Common Law Versus Statutory Employee

 

I am looking at a case concerning employee status and payroll taxes.

I see nothing remarkable, except for one question: why did the IRS bother?

Let’s talk about it.

There was a 501(c)(3) (The REDI Foundation) formed in 1980. Richard Abraham was its officer (a corporate entity must have an officer, whether one gives himself/herself a formal title or not). Mr A’s wife also served on the Board.

REDI did not do much from 1980 to 2010. In 2010 Mr A – who was a real estate developer for over 40 years – developed an online course on real estate development and began offering it to the public via REDI. Mr A was a one-man gang, and he regularly worked 60 hours or more per week on matters related to the online course, instruction, and student mentoring.

COMMENT: Got it. It gave Mr A something to do when he “retired,” if 60 hours per week can be called retirement. I have a client who did something similar, albeit in the field of periodontics.

So REDI went from near inactive to active with its online course. For its year ended May 2015 it reported revenues over $255 grand with expenses of almost $92 grand.

COMMENT: Had REDI been a regular corporation, it would have paid income taxes on profit of $163 grand. REDI may have been formed as a corporation, but it was a corporation that had applied for and received (c)(3) status. Absent other moving parts, a (c)(3) does not pay income taxes.

The IRS flagged REDI for an employment tax audit.

Why?

REDI had not issued Mr A a W-2. Instead, it issued a 1099, meaning that it was treating Mr A as an independent contractor.

Let’s pause here.

A W-2 employee pays FICA taxes on his/her payroll. You see it with every paycheck when the government lifts 7.65% for social security. Your employer matches it, meaning the government collects 15.3% of your pay.

A self-employed person also pays FICA, but it is instead called self-employment tax. Same thing, different name, except that a self-employed pays 15.3% rather than 7.65%.

My first thought was: Mr A paid self-employment tax on his 1099. The government wanted FICA. Fine, call it FICA, move the money from the self-employment bucket to the FICA bucket, and let’s just call … it … a … day.

In short: why did the IRS chase this?

I see nothing in the decision.

Technically the IRS was right. A corporate officer is a de facto statutory employee of his/her corporation.

§ 3121 Definitions.

 

(d)  Employee.

 

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" means-

 

(1)   any officer of a corporation; or

 

Yep, know it well. Been there and have the t-shirt.

Mind you, there are exceptions to 3121(d)(1). For example, if the officer duties are minimal, the Code does not require a W-2.

Mr A argued that very point.

Problem: there was only one person on the planet that generated revenues for REDI, and that person was Mr A. Revenues were significant enough to indicate that any services performed were also substantial.

There was another argument: REDI had reasonable basis under Section 530 for treating Mr A as a contractor.

COMMENT: Section 530 is an employment relief provision if three requirements are met:

·      Consistency in facts

·      Consistency in reporting

·      Reasonable basis

Section 530 was intended to provide some protection from employment tax assessments for payors acting in good faith. On first impression, 530 appears to be a decent argument. Continuing education instructors are commonly treated as contractors, for example. If REDI treated instructors with similar responsibilities the same way (easy, as there was only one instructor) and sent timely 1099s to the IRS, we seem to meet the three requisites.

Except …

Section 530 deals with common law workers.

Corporate officers are not common law workers. They instead are statutory employees because the statute – that is, Section 3121(d) – says they are.

Mr A was a statutory employee. REDI was therefore an employer. There should have been withholding, tax deposits and payroll return filings. There wasn’t, so now there are penalties and interest and yada yada yada.

I probably would have lost my mind had I represented REDI. Unless Mr A was claiming outsized expenses against 1099 income, any self-employment tax he paid would/should have approximated any FICA that REDI would remit as an employer. Loss to the fisc? Minimal. Let’s agree to switch Mr A to employee status going forward and both go home.

Why did this not happen? Don’t know. Sometimes the most interesting part of a case is not in the decision.

Our case this time was The REDI Foundation v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-34.

Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

The New Qualified Business Deduction

I spent a fair amount last week looking over the new IRS Regulations on the qualified business deduction. It was a breezy and compact 184 pages, although it reads longer than that.

I debated blogging on this topic. While one of the most significant tax changes in decades, the deduction is difficult to discuss without tear-invoking side riffs. 

But – if you are in business and you are not a “C” corporation (that is, the type that pays its own taxes) - you need to know about this new deduction.

Let’s swing the bat:

1.    This is a business deduction. It is 20% of something. We will get back to what that something is.

2.    There historically has been a spread between C-corporation tax rates and non-C-corporation tax rates. It is baked into the system, and tax advisors have gotten comfortable understanding its implications. The new tax law rattled the cage by reducing the C-corporation tax rate to 21%. Without some relief for non-C-corporation entities, lawyers and accountants would have had their clients folding their S corporation, partnership and LLC tents and moving them to C-corporation campgrounds.

3.    It is sometimes called a “passthrough” deduction, but that is a misnomer. It is more like a non-C-corporation deduction. A sole proprietorship can qualify, as well as rentals, farms and traditional passthroughs like S corporations, LLCs and partnerships. Heck even estates and trusts are in on the act.

4.    But not all businesses will qualify. There are two types of businesses that will not qualify:

a.     Believe it or not, in the tax world your W-2 job is considered a trade or business. It is the reason that you are allowed to deduct your business mileage (at least, before 2018 you were). Your W-2 however will not qualify for purposes of this deduction.

b.    Certain types of businesses are not invited to the party: think doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar. Think of them as the “not too cool” crowd.

                                                   i.There is however a HUGE exception.

5.   Congress wanted you to have skin in the game in order to get this 20% deduction. Skin initially meant employees, so to claim this deduction you needed Payroll. At the last moment Congress also allowed somebody with substantial Depreciable Property to qualify, as some businesses are simply not set-up with a substantial workforce in mind. If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, however, you do not get to play.

a.     But just like (4)(b) above, there is a HUGE exception.

6.   Let’s set up the HUGE exception:

a.     If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, you do not get to play.

b.    If you are one of “those businesses” - doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar - you do not get to play.

c.     Except …

                                                   i. … if your income is below certain limits, you still get to play.

                                                 ii. The limit is $157,500 for non-marrieds and $315,000 for marrieds.

                                              iii. Hit the limit and you provoke math:

1.    If you are non-married, there is a phase-out range of $50 grand. Get to $207,500 and you are asked to leave.

2.    If you are married, double the range to $100 grand; at $415,000 you too have to leave.

                                               iv. Let’s consider an easy example: A married dentist with household taxable income of less than $315,000 can claim the passthrough deduction, as long as the income is not from a W-2.

1.    At $415,000 that dentist cannot claim anything and has to leave.

                                                 v. Depending on the fact pattern, the mathematics are like time-travelling to a Led Zeppelin concert. The environment is familiar, but everything has a disorienting fog about it.

1.    Why?

a.     The not-too-cool crowd has to leave the party once they get to $207,500/$415,000.

b.    Simultaneously, the too-cool crowd has to ante-up either Payroll and/or Depreciable Property as they get to $207,500/$415,000. There is no more automatic invitation just because their income is below a certain level.

c.     And both (a) and (b) are going on at the same time.

                                                                                                               i.     While not Stairway to Heaven, the mathematics are … interesting.

7.    The $207,500/$415,000 entertainment finally shows up: Payroll and Depreciable Property. Queue the music.

a.     The deduction starts at 20% of the specific trade or business’s net profit.

b.    It can go down. Here is how:

                                                   i. You calculate half of your Payroll.

                                                 ii. You calculate one-quarter of your Payroll and add 2.5% of your Depreciable Assets.

                                              iii. You take the bigger number.

                                               iv. You are not done. You next take that number and compare it to the 20% number from (a).

                                                 v. Take the smaller number.

c.     You are not done yet.

                                                   i. Take your taxable income without the passthrough deduction, whatever that deduction may someday be. May we live long enough.

                                                 ii. If you have capital gains included in your taxable income, there is math. In short, take out the capital gain. Bad capital gain.

                                              iii. Take what’s left and multiply by 20%.

                                               iv. Compare that number to (7)(b)(v).

1.    Take the smaller number.

8.    Initially one was to do this calculation business by business.

a.     Tax advisors were not looking forward to this.

b.    The IRS last week issued Regulations allowing one to combine trades or businesses (within limits, of course).

                                                   i. And tax advisors breathed a collective sigh of relief.

c.     But not unsurprisingly, the IRS simultaneously took away some early planning ideas that tax advisors had come up with.

                                                   i. Like “cracking” a business between the too-cool and not-too-cool crowds.  

And there is a high-altitude look at the new qualified business deduction.

If you have a non-C-corporation business, hopefully you have heard from your tax advisor. If you have not, please call him/her. This new deduction really is a big deal.

Making A Comeback: Section 1202 Stock

We are going tax-geek for this post.

Let’s blame Daryl, a financial advisor with Wells Fargo. He has been studying and asking about a particular Code section.

Code Section 1202.

This section has been a dud since 1993, but last year’s changes to the tax Code have resurrected it. I suspect we will be reading more about Section 1202 in the future.

What sets up the tension is the ongoing debate whether it is better to do business as a “C” corporation (which pays its own tax) or an “S” corporation (whose income drops onto its owners’ individual returns, who pay tax on the business as well as their other personal income).

There are two compelling factors driving the debate:

(1) The difference between corporate and individual tax rates.

For most of my career, top-end individual tax rates have exceeded top-end corporate tax rates. Assuming one is pushing the pedal to the floor, this would be an argument to be a C corporation.

(2)  Prior to 1986, there was a way to liquidate (think “sell”) a C corporation and pay tax only once. The 1986 tax act did away with this option (except for highly specialized – and usually reorganization-type – transactions). Since 1986 a C corporation has to pay tax when it liquidates (because it sold or is considered to have sold its assets). Its assets then transfer to its shareholders, who again pay tax (because they are considered to have sold their stock).

Factor (2) has pretty much persuaded most non-Fortune-500 tax advisors to recommend S corporations, to the extent that most of the C corporations many tax practitioners have worked with since 1986 have been legacy C’s. LLC’s have also been competing keenly with S corporations, and advisors now debate which is preferable. I prefer the settled tax law of S corporations, whereas other advisors emphasize the flexibility that LLCs bring to the picture.

Section 1202 applies to C corporations, and it gives you a tax break when you sell the stock. There are hoops, of course:

(1)   It must be a domestic (that is, a U.S.) C corporation.

(2)   You must acquire the stock when initially issued.

a.     Meaning that you did not buy the stock from someone else.

b.    It does not mean only the first issuance of stock. It can be the second or third issuance, as long as one meets the $ threshold (discussed below) and you are the first owner.

(3)   Corporate assets did not exceed $50 million when the stock was issued.

a.     Section 1202 is more of a west-Coast than Midwest phenomenon. That $50 million makes sense when you consider Silicon Valley.

b.    If you get cute and use a series of related companies, none exceeding $50 million, the tax Code will combine you into one big company with assets over $50 million.

c.     By the way, the $50 million is tested when the stock is issued, not when you sell the stock. Sell to Google for a zillion dollars and you can still qualify for Section 1202.

(4)   You have owned the stock for at least five years.

(5)   Not every type of business will qualify.

a.     Generally speaking, professional service companies – think law, health, accounting and so on – will not qualify. There are other lines of businesses – like restaurants and motels - that are also disqualified.

(6)   Upon a qualifying sale, a shareholder can exclude the larger of (a) $10 million or (b) 10 times the shareholder’s adjusted basis in the stock.

Folks, a minimum $10 million exclusion? That is pretty sweet.

I mentioned earlier that Section 1202 has – for most of its existence – been a dud. How can $10 million be a dud?

Because it hasn’t always been $10 million. For a long time, the exclusion was 50% of the gain, and one was to use a 28% capital gains rate on the other 50%. Well, 50% of 28% is 14%. Consider that the long-term capital gains rate was 15%, and tax advisors were not exactly doing handstands over a 1% tax savings.

In 2010 the exclusion changed to 100%. Advisors became more interested.

But it takes five years to prime this pump, meaning that it was 2015 (and more likely 2016 or 2017) by the time one got to five years.

What did the 2017 tax bill do to resurrect Section 1202?

It lowered the “C” corporation tax rate to 21%.

Granted, it also added a “passthrough” deduction so that S corporations, LLCs and other non-C-corporation businesses remained competitive with C corporations. Not all passthrough businesses will qualify, however, and – in an instance of dark humor – the new law refers to (5)(a) above to identify those businesses not qualifying for the passthrough deduction.

COMMENT: And there is a second way that Section 1202 has become relevant. A tax advisor now has to consider Section 1202 – not only for the $10-million exclusion – but also in determining whether a non-C business will qualify for the new 20% passthrough deduction. Problem is, there is next to no guidance on Section 1202 because advisors for years DID NOT CARE about this provision. We were not going to plan a multiyear transaction for a mere 1% tax savings.

Nonetheless 21% is a pretty sweet rate, especially if one can avoid that second tax. Enter Section 1202.

If the deal is sweet enough I suppose the $10 million or 10-times-adjusted-basis might not cover it all.

Good problem to have.

“Destination-Based” “Border Adjustment” “Indirect Tax” … What?

The destination-based border adjustment tax.

I  have been reading about it recently.

If you cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.

Let’s talk about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income statement numbers are as follows:

Sales			10,000,000
Cost of sales			(3,500,000)
Operating expenses			(4,000,000)
Net profit			2,500,000

How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).

Cue the crazy stuff….

A new tax will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster, Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.

One way to do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an operating expense would be wages.

As a CPA by training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.

Our tax base becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out operating expenses.

Not feeling so good about this development, are we?

Well, to have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?

I see $6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.

Well, this is stinking up the joint.

VATs normally allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year, What do the numbers now look like? 

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

I am seeing $5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% =  $1,000,000 tax.

Still not in like with this thing.

Let’s jump on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.

Here are some updated numbers:

• Sales                                        10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
• Cost of Sales                             3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                  4,000,000
• Capital Additions                        1,500,000 

I see a tax of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 * 20% = $400,000 federal tax.

Looks like Mortimer does OK in this scenario.

What if Mortimer buys some of its products from overseas?

Oh oh.

Here are some updated, updated numbers:

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000 (import $875,000)
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

This border thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a deduction for what you import.

I see a tax of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% = $1,175,000 federal tax.

Mortimer is not doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just leave things as they are.

Substitute “Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to what degree.

By the way, the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.

We’ll be hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.

And the elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor, for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.