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.

1000% Political Sales Tax

Let’s return to the topic of state tax lunacy.

Our destination? California, a frequent contestant (if not winner) of the popular gameshow “Five Short of a Nickel.”

A citizen initiative posted on the California Attorney General’s website provides the following:

This initiative amends the California Constitution, Article 13, Section 35,(b).

It adds a section 3 as follows:

"For the privilege of influencing public elections and political issues, a sales tax of 1,000% (one thousand percent) is hereby imposed upon Political Advertisements. The proceeds of which shall solely benefit California public education. There shall be no further exemptions to this tax except as federally required or as passed by a California ballot initiative.

Political Advertisements shall mean any political advertising delivered within the state of California. This is applicable to both cash and barter transactions. This includes but is not limited to all media spending by political parties, political action committees or candidates.

This sales tax will not apply to the first $1,000,000 (one million dollars) of spending within a calendar year by any tax entity. However, if a group of tax entities are controlled or coordinated then this first one million dollar of sales tax relief shall only apply to the group of entities and not to the individual entities.

If a Federal District Court or Supreme Court of the United States find this tax to be too high, then this law shall immediately ratchet down to the highest acceptable level and remain in place.”

Well then.

And it perfectly typifies much of what has contaminated tax law in recent years:

(1) The insistence on wielding tax law to accomplish a social program, whether by granting a boon (such as the new markets tax credit) or striking a blow (such as the ACA penalty). 

(2) The delegation of actual tax writing to a non-electable bureaucracy. For example, what in the world does “Political Advertisements” mean? He or she who gets to define this term will rank among the most powerful of California politicos.

(3)  An ignorance if not contempt for tax doctrines, precedent or potential litigation. To begin with, the California Franchise Tax Board would have to defend a 1000% tax against a free speech challenge under the First Amendment. One also wonders whether the "takings" clause of the Constitution could be invoked. Is this really a tax issue or just the overheated opinion of a grievance dispenser?

Citizen initiatives are peculiar to California politics. They began as a way to limit the outsized influence of special interests but have devolved into a means to sidestep Sacramento, assuming one can recruit a deep-heeled supporter willing to fund the initiative. I trust there is little chance that this one will pass.

Nonetheless, let’s give a round of applause as we present the award to this week’s winner.

Senator Baucus Revs Up Tax Reform Discussion

Today (November 21, 2013) Senator Baucus released the third in a series of staff discussions on tax reform. This discussion focuses on depreciation (also called “cost recovery”) and tax accounting methods.

Not the most exciting topics, and I will not miss Thursday Night Football reading up on them. Let’s review them quickly.

The Senator leads off with:

America today is using a bloated tax code that was built for businesses close to 30 years ago. The code is completely outdated and acting as a brake on economic growth.  More must be done to simplify tax rules, lessen the burden on small businesses and jumpstart job growth.”

I cannot disagree with him, but I am not optimistic about politicians – today, tomorrow – keeping their hands off any tax reform. Remember that Chief Justice Roberts deemed ObamaCare to be a “tax” – even though the White House itself did not present brief or argue it to be a tax. With that level of verbal schizophrenia, I would wager that any “reform” would last about as long as when the first politician needs to get reelected.

Baucus is proposing the following depreciation changes:

(1) Reduce the number of depreciation classes to four: three for short- to mid-term property and one for longer-lived assets. There would be only one permitted depreciation method.

a.     By longer-lived, think real estate, which Baucus proposes to depreciate over 43 years.

COMMENT: There goes the never-worked-in-the-real-world-crowd again. I have thirty years in this business, and I have never seen a proposed real estate investment analyzed over a 43-year recovery. Doesn’t happen, folks.

(2) Slow depreciation from double-declining balance to declining balance. Real estate would remain straight-line.

(3)  Allow expanded general asset accounting. This means that asset categories are pooled, and depreciation is calculated by…

a.     Starting with last year’s asset pool balance

b.     Increased by additions and improvements

c.      Decreased by proceeds from asset sales and dispositions

d.     And multiplying the result by a depreciation factor

(4)  Repeal like-kind exchanges.

COMMENT: Yipes.

(5) Repeal depreciation recapture for pooled assets.

COMMENT: Yay!

Treat all gain from disposition of pooled assets as ordinary income.

          COMMENT: Nay!

(6)  The maximum cost of mixed- use vehicles is capped at $45,000.

a.     That means that – if a car is used for both business and personal use – the maximum cost that can be depreciated is $45,000. That amount in turn is depreciated over 5 years.

b.     I am not overly surprised. There is still a lot of abuse – truly – in this area.

Then there are some tax accounting changes:

(7) Repeal expensing for research and development expenses. The default treatment will be to capitalize and depreciate over 5 years.

COMMENT: This cannot make business sense. You want to explain this proposal change to Apple, Samsung, Pfizer, or any number of research-intensive companies?

(8) Disallow the deduction for advertising. In its place, you would deduct one-half immediately and then amortize the balance over 5 years.

COMMENT:  This makes no sense to an accountant. I associate depreciation and amortization with assets that have use or value over more than one year. Advertising doesn’t make that cut. Does anyone talk about the commercials from last year’s Super Bowl, for example?

(9) Treat “qualified extraction expenditures” the same way as research and development.

COMMENT: Think fracking. The United States is increasingly moving to energy independence (Bakken Shale, for example), even under a hostile Administration. Do you think this change is going to help or hurt that effort?

(10)  Repeal percentage depletion.

COMMENT: Same comment as (9).

(11)  Make permanent Section 179 expensing.

a.     The maximum expensing would be set at $1,000,000, with the phase-out beginning at $2,000,000.

COMMENT: Frankly, it’s about time.

(12)  The Section 197 amortization period is increased from 15 to 20 years.

(13)  All business with less than $10 million in annual gross receipts can use the cash basis of accounting and not account for inventory.

          COMMENT: Wait for it...

(14)  If you are not described in (13) then you are on the accrual basis of accounting.

COMMENT: When the government talks about accrual basis, they means that they want you to pay taxes on your receivables before you actually collect them.

(15)  Businesses described in (13) do not have to suffer through the Section 263A uniform capitalization calculations.

        COMMENT: Good. 

(16)  LIFO is repealed.  

COMMENT: I do not particularly care for LIFO, but I acknowledge that major industries use it extensively, and it is considered GAAP when auditors render their auditors’ report. The government is not chasing this down because they had brilliant debates while in accounting theory class. They want the jack.

(17) The completed contract method of accounting (think contractors) is repealed, except for small construction contracts.

Overall, Baucus is trying to reduce corporate tax rates. At 35%, the United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. There are consequences to having the highest rate, such as having less business.  To reduce rates, he has to raise money somewhere, and we see some of those sources above.

And remember folks: these are only proposals.