Is Found Money Taxable?

Say that you found a money clip with several hundred dollars. There is no identification, so there is no way to return it.

Question: Do you have taxable income?

Let’s look at a famous tax case.

In 1957 the Cesarinis purchased a used piano at an auction for $15. Their daughter took lessons using this piano.

In 1964, while cleaning the piano, they discovered $4,467 in old currency bills. They exchanged the old currency for new at the bank. They also reported the $4,467 as income on their tax return.

By October 1965 they were having second thoughts. They amended their 1964 tax return, reversing the $4,467 from income and asking for a tax refund of $836.

The IRS rejected the refund claim.

Off to Court they went.

The Cesarinis had three arguments:

(1)  The $4,467 was not income under the tax Code.

(2)  If it was, then it was income in 1957, when they purchased the piano. Since 1957 was a closed tax year, there was no further tax consequence.

(3) Even if it was taxable in 1964, it should be taxable as capital gains and not as ordinary income.

The Court was methodical:

·      Code section 61(a) stated “except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived….” 

Granted, there are other sections that may keep a source from being taxed – or delaying its taxation – but the general rule is to consider all accessions to wealth as taxable. The language was intentional, and it was deliberately used by Congress to assert the full measure of its taxing power under the 16^th amendment.

·      The IRS did not, but the Court did, point to the following Regulation:

Treasure trove, to the extent of its value in United States currency, constitutes gross income for the taxable year in which it is reduced to undisputed possession.”

The Cesarinis, seeing an opening, pressed on the year they obtained undisputed possession.

That is not a tax question per se, so the Court looked at state law. Say the Cesarinis had sold the piano in 1958, not knowing about the cash. Would they have an action against a purchaser who later found the cash? In Ohio (their state of residence) they would not. Extrapolating, the Court determined that “undisputed possession” occurred in 1964, when the cash was found.

·      The Court acknowledged that both the piano and the cash could be construed as capital assets, and that capital gains derive from the sale or exchange of capital assets. 

And this is where word selection is critical: neither the piano or the currency had been sold or exchanged. No sale or exchange = no capital gain.

The Cesarini case cemented that found money – sometimes called “treasure trove” – is taxable just like any other type of income.

You are not really surprised at the answer, are you?

Our case this time was Cesarini v United States 296 F Supp 3 (N.D. Ohio 1969).

Let's Talk Tax Inversions - Part One

You may have read recently that Burger King is acquiring Tim Hortons Inc, a Canadian coffee and donut chain. What has attracted attention is the deal is structured as an inversion, which means that the American company (Burger King) will be moving its tax residency to Canada. I suppose it was hypothetically possible that the deal could have moved Tim Hortons Inc to the U.S. (think of it as a reverse inversion), but that would not have drawn the attention of the politicians.

The combined company will be the world’s third-largest fast-food company, right behind McDonalds and Yum! Brands (think KFC and Taco Bell). While the U.S. will have by far the largest number of locations, the majority of the revenue – again by far – will be from Canada.

An issue at play is that U.S. companies face a very harsh tax system, one in which they are to pay U.S. tax on all profits, even if those profits originated overseas and may never be returned to the U.S. Combine that with the world’s highest corporate tax rate, and it becomes fairly easy to understand why companies pursue inversions. In certain industries (such as pharmaceuticals), it is virtually imperative that the some part of the company be organized overseas, as the default tax consequences would be so prohibitive as to likely render the company uncompetitive.

Let’s talk a bit about inversions.

Inversions first received significant Congressional scrutiny in the 1980s, when McDermott Inc did the following:

·        McDermott organized a foreign subsidiary, treated as a controlled foreign corporation for U.S. tax;

·        The subsidiary issued stock in exchange for all the outstanding stock of McDermott itself; and          

·        Thus McDermott and its subsidiary traded places, with the subsidiary becoming the parent.

In response Congress passed IRC Sec 1248(i), requiring any future McDermott to report dividend income – and pay tax – on all of its subsidiary’s earnings and profits (that is, its undistributed profits).

In the 1990s, Helen of Troy Corp had its shareholders exchange their stock for stock of a new foreign parent company.

In response the IRS issued Reg 1.367(a)-3(c), requiring the U.S. shareholders to be taxable on the exchange because they owned more than 50% of the foreign company after the deal was done.

In the aughts, Valeant Pharmaceuticals paid a special dividend to its shareholders immediately before being acquired by Biovail, a Canadian corporation. Valeant paid out so much money - thereby reducing its own value - that the Valeant shareholders owned less than 50% of the foreign company.

Interesting enough, this did not (to the best of my knowledge) draw a government response. There is a “stuffing” rule, which prohibits making the foreign corporation larger. There is no “thinning” rule, however, prohibiting making the U.S. company thinner.

Then there was a new breed of inversions. Cooper Industries, Nabors Industries, Weatherford International and Seagate Technologies did what are called “naked” inversions. The new foreign parent incorporated in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda, and there was no effort to pretend that the parent was going to conduct significant business there. The tax reason for the transaction was stripped for all to see – that is, “naked.”

That was a bridge too far.

Congress passed IRC Sec 7874, truly one of the most misbegotten sections in the tax Code. Individually the words make sense, but combine them and one is speaking gibberish.

Let’s break down Section 7874 into something workable. We will split it into three pieces:

(1)  The foreign company has to acquire substantially all the assets of a domestic company. We can understand that requirement.

(2)  The U.S. shareholders (referred to “legacy” shareholders) own 60% or more of the foreign parent. There are three sub-tiers:

a.     If the legacy shareholders own at least 80%, the IRS will simply declare that nothing occurred and will tax the foreign company as if it were a U.S. company;

b.     If the legacy shareholders own at least 60% but less than 80%, the IRS would continue to tax the foreign company on its “inversion gain” for 10 years.

                                                              i.      What is an “inversion gain?” It involves using assets (think licenses, for example) to allow pre-inversion U.S. tax attributes to reduce post-inversion U.S. tax. The classic tax attribute is a net operating loss carryover.

c.      If the legacy shareholders own less than 60%, then Section 7874 does not apply. The new foreign parent will generally be respected for U.S. tax purposes.

But wait! There is a trump card.

(3)  The IRS will back off altogether if the foreign company has “substantial business presence” in the new parent’s country of incorporation.

There is something about a trump card, whether one is playing bridge or euchre or structuring a business transaction. The tax planners wanted a definition. Initially the IRS said that “substantial business presence” meant 10% of assets, sales and employees. It later changed its mind and said that 10% was not enough. It did not say what would be enough, however. It said it would decide such issues on “facts and circumstances.” This sounds acceptable, but to a tax planner it is not. It is the equivalent of saying that one need not stop at a stop sign, as long as one is not “interfering” with traffic. What does that mean, especially when one has family in the car and is wondering if the other driver has any intention of stopping?

After three years the IRS said that it thought 25% was just about right. Oh, and forget about any “facts and circumstances,” as the IRS did not want to hear about it.

The 25% test was a cynical threshold, figuring that no one country – other than the U.S. – could possibly reach 25% by itself. Even the E.U. market – which could rival the U.S. – is comprised of many individual countries, making it unlikely (barring Germany, I suppose) that any one country could reach 25%.

Until Pfizer attempted to acquire AstraZeneca, a U.K. based company. The White House then proposed reducing the 80% test to a greater-than-50% test and eliminating the 60% test altogether. It also wanted to eliminate any threshold test if the foreign corporation is primarily managed from the United States.

The Pfizer deal fell through, however, and there no expectation that this White House proposal will find any traction in Congress.

And there is our short walk through the minefield of tax inversions.

There is one more thing, though. You may be wondering if the corporate officers and directors are impacted by the tax Code. Surely you jest- of course they are! There is a 15% excise tax on their stock-based compensation. How does this work out in the real world? We will talk about this in our next blog, when we will discuss the Medtronic – Covidien merger. 

Senator Baucus Revs Up Tax Reform Discussion

Today (November 21, 2013) Senator Baucus released the third in a series of staff discussions on tax reform. This discussion focuses on depreciation (also called “cost recovery”) and tax accounting methods.

Not the most exciting topics, and I will not miss Thursday Night Football reading up on them. Let’s review them quickly.

The Senator leads off with:

America today is using a bloated tax code that was built for businesses close to 30 years ago. The code is completely outdated and acting as a brake on economic growth.  More must be done to simplify tax rules, lessen the burden on small businesses and jumpstart job growth.”

I cannot disagree with him, but I am not optimistic about politicians – today, tomorrow – keeping their hands off any tax reform. Remember that Chief Justice Roberts deemed ObamaCare to be a “tax” – even though the White House itself did not present brief or argue it to be a tax. With that level of verbal schizophrenia, I would wager that any “reform” would last about as long as when the first politician needs to get reelected.

Baucus is proposing the following depreciation changes:

(1) Reduce the number of depreciation classes to four: three for short- to mid-term property and one for longer-lived assets. There would be only one permitted depreciation method.

a.     By longer-lived, think real estate, which Baucus proposes to depreciate over 43 years.

COMMENT: There goes the never-worked-in-the-real-world-crowd again. I have thirty years in this business, and I have never seen a proposed real estate investment analyzed over a 43-year recovery. Doesn’t happen, folks.

(2) Slow depreciation from double-declining balance to declining balance. Real estate would remain straight-line.

(3)  Allow expanded general asset accounting. This means that asset categories are pooled, and depreciation is calculated by…

a.     Starting with last year’s asset pool balance

b.     Increased by additions and improvements

c.      Decreased by proceeds from asset sales and dispositions

d.     And multiplying the result by a depreciation factor

(4)  Repeal like-kind exchanges.

COMMENT: Yipes.

(5) Repeal depreciation recapture for pooled assets.

COMMENT: Yay!

Treat all gain from disposition of pooled assets as ordinary income.

          COMMENT: Nay!

(6)  The maximum cost of mixed- use vehicles is capped at $45,000.

a.     That means that – if a car is used for both business and personal use – the maximum cost that can be depreciated is $45,000. That amount in turn is depreciated over 5 years.

b.     I am not overly surprised. There is still a lot of abuse – truly – in this area.

Then there are some tax accounting changes:

(7) Repeal expensing for research and development expenses. The default treatment will be to capitalize and depreciate over 5 years.

COMMENT: This cannot make business sense. You want to explain this proposal change to Apple, Samsung, Pfizer, or any number of research-intensive companies?

(8) Disallow the deduction for advertising. In its place, you would deduct one-half immediately and then amortize the balance over 5 years.

COMMENT:  This makes no sense to an accountant. I associate depreciation and amortization with assets that have use or value over more than one year. Advertising doesn’t make that cut. Does anyone talk about the commercials from last year’s Super Bowl, for example?

(9) Treat “qualified extraction expenditures” the same way as research and development.

COMMENT: Think fracking. The United States is increasingly moving to energy independence (Bakken Shale, for example), even under a hostile Administration. Do you think this change is going to help or hurt that effort?

(10)  Repeal percentage depletion.

COMMENT: Same comment as (9).

(11)  Make permanent Section 179 expensing.

a.     The maximum expensing would be set at $1,000,000, with the phase-out beginning at $2,000,000.

COMMENT: Frankly, it’s about time.

(12)  The Section 197 amortization period is increased from 15 to 20 years.

(13)  All business with less than $10 million in annual gross receipts can use the cash basis of accounting and not account for inventory.

          COMMENT: Wait for it...

(14)  If you are not described in (13) then you are on the accrual basis of accounting.

COMMENT: When the government talks about accrual basis, they means that they want you to pay taxes on your receivables before you actually collect them.

(15)  Businesses described in (13) do not have to suffer through the Section 263A uniform capitalization calculations.

        COMMENT: Good. 

(16)  LIFO is repealed.  

COMMENT: I do not particularly care for LIFO, but I acknowledge that major industries use it extensively, and it is considered GAAP when auditors render their auditors’ report. The government is not chasing this down because they had brilliant debates while in accounting theory class. They want the jack.

(17) The completed contract method of accounting (think contractors) is repealed, except for small construction contracts.

Overall, Baucus is trying to reduce corporate tax rates. At 35%, the United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. There are consequences to having the highest rate, such as having less business.  To reduce rates, he has to raise money somewhere, and we see some of those sources above.

And remember folks: these are only proposals.