The IRS Goes Rounds With Cohan

 

The decision begins with the IRS seeking taxes of $805,149, $1,145,104, $1,161,864, and $831,771 for years 2013 through 2016. The penalties were unsurprisingly also enormous.

I want to know what happened here.

The taxpayer was Mohammad Nasser Aboui, and he was the sole shareholder of an S corporation called HPPO. He owned several used vehicle lots, and in 2009 he put them into HPPO as its initial corporate capitalization.

It sounds like a tough business:

·       Most of HPPO customers had bad credit.

·       Many did not have a checking account and instead paid HPPO in cash.

·       HPPO financed between 90% and 95% of its sales.

·       Customers repaid their loans less than 10% of the time.

·       HPPO repossessed approximately 25% of the cars it sold within 3 or 4 months.

·       HPPO had quite the barter system going with its mechanics: the mechanic would work on HPPO cars in exchange for rent of HPPO’s garage space.

Around 2014 Aboui decided to close the business. There were serious family health issues and HPPO was not making any money.

The IRS started its audit in September 2015.

HPPO’s accountant was ill at the time and later died.

To its credit, the IRS waited.

More than 3 years later HPPO engaged another accountant to represent the audit.

The second accountant made immediate mistakes, such as getting HPPO’s accounting method wrong when dealing with the IRS Revenue Agent (RA).

COMMENT: More specifically, the accountant told the RA that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting. HPPO did not. In fact, it could not because inventory was a material income-producing factor.

The RA wanted HPPO’s books and records, including access to its accounting software. HPPO could provide much but not the software. Its software license expired when it left the vehicle business in 2018.

This is a nightmare.

HPPO did eventually reactivate the software, but it was too late to help with the RA.

The RA – being told by the second accountant that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting – decided to use bank statements to reconstruct gross income.

BTW HPPO wound up dismissing the second accountant.

The results were odd: HPPO had reported more sales for 2013 through 2015 – nearly $3.25 million - than was deposited at the bank.

The pattern reversed in 2016 when HPPO deposited approximately $539 grand more than it reported in sales.

COMMENT: I have an idea what happened.

The RA also saw following bad debt expense:

          2013             $1,069,739

          2014             $ 668,537

          2015             $ 902,967

          2016             $ 436,738    

Here is something about the cash basis of accounting: you cannot have bad debt expense. It makes sense when you remember that gross income is reported as monies are deposited. Bad debts are receivables that are never collected, meaning there is nothing to deposit. One never leaves home plate.

So, the RA disallowed the bad debt expense entirely.

I am pretty sure about my earlier hunch.

The RA also determined that HPPO had distributed the following monies to Aboui, one way or another:

          2013             $2,476,301

          2014             $1,704,329

          2015             $1,406,893

2016             $1,934,033

There were other issues too.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Remember what I said about reactivating the accounting software license? Aboui now presented thousands of pages to document cost of sales and other expenses. The Court encouraged the IRS to accept and review the new records.

The IRS said, “nah, we’re good.”

COMMENT: Strike one.

The Court started its opinion with HPPO’s sales.

The RA stated to the Court that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting.

Don’t think so, said the Court. The Court saw HPPO using the accrual basis of accounting for sales and the cash basis of accounting for everything else.

COMMENT: This is referred to as a hybrid method: a pinch of this, a sprinkle of that. If one is consistent – and the results are not misleading – a hybrid is an acceptable method of accounting.

The Court asked Treasury why it thought that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting.

Treasury replied that it had never said that.

The Court pointed out that the RA had said that she understood HPPO to be a cash basis taxpayer. To be fair, that is what the second accountant had told her.

Nope, never used the cash method insisted Treasury.

COMMENT: An explanation is in order here. Treasury Department attorneys take over when the matter goes to Court. Perhaps the attorneys meant “direct” Treasury. The RA – while working for the IRS which itself is part of the Treasury – would then be “indirect” Treasury. I am only speculating, as this unforced error makes no sense. Clearly it bothered the Court.

Strike two.

The Court then reasoned why HPPO was reporting more sales than it deposited in the bank: it was reporting the total vehicle sale price in revenues at the time of sale. That also explained the bad debt expense: HPPO financed most of its sales and most of those loans went sour.

But why the reversal in 2016?

Aboui explained to the Court that by 2016 he was closing the vehicle business. He would have slowed and eventually stopped selling cars, with the result that he would be depositing more in the bank than he currently sold.

The Court decided that HPPO had correctly recorded its sales for the years at issue.

Next came the cost of vehicles sold.

This accounting was complicated because so much cash was running through the business. Sometimes cash was used to immediately pay expenses without first being deposited into a bank account – NOT a recommended accounting practice.

The RA had also identified certain debits to HPPO’s bank account that were either distributions or otherwise nondeductible.

The Court could find no evidence that those identified debits had been deducted on the tax returns.

The RA – and by extension, the … Treasury – was losing credibility.

Aboui meanwhile provided extensive documentation of HPPO’s expenses at trial. Some of these were records the Court had asked the IRS to accept and review – and which the IRS passed on.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners provided extensive documentation at trial to substantiate the COGS and business expenses. Mr. Aboui testified that HPPO was unprofitable. Given the record in its entirety, we find that petitioners have substantiated HPPO’s COGS and business expenses as reported on HPPO’s returns for each year at issue, except for meal and entertainment expenses of …..”

COMMENT: Strike three.

The Court went to the bad debts.

Mr. Aboui credibly testified that he was unable to repossess approximately 250 cars during the years at issue. The loss of these cars adequately substantiates the amount of HPPO’s bad debt deductions for the years at issue under the Cohan rule.”

The Court went to the distributions.

Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report approximately $7.5 million in taxable distributions from HPPO during the years at issue.”

COMMENT: Remember that HPPO is an S corporation, and Aboui would be able to withdraw his invested capital – plus any business income he had paid taxes on personally but left in the business – without further tax. This amount is Aboui’s “basis” in his S corporation stock.

Here is the Court:

Respondent argues that petitioners have not established Mr. Aboui’s basis in HPPO during the years at issue. We disagree and that the record and Mr. Aboui’s credible testimony provides sufficient evidence for us to reasonably estimate his basis under the Cohan rule.”

The IRS won a partial victory with the distributions. The Court thought Aboui’s basis in HPPO was approximately $5.1 million.

The IRS had wanted zero basis.

The effect was to reduce the excess distributions to $$2.4 million ($7.5 minus $5.1).

Still, it was a rare win for the IRS.

Excess distributions are taxable. Aboui had taxable distributions of $2.4 million. Yes, it is a lot, but it is also a lot less than the IRS wanted.

COMMENT: The nerd part of me wonders how the Court arrived at an estimate of $5.1 million for Aboui’s basis. Unfortunately, there is no further explanation on this point.

Oh, one more thing from the Court:

… we hold that petitioners are not liable for any penalties.”

While not contained within the four corners of this decision, I am curious why the Court repetitively went to the Cohan rule. I have followed this literature for years, and this result is not normal. Courts generally expect a business to maintain an accounting system that produces reliable numbers. Yes, every now and then there may be a leak in the numbers, and the court may use Cohan to plug said leak. That is not what we have here, though. This boat was sinking.

Perhaps Aboui presented his case well.

Mr. Aboui was incredibly forthright in his testimony.”

And perhaps the IRS should not have argued that an RA – an IRS employee – is not the IRS.

Our case this time was Aboui and Mizani v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-106.

An S Corporation Nightmare

Over my career the preferred entities for small and entrepreneurial businesses have been either an S corporation or a limited liability company (LLC). The C corporation has become a rarity in this space. A principal reason is the double taxation of a C corporation. The C pays its own taxes, but there is a second tax when those profits are returned to its shareholders. A common example is dividends. The corporation has already paid taxes on its profits, but when it shares its profits via dividends (with some exception if the shareholder is another corporation) there is another round of taxation for its shareholders. This might make sense if the corporation is a Fortune 500 with broad ownership and itself near immortal, but it makes less sense with a corporation founded, funded, and  grown by the efforts of a select few individuals – or perhaps just one person.

The advantage to an S corporation or LLC is one (usually - this is tax, after all) level of tax. The shareholder/owner can withdraw accumulated profits without being taxed again.

Today let’s talk about the S corporation.

Not every corporation can be an S. There are requirements, such as:

·       It cannot be a foreign corporation.

·       Only certain types of shareholders are allowed.

·       Even then, there can be no more than 100 shareholders.

·       There can be only one class of stock.

Practitioners used to be spooked about that last one.

Here is an example:

The S corporation has two 50% shareholders. One shareholder has a life event coming up and receives a distribution to help with expenses. The other shareholder is not in that situation and does not take a distribution.

Question: does this create a second class of stock?

It is not an academic question. A stock is a bundle of rights, one of which is the right to a distribution. If we own the same number of shares, do we each own the same class of stock if you receive $500 while I receive $10? If not, have we blown the S corporation election?

These situations happen repetitively in practice: maybe it is insurance premiums or a car or a personal tax. The issue was heightened when the states moved almost in concert to something called “passthrough taxes.” The states were frustrated in their tax collection efforts, so they mandated passthroughs (such as an S) to withhold state taxes on profits attributable to their state. It is common to exempt state residents from withholding, so the tax is withheld and remitted solely for nonresidents. This means that one shareholder might have passthrough withholding (because he/she is a nonresident) while another has no withholding (because he/she is a resident).

Yeah, unequal distributions by an S corporation were about to explode.

Let’s look at the Maggard case.

James Maggard was a 50% owner of a Silicon Valley company (Schricker). Schricker elected S corporation status in 2002 and maintained it up to the years in question.

Maggard bought out his 50% partner (making him 100%) and then sold 60% to two other individuals (leaving him at 40%). Maggard wanted to work primarily on the engineering side, and the other two owners would assume the executive and administrative functions.

The goodwill dissipated almost immediately.

One of the new owners started inflating his expense accounts. The two joined forces to take disproportionate distributions. Apparently emboldened and picking up momentum, the two also stopped filing S corporation tax returns with the IRS.

Maggard realized that something was up when he stopped receiving Schedules K-1 to prepare his personal taxes.

He hired a CPA. The CPA found stuff.

The two did not like this, and they froze out Maggard. They cut him off from the company’s books, left him out of meetings, and made his life miserable. To highlight their magnanimity, though, they increased their own salaries, expanded their vacation time, and authorized retroactive pay to themselves for being such swell people.

You know this went to state court.

The court noted that Maggard received no profit distributions for years, although the other two were treating the company as an ATM. The Court ordered the two to pay restitution to Maggard. The two refused. They instead offered to buy Maggard’s interest in Schricker for $1.26 million. Maggard accepted. He wanted out.

The two then filed S corporation returns for the 2011 – 2017 tax years.

They of course did not send Maggard Schedules K-1 so he could prepare his personal return.

Why would they?

Maggard’s attorney contacted the two. They verbally gave the attorney – piecemeal and over time – a single number for each year.

Which numbers had nothing to do with the return and its Schedules K-1 filed with the IRS.

The IRS took no time flagging Maggard’s personal returns.

Off to Tax Court Maggard and the IRS went.

Maggard’s argument was straightforward: Schricker had long ago ceased operating as an S corporation. The two had bent the concept of proportionate anything past the breaking point. You can forget the one class of stock matter; they had treated him as owning no class of  stock, a pariah in the company he himself had founded years before.

Let’s introduce the law of unintended consequences:

Reg 1.1361-1(l)(2):

Although a corporation is not treated as having more than one class of stock so long as the governing provisions provide for identical distribution and liquidation rights, any distributions (including actual, constructive, or deemed distributions) that differ in timing or amount are to be given appropriate tax effect in accordance with the facts and circumstances.

Here is the Tax Court:

… the regulation tells the IRS to focus on shareholder rights under a corporation’s governing documents, not what the shareholders actually do.”

That makes sense if we were talking about insurance premiums or a car, but here … really?

We recognize that thus can create a serious problem for a taxpayer who winds up on the hook for taxes owed on an S corporation’s income without actually receiving his just share of distributions.”

You think?

This especially problematic when the taxpayer relies on the S corporation distributions to pay these taxes.”

Most do, in my experience.

Worse yet is when a shareholder fails to receive information from the corporation to accurately report his income.”

The Court decided that Maggard was a shareholder in an S corporation and thereby taxable on his share of company profits.

Back to the Court:

The unauthorized distributions in this case were hidden from Maggard, but they were certainly not memorialized by … formal amendments to Schricker’s governing documents. Without that formal memorialization there was no formal change to Schricker’s having only class of stock.”

I get it, but I don’t get it. This reasoning seems soap, smoke, and sophistry to me. Is the Court saying that – if you don’t write it down – you can get away with anything?      

Our case this time was Haggard and Szu-Yi Chang v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-77.

 

Section 1244 Stock: An Exception To Capital Loss

I was looking at a case involving Section 1244 stock.

I remember studying Section 1244 in school. On first impression one could have expected it a common quiver in tax practice. It has not been.

What sets up the issue is the limitation on the use of capital losses. An easy example of a capital asset is stock. Buy and sell stock and you have capital gains and losses (exempting those people who are dealers in stocks and securities). You then net capital gains against capital losses.

·      If the result is net capital gain, you pay tax.

·      If the result is net capital loss, the Code allows you to deduct up to $3,000 of net loss against your other types of income.

QUESTION: What if the net loss is sizeable – say $60 grand?

ANSWER: The Code will allow you to offset that loss dollar-for-dollar against any future capital gains.

QUESTION: What if the experience left a mark? You have no intention of buying and selling stocks ever again.

ANSWER: Then we are back to the $3,000 per year.

Mind you, that $3,000 entered the Code back in 1978. A 1978 dollar is comparable to $4.82 in 2024 dollars. Just to keep pace, the capital loss limit should have been cumulatively raised to $14,460 by now. It has not, of course, and is a classroom example of structural anti-taxpayer Code bias. 

Section 1244 is there to relieve some of the pressure. It is specialized, however, and geared toward small businesses.

What it does is allow one to deduct (up to) $50 grand ($100 grand for joint returns) as an ordinary loss rather than a capital loss.

There is a downside: to get there likely means the business failed. Still, it is something. Better $50 grand at one time than $3 grand over umpteen years.

What does it take to qualify?

(1)  First, there must be stock. Being a partner in a partnership will not get you there. This means that you organized as a corporation. Mind you, it can be either a C or an S corporation, but it must be a corporation.

(2)  The corporation must be organized in the United States.

(3)  The total amount of capital contributions to the corporation (stock, additional capital, whatever) must not exceed $1 million. If you are the unfortunate who puts the number above $1 million, then some of your stock will qualify and some will not.

(4)  The capital contribution must be in cash or other property (excluding stocks and securities). This would exclude stock issued as compensation, for example.

(5)  You must be the original owner of the stock. There are minimal exceptions (such as inheriting the stock because someone died).

(6)  You must be an individual. Corporations, trusts, estates, trustees in bankruptcy and so on do not qualify.

(7)  There used to be a prohibition on preferred stock, but that went out in 1985. I suppose there could still be instances involving 1984-or-earlier preferred stock, but it would be a dwindling crowd.

(8)  The company must meet a gross receipts test the year the stock is issued.

a.    For the preceding five years (or life of the company, if less), more than 50% of aggregate gross receipts must be from active business operations.

b.    Another way to say this is that passive income (think interest, dividends, rents, royalties, sales or exchanges of stocks and securities) had better be less than 50% of aggregate gross receipts. This Code section is not for mutual funds.

An interesting feature is that no formal election is required. Corporate records do not need to reference Section 1244.  Board minutes do not need to approve Section 1244.  Nothing needs to go with the tax return. The corporation must however retain records to prove the stock’s qualification under Section 1244.

And therein can be the rub.

Let’s look at the Ushio case.

In 2009 David Ushio acquired $50,000 of common stock in PCHG.

PCHG in turn had invested in LifeGrid Solutions LLC (LGS), which in turn was seeking to acquire rights in certain alternative energy technology.

PCHG never had revenues. It ceased business in 2012 and was administratively dissolved by South Carolina in 2013.

The IRS selected the Ushio’s joint individual return for 2012 and 2013. The audit had nothing to do with Section 1244, but the IRS saw the PCHG transaction and allowed a $3,000 capital loss in 2012.

Mind you, the Ushios had not claimed a deduction for PCHG stock on either their 2012 or 2013 return.

Mr. Ushio said “wait a minute …”

Some quick tax research and Ushio came back with a counter: he wanted a $50,000 ordinary loss deduction rather than the puny $3,000 capital loss. He insisted PCHG qualified under Section 1244.

The IRS had an easy response: prove it.

Ushio was at a disadvantage. He had invested in PCHG, but he did not have inside records, assuming those records even existed.

He presented a document listing “Cash Input” and “Deferred Pay,” noting that the deferred amount was never paid. Sure enough, the amount paid-in was less than $1 million.

The IRS looked at the document and noted there was no date. They wanted some provenance for the document - who prepared it? what records were used? could it be corroborated?

No, no and no.

In addition, PCHG never reported any gross receipts. It is hard to prove more-than-50% of something when that something is stuck at zero. Ushio pushed back: PCHG was to be an operating company via its investment in LGS.

The IRS could do this all day: prove it.

Ushio could not.

Meaning there was no Section 1244 stock.

Our case this time was Ushio v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2021-27.

 

Paying Personal Expenses Through A Business

I am looking at a tax case.

It reminds me of something.

There is a too-common belief that paying an expense through a business can somehow transmute an otherwise personal expenditure into a tax deduction.

Here are common ways I have heard the question:

(1)  My spouse is going to replace her car. Should we buy it through the business?

(2)  I run my business from my home. That makes my home a “headquarters,” right? Can’t I deduct all the expenses related to my business headquarters?

(3)  I am going to borrow money to [go on vacation/pay college tuition/buy a boat I’ve been wanting]. Should I have the business borrow the money to make it deductible?

Do not misunderstand, many times there is a more tax-efficient way to accomplish something. There may still be some tax though, and the goal is to minimize the tax. Making it disappear may not be an option, at least for a responsible practitioner.

Let’s look at the above questions.

(1) Realistically, if there is no business use of the vehicle, you are not allowed to deduct any of the ownership or operating expenses of a vehicle. Despite that, does it happen routinely? Of course. Practitioners do what they can, but it is like fighting the tide.

(2)  I consider this quackery, but it is a true story. No, working from home does not make your house fully deductible. You might get a home office deduction out of it, but that is a fraction of some – and not all – expenses. No, your house is not Proctor and Gamble. Get over it.

(3) This one might have traction, but in general the answer is no. Even if the interest is deductible, how is the company getting you the money? Is it going to lend it to you? If so, you will have to pay interest to the company, although you may be able to arbitrage the rate. Will the company bonus you the money? If so, I see FICA and income taxes in your future. Explain to me the win condition here.

Let’s look at Justin Maderia (JM).

JM lived in Florida and owned 50% of Lindy Inc (Lindy).

Lindy must be a C corporation, which is the type that pays its own taxes. I say this because the Court refers to earnings and profits (E&P), which is a C corporation concept. The purpose of E&P is to track a corporation’s ability to pay dividends. When it pays dividends, a corporation is sharing its accumulated profits with its shareholders. The corporation has already paid taxes on these profits (remember: a C corporation pays taxes). When it pays dividends, you are personally taxed on that previously taxed profit. This is the reason for “qualified dividends” in the tax Code: to cut you a break on that second round of taxation.

The IRS was looking at JM’s 2018 personal return. It was also looking at Lindy’s 2018 business return.

COMMENT: It is not unusual to include a closely held company with the audit of an individual tax return.

The IRS wanted to increase JM’s 2018 income by $192 grand of “stuff” that Lindy paid on his behalf.

COMMENT:  Sounds to me like Lindy was paying for EVERYTHING.

Let’s talk procedure here.

The IRS identified personal transactions in Lindy. Lindy was the type of corporation that could pay dividends, and the IRS argument was – to the extent Lindy paid for personal stuff – that such payments represented constructive dividends to JM.

Fair. Consider that the serve.

JM gets to return.

He would argue that the payments were not personal because … well, who knows why.

JM did nothing.

Huh?

JM did nothing because he had a previous audit, and the IRS never pursued the issue of Lindy payments. JM believed he was immunized.

Mind you, there is a kernel of truth here, but JM has googled the concept beyond all recognition.

IF the IRS looks at an issue AND makes no change to your tax return for that issue, you can challenge a later proposed assessment based on that same issue. You might not win, mind you, but you have grounds for the challenge.

Is this what happened to JM?

Let’s look at it.

The IRS examined his prior year return.

Score one for JM.

The IRS never looked at Lindy.

We are done.

There is no immunity. JM cannot challenge a proposed 2018 assessment on an issue the IRS did not examine in a prior year.

JM had to return on different grounds. He did not. He - procedurally speaking - automatically lost.

JM had $192 grand of additional income.

The IRS next wanted the accuracy-related penalty.

Well, of course they did. If they were any more predictable, we could just put it on a calendar.

The Court said “no” to the penalty.

Why?

Because the IRS had looked at JM’s previous return. The IRS either did not bring up or dismissed the Lindy issue, so JM kept reporting the same way. While this would not protect him from a challenge of additional income, it did provide a “reasonable basis” defense against penalties.

Our case this time was Maderia v Commissioner, T.C. Summary 2024-5.

Unforced Error on Short Stop

 I am reading a case concerning interest expense. While I have seen similar accounting, I do not recall seeing it done as aggressively.

Let’s talk about it.

Bob and Michelle Boyum lived in Minnesota and owned a company named Short Stop Electric. Bob was primarily responsible for running the company. Michelle had some administrative duties, but she was mostly responsible for raising the nine Boyum children.

Short Stop was a C corporation.

Odd, methinks. Apparently, the Court thought so also:

One might regard this as an eccentric choice for a small, privately owned business because income from C corporations is taxed twice.”

Let’s talk about this taxed-twice issue, as it is a significant one for tax advisors to entrepreneurial and closely held companies.

Let’s say that you start a company and capitalize it with a $100 grand. Taxwise, there are two things going on.

At the company level you have:

                   Cash                     100,000

                   Equity                 (100,000)                                 

The only thing the company has is the $100 grand you put in. If it were to liquidate right now, there would be no gain, loss, or other income to the company, as there is no appreciation (that is, deferred profit) in its sole asset – cash.

At a personal level, you would own stock with a basis of $100 grand. If the company liquidated and distributed its $100 grand, your gain, loss, or other income would be:

          $100 grand (cash) - $100 grand (basis in stock) = -0-

Make sense.

Let’s introduce a change: the company buys a piece of land for $100 grand.

At the company level you now have:

                   Land                     100,000

                   Equity                 (100,000)

Generally accepted accounting records the land at its acquisition cost, not its fair market value.

Now the change: the land skyrockets. It is now worth $5 million. You decide to sell because … well because $5 million is $5 million.

Is there tax to the company on the way out?

You betcha, and here it is:

          $5 million - $100 grand in basis = $4.9 million of gain

          Times 21% tax rate = $1,029,000 in federal tax

          $5 million - 1,029,000 tax = $3,971,000 distributed to you

Is there tax to you on the way out?

Yep, and here it is:

          $3,971,000 - 100,000 (basis in stock) = $3,871,000 gain

          $3,871,000 times 23.8% = $921,298 in federal tax

Let’s summarize.

How much money did the land sell for?

$5 million.

How much of it went to the IRS?

$1,950,298

What is that as a percentage?

39%

Is that high or low?

A lot of people - including me - think that is high. And that 39% does not include state tax.

What causes it is the same money being taxed twice – once to the corporation and again to the shareholder.

BTW there is a sibling to the above: payment of dividends by a C corporation. Either dividends or liquidation will get you to double taxation. It is expensive money.

Since the mid-80s tax advisors to entrepreneurial and closely held businesses have rarely advised use of a C corporation. We leave those to the Fortune 1000 and perhaps to buyout-oriented technology companies on the west coast. Most of our business clients are going to be S corporations or LLCs.

Why?

Because S corporations and LLCs allow us to adjust our basis in the company (in the example above, shareholder basis in stock was $100 grand) as the company makes or loses money. If it makes $40 grand, shareholder basis becomes $140 grand. If it then loses $15 grand, basis becomes $100 grand + $40 grand - $15 grand = $125 grand. 

The reason is that the shareholder includes business income on his/her individual return and pays taxes on the sum of business and personal income. The effect is to mitigate (or eliminate) the second tax – the tax to the shareholder – upon payment of a dividend or upon liquidation.

Back to our case: that is why the Court said that Short Stop being a C corporation was “an eccentric choice.”

However, Bob had a plan.

Bob lent money to Short Stop for use in its business operations.

Happens all the time. So what?

Bob would have Short Stop pay interest on the loan.

Again: so what?

The “what” is that no one – Short Stop, Bob, or the man on the moon – knew what interest rate Bob was going to charge Short Stop. After the company accounting was in, Bob would decide how much to reduce Short Stop’s profit. He would use that number as interest expense for the year. This also meant that the concept of an interest rate did not apply, as interest was just a plug to get the company profit where Bob wanted.   

What Bob was doing was clever.

There would be less retained business profit potentially subject to double taxation.

There were problems, though.

The first problem was that Bob had been audited on the loan and interest issue before. The agent had previously decided on a “no change” as Bob appeared receptive, eager to learn and aware that the government did not consider his accounting to be valid.

On second audit for the same issue, Bob had become a recidivist.

The second problem was: Short Stop never wrote a check which Bob deposited in his own bank account. Instead, Short Stop made an accounting entry “as if” the interest had been paid. Short Stop was a cash-basis taxpayer. Top of the line documentation for interest paid would be a cancelled check from Short Stop’s bank account. Fail to write that check and you just handed the IRS dry powder.

The third problem is that transactions between a company and its shareholder are subject to increased scrutiny. The IRS caught it, disallowed it, and wanted to penalize it. There are variable interest rates and what not, but that is not what Bob was doing. There was no real interest rate here. Bob was plugging interest expense, and the resulting interest rate was nonsensical arithmetic. If Bob wanted the transaction to be respected as a loan and interest thereon, Bob had to follow normal protocol: you know, the way Bank of America, Fifth Third or Truist loan money. Charge an interest rate, establish a payment schedule, perhaps obtain collateral. What Bob was doing was much closer to paying a dividend than paying interest. Fine, but dividends are not deductible.

To his credit, Bob had been picking up Short Stop’s interest expense as interest income on his personal return every year. This was not a case where numbers magically “disappeared” from one tax return to another. It was aggressive but not fraud.

Bob nonetheless lost. The Court disallowed the interest deductions and allowed the penalties.

My thoughts?

Why Bob, why? I get the accounting, but you were redlining a tax vehicle to get to your destination. You could have set it to cruise control (i.e., elect S status), relaxed and just …moved … on.

Our case this time was Short Stop Electric v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-114.

Reorganizing A Passive Activity

 

I am looking at a case that stacks a couple of different tax rules atop another and then asks: are we there yet?

Let’s talk about it.

The first is something called the continuity of business doctrine. Here we wade into the waters of corporate taxation and - more specifically - corporate reorganizations. Let’s take an easy example:

Corporation A wants to split into two corporations: corporation B and corporation C.

Why? It can be any number of things. Maybe management has decided that one of the business activities is not keeping up with the other, bringing down the stock price as a result. Maybe two families own corporation A, and the two families now have very strong and differing feelings about where to go and how to get there. Corporate reorganizations are relatively common.

The IRS wants to see an active trade or business in corporations A, B and C before allowing the reorganization. Why? Because reorganizations can be (and generally are) tax-free, and the IRS wants to be sure that there is a business reason for the reorganization – and avoiding tax does not count as a business reason.

Let me give you an example.

Corporation A is an exterminating company. Years ago it bought Tesla stock for pennies on the dollar, and those shares are now worth big bucks. It wants to reorganize into corporation B – which will continue the exterminating activity – and corporation C – which will hold Tesla stock.

Will this fly?

Probably not.

The continuity of business doctrine wants to see five years of a trade or business in all parties involved. Corporation A and B will not have a problem with this, but corporation C probably will. Why? Well, C is going to have to argue that holding Tesla stock rises to the level of a trade or business. But does it? I point out that Yahoo had a similar fact pattern when it wanted to unload $32 billion of Alibaba stock a few years ago. The IRS refused to go along, and the Yahoo attorneys had to redesign the deal.

Now let’s stack tax rules.

You have a business.

To make the stack work, the business will be a passthrough: a partnership or an S corporation. The magic to the passthrough is that the entity itself does not pay tax. Rather its tax numbers are sliced and diced and allocated among its owners, each of whom includes his/her slice on his/her individual return.

Let’s say that the passthrough has a loss.

Can you show that loss on your individual return?

We have shifted (smooth, eh?) to the tax issue of “materially participating” and “passively nonparticipating” in a business.

Yep, we are talking passive loss rules.

The concept here is that one should not be allowed to use “passively nonparticipating” losses to offset “materially participating” income. Those passive losses instead accumulate until there is passive income to sponge them up or until one finally disposes of the passive activity altogether. Think tax shelters and you go a long way as to what Congress was trying to do here.

Back to our continuity of business doctrine.

Corporation A has two activities. One is a winner and the other is a loser. Historically A has netted the two, reporting the net number as “materially participating” on the shareholder K-1 and carried on.

Corporation A reorganizes into B and C.

B takes the winner.

C takes the loser.

The shareholder has passive losses elsewhere on his/her return. He/she REALLY wants to treat B as “passively nonparticipating.” Why? Because it would give him/her passive income to offset those passive losses loitering on his/her return.

But can you do this?

Enter another rule:

A taxpayer is considered to material participate in an activity if the taxpayer materially participated in the activity for any five years during the immediately preceding ten taxable years.

On first blush, the rule is confusing, but there is a reason why it exists.

Say that someone has a profitable “materially participating” activity. Meanwhile he/she is accumulating substantial “passively nonparticipating” losses. He/she approaches me as a tax advisor and says: help.

Can I do anything?

Maybe.

What would that something be?

I would have him/her pull back (if possible) his/her involvement in the profitable activity. In fact, I would have him/her pull back so dramatically that the activity is no longer “materially participating.” We have transmuted the activity to “passively nonparticipating.”

I just created passive income. Tax advisors gotta advise.

Can’t do this, though. Congress thought of this loophole and shut it down with that five-of-the-last-ten-years rule.

This gets us to the Rogerson case.

Rogerson owned and was very involved with an aerospace company for 40 years. Somewhere in there he decided to reorganize the company along product lines.

He now had three companies where he previously had one.

He reported two as materially participating. The third he treated as passively nonparticipating.

Nickels to dollars that third one was profitable. He wanted the rush of passive income. He wanted that passive like one wants Hawaiian ice on a scorching hot day.

And the IRS said: No.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Rogerson’s argument was straightforward: the winner was a new activity. It was fresh-born, all a-gleaming under an ascendent morning sun.

The Court pointed out the continuity of business doctrine: five years before and five after. The activity might be a-gleaming, but it was not fresh-born.

Rogerson tried a long shot: he had not materially participated in that winner prior to the reorganization. The winner had just been caught up in the tide by his tax preparers. How they shrouded their inscrutable dark arts from prying eyes! Oh, if he could do it over again ….

The Court made short work of that argument: by your hand, sir, not mine. If Rogerson wanted a different result, he should have done - and reported - things differently.

Our case this time was Rogerson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2022-49.