Deducting Business Interest From Personal Credit Cards

The case caught my eye because it involves a very common fact pattern:

A small business owner obtains credit cards in his/her personal name and uses it/them for business purchases and activities.

Question: Can the business deduct the interest on the credit cards?

I doubt that there is a tax practitioner out there that hasn’t deducted this, but a recent case points out minimum requirements in case the IRS challenges the deduction.

Let’s look at C.A. Simmons, TC Memo 2026-34.

I admit that I was expecting some technical dive into the interest deduction, but this case is not that. It is a reminder that one has to get to first base before being able to reach home plate. Strike out and the rest is meaningless.

Cathryn Simmons and her sister owned a specialty store (called Stuff) in Kansas City, Missouri. They had sold handmade and small-batch goods since 1996. As is too common, Stuff struggled to obtain credit in its own name, so the sisters used personal credit cards and loans to finance the business. They used QuickBooks for their accounting, and they did try to segregate the credit cards between those used for business and those used personally.  

COMMENT: I suspect most clients I have advised can remember my standard sermon:

·      Establish a separate business account. Business deposits and expenses go through the business account. Personal expenses do not. I understand that the bank is going to charge for a business account, and it might be cheaper to lean into a personal account. Do not do that. You already incurred that expense when you started the business.

·      I understand that you might not be able to get a credit card in the business name and may have to use a personal card. Use one card for business and the rest for personal. Do not intermingle the two.

·      If you are using a personal card, I might have the business recognize it as a loan from you. We will formalize it with a note, mention an interest rate and make some reference to repayment. Do not be surprised if the interest rate on the note is the same as the credit card.

·      Keep records of all business deposits and expenses. At a minimum, buy an expanding file and file the paperwork by month. When we finish the tax return for the year, combine the return and its paperwork into a file or folder for the year, and hold onto it.

Back to Stuff.

The IRS looked at the 2017 business return and 2017 and 2019 personal returns. They expanded the business audit to include cost of goods sold, advertising, vehicle expenses, travel, meals and entertainment, charitable and promotion, and interest. We will discuss only the interest deduction today.

Stuff field a partnership return, and each sister’s share of the 2017 business profit was less than $3 grand.

There was a little chop with the interest deduction because it included both interest on the credit cards and interest on the personal loans. I point it out because the Court says the following about the personal loans:

As an initial matter, … fails to establish that the purported interest amounts Stuff paid to her and her sister arose from Stuff’s own indebtedness. The record contains promissory notes … but no ‘loan papers’ establishing Stuff’s indebtedness to the sisters.”

… we cannot conclude from these payments and the sisters’ testimony that Stuff had an actual legal obligation to pay interest to them.”

I get it but … harsh. I suppose Stuff was not following the terms of the promissory notes. We would - of course - redraft the terms of the notes. This is low hanging fruit.

What about the credit cards?

Ms. Simmons likewise fails to demonstrate that Stuff was entitled to deduct the credit card interest and finance charges recorded on its QuickBooks account. The evidence shows that Ms. Simmons obtained and used credit cards in her own name to finance Stuff’s business expenses given its inability to obtain credit on its own. Ms. Simmons fails to show that any credit card interest and finance charges constituted Stuff’s own indebtedness rather than her personal indebtedness, and thus no deduction is appropriate.”

Stop. I am having a problem here, as I am quite aware of Reg 1.163-8T.

Seems to me that if (1) I trace a business expense from the credit card statement to (2) the QuickBooks, I have at least a good chance of meeting the requirement that “debt is allocated by tracing the disbursements of the debt proceeds to specific expenditures.”

Back to the Court:

Assuming arguendo that credit cards opened by Ms. Simmons constituted an indebtedness of Stuff, the records before us would not substantiate the amounts claimed. Although the sisters testified that they used the six designated credit cards exclusively for Stuff’s expenses, they failed to establish the amounts and business purposes of the underlying expenditures that resulted in the interest and finance charges at issue.”

They failed to establish the amounts and business purposes …?

I believe two things happened here:

(1)  Stuff could not document a lot of expenses. On quick review, I see the IRS disallowing almost $13 grand of vehicle expenses, $22 grand of charitable and promotion expenses, and so on.

(2)  If those expenses ran through the credit cards, then I understand an allocable portion of the interest being disallowed.

However, the Court just nixed the interest deduction altogether.

Seems to me that some of the credit card interest – that allocable to deductions allowed – should be deductible. I presume the accounting was not clean enough to do a side calculation. The IRS will rarely play forensic, and the Tax Court certainly will not.

The Court did reemphasize that it wanted to see linkage between the business activity and the credit cards, but that has been the rule since I have been practicing. There is nothing new here. Somebody just forgot to get on first base.  

Another Runaway FBAR Case

 

Let’s talk about the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts). It currently goes by the name “FinCen Form 114.”

This thing has been with us since 1970. It came to life as an effort to identify foreign financial transactions that might indicate money laundering or tax evasion. 

Sounds benign.

The filing requirement applies to a United States person, defined as

·      A citizen or resident of the U.S.

·      A domestic partnership

·      A domestic corporation

·      A domestic trust or estate

 We’ll come back that first one in a moment.

Next, one needs a financial interest or signature authority in a foreign financial account to trigger this thing.

A foreign financial account includes a bank account, which is easy enough to understand. It would also include a broker account (think Charles Schwab, but overseas). Some are not so intuitive, though.

·      A foreign insurance policy with cash value is reportable.

·      A foreign hedge fund is not.

·      A foreign annuity policy is reportable.

·      A foreign private equity fund is not.

·      A foreign cryptocurrency account is not reportable.

Some require a google search to understand what is being said.

·      A Canadian registered retirement savings plan is reportable.

·      A Mexican fondo para retiro is reportable.

Next, the foreign financial account has to exceed a certain dollar balance ($10,000) at some point during the year.

That $10,000 balance has been there for as long as I can remember. You will have a hard time persuading me that $10,000 in 1986 is the same as $10,000 now, but that number is apparently eternal and unchanging.

The $10,000 is tested across all foreign financial accounts. If it takes your fourth foreign account to put you over $10 grand, then you are over. Testing is done. All your accounts are reportable on a FBAR.

Like so many things, the FBAR started with reasonable intentions but has morphed into something near unrecognizable.

Fail to file an FBAR and the standard penalty is $10 grand. Fail to file for two years and the penalty is $20 grand. Have two foreign accounts and fail to file for two years and the penalty is $40 grand.

And that is assuming the error is unintentional. Do it on purpose and I presume they will execute you.

I exaggerate, of course. They will just bankrupt you.

It puts a lot of pressure on defining “on purpose.”

Let’s look at Osamu Kurotaki (OK).

OK was born in Japan and lives in Japan. He obtained a U.S. green card, making him a U.S. permanent resident. One of the pleasures of being a permanent resident is filing an annual tax return with the United States, irrespective of whether you live in the U.S. or not. One can talk about a foreign income exclusion or foreign tax credit – which is fine – but that annual filing makes sense only if someone intends to eventually return to the U.S. It does not make as much sense if someone does not intend to return, someone like OK.

OK paid someone to prepare his annual U.S. tax return. He found a CPA who was bilingual.

In 2021 the U.S. Treasury assessed civil penalties against OK for more than $10 million. His footfall? He failed to file FBARs. Treasury also upped the ante by saying that his failure was “willful.”

Huh?

Treasury is requesting summary judgement that OK willfully failed to file FBARs, prefers waffle over sugar cones and rooted for the Diamondbacks in the World Series. 

The Court wanted to know how Treasury climbed the ladder to get to that “willful” step.

So do I.

Here is what the Court saw:

·      OK is a Japanese speaker and does not speak English “at all.”

·      OK relied on his bilingual CPA to make sense of U.S. tax filing obligations.

·      His CPA provided annual tax questionnaires in both English and Japanese. The English was for theater, I suppose, as OK could not read English.

·      The CPA’s translation now becomes critical. Here are instructions to the FBAR in English:

U.S. taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income; that is, income from both U.S. and foreign sources.”

·      Here is the Japanese translation:

U.S. resident taxpayers are required to report their worldwide income, that is, income from both US. and foreign sources."

OK told the Court that he did not think he had a filing obligation because he was not a “U.S. resident.”

I get it. He lives in Japan. He works in Japan. His kids go to school in Japan. He is as much a “U.S. resident” as I am a Nepalese Sherpa.

Except …

OK was green card – that is, a “permanent” resident of the U.S.

Technically …

The Court cut OK some slack. Technically - and in a law school vacuum - he was a “resident.” Meanwhile - in the real world – no one would think that. Furthermore, OK hired a CPA who made a mistake. Even a trained professional erred interpreting the Treasury’s word salad. 

The Court said “no” to summary judgement.

Treasury will have to argue its $10 million-plus proposed penalty.

And I believe the Court just outlined reasonable cause.

Perhaps OK should consider turning in that green card. 

Our case this time was Osamu Kurotaki v United States, U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii.

 

Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

Tax Preparer Gives Gambler A Losing Hand

 

I am looking at a bench opinion.

The tax issue is relatively straightforward, so the case is about substantiation. To say that it went off the rails is an understatement.

Let us introduce Jacob Bright. Jacob is in his mid-thirties, works in storm restoration and spends way too much time and money gambling. The court notes that he “recognizes and regrets the negative effect that gambling has had on his life.”

He has three casinos he likes to visit: two are in Minnesota and one in Iowa. He does most of his sports betting in Iowa and plays slots and table games in Minnesota.

He reliably uses a player’s card, so the casinos do much of the accounting for him.

Got it. When he provides his paperwork to his tax preparer, I expect two things:

(1)  Forms W-2G for his winnings

(2)  His player’s card annual accountings

The tax preparer adds up the W-2Gs and shows the sum as gross gambling receipts. Then he/she will cross-check that gambling losses exceed winnings, enter losses as a miscellaneous itemized deduction and move on. It is so rare to see net winnings (at least meaningful winnings) that we won’t even talk about it.

COMMENT: Whereas the tax law changed in 2018 to do away with most miscellaneous itemized deductions, gambling losses survived. One will have to itemize, of course, to claim gambling losses.   

Here starts the downward cascade:

Mr. Bright hired a return preparer who was recommended to him, but he did not get what or whom he expected. Rather than the recommended preparer, the return preparer’s daughter actually prepared his return.”

OK. How did this go south, though?

The return preparer reported that Mr. Bright was a professional gambler ….”

Nope. Mind you, there are a few who will qualify as professionals, but we are talking the unicorns. Being a professional means that you can deduct losses in excess of winnings, thereby possibly creating a net operating loss (NOL). An NOL can offset other income (up to a point), income such as one’s W-2. The IRS is very, very reluctant to allow someone to claim professional gambler status, and the case history is decades long. Jacob’s preparer should have known this. It is not a professional secret.

Jacob did not review the return before signing. For some reason the preparer showed over $240 grand of gross gambling receipts. I added up the information available in the opinion and arrived at little more than $110 grand. I have no idea what she did, and Jacob did not even realize what she did. Perhaps she did not worry about it as she intended the math to zero-out.

She should not have done this.

The IRS adjusted the initial tax filing to disallow professional gambler status.

No surprise.

Jacob then filed an amended return to show his gambling losses as miscellaneous itemized deductions. He did not, however, correct his gross gambling winnings to the $110 grand.

The IRS did not allow the gambling losses on the amended return.

Off to Tax Court they went.

There are several things happening:

(1)  The IRS was arguing that Jacob did not have adequate documentation for his losses. Mind you, there is some truth to this. Casino reports showed gambling activity for months with no W-2Gs (I would presume that he had no winnings, but that is a presumption and not a fact). Slot winnings below $1,200 do not have to be reported, and he gambled on games other than slots. Still, the casino reports do provide some documentation. I would argue that they provide substantiation of his minimum losses.

(2)  Let’s say that the IRS behaved civilly and allowed all the losses on the casino reports. That is swell, but the tax return showed gambling receipts of $240 grand. Unless the casino reports showed losses of (at least) $240 grand, Jacob still had issues.

(3)  The Court disagreed with the IRS disallowing all gambling deductions. It looked at the casino reports, noting that each was prepared differently. Still, it did not require advanced degrees in mathematics to calculate the losses embedded in each report. The Court calculated total losses of slightly over $191 grand. That relieved a lot – but not all – of the pressure on Jacob.

(4)  Jacob did the obvious: he told the Court that the $240 grand of receipts was a bogus number. He did not even know where it came from.

(5)  The IRS immediately responded that it was being whipsawed. Jacob reported the $240 grand number, not the IRS. Now he wanted to change it. Fine, said the IRS: prove the new number. And don’t come back with just numbers reported on W-2Gs. What about smaller winnings? What about winnings from sports betting? If he wanted to change the number, he was also responsible for proving it.

The IRS had a point. It was being unfair and unreasonable but also technically correct.

Bottom line: the IRS was not going to permit Jacob to reduce his gross receipts number without some documentation. Since all he had was the casino reports, the result was that Jacob could not change the number.

Where does this leave us? I see $240 – $191 = $49 grand of bogus income.

My takeaway is that we have just discussed a case of tax malpractice. That is what lawyers are for, Jacob.

Our case this time was Jacob Bright v Commissioner, Docket No. 0794-22.