The IRS Should Apologize To This Taxpayer

In income tax land if …

•  You own a corporation, and

•  The corporation has property, and

•  The corporation gives you the property, and

•  You do not pay anything for it, …

… then the IRS will consider you as receiving distribution from the corporation. The classic distribution is a dividend, taxable to you and not deductible by the corporation. 

Perhaps the corporation distributes property and you pay some – but not all – of what the property is worth. A classic example is a corporation distributing a car to the owner’s child for a nominal amount. There is a distribution taxable as a dividend, and the dividend amount would be the value of the car over any amount paid. It would not be the full value of the car in this case.

The tax code views a C corporation (we are not discussing S corporations in this blog) as an entity distinct from its shareholders. That is how Congress justifies taxing the corporation on its income and then taxing the shareholders again when they receive dividends sourced to that income. Since there are two entities, there cannot be double taxation.  

But there is, of course, and it takes sleight of hand to maintain the illusion. Many if not most tax advisors – including me – have steered most of our closely-held business clients away from C corporations and to passthrough entities: perhaps S corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies. Sometimes the weight of the double taxation is unacceptable. 

The Tax Court decided the Welle case just last month. Sure enough, it involved a C corporation and a dividend. More specifically, it involved what the IRS saw as a new species of dividend. 

Let’s walk this through.

There is a construction company (TWC) in North Dakota. It is wholly-owned by Terry Welle (Welle). TWC primarily does multifamily construction, and its historical profit has been around 6 or 7 percent.

Welle decides he is going to build a lakefront property in Minnesota.

NOTE:  Excuse me here, but how about going south with that lakefront property? Is Minnesota that much warmer than North Dakota?

Back to our story. Welle has a company that builds things. He used TWC’s accounting system to track his costs, and he also used its workers to frame the Minnesota house. The company did a calculation of the costs, including overhead, and Welle reimbursed the company to the penny. 

The IRS comes in and finds fault. The IRS wants to know where the company’s profit is. Welle reimbursed the company at cost, including overhead, meaning that they made no profit from him. The IRS says that there should be and must be a profit. They calculate that profit to be around $48,000. Since he did not reimburse the company its erstwhile profit, the IRS assessed him with a $48,000 dividend. It wants $10,620 in income tax.

Oh, the IRS also wants an accuracy-related penalty of over $2,100.

Wow! The IRS is assessing a penalty on a tax theory it has never trotted out before? That is brazen.

This case goes to Court. The IRS argues that a corporate distribution must be measured at fair market value. Fair market value is the amount that would fully reimburse a company for its direct and indirect costs, as well as render a profit.  One cannot disagree with that summary of microeconomics 101.

The Court tells the IRS to back up. It wants the IRS to point to the distribution event before its gets to any issue of measuring and valuing. The Court reasons that a distribution requires assets to be “diverted to or for the benefit of a shareholder.” It must be a vehicle to “distribute available earnings and profits without the expectation of repayment.”

Show us the distribution, says the Court.

The IRS offers and the Court reviews a number of cases, but it cannot see how corporate assets were expended. Welle received services, but then again he paid for them. At most, he used the company as a conduit in maintaining records and paying subcontractors. The company was no better or worse for transacting with him. The event was a nullity.

In frustration, the Court writes:

Respondent does not explain how a corporation’s decision not to make a profit on services provided to a shareholder who fully reimburses the corporation for the cost of services (including overhead) constitutes a distribution of property that reduced the corporation’s earnings and profits under Section 316(a), nor does the respondent cite any cases supporting such a position.”

The Court decided for Welle and against the IRS.

My thoughts? This is one of the lamest tax theories I have come across, and I have near 30 years in the profession. What was the IRS up to? Are there that many North Dakota contractors building lakefront homes that the IRS decided to go where no serious tax practitioner had gone before? 

Let us segue for a moment. 

Do you remember Nina Olsen? She is the Taxpayer Advocate, and we have spoken of her before. The Advocate is supposed to sit outside the IRS and function as a watchdog. It is great idea, but I must admit the IRS for the last half-decade or so has seemed less than interested in the Advocate. Nonetheless, she is promoting an idea she calls the IRS “apology payment.”  The idea is to pay a taxpayer something when the behavior of the IRS causes excessive delay or expense or an undue burden resulting in significant hardship to the taxpayer.

This idea is being refloated in response to the 501(c)(4) scandal. Ms Olson argues that apology payment would: 

Serve as a symbolic gesture that the government recognizes its mistake and the taxpayer’s burden. These payments might enhance the public perception of the IRS and the tax system as just and fair.”

Great idea, although a $1,000 flat sum may be insufficient in some cases.

I would like to see Welle receive his apology payment for the IRS wasting his time.

Can Payroll Taxes Put You In Jail?

Can you go to jail for not remitting payroll taxes?

Let’s set this up:

• You have a temporary nursing staffing agency in Minnesota.
• You treat your nurses as independent contractors.
• You had a predecessor company which the IRS charged with willfully misclassifying workers and failing to remit payroll taxes.  You survived that occasion by settling with the IRS, but the settlement included language similar to the following:

 “... with respect to any other business similar to the ... entities that he might own, operate or control in the future, he would treat as employees for tax purposes all workers who performed functions or duties that were the same or similar as the function or duties performed by the nurses and nursing assistants who worked for the ... entities. In other words, defendant ... was obligated to withhold and pay over employment taxes for the nursing professionals who worked for any of his entities.”

• Minnesota has a law requiring nursing staffing agencies to certify that they are treating their nurses as employees and not as independent contractors. You have made this certification to Minnesota.

So, can you go to jail for not remitting the nurses’ payroll taxes?

A too-common problem is a cash-strapped business falling behind on depositing their payroll taxes. You can fall behind on many types of taxes and still be able to work something out. You fall behind with payroll taxes, however, and the IRS can be very harsh. The reason is that the IRS (and the states also) considers it stealing. You pay an employee $700 and withhold $200 for taxes. That $200 is not your money: it is the employee’s money that you now hold as agent for remittance to the IRS. The IRS reserves one of its most frightening penalties for this: it is called the trust fund recovery penalty. This penalty is 100% (you read that right), and it attaches to you as an individual. You cannot shed that penalty by leaving or bankrupting the business, because the penalty applies to you. It follows you like a bad haircut.

That penalty however is not what we have here. What we have here is Francis Leroy McLain (U.S. v McLain). The case was appealed to the Eight Circuit from the District Court of Minnesota.

The IRS looked at two entities owned by McLain, Kind Hearts and Kirpal Nurses, and came to the conclusion that the nurses were employees.

OBSERVATION: The IRS will almost always say that someone is an employee, whether they are or not. They want the payroll taxes, of course.

McLain owed about $340,000 in payroll taxes. He had been down this path before, and the IRS had not forgotten. They dusted off Section 7202, a very special tax gem for someone who pushes the sled too far:

Any person required ... to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposes by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to the other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the cost of prosecution.”

McLain left the shores of the responsible person penalty far behind. He sailed into the deep waters of going to jail. He is now dealing with CID, the criminal side of the IRS.

NOTE: A word to the wise: you never want to deal with CID. These guys have badges. They have guns. And they will put you in jail. I know. I had a client who had gone to jail courtesy of CID, and I know a tax practitioner in northern Kentucky who will be going.

As a tax guy, I am hoping that McLain has some serious technical arguments to make in his defense. I am expecting a ferocious goal-line stand. Here comes his first play:

(1)   McLain referred to the two agencies, King Hearts and Kirpal Nurses, as “Kirpal.” He argued that Kirpal was the employer, and, as the employer, only Kirpal had a duty to account and pay over taxes on its employees.

COMMENT: McLain starts off by irritating me. There was a case on this issue before I even came out of school. The case is Slodov v United States. It was a Supreme Court case and included the following language:

“Sections 6672 and 7202 were designed to assure compliance by the employer with its obligation to withhold and pay the sums withheld, by subjecting the employer’s officials responsible for the employer’s decisions regarding withholding and payment to civil and criminal penalties ...”

            McLain was an officer. What part of this did he not get?

            SCORE: IRS (1) McLain (0)

(2)   McLain argues that he had a good faith belief that the nurses were not employees. The lawyers refer to this as “mens rea,” and he argued that his state of mind did not rise to “willful.” Without willfulness, McLain cannot come under Section 7202.

COMMENT: I like this argument. Unfortunately, he had a prior run-in with the IRS on this very same point, which greatly diluted the argument’s persuasiveness.

            SCORE: IRS (2) McLain (0)

(3)   McLain argues that the IRS has to pursue a civil penalty before it can pursue a criminal penalty, and the civil penalty requires a written notice. He received no written notice, so the IRS cannot proceed with criminal prosecution.

COMMENT: I noticed that the Court reminded McLain’s attorney that he “has an independent obligation, regardless of what his client may demand, to refrain from filing frivolous motions.”

            SCORE: IRS (3) McLain (0)

(4)   McLain moved to dismiss the charges because (1) he is a “natural human being” and the United States does not have authority over him.

COMMENT: McLain’s attorney blanched here, and McLain fired him. McLain represented himself from this point on.

A tax protest argument? Seriously?

SCORE: IRS (4) McLain (0)

McLain lost soundly.

This type of action by the IRS is rare. I can assure that – in almost all cases – the IRS does not want to put anyone in jail. They want your money, and being in jail impedes you getting the IRS any money. And all parties in the system – the IRS, the courts and judges, responsible practitioners – are tired of the tax protest siren song.

I am sympathetic to arguments that our tax system left the world of rational thought years ago, but that does not mean the income tax is illegal. It can be irrational, immoral, confiscatory, divisive and destimulative without being illegal.

McLain has taken what could have been a civil penalty – albeit a stiff one – and morphed it into a multi-year stay at Club Fed. There likely is a fairly impressive fine also. He did however enter the tax literature, primarily for being a blockhead.