Another IRA-As-A-Business Story Gone Wrong

 

I am not a fan.

We are talking about using your IRA to start or own a business. We are not talking about buying stock in Tesla or Microsoft; rather we are talking about opening a car dealership or rock-climbing facility with monies originating in your retirement account. The area even has its own lingo – ROBS (Rollover for Business Start Ups), for example - of which we have spoken before.

Can it be done correctly and safely?

Probably.

What are the odds that it will not be done – or subsequently maintained - correctly?

I would say astronomical.

For the average person there are simply too many pitfalls.

Let’s look at the Ball case. It is not a standard ROBS, and it presents yet another way how using an IRA in this manner can blow up.

During 2012 Mr Ball had JP Morgan Chase (the custodian of his SEP-IRA) distribute money.

COMMENT: You have to be careful. The custodian can send the money to another IRA. You do not want to receive the money personally.

Mr Ball initiated disbursements requests indicating that each withdrawal was an early disbursement ….

         COMMENT: No!!!

He further instructed Chase to transfer the monies to a checking account he had opened in the name of a Nevada limited liability company.

         COMMENT: That LLC better be owned by the SEP-IRA.

Mr Ball was the sole owner of the LLC.

         COMMENT: We are watching suicide here.

Mr Ball had the LLC loan the funds for a couple of real estate deals. He made a profit, which were deposited back into the LLC.

At year-end Chase issued Forms 1099 showing $209,600 of distributions to Mr Ball.

         COMMENT: Well, that is literally what happened.

Mr Ball did not report the $209,600 on his tax return.

COMMENT: He wouldn’t have to, had he done it correctly.  

The IRS computers caught this and sent out a notice of tax due.

COMMENT: All is not lost. There is a fallback position. As long as the $209,600 was transferred back into an IRA withing 60 days, Mr Ball is OK.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: BTW, if you go the 60-day route – and I discourage it – it is not unusual to receive an IRS notice. The IRS does not necessarily know that you rolled the money back into an IRA within the 60-day window.

This matter wound up in Tax Court. Mr Ball had an uphill climb. Why? Let’s go through some of technicalities of an IRA.

(1) An IRA is a trust account. That means it requires a trustee. The trustee is responsible for the assets in the IRA.

Chase was the trustee. Guess what Chase did not know about? The LLC owned by Mr Ball himself.

Know what else Chase did not know about? The real estate loans made by the LLC upon receipt of funds from Chase.

If Chase was the trustee for the LLC, it had to be among the worst trustees ever. 

(2)  Assets owned by the IRA should be named or titled in the name of the IRA.

Who owned the LLC?

Not the IRA.

Mr Ball’s back was to the wall. What argument did he have?

Answer: Mr Ball argued that the LLC was an “agent” of his IRA.

The Tax Court did not see an “agency” relationship. The reason: if the principal did not know there was an agent, then there was no agency.

Mr Ball took monies out of an IRA and put it somewhere that was not an IRA. Once that happened, there was no restriction on what he could do with the money. Granted, he put the profits back into the LLC wanna-be-IRA, but he was not required to. The technical term for this is “taxable income.”

And – in the spirit of bayoneting the dead – the Court also upheld a substantial underpayment penalty.

Worst. Case. Scenario.

Is there something Mr Ball could have done?

Yes: Find a trustee that would allow nontraditional assets in the IRA. Transfer the retirement funds from Chase to the new trustee. Request the new trustee to open an LLC. Present the real estate loans to the new trustee as investment options for the LLC and with a recommendation to invest. The new trustee – presumably more comfortable with nontraditional investments – would accept the recommendation and make the loans.

Note however that everything I described would take place within the protective wrapper of the IRA-trust.

Why do I disapprove of these arrangements?

Because – in my experience – almost no one gets it right. The only reason we do not have more horror stories like this is because the IRS has not had the resources to chase down these deals. Perhaps some day they will, and the results will probably not be pretty. Then again, chasing down IRA monies in a backdrop of social security bankruptcy might draw the disapproval of Congress.

Our case this time was Ball v Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-152.

Trust Fund Penalty When Your Boss Is The U.S. Government

You may be aware that bad things can happen if an employer fails to remit payroll taxes withheld from employees’ paychecks. There are generally three federal payroll taxes involved when discussing payroll and withholding:

(1)  Federal income taxes withheld

(2)  FICA taxes withheld

(3)  Employer’s share of FICA taxes

The first two are considered “trust fund” taxes. They are paid by the employee, and the employer is merely acting as agent in their eventual remittance to the IRS. The third is the employer’s own money, so it is not considered “trust fund.”

Let’s say that the employer is having a temporary (hopefully) cash crunch. It can be tempting to borrow these monies for more urgent needs, like meeting next week’s payroll (sans the taxes), paying rent and keeping the lights on.  Hopefully the company can catch-up before too long and that any damage is minimal.

I get it.

The IRS does not.

There is an excellent reason: the trust fund money does not belong to the employer. It is the employees’ money.  The IRS considers it theft.

Triggering one the biggest penalties in the Code: the trust fund penalty.

We have in the past referred to it as the “big boy” penalty, and you want nothing to do with it. It brings two nasty traits:

(1)  The rate is 100%. Yep, the penalty is equal to the trust fund taxes themselves.

(2)  The IRS can go after whoever is responsible, jointly or severally.

Let’s expand on the second point. Let’s say that there are three people at the company who can sign checks and decide who gets paid. The IRS will – as a generalization – consider all three responsible persons for purposes of the penalty. The IRS can go after one, two, or all three. Whoever they go after can be held responsible for all of the trust fund taxes – 100% - not just their 1/3 share. The IRS wants its money, and the person who just ponied 100% is going to have to separately sue the other two for their share. The IRS does not care about that part of the story.

How do you defend against this penalty?

It is tough if you have check-signing authority and can prioritize who gets paid. The IRS will want to know why you did not prioritize them, and there are very few acceptable responses to that question.

Let’s take a look at the Myers case.

Steven Myers was the CFO and co-president of two companies. The two were in turn owned by another company which was licensed by the Small Business Administration as a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC).  The downside to this structure is that the SBA can place the SBIC into receivership (think bankruptcy). The SBA did just that.

In 2009 the two companies Myers worked for failed to remit payroll taxes.

Oh oh.

However, it was an SBA representative – remember, the SBA is running the parent company – who told Myers to prioritize vendors other than the IRS.

Meyers did so.

And the IRS slapped him with the big boy penalty.

QUESTION: Do you think Myers has an escape, especially since he was following the orders of the SBA?

At first it seems that there is an argument, since it wasn’t just any boss who was telling him not to pay. It was a government agency.

However, precedence is a mile long where the Court has slapped down the my-boss-told-me-not-to-pay argument. Could there be a different answer when the boss is the government itself?

The Court did not take long in reaching its decision:

So, the narrow question before us is whether …. applies with equal force when a government agency receiver tells a taxpayer not to pay trust fund taxes. We hold that it does. We cannot apply different substantive law simply because the receiver in this case was the SBA."

Myers owed the penalty.

What do you do if you are in this position?

One possibility is to terminate your check-signing authority and relinquish decision-making authority over who gets paid.

And if you cannot?

You have to quit.

I am not being flippant. You really have to quit. Unless you are making crazy money, you are not making enough to take on the big-boy penalty.

The Mexican Fideicomiso and Foreign Trusts

This topic originated with Karl, who owns a condo in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

Karl was incredulous when I had him file a foreign trust tax return for his Mexican condo a couple of years ago. Why? Because the IRS was increasing their attention to foreign matters (think FBAR and FATCA, for example), and the penalties for failure to file had marched full-throated into extortion territory – at least for my clients, as I do not represent P&G, Toyota or their executives.

Under the Mexican constitution, noncitizens cannot directly own real estate within 50 kilometers of the coastline. This means that a U.S. citizen (Karl for example) has to use an agent to purchase the real estate. This agency is called a fideicomiso. Mind you the fideicomiso does nothing other than hold title – there is no bank account to pay taxes or insurance or repairs or anything.

The tax issue with the fideicomiso is whether or not the IRS would consider it to be a foreign trust. For many years practitioners (including me) considered it the equivalent of an Illinois land trust. The IRS treats the Illinois land trust as though it doesn’t exist; a technical way to say it is that the owner has a direct interest in the real estate and reports accordingly.

When the IRS tightened up its foreign reporting, it became unclear how they would treat fideicomisos. I called the National Office, for example, but received no clear-cut answer or leaning. This put me in a difficult spot, as the penalties for failure to file a return when assets are transferred to a foreign trust are the greater of $10,000 or 35% of the assets transferred. There is also an annual filing requirement (it is assumed that the trust is not funded annually), and those penalties are the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the value of the trust assets.

You can see how this gets very expensive.

So I had Karl file a tax return to report the funding (Form 3520) as well as an annual tax return (Form 3520-A). I am uncertain what the IRS got out of this, but Karl racked up additional tax compliance fees.

The IRS has recently published a Private Letter Ruling (PLR 201245003) stating that a fideicomiso is not a trust as that term is intended in IRS Reg. 301.7701-4(a), and that the beneficiary of the trust is to be treated as the direct owner. In other words, the fideicomiso is “invisible” to the IRS.

There are issues with PLRs, primarily that the IRS does not consider them as precedent to anyone other than the person to whom the PLR was issued. That means that – while tax advisors can look to them for markers as to IRS positions – they are not a failsafe if the IRS goes against you.  Karl is not completely protected unless he obtains his own PLR. Those cost money, of course. The filing fee alone can be several thousand dollars. Then you have my fee.

Don’t get me wrong: I have used PLRs in IRS representation before, and I have gotten greater or lesser traction depending on the examiner, manager or appeals officer and the magnitude of the specific issue to the exam. I suspect that, in the case of fideicomisos, the IRS is waving the flag and giving advisors a clue on their position and enforcement intentions. But one cannot be sure, and there’s the rub.

So how would you have me advise Karl? Would you advise him/her to get his/her own PLR (for thousands of dollars), would you rely on the issued PLR or would you have Karl continue filing Forms 3520/3520-A?

And remember: all we are talking about is a condo. A nice one, granted, but this "trust" has never even been near Switzerland.