When Bidding Is Not Marketing

I was talking with a client recently. He is a real estate developer, and he was telling me about a tense run-in several years ago with the county about a proposed development. Think NIMBY (not in my backyard) and you have the context.

Believe it or not, there is a tax issue there.

Let’s set it up by discussing Hisham Ashkouri (HA).

HA was an architect. He was bidding on projects in Washington state and Utah. He was also bidding on projects in Libya and in the Republic of Tartarstan, which is in Russia.

Those last two are certainly off the beaten path.

Using different companies, he submitted development bid proposals. I am not sure what was in these bid proposals, but over three years (2009 – 2011), he deducted over $500 grand in bid expenses.

Sounds expensive.

The IRS audited the three years.

And disallowed the bid expenses.

That doesn’t sound right, thought I.

HA argued that he had deducted marketing and promotion expenses.

Then HA went foot-in-mouth:

“If any of those projects had resulted in ‘a real estate transaction …, I would be having 20 percent ownership.’”

Let’s introduce Code Section 263A. That bad boy generally deals with the acquisition of property, and its intention is to make you capitalize everything under the sun when you acquire – including constructing or developing – property. “Capitalize” is accounting-speak for depreciating something rather than deducting it immediately.

If you depreciate over one year, then I suppose the net effect is approximately the same. If you have to depreciate over 39 years, well, it is going to hurt.

HA fired off first and strong:

The deductions …"could not be capitalized as they were used for marketing and promotion with no real estate transaction." Although petitioners fail to cite any authority in support of that claim, they are correct that section 263A does not require the capitalization of "marketing, selling, advertising, and distribution costs." 

The Court however nailed the issue:

Mr. Ashkouri's testimony regarding the projects he pursued was not particularly detailed, but we take him as having acknowledged that, had he been awarded any of the projects, he would have acquired an ownership interest in the property being developed. He did not identify any project for which he claimed deductions in which he would not have received an ownership interest had he been awarded the contract.”

Every project would have resulted in the acquisition of an ownership interest. This is not marketing or promotion in a conventional sense. HA’s possible ownership interest at the end lands these transactions within the Section 263A dragnet.

So what? He did not win any of these bids, and he would get to deduct the bid costs when the contract was awarded to someone else. Granted, the deduction might be held-up a year or two – until the bid was awarded – but HA would eventually get his deduction.

Here comes the Scooby Doo mystery portion of the case:

But petitioners have not established when (if ever) the development contracts Mr. Ashkouri sought were awarded to others, when Mr. Ashkouri received written notice that no contract would be awarded, or when he abandoned his bid or proposal for each project.”

Seriously? He could not show that the bid went to someone else or was withdrawn entirely? I am not getting this at all.

The Tax Court then backed-up and ran over the body a second time – apparently to make sure that it had stopped breathing:

Even if we were to accept that the expenses in issue were not subject to deferral under section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(ii)(T), Income Tax Regs., we would still conclude that respondent properly disallowed the deductions for architectural or contract services claimed on the Schedules C for Mr. Ashkouri's proprietorship because petitioners did not adequately substantiate the expenses underlying the claimed deductions. In general, section 162(a) allows a deduction for "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business". When called upon by the Commissioner, however, a taxpayer must substantiate his expenses.”

Bam! Even if HA provided evidence about the bid outcomes, the Court was still going to say “No.”

Back to my real estate guy.

What was the tax issue back when?

His transaction involved real estate development. There is no question that he would have had an ownership interest if the project went through; in fact, he would be the only owner.

Let’s say he incurred significant expenses – legal, engineering and the like – while battling the county.

Would have had to capitalize those expenses rather than deduct them right away?

If I Had A Pony, I Would Ride It On My (Tug) Boat

If you have a business, and especially if that business has real estate, odds are very good that your tax advisor will talk to you about the “repair regulations” this filing season.

The IRS and taxpayers have spent decades arguing and going to court over whether an expenditure is a repair (and immediately deductible) or a capital improvement (which cannot be deducted immediately but rather must be depreciated over time). Eventually the IRS decided to pull back, review the existing court cases and develop some rhyme or reason for tax practice in this area. They were at it for years and years.

And now we have the “repair regulations.”

I debated whether to write on this topic, as one can leave the pavement and get lost in the weeds very quickly. It is like a romper room for tax nerds. Still, we have to at least discuss the high points.

Let’s set this up. Say that you have a tug boat. The boat is expected to last you approximately 40 years, if you maintain and keep it up. Every 4 or so years, you anchor the tug and give it a good overhaul, replace what needs replacing and rebuild the engine. This is going to cost you well over $100 grand.

Question: is this a repair (hence deductible) or a capital improvement (not immediately deductible but depreciable over time)?

It is not immediately clear. This costs a lot of money, so one’s first response is that it has to be capitalized and depreciated. However, regular use of a tug presumes heavy maintenance of this kind over its life. That sounds more like a repair expense.

The IRS has introduced the concept of a unit of property. We have to base the repair versus capitalization decision on the unit of property. Is the engine the unit of property (UOP) or is it the overall boat?

The main test for UOP is “functional interdependence.” The placing in service of one thing depends on the placing in service of something else.

Well, a tug boat engine without a tug boat to put it in is not of much use to anybody, so we would say that the overall boat is the unit of property.

Progress. Do we now know whether to capitalize or deduct the engine?

Nope.

Onward.

We next climb through a fence we will call the “BAR,” which stands for

·        Betterment

·        Adaptation

·        Restoration

If you get stuck on any rung of the “BAR,” you have to capitalize the cost. Sorry.

Let’s have a quick peek at which each term means:

·        Betterment

o   You made the thing larger, stronger, more efficient.

We did not turn the thing into a “monster” tug. Let’s move on.

·        Adaptation

o   You tweaked the thing for a different use or purpose.

Nope. It’s still a tug. Can’t fly it or drive it on a highway.

·        Restoration

o   Returning the thing to a usable condition after you have run it into the ground, either because you neglected it (and it fell apart) or it just got too old.      

Doesn’t sound like it. We are not neglecting the tug in any way, and it still has many years of use left.

This is looking pretty good for our tug.

Let’s go through a few more rules, just in case.

If your CPA prepares audited financial statements for you, the IRS will not challenge your deducting something up to $5,000 as a repair as long as you did the same thing on your financial statements.  

That tug thing costs way more than $5,000. Let’s continue. 

NOTE: BTW, if you do not have an audit, the IRS drops that dollar limit down to $500.

If we are talking about “materials and supplies,” the IRS will not challenge your deducting something as long as it costs $200 or less. Fuel for that tug would be considered “materials and supplies.” 

That tug work blew past $200 like it was standing still. Let’s proceed.

If you capitalize the thing on your books and records, the IRS will not argue that you should have deducted it instead.

            Downright charitable of them. Let’s move on.

If a repair is expected to be done more than once over the life of the UOP, then the IRS will not challenge your deducting it as a repair.

Whoa. We have something here. That boat is expected to last somewhere around four decades. The heavy maintenance has to be done every so many service hours, generally meaning every three or four years. Looks like we can deduct the repairs to our tug.

Let’s dock the tugboat and briefly discuss a building. Perhaps we can see our tug from our building.

The IRS is taking the position that a building is both one unit of property and more than one unit of property.

I do not make this up, folks.

The IRS wants certain systems of a building – like its HVAC or its elevators – to also be considered a separate UOP. Let’s take an example. Let’s say that you are replacing a bunch of windows on that building. You would then evaluate whether it is a repair or an improvement by reference to the building as a whole. This is a good thing, as it would take a lot to “improve” the building as a whole. This makes it more likely that the answer will be a deductible repair.

However, say that you replace an elevator. The IRS says that you have to look at elevators separately from the overall building. We’ll, it does not take much to improve an elevator if you are just comparing it to an elevator. This is a bad thing, as it makes it more likely that the result will be a capital improvement.

BTW there is a separate test if your building costs less than a $1 million when you bought it. The IRS will “spot” you a certain amount before it will challenge whether something is a repair or not. It’s for the smaller landlords, but it is something.

And there you have the highlights of the repair regulations.

Depending on your fact patterns, there may be elections and forms that you have to attach to your tax return. Your tax advisor may even request that you change your underlying bookkeeping – like expensing stuff under $5000/$500 on your general ledger, for example. Some of these will require extra work, and hence additional fees, by and from your advisor.

And there is one more thing.

Let’s go back to the tugboat.

Let’s say that you did the major overhaul four years ago and capitalized the cost. You are now deducting those repairs over time as depreciation. The new rules now allow you to deduct the cost immediately as a repair. Had we only known!

Is it too late for us? Four years back is one more year than the statute of limitations permits, so we cannot go back and amend your return.

The IRS – to their credit – realized the unfairness of this situation, and it will let you go back and apply these new rules to that old tax year. The IRS calls it a “partial disposition,” and you can deduct what’s left of that capitalized tugboat repair on your 2014 tax return. It is called a “Change in Accounting Method” and is yet another multi-page form with your return, but at least you can get the deduction. But only on 2014. Let it slip a year and you can forget about it.

If any of the above rings a bell, please discuss the “repair regulations” with your tax advisor. Seriously, after 2014 you may be stuck. Tax does not have to be fair.

Lyle Lovett - If I Had A Boat 

How Choosing The Correct Court Made The Difference

I am looking at a District Court case worth discussing, if only for the refresher on how to select a court of venue. Let’s set it up.

ABC Beverage Corporation (ABC) makes and distributes soft drinks and non-alcoholic beverages for the Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. Through a subsidiary it acquired a company in Missouri. Shortly afterwards it determined that the lease it acquired was noneconomic. An appraisal determined that the fair market rent for the facility was approximately $356,000 per year, but the lease required annual rent of $1.1 million. The lease had an unexpired term of 40 years, so the total dollars under discussion were considerable.

The first thing you may wonder is why the lease could be so disadvantageous. There are any number of reasons. If one is distributing a high-weight low-value product (such as soft drinks), proximity to customers could be paramount. If one owns a franchise territory, one may be willing to pay a premium for the right road access. Perhaps one’s needs are so specific that the decision process compares the lease cost to the replacement cost of building a facility, which in turn may be even more expensive. There are multiple ways to get into this situation.

ABC obtained three appraisals, each of which valued the property without the lease at $2.75 million. With the lease the property was worth considerably more.

NOTE: Worth more to the landlord, of course. 

ABC approached the landlord and offered to buy the facility for $9 million. The landlord wanted $14.8 million. Eventually they agreed on $11 million. ABC capitalized the property at $2.75 million and deducted the $6.25 million difference.

How? ABC was looking at the Cleveland Allerton Hotel decision, a Sixth Circuit decision from 1948. In that case, a hotel operator had a disastrous lease, which it bought out. The IRS argued that that the entire buyout price should be capitalized and depreciated. The Circuit Court decided that only the fair market value of the property could be capitalized, and the rest could be deducted immediately. Since 1948, other courts have decided differently, including the Tax Court. One of the advantages of taking a case to Tax Court is that one does not have to pay the tax and then sue for refund. A Tax Court filing suspends the IRS’ ability to collect. The Tax Court is therefore the preferred venue for many if not most tax cases.

However and unfortunately for ABC, the Tax Court had decided opposite of Cleveland Allerton (CA), so there was virtually no point in taking the case there. ABC was in Michigan, which is in the Sixth Circuit. CA had been decided in the Sixth Circuit. To get the case into the District Court (and thus the Circuit), ABC would have to pay the tax and sue for refund. It did so.

The IRS came out with guns blazing. It pointed to Code Section 167(c)(2), which reads:

            (2) Special rule for property subject to lease

If any property is acquired subject to a lease—

(A) no portion of the adjusted basis shall be allocated to the leasehold interest, and

(B) the entire adjusted basis shall be taken into account in determining the depreciation deduction (if any) with respect to the property subject to the lease.

The IRS argued that the Section meant what it said, and that ABC had to capitalize the entire buyout, not just the fair market value.  It trotted out several cases, including Millinery Center and Woodward v Commissioner. It argued that the CA decision had been modified – to the point of reversal – over time. CA was no longer good precedent.

The IRS had a second argument: Section 167(c)(2) entered the tax Code after CA, with the presumption that it was addressing – and overturning – the CA decision.

The Circuit Court took a look at the cases. In Millinery Center, the Second Circuit refused to allow a deduction for the excess over fair market value. The Sixth Circuit pointed out that the Second Circuit had decided that way because the taxpayer had failed its responsibility of proving that the lease was burdensome. In other words, the taxpayer had not gotten to the evidentiary point where ABC was.

In Woodward the IRS argued that professional fees pursuant to a stockholder buyout had to be capitalized, as the underlying transaction was capital in nature. Any ancillary costs to the transaction (such as attorneys and accountants) likewise had to be capitalized. The Sixth Circuit pointed out the obvious: ABC was not deducting ancillary costs. ABC was deducting the transaction itself, so Woodward did not come into play.

The Court then looked at Section 167(c)(2) – “if property is acquired subject to a lease.” That wording is key, and the question is: when do you look at the property? If the Court looked before ABC bought out the lease, then the property was subject to a lease. If it looked after, then the property was not. The IRS of course argued that the correct time to look was before. The Court agreed that the wording was ambiguous.

The Court reasoned that a third party purchaser looking to acquire a building with an extant lease is different from a lessee purchaser. The third party acquires a building with an income stream – two distinct assets - whereas the lessee purchaser is paying to eliminate a liability – the lease. Had the lessee left the property and bought-out the lease, the buy-out would be deductible.

The Court decided that the time to look was after. There was no lease, as ABC at that point had unified its fee simple interest. Section 167(c)(2) did not apply, and ABC could deduct the $6.25 million. The Court decided that its CA decision from 1948 was still precedent, at least in the Sixth Circuit.

ABC won the case, and kudos to its attorneys. Their decision to take the case to District Court rather than Tax Court made the case appealable to the Sixth Circuit, which venue made all the difference.