Corporations Unable To File Tax Court Petitions

Over the years I have had clients that expanded aggressively into numerous states. I was continually evaluating when they reached the “trigger” to start withholding sales taxes or payroll taxes or filing income taxes with name-the-state.  

This is an area that has radically changed since I started practice three decades ago. There was a time when you practically had to have a storefront in the state before you had to start worrying about taxes. Now you have states that want to tax you should you attend a business convention there. Among the most recent lines of attack is something called “economic nexus,” meaning that - if you target the state’s citizenry as an economic market – the state figures it has enough power to tax you. Think about that for a moment. Say someone is weaving Alpaca sweaters in Miami and decides to sell a few over the internet in Illinois or Massachusetts. ANY sales into a state would trigger nexus under this theory. Many tax professionals, me included, are skeptical whether economic nexus would even survive  a constitutional challenge under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases on tax nexus for about as long as I have been in practice, so there have been few checks-and-balances as the states claim tax superpowers for themselves.  

Let’s segue this discussion to registering a corporation to do business in a state.

A corporation or an LLC is only a corporation or LLC because a state says that they are. That is the way it works. The state wants an annual check for this, and, if asked, they will then say that you are a corporation or LLC. It is a great money tree. Paulie would have approved.

 

Let’s kick it up a notch.

Let’s say that you have an Ohio corporation. An opportunity strikes and you start doing business in Kansas. You know to worry about Kansas income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, et cetera.  What you may not consider is telling Kansas that your corporation is doing business in their state. In addition to possible fines and so forth when you finally surface, there is the possibility of compromising your attorneys’ hands should something happen, such as litigation.

Or responding to an IRS notice.

That one somewhat surprised me, but it appears that California (let’s be honest: California would be among our first guesses for any incident of state tax idiocy) is making things easier for the IRS.

I am looking at Medical Weight Control Specialist v Commissioner.

Medical had its corporate privileges suspended by California, presumably for failing to pay Paulie his annual check. It happens, unfortunately. 

Medical got into it with the IRS, which eventually sent them a 90-day letter, also known as a Statutory Notice of Deficiency (or “SNOD”). 

NOTE: Appealing the SNOD is what gets you into Tax Court. The Court gives you 90 days to appeal and not a moment over. There a sad stories of people who missed it by minutes, but there is no “close enough” rule here. 

The IRS sent the SNOD to Medical in May, 2013. Medical filed its appeal with the Tax Court in June, 2013. 

I do not know what Medical’s tax issues were, but I can tell you that the IRS wanted over $1 million-plus from them. 

Medical made things right with Paulie in May, 2014.

            OBSERVATION: One year later.

Medical obtained a “certificate of reviver” and “certificate of relief from contract voidability” from California. 

Someone at the IRS must have read Sun Tzu and the maxim that the battle is won before the armies take the field. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss. Medical did not legally exist when it filed its appeal, and that which does not legally exist cannot file an appeal of a SNOD with the Tax Court.

Medical fought hard, they really did, but California law was against them. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and dismissed the appeal.

And there went $1 million-plus.

Now, every state is different, so the answer for an Ohio corporation (say) might be different from a California corporation. But I will ask you what I would ask a client: is it worth it to test the issue?

The IRS seems to have caught on to this Oh-you're-a-California-corporation-sorry-about-your-luck thing. I see that another California taxpayer – Leodis C Matthews, APC – got its appeal bounced when the IRS made virtually the same argument.

Please remember to pay Paulie.

The Value of a Family Limited Partnership

Let’s look at the Estate of Natale Giustina v Commissioner.

The Giustina family owned timberland in Oregon. As the generations passed on, some of the land came to Natale, who passed away in 2005. Natale was the trustee of the N.B. Giustina Revocable Trust.

         NOTE: Remember that a revocable trust would be included in Natale’s estate upon death.

The trust in turn owned 41.128 percent of the Giustina Land & Timber Co Limited Partnership (LP). The LP was formed in 1990 and owned 47,939 acres of timberland in the area around Eugene, Oregon. It employed between 12 and 15 people. There appeared to be no doubt what the timberland was worth – at least $143 million. A 41.128 percent share of that would be almost $59 million.

Here is today’s quizzer: what value did the estate put on its estate tax return and what did the IRS think the value should be?

If you guess $59 million, you are wrong. Here is what the two sides fought over:

                                Estate                   $12,678,117

                                IRS                         $ 35,710,000

What happened to the $59 million? This case is a good primer on valuation discounts. Let’s say that you own horseland in central Kentucky – a lot of it. Say that it is worth $20 million. You want to sell it to me. It’ worth $20 million, but I sense that time is of the essence to you. I offer $18,500,000. The faster you have to sell it, the less I am willing to offer. This is a discount, and a valuation person would refer to it is a “market” discount.

So even if you start with $59 million we could argue that the land was worth $54,750,000 to the estate.

Now let’s do something else. Let’s put the horseland in a “limited partnership.”  The limited partnership will have general partners and limited partners. The general partners make all the decisions, and the limited partners have little authority. I buy the land and put it into an limited partnership with my wife and me as general partners. Our children are the limited partners. My wife and I (the “generals”) have full control over the business of the partnership. We have the power to buy, raise, race and sell horses. We have the power to make distributions of cash or property to the partners in proportion to their respective interest in the partnership.  We have the power to buy or sell land. All decisions of the general partners must be unanimous.

The limited partners (“limiteds”) can force removal of a general by a two-thirds vote. If a general resigns or is removed, the limiteds can put in one of their own by a two-thirds vote. An additional general can be admitted if all the partners consent to the admission.

The partnership agreement does not allow my kids to transfer their interests willy-nilly. Oh no.  The partnership only allows an interest to be transferred to (1) another limited, (2) a trust for the benefit of a limited or (3) anyone else approved by the generals.  Unless you are our grandchild, it is very unlikely that the generals (my wife and I) will permit any transfer away from our kids.

How much are you willing to pay to buy the limited interest from my kid? It’s different now, isn’t it? My kid does not control her own fate with regard to the LP interest. My wife and I control. If we decide there are no distributions, then there are no distributions. If there is taxable income but no distributions with which to pay the tax … well, tough luck. I suspect you are revising your price downward the more I explain how much control my wife and I are keeping.

This is called a “control” discount.  The limited partnership allows you to introduce a control discount – if you play by the rules.

The court went through some interesting analysis of valuation methods, interest rates and discounts that is a bit inside-baseball for this blog post. At the end, however, the court found itself disagreeing with both the estate and IRS valuations and posited its own valuation of $27,454,115. This is much closer to the IRS value than to the estate.

Did the family gain anything from all this?  Let’s look at the following two values:

               
                By doing no tax planning                              $58,813,040

                The court said                                                 $27,454,115

 I would say this was good tax planning.