What Is Your Tax Basis When There Are No Records?

 

Since I started practice, there have been repetitive proposals to change the step-up basis rules upon death. With some exceptions, the general rule is that assets at one’s death take fair market value as their tax basis.

EXAMPLE: A decedent purchased his principal residence in 1975 for $56,000. The house is in Brentwood, Tennessee, and upon death the property is worth $1 million. The property’s tax basis is reset from $56 thousand to $1 million. Sell it for $1 million shortly after death and there is no gain or loss.

The common exception are retirement accounts: 401(k)s, 403(b)s, traditional IRAs and so on. These assets do not reset to fair market value (the tax nerds call this the “mark”), as the Code wants distributions from these accounts to be taxed as ordinary income.

There is a downside to the mark, of course. If the asset has gone down in value, then that lower value becomes the new basis.

The proposals I to which I refer would require carryover basis for the asset, meaning that tax basis will be acquisition cost plus improvements with no reference to market value at death.

I get it, I really do.

Why should income tax basis for an asset be marked just because someone died?

To continue that line of argument, why should there be a mark if one did not even have to file an estate tax return, much less pay estate taxes? The lifetime exemption in 2024 is $13.61 million. That is rarified air. So few estate tax returns are being filed that the IRS has been reassigning estate examiners to other functions.

The flip side asks how many times an asset is going to be taxed. To require carryover basis is to extend taxation on someone even beyond their death, which – I admit – seems macabre.

I prefer the mark over carryover basis for a different reason:

I am a practitioner and have been for decades. The argument for carryover basis may sound reasonable in the insulated confines of academe or expense account restaurants in corridors of power, but one should make a reality check with practitioners who have to work with these rules.

I expect that many if not most practitioners have encountered assets that are nearly impossible to cost or – if possible – possible only with extraordinary effort.

We had an example during busy season. A client and his siblings sold undeveloped land inherited from their grandfather and great aunt. The property had been owned separately, then as tenants in common, had survived two deaths and eventually found its way into a trust. The trust had terminated, and the siblings had formed a partnership in its place. One of the siblings was convinced that the basis for the land was incorrect. It was possible, as we had assumed the tax work from another accountant. We had not previously questioned the basis for the land. No one had.   

It took weeks and multiple people investigating and researching the provenance of the land. Even so, we were fortunate to research only back to the dates of the two deaths, as those would be the trigger dates for any potential mark.   

This is but one asset. One taxpayer. One practitioner. Who knows how many times the story repeats?

There is also a dark side to establishing tax basis that should be said out loud.

Let’s look at the Youngquist case.

Dean Youngquist (DY) did not file a tax return for 1996. He in fact had not filed a tax return since the late 1980s, which is a story for another day.

DY started day trading in 1996. He opened an account with Protrade. He closed that account in December 1996 and opened an account with Datek, another brokerage.

Do you remember the 1099-Bs that brokerages send you and the IRS? The Protrade and Datek 1099-Bs totaled $2,052,688 in sales proceeds.

COMMENT: I expect to see net trading losses, as net gains from day trading are uncommon.

The IRS send DY a tax assessment of $791,200, with another $796,726 in penalties and interest.

DY had been space-tripping, I guess. He did not file a tax return. He did not remember receiving notice(s) from the IRS. He had no idea that liens were filed on his property. He was shocked to learn that the IRS wanted to sell stuff to collect his taxes.

COMMENT: DY needs to tighten his game.

DY asked how the IRS got to the $791 grand in tax, much less the penalties and interest.

Easy, said the IRS. Since you did not provide records, we used zero (-0-) as your basis in the trades.

Folks, we all know there is zero chance that DY had no cost in his trades. The world does not work that way. How then did the IRS assert its position with a straight face?

Here is the Court:

The fact that basis may be difficult to establish does not relieve a taxpayer from his burden.”

DY did not even file a tax return, so it appears he put zero effort into discharging his burden.

If the taxpayer fails to satisfy the burden, the basis is deemed to be zero.”

Harsh, but that is the Coloman decision and extant tax law.

What did DY do next?

Believe it or not, he found – way, way after the fact – records for his Datek account.

The United States will abate the assessments by the portion of the assessments, penalties, and interest that were based upon the $601,612.50 in stock sales through Datek in 1996.”

Datek, BTW, was not his major trading account. Protrade was.

… there is no evidence documenting Youngquist’s actual stock transactions in the Protrade account. There are no statements from Protrade. There are no letters or emails from Protrade. Youngquist did not keep any notes about the stocks he purchased and sold, and he is unable to testify from memory about the specific stocks he bought and sold.”

DY had waited too long. Protrade was out of business.

DY had an idea:

·      He started his Protrade account with $73,000.

·      He closed his account with $67,333.

·      There was an aggregate loss of $5,677.

Seems reasonable.

Here is the Court:

First, I can find no authority to support his aggregate theory of proving basis in stock.”

This is technically correct, as each sale is its own event. Still, I would urge the Court to pull back the camera and use common sense. In legal-speak, we would call this an equity argument.

His only evidence is his own uncorroborated testimony. Youngquist’s bank account records do not reveal the November 5, 1996 withdrawal went to Protrade. There is no wire transfer record. There is no cancelled check evidencing payment to Protrade. Youngquist relies solely on his own testimony to suggest these facts.”

Personally, I believe that DY lost money overall in his Protrade account, but that is not the issue. The issue is that he needed to retain (some) records and file a return, responsibilities which he ignored. He then wanted the Court to do his work for him, and the Court was having none of that.

A taxpayer’s self-serving declaration is generally not a sufficient substitute for records.”

DY won on Datek but lost on Protrade. This was going to be expensive.

Back to the carryover basis proposal.

DY could not find records in 2013 going back to 1996. Granted, that is a long time, but that is nothing compared to requiring records from other people, possibly from other states and likely from decades earlier.  There should be a concession in tax administration that ordinary people pursuing ordinary goals are not going to maintain (and retain) records to the standards of the National Archive, at least not in overwhelming numbers. Combine that with a possible Youngquist body slam to zero, and the carryover basis proposal strikes as economically inefficient, financially brutish, possibly condescending, and an administrative nightmare. Why are we discussing a tax policy that cannot survive exposure to the real world?

Our case this time was U.S. v Youngquist, 3:11-cv-06113-PK, District Oregon.

Nigerian Oil And IRS Termination Assessment

I am reading a 34-page case that starts with the following:

During the first quarter of 2015 petitioner received about $750,000 from entities allegedly seeking to purchase Nigerian crude oil. Shortly thereafter he attempted to wire $300,000 to a foreign bank. The U.S. Secret Service flagged the transaction and alerted the Internal Revenue Service.  Believing that petitioner intended ‘quickly to depart from the United States or to remove his property therefrom,’ the IRS made a termination assessment under Section 6851(a).

I have never seen a termination assessment in practice.

It has to do with IRS Collections, and one does not just stumble into this. The IRS discovers (or is otherwise led to believe) that one has concealed assets with no intention of informing the IRS.

COMMENT: BTW a taxpayer has probably crossed the line from civil to criminal here. He/she should see a tax attorney, as matters are going south very soon.  

If dealing with a tax year for which the filing date has passed (for example, your 2018 tax year) then the collection is referred to as a jeopardy assessment.

If dealing with one’s current tax year, then it is a termination assessment. The IRS just closes your tax year (irrespective of what month or day it is), fast-forwards the notice periods and goes after your assets.  Think drug trafficking, for example, and you get the idea.

The other thing that would trigger a termination assessment is suspicion that one is going to flee the country.

Our protagonist is named Ugori Timothy Wilson Onyeani. Nope, I cannot explain how that collection of names came together, but let’s hereafter refer to him as UTWO.

UTWO was born in Nigeria. He moved to the U.K. to practice medicine. There was misconduct and his medical license was revoked. He came to the U.S. and got an MBA from DeVry University.

In the same year as he graduated from DeVry, he incorporated American Hope Petroleum & Energy Corp (AHPE). Mind you, there were no Board of Directors, employees, records, meetings, operations or the glimmer of any.

What it did have was a website.

 COMMENT: You see this coming, don’t you?

UTWO presented AHPE as an “independent crude oil purchasing and selling expert,” alleging it had “a team of experts” and was “securely invested in crude purchasing.”

COMMENT: Did I mention that UTWO had zero background in oil and gas? One would think his father was a politician.

He represented that he was brokering the sale of crude oil owned by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

Mind you, the NNPC had no idea who he was, but let us not interrupt UTWO’s story.

A couple of companies stepped-up and wanted to buy oil from AHPE. There are deposits for such things, so the two advanced $744,895.

COMMENT: Born every minute, it seems.

On or around March 3, 2015 UTWO attempted to wire $300 grand to London. His bank flagged the transaction and starting investigating. He responded by opening accounts at another bank, one in his name and one in AHPE’s name.

UTWO was scrupulous about handling company funds, though, using them for clearly business purposes such as trips to Sea World, purchases from Victoria’s Secret, trips to aquariums and flooring for his house.

Eventually the second bank also got spooked about AHPE/UTWO’s activities and froze his accounts.

The Secret Service informed the IRS, who came in with an audit. They found deposits over $800 grand (income as far as the IRS was concerned), no business expenses and a tax bill of $289,043.

The bank remitted the $289 grand to the IRS. The bank was no fool.

Then came a twist:  AHPE/UTWO returned $400 grand of advance deposits in a private settlement.

All the above took place in the same year - 2015. 

In 2016 UTWO and his wife filed their joint individual income tax return. The return reported his wife’s income of $41,893 and that was about it.

The IRS had a meltdown. It had found $800 grand, and UTWO was reporting none of it. The IRS wanted tax of $273,407, a fraud penalty of $205,055 and a slushee machine.

COMMENT: The fraud penalty is 75%. Never, ever go there.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Let’s go through the numbers again. The IRS found approximately $800 grand. AHPE/UTWO returned $400 grand of it. This leaves $400 grand. The IRS levied a tax payment of $289 grand, representing a tax rate of over 70%.

What about the fraud penalty of $205 grand, asked the IRS.

Where is the evasion - a badge of fraud - asked the Court.

The IRS answered: the fraud occurred when he filed a personal return leaving out the $800 grand.

Disagree, answered the Court. UTWO was preserving the position he was arguing in Court, i.e., that the IRS assessment was improper. It would have been legal suicide for him to report otherwise.

And the funds were held in IRS escrow, pointed out the Court. At that point evasion of tax was impossible.

The Court determined that no penalties were appropriate.

And UTWO got out of this as well as possible.

The key?

That he received $800 grand and repaid $400 grand in the same year. As a cash-basis taxpayer, he could not deduct that $400 grand until he paid it. He paid it in the same year as he received the $800 grand, so he could net the two.

I suspect he will get a refund.

Can The IRS Collect From You After 31 Years?

What were you doing 31 years ago? 

Me? I was living in South Florida. I probably had a nice tan. 

Let’s return to tax talk: do you think that the IRS can chase you down after 31 years?

One wouldn’t think so. There is a three-year statute of limitations on assessment, which generally means that the IRS has three years to audit you. If there is tax due, the IRS will then “assess” the tax, which means that they post the tax due to your master account. They have ten years (after assessment) to lien, levy or otherwise collect from you. The ten years is the statute of limitations on collection.  

NOTE: You can see there are two statutes at play: one on assessment and another on collection. The two can – and frequently – overlap, so that many times the effective statute of limitations is ten years.

There are specialized situations where tax representation involves exhausting the ten-year period. I had a client from Florida, for example, who inherited a nasty tax problem from her deceased husband.  Exhausting the collection period was part of our strategy.

Let’s talk about Beeler, which the Tax Court decided last month. 

There used to be a company called Equidyne Management, Inc, which failed to remit payroll taxes thirty-one years ago. That would be 1982.

Skipping out on payroll taxes is a bad idea. Somebody will not only be responsible for the taxes, interest and penalties but also for a 100 percent penalty to boot. This is the “responsible person” penalty, and this is one case where you do not want to be responsible.

NOTE: We have previously called this the “big-boy” penalty. It is one of the most gruesome penalties in the tax Code, as it imposes personal liability for a business debt.

Equidyne had three responsible persons: Beeler, Ross and Liebmann.

Ross filed for bankruptcy almost right away – in 1983. During his bankruptcy, he sent $80,860 as part of a “global settlement” with the IRS. “Global” means that he was paying off various taxes, not just the responsible person penalty.

Per the statute of limitations, the IRS had three years to assess. Right on schedule, in 1985 the IRS assessed the responsible person penalty against the three Equidyne officers. It could not assess against the company, as Equidyne itself had gone out of business.

Beeler lawyers up and contests the penalty. 

OBSERVATION: Litigation will “toll” the statute. This means that the ten-year period is suspended until the toll comes off.

The litigation is not resolved until 1995 - 10 years later. Beeler loses.   

Beeler contacts the IRS in 1997. The IRS fails to list the big boy penalty on his transcript.  

In 2001 the IRS releases liens on Beeler’s properties in New York and Sarasota. 

Even better, the IRS makes entry in Beeler’s master account that the statute of limitations on collections had expired.

Beeler wonders what is going on. More likely, Beeler’s tax CPA wonders what is going on. What the IRS did could be correct. The trust fund penalty is “joint and several.” The IRS could go against any of the three officers, but it does not have to go against the three proportionally. If the IRS had collected from one of the other two officers, then Beeler would be off the hook. The IRS cannot collect the penalty more than once, regardless of the number of responsible persons. 

In 2005 an IRS employee reviewing Beeler’s account notices that a “pending” code had been entered into the master file when Beeler litigated in 1986. This is standard procedure, and it indicates the “tolling” of the account. Problem is that the IRS failed to remove the code when the litigation ended in 1995. 

The IRS corrects the file. The judgment against Beeler is recorded. 

NOTE: One way to override the collection period is for the IRS to obtain a judgment, which requires the IRS to go to Court. Beeler was considerate enough to do this on his own power. 

Beeler is hopping mad. Wouldn’t you be? He sues the IRS - again. He has two arguments:

(1) The lien release discharged his trust fund obligation.

COMMENT: It did not. The lien secures a debt; it does not pay a debt. Relinquishment of a lien has nothing to do with the enforceability of the underlying debt.

(2) The big-boy penalty had been satisfied by payment.

COMMENT: This caught the Appeals Court’s attention, especially since the file went back to when some of the judges were probably entering law school. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the Tax Court to look into this matter.

The Tax Court determined the following:

(1)  Equidyne never paid anything.

(2)  Liebmann never paid anything.

(3)  Beeler never paid anything.

(4)  Ross paid $80,860 as part of a global settlement.

Beeler argues that Ross paid another $64,000. The Court finds record of a $64,000 but it believes that this was a bookkeeping entry reflecting a transfer among bankruptcy trustees and not a payment to the IRS.

But there was an IRS entry for $60,773. There was some dispute as to what it meant, as decades have gone by. The Court concluded that the IRS was correcting a prior entry, that this was not cash received and therefore not the $64,000 payment Beeler wanted.

Since there is no better information, the Court assumes that all of the $80,860 was paid toward the responsible person penalty and reduces Beeler’s liability accordingly. But Beeler is still on the hook for the balance.

Let us speculate. What if Beeler had not litigated the big-boy penalty? There would have been no judgment, and the statute of limitations would have eventually expired. Would the IRS have let that happen? Who knows? Sometimes the IRS will send a 90-day notice (called a “SNOD”) to get the case into Tax Court before the statute expires. You know what the IRS wants, of course: it wants the Court to transmute the assessment into a judgment. The IRS does not always send a SNOD, though. Perhaps it decides the likelihood of payment is low, or the amount due is inconsequential, or maybe the file just gets lost in the system. 

If he could go back, I wonder if Beeler would have litigated the penalty. It is the reason he is still on the hook, thirty- one years later.