Deducting Business Interest From Personal Credit Cards

The case caught my eye because it involves a very common fact pattern:

A small business owner obtains credit cards in his/her personal name and uses it/them for business purchases and activities.

Question: Can the business deduct the interest on the credit cards?

I doubt that there is a tax practitioner out there that hasn’t deducted this, but a recent case points out minimum requirements in case the IRS challenges the deduction.

Let’s look at C.A. Simmons, TC Memo 2026-34.

I admit that I was expecting some technical dive into the interest deduction, but this case is not that. It is a reminder that one has to get to first base before being able to reach home plate. Strike out and the rest is meaningless.

Cathryn Simmons and her sister owned a specialty store (called Stuff) in Kansas City, Missouri. They had sold handmade and small-batch goods since 1996. As is too common, Stuff struggled to obtain credit in its own name, so the sisters used personal credit cards and loans to finance the business. They used QuickBooks for their accounting, and they did try to segregate the credit cards between those used for business and those used personally.  

COMMENT: I suspect most clients I have advised can remember my standard sermon:

·      Establish a separate business account. Business deposits and expenses go through the business account. Personal expenses do not. I understand that the bank is going to charge for a business account, and it might be cheaper to lean into a personal account. Do not do that. You already incurred that expense when you started the business.

·      I understand that you might not be able to get a credit card in the business name and may have to use a personal card. Use one card for business and the rest for personal. Do not intermingle the two.

·      If you are using a personal card, I might have the business recognize it as a loan from you. We will formalize it with a note, mention an interest rate and make some reference to repayment. Do not be surprised if the interest rate on the note is the same as the credit card.

·      Keep records of all business deposits and expenses. At a minimum, buy an expanding file and file the paperwork by month. When we finish the tax return for the year, combine the return and its paperwork into a file or folder for the year, and hold onto it.

Back to Stuff.

The IRS looked at the 2017 business return and 2017 and 2019 personal returns. They expanded the business audit to include cost of goods sold, advertising, vehicle expenses, travel, meals and entertainment, charitable and promotion, and interest. We will discuss only the interest deduction today.

Stuff field a partnership return, and each sister’s share of the 2017 business profit was less than $3 grand.

There was a little chop with the interest deduction because it included both interest on the credit cards and interest on the personal loans. I point it out because the Court says the following about the personal loans:

As an initial matter, … fails to establish that the purported interest amounts Stuff paid to her and her sister arose from Stuff’s own indebtedness. The record contains promissory notes … but no ‘loan papers’ establishing Stuff’s indebtedness to the sisters.”

… we cannot conclude from these payments and the sisters’ testimony that Stuff had an actual legal obligation to pay interest to them.”

I get it but … harsh. I suppose Stuff was not following the terms of the promissory notes. We would - of course - redraft the terms of the notes. This is low hanging fruit.

What about the credit cards?

Ms. Simmons likewise fails to demonstrate that Stuff was entitled to deduct the credit card interest and finance charges recorded on its QuickBooks account. The evidence shows that Ms. Simmons obtained and used credit cards in her own name to finance Stuff’s business expenses given its inability to obtain credit on its own. Ms. Simmons fails to show that any credit card interest and finance charges constituted Stuff’s own indebtedness rather than her personal indebtedness, and thus no deduction is appropriate.”

Stop. I am having a problem here, as I am quite aware of Reg 1.163-8T.

Seems to me that if (1) I trace a business expense from the credit card statement to (2) the QuickBooks, I have at least a good chance of meeting the requirement that “debt is allocated by tracing the disbursements of the debt proceeds to specific expenditures.”

Back to the Court:

Assuming arguendo that credit cards opened by Ms. Simmons constituted an indebtedness of Stuff, the records before us would not substantiate the amounts claimed. Although the sisters testified that they used the six designated credit cards exclusively for Stuff’s expenses, they failed to establish the amounts and business purposes of the underlying expenditures that resulted in the interest and finance charges at issue.”

They failed to establish the amounts and business purposes …?

I believe two things happened here:

(1)  Stuff could not document a lot of expenses. On quick review, I see the IRS disallowing almost $13 grand of vehicle expenses, $22 grand of charitable and promotion expenses, and so on.

(2)  If those expenses ran through the credit cards, then I understand an allocable portion of the interest being disallowed.

However, the Court just nixed the interest deduction altogether.

Seems to me that some of the credit card interest – that allocable to deductions allowed – should be deductible. I presume the accounting was not clean enough to do a side calculation. The IRS will rarely play forensic, and the Tax Court certainly will not.

The Court did reemphasize that it wanted to see linkage between the business activity and the credit cards, but that has been the rule since I have been practicing. There is nothing new here. Somebody just forgot to get on first base.  

Lost Records, A Dead Professional And A Tax Audit

 

I admit I was suspicious when I read the following:

The corporation had a bookkeeper during the years at issue, Robin Greenslade, who is now deceased. Petitioners trusted Ms. Greenslade to handle the accounting and did not regularly review her work.”

The corporation … also used the bookkeeping services of Joan Falanga during the years at issue. She recorded Mr. Ataya’s capital contributions …, but these records and, indeed, all of her records for the corporation are lost.”

That’s quite a run of bad luck.

By 2008 Hani Ataya had nearly 20 years’ experience in car sales. In 2008 he founded Cost U Less Cars, Inc., a California corporation, with a partner. The partner left in 2012 and Inaam Ataya (Hani’s mother) joined the business shortly thereafter. His mom had an IT degree and had worked for the state of California.

The business was relatively straightforward: it bought cars at auction and resold them. Hani was the primary buyer, and he regularly used cashier’s checks to buy cars. Sometimes he used them all, sometimes he did not. When he did not, he kept the unused checks in a desk drawer for later use.

COMMENT: Not loving this: it is weak control over cash and will look bad in the event of audit.

It appears Cost U Less Cars, Inc was making bank:

             

Wow.

The company then started losing money and ceased operations in 2020.

The company was audited by the IRS for years 2014 through 2017. The audit went poorly.

The company filed with the Tax Court. The filing was thrown out in August, 2023 because the corporation no longer existed under California law. A corporation is an artificial legal entity. It exists because a state says it exists and does not exist when a state says otherwise.

The IRS saw the Ataya’s taking approximately $1.5 million in 2015 via cashier’s checks to purchase a house in Granite Bay, California.

COMMENT: No problem as long as they reported it as income: wages, dividends, Nigerian prince 419 scam, whatever.

They took out additional cashier’s checks in 2016 to pay for flooring and improvements to the place.

COMMENT: Ditto.

The IRS next examined the two shareholder personal returns.

COMMENT: Not an uncommon expansion of the audit, and (frankly) expected in this instance.

Here are proposed adjustments to Hani’s 2015 and 2016 tax years:

     

Here are adjustments to his mom:

How can you miss $1.5 million? You would think they were in Congress or something.

The IRS came in hot. They wanted tax. They wanted penalties. And interest. Hani’s tab alone for the two years was over $600 grand.

The Ataya’s wanted penalty relief.

First up: Cost U Less Cars, Inc was hamstrung during its audit. Key players were gone. Its charter had been revoked, causing difficulties with obtaining alternative records.

Yep, the loss of two key players and business documentation was odd. What accounting remained was questionable, to such a degree that the IRS used bank account analysis to arrive at more solid numbers. Neither fact helped Hani and his mom, as those were outside normal business practices. And that charter thing was self-inflicted.

Next up: reliance on a professional.

I like it.

There were two bookkeepers, and someone (not a CPA) to prepare the tax returns.

Professionals.

Here are the ingredients to arguing reliance:

·       The advisor was competent with sufficient expertise to justify reliance.

·       The taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the advisor.

·       The taxpayer actually relied on the advisor’s judgement.

Then I read something I am unsure I have ever read before:

Although petitioners testified that they relied on … and … for bookkeeping services and on Mr. Packey for tax preparation services, the record lacks evidence of their professional qualifications or, in the case of Mr. Packey, evidence of his competence as a tax professional.”

Ouch. I am feeling vicarious pain on behalf of Mr. Packey.

The Tax Court sustained the penalties.

My thoughts?

I would have argued the penalties too. I almost have to, as a professional.

However, when I read the two Tax Court cases (business and personal), I was expecting fraud penalties at the end of the story.

Know when to walk away, folks.

Our case today was Ataya v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-55.

Revoking A Church’s Tax-Exempt Status

 

I do not recall an audit of a church during my career.

I have however practiced at the other end: helping religious organizations obtain tax-exempt status.

Terms are important here. Let us look at two: churches and religious organizations.

A church is the immediate mental image: a congregation; an established place to meet; a code of doctrine; procedures for ordaining ministers, and so forth. A more intuitive term would be “a house of worship,” and worship would include Christianity and other religions.

A religious association is a religiously-oriented entity other than a church.

The terminology is important be cause churches do not need to apply for and obtain tax-exempt status. As long as they meet basic Section 501(c) requirements, they are deemed to be tax-exempt – the term is “per se” – just by being a church. That said, it is not unusual for a church to formally apply for tax-exempt status. Why? To tie to bow, so to speak. Chances are the church will regularly and routinely seek tax-deductible donations. It might be helpful to assure donors that the IRS recognizes the church as qualifying to receive such donations.

Since a church does not need to request and obtain 501(c) status, it is also not required to file annual Forms 990. It can, of course, the same as it can also formally apply for exempt status. The church can decide.

A religious organization – not being a church – must apply for exempt status, file annual Forms 990, and all the paperwork we routinely associate with being tax-exempt.

Let’s return to the requirements, and then we will discuss a church that crossed the line.

There are five basic requirements under Section 501(c):

·      The entity must be a corporation.

·      The entity must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, and other charitable purposes.

·      Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder.

·      No substantial part of the organization’s activity may be attempting to influence legislation.

·      The organization may not intervene in political campaigns.

These are the minimum hurdles. In practice there is some latitude (must be a corporation, for example, but the definition of corporation for this purpose is generous), but one must still keep the tires on the pavement.

The Community Worship Fellowship (CWF) was founded in 1998 by Lester Goddard and his family. The organizing documents with Oregon had all the magic words (“organized exclusively for …”), and it obtained tax-exempt status from the IRS. It was governed by an uncompensated council of elders.

There are two broad requirements in this area: what the paperwork says and what you actually do. So far, the paperwork seems normal.

However, it turned out that your name had to be “Goddard” (or related to) to be on the council of elders – the governing body of the church.

Bad start. They might want to address this as soon as possible.

After a decade the IRS began asking questions. There were reports that CWF assets were being used for personal benefit. The church blew off the initial inquiry. The IRS responded by auditing years 2013 through 2016.

COMMENT: Brilliant.

The IRS discovered the following:

·      Lester Goddard determined his own salary and bonus.

·      His salary and bonus were approved by the members, but most of the members were related to Lester.

·      CWF credit cards showed purchases of Prada handbags, jewelry, perfume, and furs.

·      CWF paid personal boat payments and private travel, including Disneyland and Hawaii.

·      CWF paid for improvements (think a pool) at Lester’s home.

·      CWF lent money to Lester and family. Let’s say CWF was … not rigorous … about the money being repaid.

In tax lingo, this money shuffle is called “private inurement.” In common conversation, we call it something else.

Meanwhile CWF moved its incorporation from Oregon to Hawaii. Why? I am not sure. The IRS – to the best of my knowledge – still reaches Hawaii.

In December 2018 the IRS revoked CWF’s exemption.

Problem: the IRS did not publicly disclose the revocation. How were donors to know?

In March 2019 CWF filed suit.

In October 2025 the Federal Court of Claims finally decided.

The reason for a six-year delay? There were 18 stays for additional discovery.

This is not a pretty story, and church exemptions is not an area the IRS likes to tread. Tax and constitutional law weave together closely, and even an IRS win might be construed as pyrrhic. There are more than 350,000 religious tax-exempt organizations, for example, but less than five lost their exemption in 2023. None of those five were churches.

Our case this time was Community Worship Fellowship v United States, No 19-352 (Fed Cl October 23, 2025).