate is one of the most severe in the tax Code.

Let’s say that you are in the age range for MRDs. You have, in fact, been taking monthly MRDs this far into 2020.

There has been a law change: you can take 2020 distributions if you wish, but distributions are not mandatory or otherwise required. That is, there are no MRDs for 2020. This means that you can take less than the otherwise-table-calculated amount (including none, if you wish) and not taunt that 50% penalty.

Why the change in tax law?

The change is related to the severe economic contractions emanating from COVID and its associated lockdowns and stay-at-home restrictions. Congress realized that there was little financial sense in forcing one to sell stocks and securities into a bear market to raise the cash necessary to pay oneself MRDs.

Hot on the heels of the change is the fact that different people take MRDs at different times. Some people take the distribution early in the year, others late, and yet others take distributions monthly or quarterly. There is no wrong answer; it just depends on one’s cash flow needs.

Let’s take the example we started with: monthly distributions.

Well, it’s fine and dandy that I do not have to take any more distributions, but what about the amount I took in January -before the law change? And February – before …., well, you get the point.

You can put the money back into the IRA or retirement account.

Think of it as a mulligan.

But you have to do this by a certain date: August 31, 2020.

You have approximately another month to get it done.

Here are some questions you may have:

(1)  Does this change apply to 401(k)s, 403(b)s, 457(b)s?

Answer: Yes.

(2)  How about inherited accounts?

Answer: Yes. You have to put it back in the same (that is, the inherited) account, of course.

(3)  What if I was having taxes withheld?

Answer: You are going to have reach into your pocketbook temporarily. Say that you took a $25,000 distribution with 20% federal withholding. You never spent any of it, so you have $20,000 sitting in your bank account. If you want to unwind the entire transaction, you are going to have to take $5,000 from somewhere, add it to the $20,000 you already have and put $25,000 back into your IRA or retirement account.

You may wonder what happened to the $5 grand that was withheld. It will be refunded to you – when you file your 2020 tax return.

(4)  Continuing with Example (3): what if I don’t have the $5 grand?

Answer: Then put back the $20,000 you do have. It’s not 100%, but you put back most of it. You will have that gigantic withholding when you finally file your 2020 taxes.

(5)  What if I turned 70 ½ last year (2019) and HAVE TO take a MRD in 2020?

Answer: The answer may surprise you. The downside to waiting is that you would (normally) have to take a distribution for 2019 (you turned 70 ½, after all) and another for 2020 itself. This means that you are taking two MRDs in one tax year. Under the new 2020 tax law, you do not have to take EITHER (2019 or 2020) distribution. Your first distribution would be in 2021, and you would have had no distributions for 2019 or 2020.

(6)  Does this change apply to pensions?

Answer: No. Pensions are “defined benefit” plans, whereas IRAs, 401(k)s and so on are “defined contribution” plans. The change is only for defined contribution plans.

(7)  Does this change apply to Roths?

Answer: Roths do not have minimum required distributions, so this law change means bupkis to them.

(8)  What if I went the other way: I withdrew from my traditional IRA and would like to put it back as a Roth?

Answer: Normally one cannot do this, as MRDs do not qualify for a Roth conversion. With no MRDs for 2020, however, you have a one-time opportunity to flip some of your traditional IRA into a Roth. Remember that you will have to pay tax on this, though.  

(9)  How does this law change interact with the qualified charitable distribution rules?

Answer: A qualified charitable distribution (QCD) is when you have your IRA custodian issue a check directly to a charity. You do not get a deduction for the contribution, but the upside is that you do not have to report the distribution as income. If you do not itemize deductions, this technique is – by far – the most tax-efficient way to go. The QCD rules are independent of the MRD 2020 rule change. If you want to donate via charitable distributions in 2020, then go for it!

If you are already into your MRD for 2020 and do not need the money – some or all of it – remember that you have approximately another month to put it back.

What Is Unclaimed Property?

I was reading an IRS Revenue Ruling that made me laugh, albeit in a cynical way.

Here is the issue:

If an IRA is being sent to a state unclaimed property fund, can the IRS force the trustee to withhold and remit taxes?

There are several things going on here, beginning with: what is an unclaimed property fund?

An easy example is a deceased person’s bank account. Take Florida. If someone dies in Florida without a will and without requiring probate, you as an inheritor are going to have difficulties getting to their bank account – unless you name is also on the account. You likely have to hire an attorney to obtain a court letter to provide the bank stating that you are a valid inheritor of said bank account.

How many folks do think just leave the bank account unclaimed because it isn’t worth the cost of an attorney?

It is not just bank accounts. Unclaimed funds can include uncashed dividend or payroll checks, utility security deposits, safety deposit boxes, retirement accounts and a hundred variations thereon. The concept is that you are holding somebody else’s money, and that somebody disappears. It is referred to as dormancy, and the definition is what you would expect: there has been no activity in the account or contact with the owner for a while; account statements are returned because of an invalid address; phone numbers are no longer active.

The “while” depends on the state and the type of asset. In Ohio, an uncashed payroll check is considered dormant after one year whereas a customer overpayment requires three years.

Who reports this?

The business, of course. The business is supposed to try to locate the account owner, but sometimes there simply is no one to contact. When the dormancy period is up, the business then transfers the monies with its best available information to the state. The state holds the property until the owner comes forward to claim it.

The legal reasoning behind unclaimed property goes back to common law and real property. If one abandons real property, there is a legitimate public concern that it soon might become blighted. That concern prompts the transfer (the nerd term is “escheat”) of the abandoned property to the Crown – or, these days, to the State.

Unclaimed property is not technically taxation, but its laws operate similarly to tax statutes.

Many states have used unclaimed property as a means to fund their coffers. Delaware is one of the most egregious offenders, with unclaimed property being its third-largest source of state revenues. Delaware can do this because it is home to so many banks.

Here is a link if you are interested in your own unclaimed property search:

https://www.unclaimed.org/

Back to the IRS Revenue Ruling. Here is a short paragraph from the lead-in:

Under the facts presented, is the payment of Trustee Y of Individual C's interest in IRA O to the State J unclaimed property fund, as required by State J law, subject to federal income tax withholding under Section 3405 of the Internal Revenue Code?”

A bracing read, isn’t it? I couldn’t put it down.

Anyway, how do you think the IRS answered this question?

Pretty much the way you would expect. The IRS is getting its cut at some point, and this is as good a point as any. Send the IRS its money, Trustee Y.

Should I Have A Separate Bank Account For …?

One of the accountants recently told me that a client had asked whether he/she should set-up a separate bank account for their business.

The short answer is: yes.

It is not always about taxes. An attorney might recommend that your corporation have annual meetings and written minutes – or that you memorialize in the minutes deferring a bonus for better cash flow.  It may seem silly when the company is just you and your brother. Fast forward to an IRS audit or unexpected litigation and you will realize (likely belatedly) why the recommendation was made.

I am skimming a case where the taxpayer:

·      Had three jobs

·      Was self-employed providing landscaping and janitorial services (Bass & Co)

·      Owned and operated a nonprofit that collected and distributed clothing and school supplies for disadvantaged individuals (Lend-A-Hand).

The fellow is Duncan Bass, and he sounds like an overachiever.

Since 2013, petitioner, Bass & Co …, and Lend-A-Hand have maintained a single bank account….”

That’s different. I cannot readily remember a nonprofit sharing a bank account in this manner. I anticipated that he blew up his 501(c)(3).

Nope. The Court was looking at his self-employment income.

He claimed over $8 thousand in revenues.

He deducted almost $29 thousand in expenses.

Over $19 thousand was for

·      truck expenses

·      payment to Lend-A-Hand for advertising and rental of a storage unit

He handed the Court invoices from a couple of auto repair shops and a receipt from a vehicle emissions test.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was trying to show mileage near the beginning and end of the year, so as to establish total mileage for the year.

Seems to me he next has to show the business portion of the total mileage.

Maybe he could go through his calendar and deposits and reconstruct where he was on certain days. He would still be at the mercy of the Court, as one is to keep these records contemporaneously.  At least he would field an argument, and the Court might give him the benefit of the doubt.

He gave the Court nothing.

His argument was: I reported income; you know I had to drive to the job to earn the income; spot me something.

True enough, but mileage is one of those deductions where you have to provide some documentation. This happened because people for years abused vehicle expenses. To give the IRS more firepower, Congress tightened-up Code Section 274 to require some level of substantiation in order to claim any vehicle expenses.

And then we get to the $9,360 payment to Lend-A-Hand.

Let’s not dwell on the advertising and storage unit thing.

I have a bigger question:

How do you prove that his business paid the nonprofit anything?

Think about it: there is one checking account. Do you write a check on the account and deposit it back in?

It borders on the unbelievable.

And the Tax Court did not believe him.

I am not saying that the Court would have sustained the deduction had he separated the bank accounts. I am saying that he could at least show a check on one account and a deposit to another.  The IRS could still challenge how much “advertising” a small charity could realistically provide.

As it was, he never got past whether money moved in the first place.

Owing A Million Dollar Penalty

What caught my attention was the size of the penalty.

The story involves Letantia Russell, a dermatologist from California who has been in the professional literature way too much over too many years. The story started with her attorneys reorganizing her medical practice into a three-tiered structure and concealing ownership through use of nominees. Then there was the offshore bank account.

Let’s talk about that offshore account.

Back when I came out of school, one had to report foreign accounts above a certain dollar balance. The form was called the “TD 90-22.1.” I remember accountants who had never heard of it. It just wasn’t a thing.

The requirement hasn’t changed, but the times have.

If you have an overseas bank account, you are supposed to disclose it. The IRS has a question on Schedule B (where you report interest and dividends) whether you have a foreign bank account. If you answer yes, you are required to file that TD 90-22.1. The form does not go to the IRS; it instead goes to the Treasury Department. Mind you, the IRS is part of Treasury, but there are arcane rules about information sharing between government agencies and whatnot. Send to Treasury: good. Send to IRS: bad.

The rules were fairly straightforward: bank account, balance over $10 grand, own or able to sign on the account, required to file. There was no rocket science here.

Don’t play games with account types, either. A checking account is the same as a savings account which is the same as a money market and so on. Leave that hair-splitting stuff to the lawyers.

About a decade or so ago, the government decided to pursue people who were hiding money overseas. Think the traditional Swiss bank account, where the banker would risk jail rather than provide information on the ownership of an account. That Swiss quirk developed before the Second World War and was in response to the unstable Third Republic of France and Weimar government of Germany. Monies were moving fast and furious to Switzerland, and Swiss bankers made it a criminal offense to break a strict confidentiality requirement.

Thurston Howell III joked about it on Gilligan’s Island.

Travel forward to the aughts and the UBS scandal and the U.S. government was not laughing.

Swiss banks eventually agreed to disclose.

The IRS thundered that those who had … ahem, “underreported” … their foreign income in the past might want to clean-up their affairs.

The government dusted-off that old 90-22.1 and gave it a new name: FinCen 114 Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.

The IRS was still miffed about that government-agency-sharing thing, so it came up with its own form: Form 8938 Statement of Foreign Financial Assets.

So you had to report that bank account to Treasury on the FinCen and to the IRS on Form 8938.  Trust me, even the accountants were trying to understand that curveball.

Resistance is futile, roared the IRS.

Many practitioners, me included, believed then and now that the IRS went fishing with dynamite. The IRS seemed unwilling to distinguish someone who inherited his/her mom’s bank account in India from a gazillionaire hedge-fund manager who knew exactly what he/she was doing when hiding the money overseas.

And you always have … those people.

Letantia Russell is one of those people.

The penalties can hurt. Fail to fail by mistake and the penalty begins at $10,000. Willfully fail to file and the penalty can be the greater of

·      $100,000 or

·      ½ the balance in the account

Letantia dew a $1.2 million penalty on her 2006 tax return. I normally sympathize with the taxpayer, but I do not here. One has to be a taxpayer before we can have that conversation.

It went to District Court. It then went to Appeals, where her attorneys lobbed every possible objection, including the unfortunate trade of Jimmy Garappolo from the New England Patriots to the San Francisco 49ers.

It was to no avail. She gets to pay a penalty that would make a nice retirement account for many of us.

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.