Navigating The Tax Code On Your Own

 

I received a phone call recently from the married daughter of a client. I spoke with the couple – mostly the son-in-law – about needing an accountant. They had bought property, converted property to rental status and were selling property the following (that is, this) year.

It sounds like a lot. It really isn’t. It was clear during our conversation that they were well-versed in the tax issues.

I told them: “you don’t need me.”

They were surprised to hear this.

Why would I say that?

They knew more than they gave themselves credit for. Why pay me? Let them put the money to better use.

Let’s take an aside before continuing our story.

We - like many firms - are facing staffing pressure. The profession has brought much of this upon itself – public accounting has a blemished past – and today’s graduates appear to be aware of the sweatshop mentality that has preceded them. Lose a talented accountant. Experience futility in hiring new talent. Ask those who remain to work even harder to make up the shortfall. Be surprised when they eventually leave because of overwork. Unchecked, this problem can be a death spiral for a firm.

Firms are addressing this in different ways. Many firms are dismissing clients or not accepting new ones. Many (if not most) have increased minimum fees for new clients. Some have released entire lines of business. There is a firm nearby, for example, which has released all or nearly all of its fiduciary tax practice.

We too are taking steps, one of which is to increase our minimum fee for new individual tax clients.

Back to the young couple.

I explained that I did not want to charge them that minimum fee, especially since it appeared they could prepare their return as well as I could. 

They explained they wanted certainty that it was done right.

Yeah, I want that for them too. We will work something out.

But I think there is a larger issue here.

The tax Code keeps becoming increasingly complex. That is fine if we are talking about Apple or Microsoft, as they can afford to hire teams of accountants and attorneys. It is not fine for ordinary people, hopefully experiencing some success in life, but unable – or fearful - to prepare their own returns. Couple this with an overburdened accounting profession, a sclerotic IRS, and a Congress that may be brewing a toxic stew with its never-ending disfigurement of the tax Code to solve all perceived ills since the days of Hammurabi.

How are people supposed to know that they do not know?

Let’s look at the Lucas case.

Robert Lucas was a software engineer who lost his job in 2017. He was assisting his son and daughter, and he withdrew approximately $20 grand from his 401(k) toward that end.

Problem: Lucas was not age 59 ½.

Generally speaking, that means one has taxable income.

One may also have a penalty for early distribution. While that may seem like double jeopardy, such is the law.

Sure enough, the plan administrator issued a Form 1099 showing the distribution as taxable to Lucas with no known penalty exception.

Lucas should have paid the tax and penalty. He did not, which is why we are talking about this.

The IRS computers caught the omission, of course, and off to Tax Court they went.

Lucas argued that he had been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years earlier. He had read on a website that diabetes would make the distribution nontaxable.

Sigh. He had misread – or someone had written something wildly inaccurate about – being “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity.”

That is a no.

Since he thought the distribution nontaxable, he also thought the early distribution penalty would not apply.

No … again.

Lucas tried.

He thought he knew, but he did not know.

He could have used a competent tax preparer.

But how was he to know that?

Our case this time was Robert B. Lucas v Commissioner T.C.M. 2023-009.

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.

A Mom Taking Care Of A Disabled Child And Payroll Taxes

We have a responsible person payroll tax story to tell.

You may know that I sardonically refer to this penalty as the “big-boy” penalty. It applies when you have some authority and control over the deposit of payroll withholding taxes but do not remit them to the IRS. The IRS views this as theft, and they can be quite unforgiving. The penalty alone is equal to 100% of the tax; in addition, the IRS will come after you personally, if necessary.

You do not want this penalty – for any reason.

How do people get into this situation? In many – if not most cases – it is because the business is failing. There isn’t enough cash, and it is easier to “delay” paying the IRS rather than a vendor who has you on COD. You wind up using the IRS as a bank. Now, you might be able to survive this predicament if we were talking about personal or business income taxes. Introduce payroll – and payroll withholding – and you have a different answer altogether.

Our story involves Christina Fitzpatrick (Christina). Her husband made the decision to start a restaurant in Jacksonville with James Stamps (Stamps). They would be equal partners, and Stamps would run the show. Fitzpatrick would be the silent wallet.

They formed Dey Corp., Inc to hold the franchise. The franchise was, of course, the restaurant itself.  

Sure enough, shortly after formation and before opening, Stamps was pulled to Puerto Rico for business. This left Fitzpatrick, who in turn passed on some of the pre-opening duties to his wife, Christina.

Fortunately, Stamps got back in town before the place opened. He hired a general manager, a chef and other employees. He then went off to franchise training school. Meanwhile, the employees wanted to be paid, so Stamps had Christina contact Paychex and engage their services. They would run the payroll, cut checks and make the tax deposits.

            OBSERVATION: Let’s call this IRS point (1)

He also had Christina open a business bank account and include herself as a signatory.

            OBSERVATION: IRS point (2) and (3)

Stamps and the general manager (Chislett) pretty much ran the place. Whether he was in or out of town, Stamps was in daily contact with Chislett. Chislett managed, hired and fired, oversaw purchases and so on. He was also the main contact with Paychex.

Except that …

Paychex started off by delivering paychecks weekly to the restaurant. There was a problem, though: the restaurant wasn’t open when they went by. Paychex then starting going to Christina’s house. Chislett told her to sign and drop-off the paychecks at the restaurant. Chislett could not do it because it was his day off.

            OBSERVATION: IRS point (4) and (5).

You can anticipate how the story goes from here. The restaurant lost money. Chislett was spending like a wild man, to the extent that the vendors put him on COD. Somewhen in there Paychex drew on the bank account and the check bounced. Paychex stopped making tax deposits for the restaurants because – well, they were not going to make deposits with rubber checks.

By the way, neither Stamps nor Chislett bothered to tell the Fitzpatricks that Paychex was no longer making tax deposits.

Sure enough, the IRS Revenue Officer (RO) showed up. She clued the Fitzpatricks that the restaurant was over two years behind on tax deposits.

Remember that the restaurant was short on cash. Who could the IRS chase for its money in its stead?  Let me think ….

The RO decided Christina was a responsible person and assessed big bucks (approximately $140,000) against her personally.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Court introduces us to Christina.

·       She spent her time taking care of her disabled son, who suffered from a rare metabolic disorder. As a consequence, he had severe autism, cerebral palsy and limited mobility. He needed assistance for many basic functions, such as eating and going to the bathroom. He could not be left alone for any significant amount of time.

·       Taking care of him took its toll on her. She developed spinal stenosis from constantly having to lift him. She herself took regular injections and epidurals.

·       She truly did not have a ton of time to put into her husband’s money-losing restaurant. At start-up she had a flurry of sorts, but after that she visited maybe once a week, and that for less than an hour.

·       She could not hire or fire. She was not the bookkeeper or accountant. She did not see the bank statements.

She did, unfortunately, sign a few of the checks.

The IRS looks very closely at who has signatory authority on the bank account. As far as they are concerned, one could write a check to them as easily as a check to a vendor. Christina appears to be behind the eight ball.

The Court noted that the IRS was relying heavily on the testimony of Stamps and Chislett.

The Court did not like them:

Petitioner’s cross-examination of Mr. Stamps and Mr. Chislett revealed that their testimony was unreliable and unbelievable."

That is Court-speak to say they lied.

Mr. Stamps evaded many of the petitioner’s questions during cross-examination by repeatedly responding ‘I don’t remember.’”

Sounds like a possible presidential run in there for Stamps.

The Court was not amused with the IRS Revenue Officer either:

However, we believe that RO Wells did not conduct a thorough investigation. For instance, RO Wells made her determination before she received and reviewed the relevant bank records. She also failed to interview (or summon) Mr. Stamps, the president of the corporation.”

The IRS is supposed to interview all the corporate officers. Sounds like this RO did not.

The Court continued:

We are in fact puzzled that Mr. Stamps, the president of the corporation and a hands-on owner, an Mr. Chislett, the day-to-day manager, successfully evaded in the administrative phase any personal liability for these TFRPs.”

My, that is curious, considering they RAN the place. The use of the word “evaded” clarifies what the Court thought of these two.

But there is more required to big-boy pants than just signing a check. The Court reminded the IRS that a responsible person must have some control:

The inquiry must focus on actual authority to control, not on trivial duties.”

Here is the hammer:

Notwithstanding petitioner’s signatory authority and her spousal relationship to one of the corporation’s owners, the substance of petitioner’s position was largely ministerial and she lacked actual authority.”

The Court liked Christina. The Court did not like Stamps and Chislett. They especially did not like the IRS wasting their time. She was a responsible person they way I am a deep-sea diver because I have previously been on a boat.

The Court dismissed the case.

But we see several points about this penalty:

(1)  The IRS will chase you like Khan chased Kirk.

(2)  Note that the IRS did not chase Stamps or Chislett. This tells me those two had no money, and the IRS was chasing the wallet.

(3)  Following on the heels of (2), do not count on the IRS being “fair.” They IRS can cull one person from the herd and assess the penalty in full. There is no requirement to assess everyone involved or keep the liability proportional among the responsible parties.

We have a success story, but look at the facts that it took.

What Does It Mean To Rely On A Tax Pro?

You may know that permanent life insurance can create a tax trap.

This happens when the insurance policy builds up cash value. Nice thing about cash value is that you can borrow against it. If the cash value grows exponentially, you can borrow against it to fund your lifestyle, all the while not paying any income tax.

There is always a "but."

The "but" is when the policy terminates. If you die, then there is no tax problem. Many tax practitioners however consider death to be extreme tax planning, so let's consider what happens should the policy terminate while you are still alive. 

All the money you borrowed in excess of the premiums you paid will be income to you. It makes sense if you think of the policy as a savings account. To the extent the balance exceeds whatever you deposited, you have interest income. Doing the same thing inside of a life insurance policy does not change the general rule. What it does do is change the timing: instead of paying taxes annually you will pay only when a triggering event occurs.

Letting the policy lapse is a triggering event.

So you would never let the policy lapse, right?

There is our problem: the policy will require annual premiums to stay in effect. You can write a check for the annual premiums, or you can let the insurance company take it from the cash value. The latter works until you have borrowed all the cash value. With no cash value left, the insurance company will look for you to write a check.

Couple this with the likelihood that this likely will occur many years after you acquired the policy - meaning that you are older and your premiums are more expensive - and you can see the trap in its natural environment.  

The Mallorys purchased a single premium variable life insurance policy in 1987 for $87,500. The policy insured Mr. Mallory, with his wife as the beneficiary. He was allowed to borrow. If he did, he would have to pay interest. The policy allowed him two ways to do this: (1) he could write a check or (2) have the interest added to the loan balance instead.

Mallory borrowed $133,800 over the next 14 years - not including the interest that got charged to the loan.

Not bad.

The "but" came in 2011. The policy burned out, and the insurance company wanted him to write a check for approximately $26,000.

Not a chance said Mallory.

The insurance company explained to him that there would be a tax consequence.

Says you said Mallory.

The policy terminated and the insurance company sent him a 1099 for approximately $150,000.

It was now tax time 2012. The Mallorys went to their tax preparer, who gave them the bad news: a big tax check was due.

Tax preparer became ex-tax preparer.

The Mallorys did not file their 2011 tax return until 2013. They omitted the offending $150,000, but they attached the Form 1099 to their tax return with the following explanation:

Paid hundreds of $. No one knows how to compute this using the 1099R from Monarch -- IRS could not help when called -- Pls send me a corrected 1040 explanation + how much is owed. Thank you."

The IRS in turn replied that they wanted $40,000 in tax, a penalty of approximately $10,000 for filing the return late and another penalty of over $8,000 for omitting the 1099 in the first place.

The Mallorys countered that they had no debt with the insurance company. Whatever they received were just distributions, and they were under no obligation to pay them back.

In addition, since they received no cash from the insurance company in 2011, there could not possibly be any income in 2011.

It was an outside-the-box argument, I grant you. The problem is that their argument conflicted with a small mountain of paperwork accumulated over the years referring to the monies as loans, not to mention the interest on said loan.

They also argued for mitigation of the $8,000 penalty because no one could tell them the taxable portion of the insurance policy.

The Mallorys had contacted the IRS, who gave them the general answer.  It is not routine IRS policy to specifically analyze insurance company 1099s to determine the taxable amount.

They had also called random tax professionals asking for free tax advice.

COMMENT: Think about this for a moment. Let's say you receive a call asking for your thoughts on a tax question. The caller is not a client. Your first thought is likely: why get involved? Let's say that you take the call. You are then asked for advice. How specific can you be? They are not your client, and the risk is high that you do not know all the facts. The most you can tell them - prudently, at least - is the general answer.

This is, by the way, why many practitioners simply do not accept calls like this.                            

The Court did not buy the Mallory's argument. It was not true that the Mallorys were not advised: they were advised by their initial tax preparer - the one they unceremoniously fired. After that point it was a stretch to say that they received advice - as they never hired anyone. A phone call for free tax advice did not strike the Court as a professional relationship providing "reasonable cause" to mitigate the $8,000 penalty. 

The Mallorys lost across the board.