An Intelligence Site, A Tax Treaty, and a Closing Agreement

I am looking at a case involving IRS closing agreements and the U.S. Pine Gap facility in Australia.

It gives us a chance to talk about closing agreements, an uncommon topic.

It also gives a chance to talk about Pine Gap, which is a U.S. Intelligence-gathering facility in the Northern Territory of Australia. It started decades ago as a monitoring station for Soviet ballistic testing, and with the years it has acquired several new roles. Think of drone attacks in Pakistan, and you have an idea of what happens at Pine Gap.

FIRST ACT: we have a spooky intelligence site.

Let’s move on to a treaty.

Under general tax rules, Australia would be able to tax American workers at Pine Gap. They are - after all – working in Australia. This was not the desired result, so a treaty in the 1960s exempted American workers at Pine Gap from Australian tax. There was a requisite, though: to be exempt, the wages had to be taxed by the U.S.

Got it. There was a one-bite-at-the-apple rule. Australia would back off if the U.S. got the first bite.

But U.S. tax law also includes a foreign earned income exclusion, whereby an American worker overseas could exempt some (or all) of his/her wages from tax, if certain requirements were met.  

How could Australia be sure that the wages were being taxed by the U.S.? Mind you, the alternative was for Australia to apply the default rule, meaning that both Australia and the U.S. would tax the wages. Sure, the worker could claim a foreign tax credit on his/her U.S. tax return, but the tax consequences of working at Pine Gap would have escalated unappealingly.  

The treaty was revised in the 1980s to allow American workers at Pine Gap to relinquish their foreign earned income exclusion by entering into a closing agreement with the IRS.

SECOND ACT: we have an income tax treaty.

Cory was a U.S. Air Force veteran and engineer. In 2009 he received a job offer from Raytheon to work at Pine Gap. He was informed that Australia would not tax him, but to get there he would have to sign a closing agreement with the IRS. The agreement was straightforward: he would not claim the foreign earned income exclusion.

Mind you, he did not have to sign a closing agreement. Australia would then tax him, and his U.S. return would get a little more complicated.

Cory signed the agreement.

The point behind a closing agreement is finality. Both sides agree, settle, and move on. Excepting fraud or malfeasance, there are no “do-overs.” That is - as you would expect - the reason that one requests one. An example is the wrap-up of a taxable estate. The tax practitioner does not want that estate resurrecting later, causing headaches when all parties considered the matter closed.

Cory wanted out of his closing agreement.

Problem.

Closing agreements arise under a Code section. This means that the Court would be reviewing statutory law (that is, the Code as statute on the matter) and not just the general principles of contract law (offer, acceptance, and all that).

That Code section doesn’t let one off the hook without showing malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact.

Cory argued that he met that standard. Somebody somewhere at the IRS did not have appropriate signature authority; the IRS committed malfeasance by sharing information with his employer, Raytheon; he was induced to sign by false representations.

I think Cory was grasping at straws.

The Court apparently thought the same way. The Court decided Cory was stuck with the agreement. He signed it; he owned it.

THIRD ACT: we have a closing agreement.

This is a specialized case pulling-in several different areas of the Code.

I get Cory’s point. He wanted exemption both from Australian tax AND some/all U.S. tax.

Me too, Cory. Me too.

Our case this time was Cory H Smith v Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3 (Aug 25,2022).

Like-Kind Exchange? Bulk Up Your Files

I met with a client a couple of weeks ago. He owns undeveloped land that someone has taken an interest in. He initially dismissed their overtures, saying that the land was not for sale or – if it were – it would require a higher price than the potential buyer would be interested in paying.

Turns out they are interested.

The client and I met. We cranked a few numbers to see what the projected taxes would be. Then we talked about like-kind exchanges.

It used to be that one could do a like-kind exchange with both real property and personal property. The tax law changed recently and personal property no longer qualifies. This doesn’t sound like much, but consider that the trade-in of a car is technically a like-kind exchange. The tax change defused that issue by allowing 100% depreciation (hopefully) on a business vehicle in the year of purchase. Eventually Congress will again change the depreciation rules, and trade-ins of business vehicles will present a tax issue.

There are big-picture issues with a like-kind exchange:

(1)  Trade-down, for example, and you will have income.

(2)  Walk away with cash and you will have income.

(3)  Reduce the size of the loan and (without additional planning) you will have income.

I was looking at a case that presented another potential trap.

The Brelands owned a shopping center in Alabama.

In 2003 they sold the shopping center. They rolled-over the proceeds in a like-kind exchange involving 3 replacement properties. One of those properties was in Pensacola and becomes important to our story.

In 2004 they sold Pensacola. Again using a like-kind, they rolled-over the proceeds into 2 properties in Alabama. One of those properties was on Dauphin Island.

They must have liked Dauphin Island, as they bought a second property there.

Then they refinanced the two Dauphin Island properties together.

Fast forward to 2009 and they defaulted on the Dauphin Island loan. The bank foreclosed. The two properties were sold to repay the bank

This can create a tax issue, depending on whether one is personally liable for the loan. Our taxpayers were. When this happens, the tax Code sees two related but separate transactions:

(1) One sells the property. There could be gain, calculated as:

Sales price – cost (that is, basis) in the property

(2) There is cancellation of indebtedness income, calculated as:

Loan amount – sales price

There are tax breaks for transaction (2) – such as bankruptcy or insolvency – but there is no break for transaction (1). However, if one is being foreclosed, how often will the fair market value (that is, sales price) be greater than cost? If that were the case, wouldn’t one just sell the property oneself and repay the bank, skipping the foreclosure?

Now think about the effect of a like-kind exchange and one’s cost or basis in the property. If you keep exchanging and the properties keep appreciating, there will come a point where the relationship between the price and the cost/basis will become laughingly dated. You are going to have something priced in 2019 dollars but having basis from …. well, whenever you did the like-kind exchange.

Heck, that could be decades ago.

For the Brelands, there was a 2009 sales price and cost or basis from … whenever they acquired the shopping center that started their string of like-kind exchanges.

The IRS challenged their basis.

Let’s talk about it.

The Brelands would have basis in Dauphin Island as follows:

(1)  Whatever they paid in cash

(2)  Plus whatever they paid via a mortgage

(3)  Plus whatever basis they rolled over from the shopping center back in 2003

(4)  Less whatever depreciation they took over the years

The IRS challenged (3).  Show us proof of the rolled-over basis, they demanded.

The taxpayers provided a depreciation schedule from 2003. They had nothing else.

That was a problem. You see, a depreciation schedule is a taxpayer-created (truthfully, more like a taxpayer’s-accountant-created) document. It is considered self-serving and would not constitute documentation for this purpose.

The Tax Court bounced item (3) for that reason.

What would have constituted documentation?

How about the closing statement from the sale of the shopping center?

As well as the closing statement when they bought the shopping center.

And maybe the depreciation schedules for the years in between, as depreciation reduces one’s basis in the property.

You are keeping a lot of paperwork for Dauphin Island.

You should also do the same for any and all other properties you acquired using a like-kind exchange.

And there is your trap. Do enough of these exchanges and you are going to have to rent a self-storage place just to house your paperwork.

Our case this time was Breland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-59.