Suboptimal Tax Laws Are Still Valid Tax Laws

I have a family member who has accepted in position in, and will be moving to, Chicago. You can bet that we have discussed the compensation package, and I am to review the deferred compensation package when provided. His is a “C suite” position, so deferred compensation means more than just the 401(k) with which you and I are familiar.

I find myself reviewing a Federal Court of Claims decision on an airline pilot that got on the wrong side of FICA taxation of deferred compensation.

His name is Louis Balestra, and he was a pilot with United Airlines from 1979 until his retirement in 2004. There may have been no tax case, except that United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Let’s talk about the “general timing rule” for FICA taxation. It is easy: you pay FICA when you are paid. No pay, no tax. No fair to not cash your paycheck!

We also have deferred compensation, more specifically “nonqualified” deferred compensation, which means a retirement plan which deviates, either a little or a lot, from somewhat rigid IRS requirements in order to be “qualified.” There is then a ‘special timing rule” (I am not making this up, I swear), the purpose of which is to speed-up when the income is taxed for FICA. The Code section is 3121(v)(2):

   3121(v)(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS.—

3121(v)(2)(A) IN GENERAL.— Any amount deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan shall be taken into account for purposes of this chapter as of the later of—

3121(v)(2)(A)(i)   when the services are performed, or

3121(v)(2)(A)(ii)   when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such amount.

We have a new shiny: “substantial risk of forfeiture.” If the company funds your benefit, for example, chances are that your FICA tax will be accelerated, perhaps many years before you actually receive any money.

Let’s work through this with an extremely simplified example. The company agrees to pay you $100,000 five years from now. Let’s also posit that you clear the second requirement of “no substantial risk of forfeiture.” Congratulations, you have FICA tax. Right now.

Being a tax accountant by training if not by temperament, I have to ask the question: how do I calculate the income to be taxed? Is it $100,000? That doesn’t make sense, as you will receive the money five years from now. A hundred grand then is not the same as a hundred grand now, if for no other reason than you could put it n a CD (if you received it now) and have more than a hundred grand five years hence. Is it the present value of the $100,000, discounted at some interest rate and for five years? That makes more sense, and that is the guidance provided by the Regulations.

Remember what I said about United Airlines filing for bankruptcy in 2002, two years before Balestra retired? Shouldn’t we take into consideration that United Airlines might not pay everything to which Balestra is entitled?

Makes sense to me. For example, Balestra paid FICA on approximately $289,000 of deferred compensation. United actually paid him approximately $63,000. He had paid FICA on that entire $289,000, and he wanted some of it back.

CLARIFICATION: It would be more correct to say that he paid the Medicare portion of FICA, as the social security side only applies up to an income limit.  Let’s continue. We are on a roll.

Balestra sued.  

And the Court was looking at the Shakespearean prose of Reg 31.3121(v)(2)-1(c):

(ii) Present value defined.— For purposes of this section, present value means the value as of a specified date of an amount or series of amounts due thereafter, where each amount is multiplied by the probability that the condition or conditions on which payment of the amount is contingent will be satisfied, and is discounted according to an assumed rate of interest to reflect the time value of money. For purposes of this section, the present value must be determined as of the date the amount deferred is required to be taken into account as wages under paragraph (e) of this section using actuarial assumptions and methods that are reasonable as of that date. For this purpose, a discount for the probability that an employee will die before commencement of benefit payments is permitted, but only to the extent that benefits will be forfeited upon death. In addition, the present value cannot be discounted for the probability that payments will not be made (or will be reduced) because of the unfunded status of the plan, the risk associated with any deemed or actual investment of amounts deferred under the plan, the risk that the employer, the trustee, or another party will be unwilling or unable to pay, the possibility of future plan amendments, the possibility of a future change in the law, or similar risks or contingencies.

Balestra tried, but he could not overcome the fact that the Regulations did not include “employer bankruptcy” as a possible reason to discount the amount of income accelerated for FICA tax – or, at least, to allow some of the FICA to be refunded once the actual payments are known.

Balestra lost his case.

The Court did realize the unfairness of the law, however.

It might have been wiser to have selected as a trigger something other than there being ‘no substantial risk of forfeiture’ … and instead considered the financial solvency of the employer – or to have deferred taxation while an employer is in bankruptcy, rather than until promised benefits are ‘reasonable ascertainable.”

You think?

But these are matters for law makers, not judges – suboptimal laws are still valid tax laws.”

I know. I would be more optimistic if I had any regard for the suboptimals in Congress.

Tile 26 of the United States Code would be a good deal shorter if the unwise tax laws could be purged by the judiciary.”

You must admit, it is easy to like this Court.

What Happens To Inherited IRAs in Bankruptcy?

Let us discuss IRAs.

You may be aware that there is bankruptcy protection for IRAs. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 exempts up to $1 million in IRAs created and funded by the debtor. Employer plans have even more favorable protection.

Why? The government has expressed interest that citizens be able to save for their retirement. This diminishes the odds of future government assistance and deemed in the public interest.

Fair enough. But I have one more question.

Let us say that you inherited the IRA. Does the above protection still apply to you?

Why wouldn’t it, you might ask. It is like an ice cream bar. It is still an ice cream bar whether you or I take it from the freezer, right?

This very question made it to the Supreme Court in the recent case of Clark v Rameker. While a bankruptcy case, it does have tax implications.

In 2001 Ruth Heffron established a traditional IRA and named her daughter as beneficiary.

NOTE:  “Traditional” means the classic IRA: contributions to it are deductible and withdrawals from it are taxable. Contrast this with a “nondeductible” IRA (contributions are nondeductible and withdrawals are taxable, according to a formula) and Roths (contributions are nondeductible and withdrawals are nontaxable).

Mrs Heffron passed away a year later – 2001 – and left approximately $400,000 to her daughter in the IRA account. Inherited IRAs have special rules on distributions, and one has to take distributions over a life expectancy or withdraw the entire balance within five years. Her daughter – Ms. Heffron-Clark - elected to use life expectancy with monthly distributions.

Fast forward to 2010 and Ms. Heffron-Clark and her husband file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The IRA has approximately $300,000 remaining, and you can bet that the couple considered the IRA to be an exempt asset. The unsecured creditors of the bankruptcy estate disagreed, thus beginning the litigation.

·       The Bankruptcy Court said that the IRA was not exempt and could be reached by creditors.

·       The District Court reversed, saying that the IRA was exempt and could not be reached by creditors.

·       The Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit reversed, saying that the IRA was not exempt and could be reached by creditors.

This set up disagreement between the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Believe it or not, the Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “retirement funds,” resulting in the above courts drawing such different conclusions. The Supreme Court declared that the term must be defined in order to arrive at a correct conclusion. The Court looked a dictionary and saw that “retirement” is defined as …

       … withdrawal from one’s occupation, business or office.”

The Court wanted to look at the legal characteristics of funds set aside for the day one stops working. It focused on three:

(1)  One can put additional monies into a retirement account.

POINT: One cannot put additional monies into an inherited account. In fact, if one inherits again, one cannot mingle the two accounts. Each is to remain separate and unique.

COUNTERPOINT: One cannot put additional monies into an IRA after age 70 ½.

(2)  Holders of an inherited account are required to begin distributions in the year following the death.

POINT: There are no age 59 ½ or 70 ½ minimum distribution requirements here. It does not matter whether the beneficiary is three years old or ninety-three; distributions must begin in the year following death, unless one fully depletes the account over 5 years.

OBSERVATION: The Court asked obvious question: how does this distribution requirement tie-in to the beneficiary’s retirement in any way?

(3)  The beneficiary can withdraw the entire balance at any time, without penalty.

POINT: You and I cannot do that with our own IRA until we are age 59 ½. 

OBSERVATION”: The Court noted that there is a ‘stick” if one wants to access a traditional IRA early – the 10% penalty. That expresses Congress’ intent to discourage use of traditional IRA s for day-to-day non-retirement purposes. The inherited IRA has no such prohibition. What does that say about Congress’ intent with inherited IRAs?

Rest assured that Ms Heffron-Clark was arguing furiously that the funds in that inherited IRA are “retirement funds” because, at some point, they were set aside for retirement.

The Court looked at the three criteria above and said that the inherited IRA certainly constitutes “funds,” but it cannot see how they rise to the level of “retirement funds.” They simply do not have the characteristics of normal retirement funds.

The Supreme Court unanimously decided that an inherited IRA do not constitute “retirement funds” and are not exempt from bankruptcy claims. Ms. Heffron-Clark’s creditors could in fact reach that $300 grand.

Granted, this is a bankruptcy case, but I see two immediate tax consequences from this decision:

(1) First, a surviving spouse (that is, the widow or widower) has a tax  option offered no other IRA beneficiary.

The surviving spouse can take the IRA as an inherited IRA (and be subject to bankruptcy claims) or he/she can rollover the IRA to his/her own personal name.

In the past, this decision was sometimes made based on the survivor’s age. For example, if the surviving spouse thought he/she might need the money before age 59 ½, the tax planner would lean towards an inherited IRA. Why? Because there is no 10% penalty for early withdrawals from an inherited IRA. There would be penalties on early withdrawals from a rollover IRA.

This decision now gives planners another reason to consider a spousal rollover.

(2) Second, there may be increased attention to IRA accumulation trusts.

A trust is allowed to be an IRA beneficiary, but at the cost of some highly specific tax rules. There are two types of permitted trusts. The first is the conduit trust. The trust receives the annual minimum required distributions (MRDs) but is required to immediately pay them out to the beneficiary.  While you may wonder what purpose this trust serves, consider that the trust – while unable to protect the annual income – can still protect the principal of the trust.

The second type is the accumulation trust. It is eponymous: it accumulates. There are no required distributions to the beneficiaries. The tax cost for this can be enormous, however. A trust reaches the maximum federal tax rate at the insanely low threshold of approximately $12,000. Obviously, this strategy works best when the beneficiaries are themselves at the maximum tax bracket.

The other point that occurred to me is the future of stretch IRAs. There has been considerable discussion about imposing a five-year distribution requirement (with very limited exceptions) on inherited IRAs. This of course is in response to the popular tax strategy of “stretch” IRAs. The stretch is easy to explain: I leave my IRA to my granddaughter. The IRA resets its mandatory distributions, using her life expectancy rather than mine (which is swell, as I am dead). Say that she is age 11. Whereas there are mandatory distributions, those distributions are spread out over the life expectancy of an eleven-year-old girl. That is the purpose and use of the “stretch.”

Consider that the Court just decided that an inherited IRA does not constitute “retirement funds.” This may make it easier for Congress to eventually do away with stretch IRAs.

Dealing With A Tax Levy

We recently spoke about IRS liens. Let’s continue the conversation and talk about levies.

A levy taps into our primal fear of the IRS. This is where they come and take your checking account, repossess your car and sell your house. You get behind on your taxes and you get to relive the Grapes of Wrath.

Rest assured that your fear of losing your car and your house are greatly overblown. Your fear of losing your checking account may not be, however.

How did you get to this point? 

Somewhere in the recent past, the IRS sent you a notice – actually, a series of escalating notices. An early one may have read something like:

According to our records, you have an amount due on your income tax.”

There will be several notices, increasing in intensity. It is likely that you ignored them. Perhaps you just knew that their numbers were wrong. Perhaps you were broke and had nothing to send. Whatever the case, the one thing you failed to do was talk to them. 

Eventually you will receive the CP 504 letter (“Intent to Seize Your Property or Rights to Property”), where the IRS says that they intend to intercept your state tax refund. The notice also allows IRS to increase your penalties, but it is the state refund that catches people’s attention. Not that much attention, though. I do not get too many calls on a 504. Chances are if you are behind on federal taxes, you are behind on state taxes too.

The 504 is the demarcation line when your account leaves Automated Collections. You are now moving to regular Collections. The 504 is also the last notice before the IRS sends Form CP 90 “Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.” 

If you have a CP 90, you have serious business. The IRS will send it certified mail to your last known address, so if you have moved – especially if you did not file returns – you may not even know that this notice went out. The IRS has to go through certain hoops before it can levy, and this notice is key. You have 30 days to claim a Collection Due Process Hearing. If the IRS moves against you without issuing a Final Notice, or before the 30 days are up, you can stop them. If you claim a CDP Hearing, you can present your side of the story.

What if the 30 days pass?

One thing the IRS can then do is levy your bank account. How do they know your bank account information? One way is pretty simple: you had your refunds electronically deposited to your bank account. They can still get to that information otherwise, but electronic transfer made things easier for them. A bank levy is a one-time shot. The IRS instructs the bank to turn over whatever you have in your account as of a given date. The bank has 21 days before they have to turn over the money. There are important points we should review:

·        It is 21 days from when the bank received the notice, not the date of the notice.

·        The levy amount is your balance when the bank received the notice. If you deposit money later, that later deposit will not go to the IRS.

·        If the IRS wants that later deposit, it will have to issue another levy.

My experience has been that banks may not be overly concerned with informing you about the levy. Odds are that you will have less than 21 days before you find out, unless you attempted to withdraw funds or some similar action shortly after the bank received the levy. I have had clients who learned about the levy after the 21 days ran off. Let me tell you, there is almost no chance of getting that money returned when that happens.

Another thing the IRS can do is a wage levy. The IRS contacts your employer and tells him/her to send money. IRS Publication 1494 has tables telling you and your employer how much of your money you get to keep. For example, if you are divorced with two kids and are paid monthly, you keep $1,720. The balance goes to the IRS. The upside is that the $1,720 is after taxes, health insurance and whatnot. The downside is that you and your two kids might not be able to live on $1,720 per month.

It gets worse. The wage levy is continuous. It need not be reissued like a bank levy. People have quit their jobs over a wage levy. There isn’t much an employer can do. If your employer refuses to remit the money from your paycheck, then he/she is personally liable to remit the money from his or her own funds. Good luck finding an employer who will do that for you.

Can the IRS levy monies you receive as an independent contractor? You bet. Can it levy your social security? Yes, up to 15 percent. Can it go after your PayPal? Surely, you jest. Of course they can.

What about your house and car? Not so much. Let’s go over some statistics to put your mind at ease. In 2011, the IRS issued almost 3.8 million third-party levies. The IRS seized less than 800 houses, cars and other personal property. The IRS does not want the hassle of taking and selling your property. It wants cash.  It does not want your car, unless your car is a late-model Ferrari or something of the sort. In fact, if you have minimal equity in the asset, the IRS is prohibited from taking the asset from you.

Alright, you have received a Final Notice. What do you do next?

First, be aware of time. Remember that you have 30 days. Use it.

File a collection appeal. This will temporarily pull you away from the part of the IRS that is trying to collect and puts you in another part that will hear your case. How long is temporary? Figure on about 4 to 6 months before your hearing. 

Be ready to talk about a payment at the hearing, though, because that is where Appeals will take the conversation. They will ask for full payment immediately, the same way my dog is always hopeful I have brought her home a hamburger or something similarly tasty. 

What if you are truly broke? Then the IRS may place your account on “cannot collect” status. This means that you are so broke that you cannot make a payment, any payment. How can that happen? Let’s say that you could not pay rent if the IRS wiped-out your checking account. Perhaps you could not pay for necessary prescriptions. The term is “hardship,” and they will consider this. 

What if the taxes belong to your ex-spouse from a year when you filed a joint tax return? An innocent spouse claim will get the IRS to stay collection.

What if you file an offer in compromise? An offer will get the IRS to stay collection.

What if the IRS assessed you without your knowledge? Let me give you an example. I represented a client whose wife passed away. He received IRS notices when she became gravely ill, and upon her death he retreated from the world for a year or more. The IRS – not hearing from him – made adjustments and assessed all kinds of taxes and penalties. What did we do? We requested a reconsideration, which is also a way to stay collection.

Then we get to a payment plan. The particular type of plan depends on how much you owe. If you owe less than $50 thousand, you can request a “streamlined” plan. You promise to pay the IRS over 6 years, which translates into a maximum of $694 per month ($50,000 divided by 72). It is called streamlined because you get to submit minimal information to the IRS. This is a big deal, as the normal paperwork can be a pain. 

Let’s say that you owe over $50 thousand. You will now be submitting financial information, including bank statements and copies of bills, to the IRS. The IRS will apply “standards” to your expenses, and if your expenses exceed those standards they may (and likely will) disallow the excess. I have been through this exercise many times, and I can assure you in advance that the IRS’ calculation of what you can pay is more than what you think you can pay. You likely will be saying goodbye to your I Phone data package, your satellite TV, the leased car you really cannot afford and so on. The IRS does not want to subsidize your lifestyle. 

There may be variations in your particular payment plan. A standard payment plan requires you to pay-off the IRS over time. What if you cannot? The IRS may agree to a “partial pay” plan, which means that the plan will not completely pay-off the IRS unless the plan payment or plan term is changed. In my experience, I have had to go to Appeals to get this plan, but I have gotten it. 

Another possibility is to file bankruptcy. Although a last resort, a bankruptcy results in a “stay” of all credit actions, including the IRS.

What if you miss the 30-day window on the Final Notice? Not all is lost. You can still request a hearing, now called an “equivalency” hearing. You still get Appeals involved, but the IRS does not have to delay collection action – including bank levy or wage garnishment - until the hearing.

Depending on your situation, consider a tax professional. You want an attorney or CPA who specializes in taxes. As a heads up, most CPAs and attorneys do not specialize in taxes. Another alternative is an Enrolled Agent, who – by definition – specializes in taxes. Be sure to clarify whether they have done tax representation before.  One can “do taxes” and have never represented. It really is two different things, and you do not need to pay someone while they learn the ropes.

An S Corporation and a Bankruptcy Trustee

The Kenrob case is a bankruptcy case and not a tax case. It presented such an unusual argument, though, that it caught my eye and my disbelief. Let’s talk about it.

Kenrob Information Technology Solutions, Inc. (Kenrob) was an S corporation. By agreement between the shareholders and the corporation, the corporation was obligated to reimburse the shareholders for the additional taxes attributable to its pass-through income. This is extremely common, although many times the agreement is not reduced to writing. The corporation distributed in April, 2007.  It did so again in April, 2008.

Kenrob goes into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee wants the shareholders to pay the monies back, arguing that the disbursements were a fraudulent conveyance.

The trustee argues the following:

(1)   The only agreement that can be found between the corporation and the shareholders is a redlined agreement. A finalized, signed and dated copy cannot be found.

(2)   There was no consideration given by the shareholders for the distributions.

(3)   The value of the S election cannot be accurately measured. Had Kenrob been taxed as a C corporation, it may have taken different tax positions and strategies.

(4)   The agreement, if agreement there is, was made years before and is not binding.

The court decides the following:

(1)   The corporation and the shareholders have always followed an agreement. That it cannot be found does not mean that the agreement did not exist, especially since it has been fully performed on a continuous basis.

(2)   There was consideration to the corporation, as the shareholders did not take out all the distributable income. Rather they took out enough to pay taxes, leaving the excess with the corporation. This was of value to the company.

(3)   The court refused to engage in "what if” over corporate taxes.

(4)   There is no need for the agreement to be contemporaneous. The agreement was continuous and of lasting benefit.

The bankruptcy court decided in favor of the shareholders and that there was no fraudulent conveyance.

My take: A fraudulent conveyance. Really? As though the corporation would have paid no tax, or less tax, had it been taxed as a C rather than an S? The charge is so outlandish I have to wonder whether there were other factors – perhaps personal dislike – at play here. Otherwise that trustee’s driveway doesn’t quite reach the street.