A Real Estate Course – And Dave

 

The case made me think of Dave, a friend from long ago – one of those relationships that sometimes surrenders to time, moving and distance.

Dave was going to become a real investor.

That was not his day job, of course. By day he was a sales rep for a medical technology company. And he was good at sales. He almost persuaded me to join his incipient real estate empire.

He had come across one of those real estate gurus – I cannot remember which one – who lectured about making money with other people’s money.

There was even a  3-ring binder or two which Dave gave me to read.

I was looking over a recent case decided by the Tax Court.

The case involved an engineer (Eason) and a nurse (Leisner).

At the start of 2016 they owned two residential properties. One was held for rent; the other was sold during 2016.

COMMENT: Seems to me they were already in the real estate business. It was not a primary gig, but it was a gig.

Eason lost his job during 2016.

A real estate course came to his attention, and he signed up – for the tidy amount of $41,934.

COMMENT: Say what?

In July 2016 the two formed Ashley & Makai Homes (Homes), an S corporation. Homes was formed to provide advice and guidance to real estate owners and investors.  They had business cards and stationary made and started attending some of those $40 grand-plus courses. Not too many, though, as the outfit that sponsored the courses went out of business.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

By 2018 Eason and Leisner abandoned whatever hopes they had for Homes. They never made a dime of income.

You know that $40 grand-plus showed up on the S corporation tax return.

The IRS disallowed the deduction.

And tacked on penalties for the affront.

This is the way, said the IRS.

And so we have a pro se case in the Tax Court.

Respondent advances various reasons why petitioners are not entitled to any deductions …”

The respondent will almost always be the IRS in these cases, as the it is the taxpayer who petitions the Court.

And we have discussed “pro se” many times. It generally means that a taxpayer is representing himself/herself, but that is not fully accurate. A taxpayer can be advised by a professional, but if that professional has not taken and passed the exam to practice before the Tax Court the matter is still considered pro se.

Back to the Court:

          … we need to focus on only one [reason].”

That reason is whether a business had started.

Neither Homes nor petitioners reported any income from a business activity related to the disputed deductions, presumably because none was earned.”

This is not necessarily fatal, though.

The absence of income, in and of itself, does not compel a finding that a business has not yet started if other activities show that it has.”

This seems a reasonably low bar to me: take steps to market the business, whatever those words mean in context. If the context is to acquire clients, then perhaps a website or targeted advertising in the local real estate association newsletter.

Here, however, the absence of income coupled with the absence of any activity that shows that services were offered or provided to clients or customers […] supports respondent’s position that the business had not yet started by the close of the year.”

Yeah, no. The Court noted that a business deduction requires a business. Since a business had not started, no business deduction was available.

The Court disagreed with any penalties, though. There was enough there that a reasonable person could have decided either way.

I agree with the Court, but I also think that just a slight change could have changed the outcome in the taxpayers’ favor.

How?

Here’s one:  remember that Eason and Leisner owned a rental property together?

What if they had broadened Homes’ principal activity to include real estate rental and transferred the property to the S corporation? Homes would have been in business at that point. The tax issue then would have been expansion of the business, not the start of one.

Our case this time was Eason and Leisner v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2024-17.

Company’s Tuition Payment Was Not Deductible

 

Let me give you a fact pattern and you tell me whether there is a tax deduction.

·      You own a company.

·      A young man is dating your daughter.

·      The young man wants to take a computer course at Northwestern University. If it turns out he has both aptitude and interest, perhaps he can maintain the company’s website, at least for a while.

·      The company pays for the course.

Let me up the ante: is there a tax deduction to you and tax-free income to the young man?

You are thinking: maybe.

For example, my firm pays for my expenses when I attend professional seminars or conferences. Then again, my CPA license carries a continuing education requirement, so the seminars and conferences are necessary for me keep my gig as a practicing CPA.

Sounds like a working condition fringe benefit. The “working condition” qualifier means that the employer is paying for something that the employee could deduct (at least before the tax Code nixed miscellaneous itemized deductions) had the employee paid for it.

Alternatively, there are companies who pay (or help pay) tuition for employees who go to college. There are hitches to this educational assistance arrangement, though: it has to be available to everybody, cannot discriminate in favor of highly-compensated employees, and so on.

I am not seeing a tax deduction down either path. Why? Notice that a fringe benefit or assistance program requires an employer:employee relationship. You have no such relationship with the young man.

I suppose you could make him an employee.

No, you say.  Dating your daughter does not put him on the payroll.

You circle back to the possibility that he could take care of your website, at least for a while. That costs money to do. If he did so for free, or at a substantially reduced rate, the cost of that course could be a drop in the bucket compared to what you would have paid a webmaster.

OK. I am certain that the tuition is more than $600, so you pay for the course, send him a 1099 and he will have to settle-up while he files his tax return. On the upside, he should get a tax credit for taking that course.

Nope, you say. You want to deduct it as a business expense but not issue a W-2 or a 1099. None of that.

And that is how Robert and Swanette Ward appeared before the Tax Court. Clearly the IRS disagreed with the tax outcome they wanted.

Here is the Court:

While [] has provided services to Sherwin [CTG: Mrs Ward’s company] free of charge that would likely have cost Sherwin more than the amount of the tuition, we nonetheless find that the petitioners have not established that Sherwin is entitled to deduct the tuition.”

Why not?

Mr [] was not an employee of Sherwin.”

Yes, but what of the possibility that he would help with the website?

The Wards did not have an agreement with Mr [] that he would perform any services in exchange for the tuition payment.”

What, do you want a written contract or something?

Sherwin paid the tuition without any expectation of a return and thus did not have a business purpose for the payment. The tuition was a personal expense, and Sherwin is not entitled to deduct it.”

Why is the Court is circling the wagons on this one?

Folks, sometimes tax law occurs in the folds and the corners. There is something I have not yet told you that might explain the Court’s obstinacy.

That young man eventually married your daughter.

The Court saw a personal expense all the way.

I get it.

There is a distinction in the Code between deductible business expenses and nondeductible personal expenses. One could reason that showing some business angle or benefit – however abstract or hypothetical – can make the expense deductible, even if the primary factor for incurring the expense was personal. One would be wrong, but one could reason.

Our case this time was Sherwin Community Painters Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-19.

The Gig Economy

Say that I retire. Perhaps my wife wins the lottery or marries well.

I get bored. Perhaps I would like a little running-around money. Maybe I flat-out need extra money.

I find a website that connects experienced tax practitioners to people needing tax services. There might be specializations available: as a practitioner I might accept corporate or passthrough work, for example, but not individual tax returns. I could work as much or as little as I want. I might work Friday and Saturday afternoons, for example, but not accept work on weekdays. I could turn down or fire clients. I could take time off without fear of dismissal.

There would have to be rules, of course. Life is a collection of rules. I might have to provide my state license to substantiate my credentials. I might have to post an E&O policy. It seems reasonable to expect the website to impose standards, such as for professional conduct, client communications, timeliness of service and so on

How would I get paid?

I am thinking that I would bill through the website. An advantage is that the website can devote more resources than I care to provide, making the arrangement a win-win-win for all parties involved. The website would collect from the client and then electronically deposit to my bank account.

Here is my question: is the website my employer?

Don’t scoff. We are talking the gig economy.

The issue has gained notoriety as states – New Jersey and California come to mind – have gone after companies like Uber and Lyft. From these states’ perspective, the issue is simple: if there is more than a de minimis interdependence between the service recipient and provider, then there must be an employment relationship between the two. Employment of course means FICA withholding, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance (in some cases), workers compensation and so on.

Let us be honest: employment status is Christmas day for some states. They would deem your garden statue an employee if they could wring a dollar out of you by doing so.

New Jersey recently hit Uber with a tax bill for $650 million, for example.

The employee-independent contractor issue is a BIG deal.

What in the world is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor?

People have been working on this question for a long time. The IRS has posited that employment means control – of the employer over the employee – and also that control travels on a spectrum. As one moves to the one end of the spectrum, it becomes increasingly likely that an employer-employee relationship exists.

The IRS looks at three broad categories:

(1)  Behavioral control

(2)  Financial control

(3)  Relationship of the parties

The IRS then looks at factors (sometimes called the 20 factors) through the lens of the above categories.

·        Can the service recipient tell you what, where, when and how to do something?

·        Is the service recipient the only recipient of the provider’s services?

·        Is the service relationship continuing?

Answer yes to those three factors and you sound a lot like an employee.

Problem is the easy issues exist only in a classroom or at seminar. In the real world, it is much more likely that you will find a mix of yes and no. In that event, how may “yes” answers will mean employee status? How many “no” answers will indicate contractor status?

Answer: no one knows.

Some states have taken a different approach, using what is called an “ABC” test. There was a significant case (Dynamex) in California. It interpreted the ABC test as follows:

(1)  The service provider is free from the direction and control of the service recipient in connection with the performance of the work.

(2)  The service provider performs work outside the usual course of the service recipient’s business.

(3)  The service provider is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the services provided.

I get the first one, but I point out that it is rarely all or nothing. If we here at CTG Command bring on a contractor CPA – say for the busy season or to collaborate on a tax area near the periphery of our experience – we would still have expectations. For example,

·        our office hours are XXX

·        reviewer turnaround times to tax preparers are XXX

·        responses to client calls are to occur with XXX hours or less

·        responses to me are to occur within X hours or less

·        drop-dead due dates are XXX

How many of these can we have before we fail the A in the ABC test?

Let’s look at B.

We are a CPA firm. Odds are we are interested in experienced CPAs. It is quite unlikely that we will have need of a master plumber or stonemason.

Have we automatically failed the B in the ABC test?

And what does C even mean?

I am a 30+ year tax CPA. I am a specialist and have been for many years. I would say that I am “customarily engaged” in tax practice. Do I have “independent performance,” however?

If I interpret this test to mean that I have more than one client, it somewhat makes sense, although there are still issues. For example, upon semi-retirement, I would like to be “of counsel” to a CPA firm. I have no intention of working every day, or of being there endless hours during the busy season. No, what I am thinking is that the firm would call me for specialized work – more complex tax issues, perhaps some tax representation. It would provide a mental challenge but not become a burden to me.

Would I do this for more than one firm?

Doubt it. I point to that “burden” thing.

Have I failed the C test?

I am still thinking through the issues involved in this area.

Including non-tax issues.

If I take an Uber and the driver gets into an accident – injuring me – do I have legal recourse to Uber? Seems to me that I should. Is this question affected by the employee-contractor issue? If it is, should it be?

This prompts me to think that the law is inadequate for a gig economy.

There is, for example, always some degree of control between the parties, if for no other reason than expectation is a variant of control. Not wanting to lose the gig is – at least to me – an incident of control to the service recipient. Talk to a CPA firm partner with an outsized client about expectation and control.

Why cannot CTG Command gig an experienced tax professional – say for a specific engagement or issue - without the presumption that we hired an employee? I can reasonably assure you that I will not be an employee when I go “of counsel.” You can forget my attending those Monday morning staff meetings.

Am I “independently performing” if I have but one client? What if it is a really good client? What if I don’t want a second client?

Problem is, we know there are toxic players out there who will abuse any wiggle room you give them. Still, that is no excuse for bad tax law. Not every person who works – let’s face it – is an employee. The gig economy has simply amplified that fact.