A Real Estate Course – And Dave

 

The case made me think of Dave, a friend from long ago – one of those relationships that sometimes surrenders to time, moving and distance.

Dave was going to become a real investor.

That was not his day job, of course. By day he was a sales rep for a medical technology company. And he was good at sales. He almost persuaded me to join his incipient real estate empire.

He had come across one of those real estate gurus – I cannot remember which one – who lectured about making money with other people’s money.

There was even a  3-ring binder or two which Dave gave me to read.

I was looking over a recent case decided by the Tax Court.

The case involved an engineer (Eason) and a nurse (Leisner).

At the start of 2016 they owned two residential properties. One was held for rent; the other was sold during 2016.

COMMENT: Seems to me they were already in the real estate business. It was not a primary gig, but it was a gig.

Eason lost his job during 2016.

A real estate course came to his attention, and he signed up – for the tidy amount of $41,934.

COMMENT: Say what?

In July 2016 the two formed Ashley & Makai Homes (Homes), an S corporation. Homes was formed to provide advice and guidance to real estate owners and investors.  They had business cards and stationary made and started attending some of those $40 grand-plus courses. Not too many, though, as the outfit that sponsored the courses went out of business.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

By 2018 Eason and Leisner abandoned whatever hopes they had for Homes. They never made a dime of income.

You know that $40 grand-plus showed up on the S corporation tax return.

The IRS disallowed the deduction.

And tacked on penalties for the affront.

This is the way, said the IRS.

And so we have a pro se case in the Tax Court.

Respondent advances various reasons why petitioners are not entitled to any deductions …”

The respondent will almost always be the IRS in these cases, as the it is the taxpayer who petitions the Court.

And we have discussed “pro se” many times. It generally means that a taxpayer is representing himself/herself, but that is not fully accurate. A taxpayer can be advised by a professional, but if that professional has not taken and passed the exam to practice before the Tax Court the matter is still considered pro se.

Back to the Court:

          … we need to focus on only one [reason].”

That reason is whether a business had started.

Neither Homes nor petitioners reported any income from a business activity related to the disputed deductions, presumably because none was earned.”

This is not necessarily fatal, though.

The absence of income, in and of itself, does not compel a finding that a business has not yet started if other activities show that it has.”

This seems a reasonably low bar to me: take steps to market the business, whatever those words mean in context. If the context is to acquire clients, then perhaps a website or targeted advertising in the local real estate association newsletter.

Here, however, the absence of income coupled with the absence of any activity that shows that services were offered or provided to clients or customers […] supports respondent’s position that the business had not yet started by the close of the year.”

Yeah, no. The Court noted that a business deduction requires a business. Since a business had not started, no business deduction was available.

The Court disagreed with any penalties, though. There was enough there that a reasonable person could have decided either way.

I agree with the Court, but I also think that just a slight change could have changed the outcome in the taxpayers’ favor.

How?

Here’s one:  remember that Eason and Leisner owned a rental property together?

What if they had broadened Homes’ principal activity to include real estate rental and transferred the property to the S corporation? Homes would have been in business at that point. The tax issue then would have been expansion of the business, not the start of one.

Our case this time was Eason and Leisner v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2024-17.

Caleb William’s NFL Contract

 It may be that the NFL saved him from bad tax advice.

We are talking about Caleb Williams, the 2024 NFL number one overall draft pick by the Chicago Bears. He signed a four-year fully guaranteed contract for $39.5 million.

I can only wish.

But it was two additional negotiating positions that caught my eye.

(1)  He wanted to be paid via an LLC.

(2)  He wanted some/all of his contract to be structured as a forgivable loan.

I read that he was represented by his father, who has experience in commercial real estate but is not a registered agent.

But it helps to explain the LLC. The use of LLCs for real estate is extremely common, so his father would have seen their use repetitively. Still, what is the point of an LLC with an NFL contract?

It might be the expenses that an NFL player might incur: agent fees, union dues, specialized training and related travel, certain therapies and so forth. As those receiving a W-2 know, employee business expenses are presently nondeductible. If Caleb could run his NFL earnings through an LLC, perhaps he could avoid employee business expense classification and deduct them instead as regular business expenses.

There is a hitch, though. None of the four major team sports will pay compensation to an entity rather than directly to the athlete. In contrast, non-team athletes – like golfers – can route their earnings through a business entity. A key difference is that the PGA considers its golfers to be independent contractors, whereas the NFL (or MLB, NBA, or NHL) considers its players to be employees.

There is speculation that Caleb may have preferred an LLC because LLCs – ahem – “do not file tax returns.”   

Not quite. The tax treatment of LLCs is quite straightforward:

(1)  If the LLC has partners, then it will file a partnership return.

(2)  If the LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation, then it will file a corporate return. If an S election in place, it will file an S corporation return.

(3)  If the LLC has a single member, then the LLC is disregarded and does not file a tax return.

Do not misunderstand that last one: it does not say that income belonging to the LLC does not land on a tax return.

Let’s say that Caleb created a single member LLC (SMLLC). SMLLCs are also referred to as disregarded entities. The tax  Code instead considers Caleb and his SMLLC to be the same taxpayer. That is why there is no separate LLC return: all the income would be reportable on Caleb’s personal return.

Could someone have read the above and thought that income routed through an SMLLC is not taxed at all?

If so, Caleb really needs to hire a tax professional yesterday.

What about the loan forgiveness proposal?

I get it: loans are normally not considered income, as any increase in wealth is immediately offset by an obligation to repay the loan.

OK, Caleb receives contract monies, but he is liable for their repayment to the NFL. This potential liability means no immediate income to him. He would have income when the loan is forgiven, and (hopefully) he has some control when that happens.

But the NFL can call his loan, meaning he then must repay.

Oh puhleeeze.

Not to worry, says whoever. The NFL has no intention of calling the loan.

I am a huge NFL fan, but I am not an NFL team owner fan. There is no way I am trusting my money to owners who are monetizing their sport to such a degree that many fans cannot even see the games. Seriously, how many streaming services do they think an average person can afford?

What if Caleb includes conditions and guarantees and collateral and puts and ….?

Listen to yourself. You are leaving loan-land and whatever tax idea you started with. The IRS will come to the same conclusion. You have accomplished nothing, and you may even be exposing yourself to fraud charges.

I suppose Caleb could structure it as deferred compensation, the way Shohei Ohtani did with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Deferred compensation can get into crazy tax tripwires, but at least we are no longer talking about loans. If this is what he wants, then drop the loan talk and negotiate deferred compensation.

That is BTW what I would do. There is enough money here to make Caleb rich both now and later.

The NFL did Caleb Williams a favor by shooting down both proposals. 

Taxing A 5-Hour Energy Drink

 

I am skimming a decision from the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. I am surprised that it is only 15 pages long, as it involves a gnarly intersection of partnership tax and the taxation of nonresident aliens.

Let’s talk about it.

In general, partnerships are not treated as a taxable entity. A partnership is a reporting entity; it reports income and expenses and then allocates the same to its partners for reporting on their tax returns. Mind you, this can get mind-numbing, as a partner in a partnership can itself be another partnership. Keep this going a few iterations and being a tax professional begins to lose its charm.

A partner will - again, in general - report the income as if the partner received the income directly rather than through the partnership. If it was ordinary income or capital gain to the partnership, it will likewise be ordinary income or capital gain to the partner.

Let’s introduce a nonresident alien partner.

We have another tranche of tax law to wade through.

A nonresident alien is fancy talk for someone who does not live in the United States. That person could still have U.S. income and U.S. tax, though.

How?

Well, through a partnership, for example.

Say the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. A nonresident alien generally pays tax on income received from sources within the United States. Let’s look at one type of income: business income. We will get to nonbusiness income in a moment.

The tax Code wants to know if that business income is “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business.

The business income in our example is effectively connected, as the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. One cannot be any more connected than that.

The partnership will issue Schedules K-1 to its partners, including its nonresident alien partner who will file a U.S. nonresident tax return (Form 1040-NR).

Question: Will any nonbusiness income on the K-1 be reportable on the nonresident?

The tax Code separates business and nonbusiness income because they might be taxed differently for nonresidents. Nonbusiness income can go from having 30% withholding at the source (think dividends) to not being taxed at all (think most types of interest income).

What if the Schedule K-1 reports capital gains?

I normally think of capital gains as nonbusiness income.

But they do not have to be.

There is a test:

If the income is derived from assets used or held for use in the conduct of an effectively connected business – and business activities were a material factor in generating the income  – then the income will taxable to a nonresident alien.

Think capital gain from the sale of farm assets. Held for use in farming? Check. Material factor in generating farm income? Check. This capital gain will be taxable to a nonresident.

Forget the K-1. Say that the nonresident alien sold his/her partnership interest altogether.

On first impression, I am not seeing capital gain from the sale of the partnership interest (rather than assets inside the partnership) as meeting the “held for use/material factor” test.

Problem: partnership taxation has something called the “hot asset” rule. The purpose is to disallow capital gains treatment to the extent any gain is attributable to certain no-no assets – that is, the “hot assets.”

An example of a hot asset is inventory.

The Code does not want the partnership to load up on inventory with substantial markup and then have a partner sell his/her partnership interest rather than wait for the partnership to sell the inventory. This would be a flip between ordinary and capital gain income, and the IRS is having none of it.

Question: have you ever had a 5-hour Energy drink?

That is the company we are talking about today.

Indu Rawat was a 29.2% partner in a Michigan partnership which sells 5-hour Energy. She sold her stake in 2008 for $438 million.

I can only wish.

At the time of sale, the company had inventory with a cost of $6.4 million and a sales price of $22.4 million. Her slice of the profit pending in that inventory was $6.5 million.

A hot asset.

The IRS wanted tax on the $6.5 million.

Mind you, Indu Rawat did not sell inventory. She sold a partnership interest in a business that owned inventory. That would be enough to catch you or me, but could the hot asset rule catch a nonresident alien?

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the hot asset gain was taxable to her.

That decision was appealed.

The Appeals Court reversed the Tax Court.

The Appeals Court noted that there had to be a taxable gain before the hot asset rule could kick in. The rule recharacterizes – but does not create – capital gain.

This capital gain does not appear to meet the “held for use/material factor test” we talked about above. You can recharacterize all you want, but when you start at zero, the amount recharacterized cannot be more than zero.

Indu Rawat won on Appeal.

By the way, tax law in this area has changed since Rawat’s sale. New law would tax Rawat on her share of effectively connected gain as if the partnership had sold all its assets at fair market value. Congress made a statement, and that statement was “no more.”

Our case this time was  Indu Rawat v Commissioner, No 23-1142 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024).

Section 1244 Stock: An Exception To Capital Loss

I was looking at a case involving Section 1244 stock.

I remember studying Section 1244 in school. On first impression one could have expected it a common quiver in tax practice. It has not been.

What sets up the issue is the limitation on the use of capital losses. An easy example of a capital asset is stock. Buy and sell stock and you have capital gains and losses (exempting those people who are dealers in stocks and securities). You then net capital gains against capital losses.

·      If the result is net capital gain, you pay tax.

·      If the result is net capital loss, the Code allows you to deduct up to $3,000 of net loss against your other types of income.

QUESTION: What if the net loss is sizeable – say $60 grand?

ANSWER: The Code will allow you to offset that loss dollar-for-dollar against any future capital gains.

QUESTION: What if the experience left a mark? You have no intention of buying and selling stocks ever again.

ANSWER: Then we are back to the $3,000 per year.

Mind you, that $3,000 entered the Code back in 1978. A 1978 dollar is comparable to $4.82 in 2024 dollars. Just to keep pace, the capital loss limit should have been cumulatively raised to $14,460 by now. It has not, of course, and is a classroom example of structural anti-taxpayer Code bias. 

Section 1244 is there to relieve some of the pressure. It is specialized, however, and geared toward small businesses.

What it does is allow one to deduct (up to) $50 grand ($100 grand for joint returns) as an ordinary loss rather than a capital loss.

There is a downside: to get there likely means the business failed. Still, it is something. Better $50 grand at one time than $3 grand over umpteen years.

What does it take to qualify?

(1)  First, there must be stock. Being a partner in a partnership will not get you there. This means that you organized as a corporation. Mind you, it can be either a C or an S corporation, but it must be a corporation.

(2)  The corporation must be organized in the United States.

(3)  The total amount of capital contributions to the corporation (stock, additional capital, whatever) must not exceed $1 million. If you are the unfortunate who puts the number above $1 million, then some of your stock will qualify and some will not.

(4)  The capital contribution must be in cash or other property (excluding stocks and securities). This would exclude stock issued as compensation, for example.

(5)  You must be the original owner of the stock. There are minimal exceptions (such as inheriting the stock because someone died).

(6)  You must be an individual. Corporations, trusts, estates, trustees in bankruptcy and so on do not qualify.

(7)  There used to be a prohibition on preferred stock, but that went out in 1985. I suppose there could still be instances involving 1984-or-earlier preferred stock, but it would be a dwindling crowd.

(8)  The company must meet a gross receipts test the year the stock is issued.

a.    For the preceding five years (or life of the company, if less), more than 50% of aggregate gross receipts must be from active business operations.

b.    Another way to say this is that passive income (think interest, dividends, rents, royalties, sales or exchanges of stocks and securities) had better be less than 50% of aggregate gross receipts. This Code section is not for mutual funds.

An interesting feature is that no formal election is required. Corporate records do not need to reference Section 1244.  Board minutes do not need to approve Section 1244.  Nothing needs to go with the tax return. The corporation must however retain records to prove the stock’s qualification under Section 1244.

And therein can be the rub.

Let’s look at the Ushio case.

In 2009 David Ushio acquired $50,000 of common stock in PCHG.

PCHG in turn had invested in LifeGrid Solutions LLC (LGS), which in turn was seeking to acquire rights in certain alternative energy technology.

PCHG never had revenues. It ceased business in 2012 and was administratively dissolved by South Carolina in 2013.

The IRS selected the Ushio’s joint individual return for 2012 and 2013. The audit had nothing to do with Section 1244, but the IRS saw the PCHG transaction and allowed a $3,000 capital loss in 2012.

Mind you, the Ushios had not claimed a deduction for PCHG stock on either their 2012 or 2013 return.

Mr. Ushio said “wait a minute …”

Some quick tax research and Ushio came back with a counter: he wanted a $50,000 ordinary loss deduction rather than the puny $3,000 capital loss. He insisted PCHG qualified under Section 1244.

The IRS had an easy response: prove it.

Ushio was at a disadvantage. He had invested in PCHG, but he did not have inside records, assuming those records even existed.

He presented a document listing “Cash Input” and “Deferred Pay,” noting that the deferred amount was never paid. Sure enough, the amount paid-in was less than $1 million.

The IRS looked at the document and noted there was no date. They wanted some provenance for the document - who prepared it? what records were used? could it be corroborated?

No, no and no.

In addition, PCHG never reported any gross receipts. It is hard to prove more-than-50% of something when that something is stuck at zero. Ushio pushed back: PCHG was to be an operating company via its investment in LGS.

The IRS could do this all day: prove it.

Ushio could not.

Meaning there was no Section 1244 stock.

Our case this time was Ushio v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2021-27.

 

No Hiding Behind Preparer’s Error

 

Practitioners sometimes call it “falling on the sword.”

There is likely a phone call to the insurance company beforehand.

Something went wrong. The client now owes tax, interest, maybe penalties.

Just because that happens does not mean the practitioner was wrong. It can happen any number of ways.

·      The classic: the client does not provide all paperwork to the practitioner.

Mind you, sometimes the practitioner can tell:

… hey, you have had this account for years, but I am not seeing it this year. Do you still have the account?

And sometimes … you can’t tell. Perhaps it is a one-off. You never saw it before and you never will again, but it is there for that one year.

All the while, IRS computers are whirring and matching. They will let you know if you leave something out.

·       The tax answer is uncertain.

How can that happen?

New tax law is one way. It takes a while to get guidance out there. We saw this recently with the employee retention credit. Congress passed a law, and the IRS did its best interpreting it in real time. Its best was problematic, and the IRS subsequently paused ERC processing because of the number of fraudulent filings.    

·       The client goes to audit but does not have the documentation necessary to support a tax position. 

I think of real estate professional status, especially if one has a job outside real estate. The IRS is going to hammer on the hours worked, and you better have something other than stories to support your position. 

A variation on the above is that the IRS disagrees with your documentation. 

     Conservation easements are a current example of these. 

·       The audit from hell 

One cannot do representation work and not have stories to tell. 

     I was hired by another CPA for a research credit audit.  

The IRS agent had visited the CPA’s office, at which time he reviewed interim (think monthly or quarterly) accountings. The interims were prepared on an accrual basis, meaning that the accounting included accounts receivable and payable. 

The tax return, however, was cash basis, meaning that no receivables or payables were recorded. 

This is extremely common. Depending upon, I might consider the failure to do so to be malpractice. 

The agent considered this to be two sets of books. 

Translation: he thought indices of fraud. 

I thought that the IRS should tighten up its hiring standards. Having someone work business tax without having an adequate background in accounting is insane. 

It cost time. It cost goodwill. And it had nothing to do with the audit of a research tax credit. 

I am looking at a case that went sideways. I also see that neither the taxpayers nor the IRS appeared at the Tax Court hearing. 

The taxpayer was a teacher, and his wife was a nurse. They had a joint real estate business, and the wife had previously owned a nursing business. Although the nursing business had closed, it still showed deductions for the tax year under issue. 

The IRS had proposed adjustments, and the taxpayers had acceded. 

The taxpayers did not agree to a substantial understatement penalty, though. 

COMMENT: Think of this as a super penalty. It can flat-out hurt.

I’ve got the lay of the land now. Taxpayers wanted reasonable cause for abatement of the penalty. That reasonable cause would be reliance on a tax professional. There are requisites:         

(1)  The issue must be one of professional judgement and more than the routine processing of a tax return.

(2)  The tax preparer must be competent.

(3)  The taxpayers must have provided the preparer all relevant facts.

(4)  The taxpayers must have relied on the preparer’s judgment.

(5)  The taxpayers were injured by such reliance.

 Here is what the Court saw:         

(1)  The taxpayers did not testify.

(2)  The tax preparer did not testify.

(3)  The tax preparer deducted expenses for a business no longer in operation during the year in question.

(4)  The tax preparer reported business expenses on incorrect schedules.

(5)  The preparer did not sign the return.

The preparer had no intention of falling on the sword, it seems. The taxpayers had every intention of holding him responsible, though. They had to if they wanted penalty abatement.

It wasn’t going to happen.

Why?

The preparer did not sign the return, considered a big no-no in practice.

The Court was swift: taxpayers had not proven that the preparer was even competent.

Our case this time was Hall v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket No. 3467-23.

There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

Gambling As A Trade Or Business

 

The question came up recently:

How does one convince the IRS that they are a professional gambler?

The answer: it is tough. But not impossible. Here is a quote from a landmark case on the topic:

If one’s gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business.” (Groetzinger)

First, one must establish that the gambling activity is an actual trade or business.  

Believe or not, the term “trade or business” is not precisely defined in the tax Code. This point drew attention when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) introduced the qualified business deduction for – you guessed it – a trade or business. Congress was stacking yet another Code section on top of one that remained undefined.

Court cases have defined a trade or business an activity conducted with the motive of making a profit and conducted with continuity and regularity.

That doesn’t really move the needle for me.

For example, I play fantasy football with the intention of winning the league. Does that mean that I have the requisite “profit motive?” I suppose one could reply that - even if there is a profit motive - there is no continuity or regularity as the league is not conducted year-round.

To which I would respond that it cannot be conducted year-round as the NFL is not played year-round. Compare it to a ski slope – which can only do business during the winter. There is no need for a ski slope during the summer. The slope does business during its natural business season, which is the best it can do. My fantasy football league does the same.

Perhaps you would switch arguments and say that playing in one league is not sufficient. Perhaps if I played in XX leagues, I could then argue that I was a fantasy football professional.

OK, IRS, what then is the number XX?

The tax nerds will recognize the IRS using that argument against stock traders to deny trade or business status. Unless your name rhymes with “Boldman Tacks,” the IRS is virtually predestined to deny you trade or business status. You trade 500 times a year? Not enough, says the IRS; maybe if you traded 1,000 times. The next guy trades 1,000 times. Not enough, says the IRS. Did we say 1,000?  We misspoke; we meant 2,000.

So the courts have gone to the Code section and cases for hobby losses. You may remember those: hobby losses are activities for which people try to deduct losses, arguing that they are in fact true-blue, pinky-swear, profit-seeking trades or businesses.

You want an example? I’ll give you one from Galactic Command: a wealthy person’s daughter is interested in horses and dressage. Mom and dad cannot refuse. At the end of the year, I am pulled into the daughter’s dressage activity because … well, you know why.

Here are additional factors to consider under the (Section 183) hobby loss rules:

1.  The activity is conducted in a business-like manner.
2.  The taxpayer’s expertise
3.  The taxpayer’s time and effort
4.  The expectation that any assets used in the activity will appreciate in value.
5.  The taxpayer’s history of success in other activities
6.  The taxpayer’s history of profitability
7.  The taxpayer’s financial status
8.  The presence of personal pleasure or recreation

I suspect factors (7) and (8) would pretty much shut down that dressage activity.

Let’s look at the Mercier case.

The Merciers lived in Nevada. During 2019 Mrs Mercier was an accountant at a charter school and Mr Mercier operated an appliance repair business. They played video poker almost exclusively, of which they had extensive knowledge. They gambled solely on days when they could earn extra players card points or receive some other advantage. They considered themselves professional gamblers.

Do you think they are?

I see (3), (7) and (8) as immediate concerns.

The Court never got past (1):

We find that although Petitioners are serious about gambling, they were not professional gamblers. Petitioners are both sophisticated in that they are an accountant and a previous business owner. Petitioner wife acknowledged that as an accountant, she would advise a taxpayer operating a business to keep records. Petitioner husband acknowledged that for his appliance repair business, he did keep records.”

COMMENT: In case you were wondering about the sentence structure, this was a bench opinion. The judge made a verbal rather than written decision.

Petitioners did not personally keep track of their gambling activity in 2019 choosing, instead, to rely on third-party information from casinos, even though they further acknowledged that the casino record may be incomplete, as only jackpot winnings, not smaller winnings, are reported. Petitioners also did not keep a separate bank account to manage gambling winnings and expenses, but used their personal account, which is further evidence of the casual nature of their gambling.”

My thoughts? The Merciers were not going to win. It was just a matter of where the Court was going to press on the hobby-loss checklist of factors. We have learned something, though. If you are arguing trade or business, you should – at a bare minimum – open a business account and have some kind of accounting system in place.  

Our case this time was Mercier v Commissioner, Tax Court docket number 7499-22S, June 6, 2023.

Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).