Paying Tax On Borrowed Money

I am looking at a Tax Court case where the IRS was chasing almost two-thirds of a million dollars. It involves an attorney and something called “litigation support agreements.”

There is a term you do not hear every day.

The taxpayer is a class-action lawyer.

You see, in a class action, the law firm sues on behalf of a group – or class - of affected parties. Perhaps numerous people were affected by a negligent act, for example, but there is not enough there for any one person to pursue litigation individually. Combine them, however, and you have something.

Or the lawsuit can be total malarkey and the law firm is seeking a payday, with little to no regard to the “class” it allegedly represents.

Ultimately, a class action is a tool that can be used for good or ill, and its fate depends upon the intent and will of its wielder.

Let get’s back to our taxpayer.

It takes money to pursue these cases. One has to bring in experts. There can be depositions, travel, cross-examinations. This takes money, and we already mentioned that a reason for class action is that no one person has enough reason – including money – to litigate on his/her own power.

Did you know there are people out there who will play bank with these cases? That is what “litigation support agreements” are. Yep, somebody loans money to the law firm, and – if the case hits – they get a very nice payoff on their loan. If the case fails, however, they get nothing. High risk: high reward. It’s like going to Vegas.

The taxpayer received over $1.4 million of these loans over a couple of years.

Then IRS came in.

Why?

I see two reasons, but I flat-out believe that one reason was key.

The taxpayer left the $1.4 million off his tax return as taxable income. The taxpayer thought he had a good reason for doing so: the $1.4 million represented loan monies, and it is long-standing tax doctrine that one (generally) cannot have income by borrowing money. Why? Because one has to pay it back, that is why. You are not going to get rich by borrowing money.

There are variations, though. It is also tax doctrine that one can have income when a lender forgives one’s debt. That is why banks issue Forms 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt) when they write-off someone’s credit card. How is it income? Because one is ahead by not having to pay it back.

Our taxpayer had different loan deals and agreements going, but here is representative language for one litigation support agreement:

… shall be a litigation support payment to [XXX] made on a nonrecourse basis and is used to pay for all time and expenses incurred by [XXX} in pursuant [sic] of this litigation. Said payment shall be repaid to …. at the successful conclusion of this litigation with annual interest to be paid as simple interest at the rate of …. as of the date of concluding this litigation.”

Let’s see: there is reference to repayment and an interest rate.

Good: sounds like a loan.

So where is the problem?

Let’s look at the term “nonrecourse.” In general, nonrecourse means that – if the loan fails – the lender can pursue any collateral or security under the loan. What the lender cannot do, however, is go after the borrower personally. Say I borrow a million dollars nonrecourse on a California house that subsequently declines in value to $300 grand. I can just mail the keys back to the lender and walk away without the lender able to chase me down. I am trying to divine what the broader consequence to society could possibly be if numerous people did this, but of course that is silly and could never happen.

Still, nonrecourse loans happen all the time. They should not be fatal, as I am technically still obligated on the loan - at least until the time I mail back the keys.

Let’s look at the next phrase: “successful conclusion of this litigation.”

When are you on the hook for this loan?

I would argue that you are on the hook upon “successful conclusion of this litigation.”

When are you not on the hook?

I would say any time prior to then.

The loan becomes a loan – not at the time of lending – but in the future upon occurrence of a distinguishable event.

The IRS was arguing that the taxpayer received $1.4 million for which he was not liable. He might be liable at a later time - perhaps when the universe begins to cool or the Browns win a Super Bowl – but not when that cash hit his hand.

Granted, chances are good that whoever lent $1.4 would pursue tort action if the taxpayer skipped town and sequestered on an island for a few years, but that would be a different legal action. Whoever put up the money might sue for fraud, nonperformance or malfeasance, but not because the taxpayer was liable for the debt. 

Let’s go back: what keeps one from having income when he/she borrows money?

Right: the obligation to pay it back.

So who did not have an obligation to pay it back?

The taxpayer, that’s who.

The IRS won the case. Still, what bothered me is why the IRS would go after this guy so aggressively. After all, give this arrangement a few years and it will resolve itself. The law firm receives money; the law firm spends money. When it is all said and done, the law firm will burn through all the money, leaving no “net money” for the IRS to tax.

So what fired up the IRS?

The taxpayer filed for bankruptcy.

Before burning through the money.

Meaning there was “net money” left.

He was depriving the IRS of its cut.

There is the overwhelming reason I see.

Our case this time was Novoselsky v Commisioner.

The Cause of Action Lawsuit

Something caught my attention this week. You know how this blog works: if it catches my attention, we likely will talk about it.

So let’s talk.

Do you remember when a senior White House official blabbed-out the following in August, 2010?

"In this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax," said the senior administration official. "Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses."

The problem is that this comment implies direct knowledge of Koch’s tax status, which – if offered up by a White House official – is a violation of federal law. You know, the kind of law you or I would go to jail for breaking.

In November, 2011 the New York Times opened its front-page guns on Ronald Lauder, a Reagan administration official and the chairman of the Jewish National Fund and of the World Jewish Congress.  The Times picked on Mr. Lauder for using aggressive techniques to minimize his taxes - the kind you and I might review if you hired me. There may be a point where it is too aggressive for us, but that is a different issue. None of us has a obligation to pay more tax than necessary. I would know your taxes because you would have hired me. However, how would the Times know about Mr. Lauder’s taxes? Point is… they shouldn’t. If I talked about his taxes I would lose my license, have a malpractice claim, likely be sued and who knows what else.

The irony that the Sulzbergers – the owners of the New York Times – probably used the same or similar techniques did not seem to occur to the Times.

Frank VanderSloot is a wealthy businessman who wrote a sizeable check to a PAC which supports Mitt Romney. For this he - and seven other donors - were named on an Obama campaign website as "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Are you kidding me? This summer he was pulled for audit by the IRS. So was his wife. For two years. Mr. VanderSloot and his accountants do not recall ever being audited. Not bad, considering that (1) he is uber-wealthy and (2) he is 63 years old.

Where are we going with this? In April a watchdog group named Cause of Action filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a listing of tax returns the White House has requested. How does the White House get them? Take a look at Section 6103(g) of the Internal Revenue Code:

6103(g) Disclosure to President and Certain Other Persons.—

 

6103(g)(1) In general.—

Upon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request. Any such request shall state—

6103(g)(1)(A)  the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,

6103(g)(1)(B)  the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,

6103(g)(1)(C)  the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and

6103(g)(1)(D)  the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested.

The IRS rejected the request, stating that it could not disclose information “specifically exempted from disclosure by another law.” The IRS appears to be referencing the fact that tax returns are confidential and cannot be released pursuant to the FOIA. The IRS has not explained however how a listing of returns requested by the White House is the same as releasing the tax returns themselves.

So this Tuesday Cause of Action filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.

I am uncomfortable that a lawsuit was even necessary.