Taking Tax Advice From Friends

 

I received a text message one night this past week.

I was researching living trusts on the internet. It sounds like it might work for my situation.

I had two immediate reactions:

First, excellent. I am a fan of doing your own research and understanding what an expert is recommending.

Second - and maybe more important – use the expert.

The problem with DIY tax research is that you may not know what you do not know. Granted, in many cases it might not matter as much (hey, can I deduct the mileage for my gig income?), but in other cases it might matter a lot.

Let’s talk about the Horowitz case from 2019.

Peter Horowitz was an anesthesiologist. Susan Horowitz was a PhD working as a public health analyst for the U.S. Department of Health of Human Services.

In 1984 they moved to Saudi Arabia. They lived mostly on Susan’s income while banking most of Peter’s salary.

They used U.S.-based accountants, so they knew to (and filed) federal taxes on their Saudi earnings.

One thing about a bank account in Saudi Arabia: it does not pay interest. After a couple of years, the Horowitzes got tired of that and opened a Swiss bank account. They were also concerned about untangling the Saudi account when the Saudi gig played out.

Makes sense.

The Horowitzes did not tell the U.S accountants about the Swiss account. This meant that they did not report the interest income nor did they report the existence of the foreign account to the Treasury or IRS.

Why?

Their friends in Saudi Arabia told them that they did not have to pay U.S. tax on interest earned on the Swiss account.

In 2001 they moved back to the U.S. That Swiss account had grown to $1.6 million. Peter called the bank every year or two to keep an eye on the account.

COMMENT:  I would too.

Fast forward to 2008, the year that UBS got in trouble with the (non)reporting on Swiss bank accounts. UBS notified the Horowitzes that they would be closing the account. Peter traveled to Switzerland and moved the funds to another bank. Susan travelled the next year to add her name to that account.

Peter opened a “numbered” account, which meant that a number rather than a name identified the account. He also requested the new bank to not send correspondence (termed “hold mail” - something the IRS did not like).

Why?

The bank explained:

… these services allowed U.S. citizens to eliminate the paper trail associated with undeclared assets and income they held … in Switzerland.”

This is going downhill.

In 2009 Peter started reading about IRS enforcement on foreign bank accounts. He and Susan decided to consult a tax attorney.

The Swiss account was now worth nearly $2 million.

They learned that they were supposed to – all along – have been reporting that account.

 In 2010 they closed the Swiss account, repatriated the funds and applied for a voluntary Treasury disclosure program.

Good idea.

They filed amended returns for the interest income, as well as filing FBARs disclosing the existence of the foreign account.

The interest income was not inconsequential: they sent the IRS more than $100 grand in back taxes.

Got it. It was going to hurt, so they might as well rip the band-aid.

In 2012 they opted out of the voluntary disclosure program (OVDP).

COMMENT:  The default ODVP penalty was 27.5%. I suspect - but do not know for certain - that they were hoping for a better penalty result during the audit process. Considering the Swiss account had neared $2 million, the penalty alone would have been around a half-million dollars.

In 2014 the IRS sent notices. The Horowitzes, their accountants and the IRS conferred but failed to reach an agreement.

The penalties now became an issue. The base FBAR penalty is $10 grand per instance. The IRS however saw the Horowitzes behavior as willful, meaning they wanted enhanced penalties. To muddy the waters further, the law had changed. What used to be a maximum $100 grand penalty was now the greater of $100 grand or 50% of the account.

COMMENT: You may also know the FBAR by its current name: FinCEN Form 114.

The Horowitzes protested. Their behavior was not willful, and - even if it was - the old penalty (maxed at $100 grand) should apply.

The Court was short on the willfulness issue.

The court acknowledged that the couple ‘insis[ed] that neither of them had actual knowledge on the FBAR requirement.’ But, relying on United States v. Williams …., it reasoned that willfulness in the civil context ‘covered not only knowing violations… but reckless ones as well’.”

In particular, the court pointed to the fact that the tax returns signed by the Horowitzes ‘included a question of whether they had foreign bank accounts, followed by a cross-reference’ to the FBAR filing requirement. It also found significant that, by their own account, the Horowitzes had ‘discussed their tax liabilities for their foreign accounts with their friends’ but failed to ‘have the same conversation with the accountants they entrusted with their taxes for years’.”

The Horowitzes appealed.

They argued that they messed up, but that mistake was not willful. The enhanced penalties should not apply.

The IRS countered: “willfulness” in this context includes recklessness, which standard was met by:    

The Horowitzes never asking their tax preparer whether they had to report the Swiss bank accounts,

The Horowitzes asking their friends about international tax matters demonstrated their awareness of potential issues,

The Horowitzes knew to report their Saudi earnings and U.S.-based interest income from domestic banks, and

The Horowitzes signed their tax returns without reviewing them with any care.

Here is the Court:

… their only explanation for not disclosing foreign interest income related to some unspecified conversations they had with friends in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Yet, if the question of whether they had to pay taxes on foreign interest income was significant enough to discuss with their friends, they were reckless in failing to discuss the same question with their accountant at any point over the next 20 years.”

Taking all of these circumstances together, the record indisputably establishes not only that the Horowitzes ‘clearly ought to have known’ that they were failing to satisfy their obligation to disclose their Swiss accounts, but also that they were in a ‘position to find out for certain very easily’.”

How much are we talking about across the years?

Including interest and penalties, it was close to $1 million.

Our case this time was Horowitz v US, No. 19-1280 (4^th Cir. 2020)

A Psychiatrist, Chauffer, Physician, Peace Officer, Pheasant Hunter

 

He said that his patients often called him a psychiatrist, chauffer, physician, peace officer, or even a pheasant hunter.”

He is David Laudon, a chiropractor in Minnesota and the subject of one of the more entertaining Tax Court opinions of the last decade. Laudon, however, reached too far for too long, and he was about to learn about snapback.

Back to the Court:

But not a ghostbuster. The Commissioner rhetorically asserted that some of Laudon’s trips might have made more sense if he was claiming to be a ghostbuster. Laudon then disclaimed any employment as a ghostbuster. In his reply brief the Commissioner conceded that Laudon was not ‘employed or under contract to perform work as a ghostbuster during the tax years at issue in this case.’”

Methinks Laudon missed the joke.

How did Laudon get to court?

Easy: he was audited for years 2007 through 2009.

His records were … colorful, humorous, inadequate.

Laudon did not keep records of his income in any decipherable form.”

The IRS did a reconstruction of his business income by analyzing his bank accounts. The rule of thumb is straightforward: all deposits are income unless one can prove otherwise. A common otherwise is when a taxpayer transfers money between accounts.

Laudon contends that the Commissioner failed to classify certain deposits as nontaxable, including insurance payments for damage to several vehicles, one of which was involved in a ‘high speed police chase’ with a man ‘high on meth and cocaine.’”

There is something you do not see every day. The other thing the Court did not see was “any evidence” that the deposits were what and as Laudon described.

We therefore accept the Commissioner’s reconstruction of income.”

On to deductions.

He treats some of his patients in his home and claims to use roughly half of his house – the basement and half of the garage – for business.”

This could be a problem. Rember that an office in home deduction requires exclusive business use of the space. He claimed a lot of space, ratcheting the pressure on “exclusive.”

Like many chiropractic offices, Laudon’s has beds, tables, and a waiting area. But unlike most, his also comes equipped with a Wii, Xbox 360, big-screen TVs and, for a time, a working hair salon.”

Hair salon? What kind of chiropractic office is this?

I see that Laudon represented himself at Tax Court. I would also guess that he represented himself during the audit. Why do I say that?

We particularly disbelieve his claim that the Xbox, Wii, big-screen TVs and other electronics in his basement were used exclusively for chiropractic purposes since this claim conflicts with his much more plausible admission to the IRS examiner during audit that his daughter and his girlfriend’s son would play these video games while he was on the phone.”

There is an example of why I almost never have a client meet or speak directly with the IRS – I cannot control the exchange.

Laudon was deducting between 40,000 and 60,000 miles per year for business purposes.

.. for example, driving to a ‘schizophrenic’ patient who was – on more than one occasion – ‘running scared of demons’ down a rural Minnesota highway .…”

That last part should be incorporated into a folk or country song. I can almost hear the melody.

Laudon apparently had a penchant for adult beverages.

Laudon claimed to have driven hundreds of miles per day – sometimes without a valid license ….”

I’ll bite. What happened to his license?

Even his testimony about multiple entries in the logs where he wrote “DUI” was not credible: He claimed that these were not references to being stopped by the police while under the influence, or driving while his license was suspended .…”

Then what were they?

They “instead were his misspellings of a patient named: 'Dewey' - a supposed patient of his.'"

This is starting to read like a sit com script. I am waiting for the reference to tiger blood.

But he had a mileage log, right? Did that count for anything?

Laudon had a mileage log, but it fails to meet section 274(d)’s standards. The … entry, for example, describes his purpose as ‘travel to and from places.’”

Zen-like. Nice.

The Court also looked at other expenses, including “Other Expenses” for the three years under audit.

Most of this amount - $22,665 – was a deduction for the value of Laudon’s labor, supplies and stolen goods ….”

Wait on it.

… related to the renovation of a home that Laudon neither lived nor worked in, or even owned.”

It fits. Well done, sir.

Laudon was getting clipped on almost every deduction.

But wait.

You know the IRS wanted penalties.

Laudon asserts the defense that he reasonably relied on the advice of a tax professional.”

Yep, that is a defense, but you must use a tax professional, provide all information – good or bad – to the professional and actually rely on the professional.

Moreover, while he claimed to have brought all of his receipts to H&R Block along with his summaries, he later stated that his preparers didn’t want him to just walk in with his receipts and have them add it up ….”

Folks, accountants do not add up grocery bags of receipts. Considering that the profession usually bills based on work time, I doubt you want to pay someone for adding up your receipts.

The Court was direct:

We don’t need to address the …. because we don’t believe that Laudon provided ‘necessary and accurate information’ to his advisor.”

At this point, the Court did not believe anything Laudon was saying.

Having blinded H&R Block to the details and peculiarities of his chiropractic enterprise, Laudon cannot now claim that he relied on H&R Block’s advice. We sustain the penalty.”

Our case this time was David William Laudon v Commissioner. T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-54.

If you read only one, make it this one.