The IRS Does Not Believe You Made A Loan

The issue came up here at command center this past week. It is worth discussing, as the issue is repetitive and – if the IRS aims it your way – the results can be brutal.

We are talking about loans.

More specifically, loans to/from yourself and among companies you own.

What’s the big deal, right? It is all your money.

Yep, it’s your money. What it might not be, however, is a loan.

Let’s walk through the story of James Polvony.

In 1996 he joined his wife’s company, Archetone Limited (Limited) as a 49% owner. Limited was a general contractor.

In 2002 he started his own company, Povolny Group (PG). PG was a real estate brokerage.

The real estate market died in 2008. Povolny was looking for other sources of income.

He won a bid to build a hospital for the Algerian Ministry of Health.

He formed another company, Archetone International LLC (LLC), for this purpose.

The Algerian job required a bank guaranty. This created an issue, as the best he could obtain was a line of credit from Wells Fargo. He took that line of credit to a UK bank and got a guarantee, but he still had to collateralize the US bank. He did this by borrowing and moving monies around his three companies.

The Algerian government stopped paying him. Why? While the job was for the Algerian government, it was being funded by a non-Algerian third party. This third party wanted a cut of the action. Povolny did not go along, and – shockingly – progress payments, and then actual job progress, ceased.

The deal was put together using borrowed money, so things started unravelling quickly.

International was drowning. Povolny had Limited pay approximately $241,000 of International’s debts.

PG also loaned International and Limited approximately $70 grand. PG initially showed this amount as a loan, but PG amended its return to show the amount as “Cost of Goods Sold.”

COMMENT: PG was making money. Cost of goods sold is a deduction, whereas a loan is not, at least not until it becomes uncollectible. I can see the allure of another deduction on a profitable tax return. Still, to amend a return for this reason strikes me as aggressive.

Limited also deducted its $241 grand, not as cost-of-goods-sold but as a bad-debt deduction.

Let’s regroup here for a moment.

• Povolny moved approximately $311 grand among his companies, and
• He deducted the whole thing using one description or another.

This caught the IRS’ attention.

Why?

Because it matters how Polvony moved monies around.

A loan can result in a bad debt deduction.

A capital contribution cannot. Granted, you may have a capital loss somewhere down the road, but that loss happens when you finally shut down the company or otherwise dispose of your stock or ownership interest.

Timing is a BIG deal in this area.

If you want the IRS to respect your assertion of a loan, then be prepared to show the incidents of a loan, such as:

• A written note
• An interest rate
• A maturity date
• Repayment schedule
• Recourse if the debtor does not perform (think collateral)

Think of yourself as SunTrust or Fifth Third Bank making a loan and you will get the idea.

The Court made short work of Povolny:

·       The $241 thousand loan did not have a written note, no maturity date and no required interest payments.

·       Ditto for the $70 grand.

The Court did not find the commercially routine attributes of debt, so it decided that there was no debt.

Povolny was moving his own capital around.

He as much said so when he said that he “didn’t see the merit” in creating written notes, interest rates and repayment terms.

The Polvony case is not remarkable. It happens all the time. What it does, however, is to tentpole how important it is to follow commercially customary banking procedures when moving monies among related companies.

But is it all your money, isn’t it?

Yep, it is. Be lax and the IRS will take you at your word and figure you are just moving your own capital around.

And there is no bad debt deduction on capital.

Our case this time was Povolny Group, Incorporated et al v Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-37.

Does An LLC Member Pay Self-Employment Tax?

There is an issue concerning LLCs that has existed for approximately as long as I have been in the profession. I am thinking about it because I recently finished a research memo which included this issue.

This time we are talking about limited liability companies (LLCs) and self-employment income. One pays self-employment tax on self-employment income, and the dollars can add up rather quickly.

The offending party is the following enchanting prose from Code section 1402(a)(13) addressing self-employment income:

           

… there shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in … "

We do not need degrees in taxation to zero in on the term “limited partner” as being the key to this car. If you are a limited partner you get to exclude “the distributive share” of something. Since the IRS wants you to pay tax on something, the less of that something is probably a good thing.

So what is a limited partner in this conversation?

We don’t know.

The above wording came from an IRS proposed Regulation in 1977. The IRS stirred such a hornet’s nest that Congress put a hold on the Regulation. The hold has long since expired, but the IRS has not wanted to walk back onto that hill. It has been 37 years.

To be fair, the playing field changed on the IRS.

Have you ever heard of the Estate of Ellsasser? Don’t worry if you haven’t, as I suspect that many tax CPAs have not. Let’s time travel back to 1976. In addition to Bob Newhart and the Carol Burnett Show, people were buying tax shelters. The shelters worked pretty well back then, long before the passive activity rules entered the game. One of those shelters used to provide one with self-employment income, on which one would pay self-employment – also known as social security – tax.

Doesn’t sound like much of a shelter, doesn’t it?

The purpose was to get social security credits for someone who had not worked, had not earned enough credits, or had not earned enough to maximize their social security benefits.

The IRS did not like this at all, because at the time it was concerned with people taking advantage of social security. That was before our government decided to bankrupt us all, which act has now switched to the IRS demanding money from anyone foolish enough to make eye contact.

You see, in those days, there were entities known as “limited partnerships” in which a general partner made all the decisions and in return the limited partners got regular checks. A limited partner had little or no sway over the management of the place. It was an investment, like buying IBM or Xerox stock. There was no way the IRS was going to let a limited partner buy social security credits on the back of a limited partnership investment. No sir. Go get a job.

Fast forward about twenty years. There is a new sheriff in town, and that sheriff is the limited liability company (LLC). The states had created these new toys, and their claim to fame is that one could both work there and limit one’s liability at the same time. Unheard of! A limited partnership could not do that. In fact, if a limited partner started working at the place he/she would lose the protection from partnership liabilities. No limited partner was going to do that voluntarily.

And there you have a tax Regulation written in the 1970s referencing a “limited” partner. Twenty years later something new appears “limiting” one’s exposure to entity liabilities, but not being at all what the IRS had in mind two decades before.

And so the question became: does an LLC member have to pay self-employment tax?

And the issue has recently compounded, because there is also a new ObamaCare tax (the additional Medicare tax of 0.9%) which applies to …. wait on it… self-employment income. Yep, it applies to something the IRS cannot even define.

And then you have tax professionals trying to work with this nonsense. We do not have the option of putting the issue on the shelf until the baby is old enough to go to college. We have to prepare tax returns annually.

So I was looking at something titled “CCA 201436049.” It is nowhere as interesting as the final season of Sons of Anarchy, but it does touch upon our magic two words from the 1970s.

BTW, a “CCA” is a “Chief Counsel Advice” and represents an internal IRS document. It cannot be cited or used as precedence, but it gives you a VERY GOOD idea of what the IRS is thinking.

In our CCA, there is company that manages mutual funds. The management company used to be an S corporation and is now an LLC. The members of the management company pretty much do all the investment activity for the mutual funds, and the management company gets paid big bucks. The management company in turn pays its members via a W-2 and then “distributes” the remaining profit to them. The members pay social security on the W-2 (same as you or I) but not on the distributive share.

OBSERVATION: For the tax purist, a partnership is not allowed to pay its partner a W-2. The reason is that a partner in a partnership is considered to be self-employed, and self-employed people do not receive W-2s. LLCs have thrown a wrench into practice, however, and it is not uncommon to see an LLC member receive a W-2.

To get a CCA, the taxpayer has to be in examination. An IRS person in the field requests direction on how to handle an issue. The issue here is whether that distributive share should be subject to self-employment tax or not. A CCA is therefore like giving instructions to IRS examiners in the field.

The IRS goes through the same tax history we talked about above, and it is very skeptical that just “limiting” someone’s liability was the intent of the 1970s Regulation. It goes on to take a look at two recent cases.

In Renkemeyer, the Tax Court determined that lawyers within a law practice did not fit the “limited partner” exception, especially since they were actively working, something a 1970s “limited partner” could not do. They had to pay self-employment taxes on their distributive income.

In Reither the taxpayer issued W-2s and argued that that was sufficient to keep the rest of the distributive income from being subject to self-employment tax. The District Court made short work of the argument, primarily because there is no statutory support for it.

So … surprise, surprise… the CCA determined that the management company’s distributive share was subject to self-employment tax.

By itself, this is not surprising. What I did notice is that the IRS is paying more attention to this issue, and it is winning its cases. How much longer can it be before Congress finds this “new” source of tax revenue?

Granted, I think the odds of any meaningful tax legislation between Congress and this White House to be close to zero. There will be at least a couple of years.  That said, I suspect that tax planners have only so many years left to ramp this car onto the interstate before Congress takes our keys away.

The SMLLC and the Family Payroll Tax Exemption

If you are a single-member LLC (SMLLC) reporting for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship, you may be interested in a recent payroll tax change.

An SMLLC is reported for income tax purposes as either a corporation or a proprietorship. A question came up in recent years on how to treat an SMLLC for payroll tax purposes. In August, 2007 the IRS issued final regulations requiring the SMLLC to be treated as the taxpayer for employment tax purposes. This meant that it had to get an identification number separate from its sole member, for example. These regulations became effective January 1, 2009.

This in turn raised the question on what to do with the family employment tax exemption. The family tax exemption allows a proprietor who pays his/her spouse or children the following:

·         For a child under age 18, unemployment, FICA and Medicare taxes will not apply

·         For a child over 17 but under 21, unemployment taxes will not apply

·         For a spouse, unemployment taxes will not apply

By treating the SMLLC as an entity distinct from the sole member, the parent was not employing the family member, at least technically. This threw-out the family employment tax exemption.

Talk about unintended consequences.

The IRS has now reversed course and has expanded the family tax exemption to SMLLCs – and has made the exemption retroactive to January 1, 2009. This could mean that amended payroll tax returns are in order.

Example: You operate as a SMLLC. You have 7 employees, which include your spouse, a child age 16 and a child age 19. What are the federal employment tax consequences?

a.       The child age 17 is exempt from FICA, Medicare and unemployment

b.      The child age 19 is exempt from unemployment

c.       The spouse is exempt from unemployment

WSJ article "More Firms Enjoy Tax-Free Status”

I read this today on The Wall Street Journal:

Sixty-nine percent U.S. companies were organized as pass-throughs, or nontaxable organizations, in 2008, compared with 24% in 1986, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service. Members of Congress and the business community disagree on whether the exemption should change. Increasingly, traditional for-profit companies are at a competitive disadvantage against pass-throughs.

The article title is “More Firms Enjoy Tax-Free Status.”

Here is a gripe: it is misleading nonsense to refer to passthroughs as tax-free or nontaxable. Passthroughs are partnerships, LLCs and S corporations, and generally their income is allocated to and reported by their owners and partners. For Kruse & Crawford clients, this means that the passthrough income is reported on one or more individual income tax returns. It is there that tax is calculated and paid. Client tax estimates are due, and we are presently working on several estimates due on January 16^th.  I stayed here late last night working on something the Wall Street Journal says is nontaxable and apparently not “for profit.”

If passthroughs are “nontaxable” or not “for profit,” then this tax guy has missed the boat for more than two decades.

Foreign Mutual Funds

Let’s talk about PFICs.

It is pronounced “Pea Fick,” and it is shorthand for a passive foreign investment company. We are continuing our “foreign” theme of late.

A PFIC is a foreign mutual fund. Think about your funds at Fidelity or Vanguard and relocate them to Bonn or London. That is all you have done, but with that act you have entered a twilight world of odd tax reporting.

Why? Treasury does not like foreign mutual funds. Why? That question has several possible answers, but I believe that a large part is because Treasury cannot control the taxation. A mutual fund in the United States is a “regulated investment company.” One of the requirements is that it has to pass along its taxable income to its investors in order to preserve its tax standing. Shift that fund to Bonn, and the German fund manager may not have the same level of concern in maintaining that “regulated investment company” status. The German fund manager may do something unconscionable, such as not declare dividends or distribute income to investors. That would allow the German fund to delay tax consequence to its U.S investors, possibly for many years. Why, the U.S. investor may eventually report the income as capital gain rather than ordinary dividend income. This is clearly an unacceptable scenario.

It didn’t use to be this way. The law for PFICs changed in 1986.

You are going to be specially taxed. You however can choose one of three methods of taxation:

(1)    The Excess Distribution Method

This is the default method and is found in Section 1291 of the Internal Revenue Code.

At first glance it sounds good. You pay no tax until you either sell or receive an “excess distribution.” When you do, the IRS presumes that the income was earned ratably over the years you owned the fund. You have to pay tax at the highest marginal tax rate. It does not matter what your actual tax rate was. What if the fund lost money for 8 years, had one great year that made up for all losses and then you sold at a profit. ? Doesn’t matter. The IRS presumes that your profit was earned pro rata over 9 years. Now you are late on your taxes (remember, you did not include the profit in your prior year returns because there WAS NO PROFIT). You now have to pay tax using the highest-marginal tax rates. For 9 years. And then there is interest on the late taxes.

Oh, you may not be allowed to claim the loss if you sell the PFIC at a loss.

 You really do not want to use this method.

(2)    The Mark to Market Method

This option was added to the Code in 1997.

You mark your PFIC to market every year-end. In other words, you pay taxes on the difference between the share price on January 1^st and December 31^st. Every year.

You forfeit capital gains and losses. Whatever income or loss you report is ordinary. Sorry.

The big requirement here is that the PFIC has to have published fund prices. If the prices are not published, you simply cannot use the mark to market method.

(3)    The Qualified Electing Fund

This is the method I have normally seen. The problem is that the fund has to provide certain information annually. As that information has meaning only to a U.S. taxpayer, the fund may decide that it is not worth the time and cost and refuse to provide it. In practice, I have seen these funds go through investment houses such as Goldman Sachs. Goldman can pool enough U.S. investors to make it worthwhile to the foreign fund manager, so the fund agrees going in that it will provide this additional information annually.

A QEF is basically like a partnership. It passes-though its income to the U.S. investor – whether distributed or not – and the U.S. investor pays taxes on it. Ordinary income is taxed at ordinary rates, and capital gains at capital gains rates. What changes is that Treasury does not wait for a distribution.

A QEF should be elected in the first year you own the QEF. If so, you avoid the “excess distribution” regime altogether. If you make the election in a later year, then there is a procedure to “purge” the earlier PFIC treatment.

The QEF election is made fund by fund.

Yes, there is a special form to use with PFICs. It is Form 8621 “Information Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund.” It can be an intimidating three pages of tax-speak.

I saw PFICs a few years back, as we had several well-heeled clients. What I generally saw was a K-1, perhaps from a hedge fund. That fund in turn invested, and some of its investments were PFICs. The fund K-1 would arrive with its booklet of information, explanation and disclosures. The PFICs inside would further swell the page count. I remember these K-1s going on for 30 or 40 pages. These K-1s are not for young tax accountants.

As I said, Treasury really does not like foreign mutual funds.