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.

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.

A Ghost Preparer Story

 

I came across a ghost preparer last week.

I rarely see that.

A ghost preparer is someone who prepares a tax return for compensation (me, for example) but who does not sign the return.

This is a big no-no in tax practice. The IRS requires all paid tax preparers to obtain an identification number (PTIN, pronounced “pea tin”) and disclose the same on returns. The IRS can track, for example, how many returns I signed last year via my PTIN. There are also mandates that come with the CPA license.

Why does the ghost do this?

You know why.

It started with a phone call.

Client: What do you know about the employee retention credit?

Me: Quite a bit. Why do you ask?”

Client: I had someone prepare refunds, and I want to know if they look right.”

You may have heard commercials for the ERC on the radio These credits are “for up to $26,000 per employee” but you “must act now.”

Well, yes, it can be up to $26,000 per employee. And yes, one should act soon, because the ERC involves amending tax returns. Generally, one has only three years to amend a return before the tax period closes. This is the statute of limitations, and it is both friend and foe. The IRS cannot chase you after three years, but likewise you cannot amend after the same three years.

The ERC was in place for most of 2020 and for 9 months of 2021. If you are thinking COVID stimulus, you are right. The ERC encouraged employers to retain employees by shifting some of the payroll cost onto the federal government.

Me: I thought you did not qualify for the ERC because you could not meet the revenue reduction.” 

         Client: They thought otherwise.”

         Me: Send it to me.”

He did.

I saw refunds of approximately $240,000 for 2020. I also remember our accountant telling me that the client could not meet the revenue reduction test for 2020. Revenues went down, yes, but not enough to qualify for the credit.

COMMENT: There are two ways to qualify for the ERC: revenue reduction or the mandate. The revenue reduction is more objective, and it requires a decrease in revenue from 2019 (50% decrease for the 2020 ERC; 20% decrease for the 2021 ERC). The second way – a government COVID mandate hobbling the business – does not require revenue reduction but can be more difficult to prove. A restaurant experiencing COVID mandates could prove mandate relatively easily. By contrast, a business experiencing supply-chain issues probably experienced COVID mandates indirectly. The business would likely need its suppliers’ cooperation to show how government mandates closed their (i.e., the suppliers’) doors.

I had our accountant locate the 2020 accounting records. We reviewed the revenue reduction.

The client did not make it.

I called.

Me: Did they say that you qualified under the mandate test?"

         Client: They said I qualified under revenue reduction."

         Me: But you don’t. How could they not tell?"

         Client: Because they never looked at it."

         Me: Then how ….?"

Client: They asked if I had a revenue decline and I said yes. They took my answer and ran with it."

Why would someone do this?

Because that someone works on commission.

There is incentive to maximize the refund, whether right or not.

I was looking at a refund of almost a quarter million dollars.

That would have been a nice commission.

No, the client is not filing those amended returns. He realized the con. He also realized that he had no argument upon IRS audit. He would have to return the money, plus whatever penalties they would layer on. I could no more save him than I could travel to Mars.

He now also understands why they never signed those returns.

Ghosts.

The Obamacare Subsidy Cliff

 

I am looking at a case involving the premium tax credit.

We are talking about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Obamacare uses mathematical tripwires in its definitions. That is not surprising, as one must define “affordable,” determine a “subsidy,” and - for our discussion – calculate a subsidy phase-out. Affordable is defined as cost remaining below a certain percentage of household income. Think of someone with extremely high income - Elon Musk, for example. I anticipate that just about everything is affordable to him.

COMMENT: Technically the subsidy is referred to as the “advance premium tax credit.” For brevity, we will call it the subsidy.

There is a particular calculation, however, that is brutal. It is referred to as the “cliff,” and you do not want to be anywhere near it.

One approaches the cliff by receiving the subsidy. Let’s say that your premium would be $1,400 monthly but based on expected income you qualify for a subsidy of $1,000. Based on those numbers your out-of-pocket cost would be $400 a month.

Notice that I used the word “expected.” When determining your 2022 subsidy, for example, you would use your 2022 income. That creates a problem, as you will not know your 2022 income until 2023, when you file your tax return. A rational alternative would be to use the prior year’s (that is, 2021’s) income, but that was a bridge too far for Congress. Instead, you are to estimate your 2022 income. What if you estimate too high or too low? There would be an accounting (that is, a “true up”) when you file your 2022 tax return.

I get it. If you guessed too high, you should have been entitled to a larger subsidy. That true-up would go on your return and increase your refund. Good times.

What if it went the other way, however? You guessed too low and should have received a smaller subsidy. Again, the true-up would go on your tax return. It would reduce your refund. You might even owe. Bad times.

Let’s introduce another concept.

ACA posited that health insurance was affordable if one made enough money. While a priori truth, that generalization was unworkable. “Enough money” was defined as 400% of the poverty level.

Below 400% one could receive a subsidy (of some amount). Above 400% one would receive no subsidy.

Let’s recap:

(1)  One could receive a subsidy if one’s income was below 400% of the poverty level.

(2)  One guessed one’s income when the subsidy amount was initially determined.

(3)  One would true-up the subsidy when filing one’s tax return.

Let’s set the trap:

(1)  You estimated your income too low and received a subsidy.

(2)  Your actual income was above 400% of the poverty level.

(3)  You therefore were not entitled to any subsidy.

Trap: you must repay the excess subsidy.

That 400% - as you can guess – is the cliff we mentioned earlier.

Let’s look at the Powell case.

Robert Powell and Svetlana Iakovenko (the Powells) received a subsidy for 2017.

They also claimed a long-term capital loss deduction of $123,822.

Taking that big loss into account, they thought they were entitled to an additional subsidy of $636.

Problem.

Capital losses do not work that way. Capital losses are allowed to offset capital losses dollar-for-dollar. Once that happens, capital losses can only offset another $3,000 of other income.

COMMENT: That $3,000 limit has been in the tax Code since before I started college. Considering that I am close to 40 years of practice, that number is laughably obsolete.

The IRS caught the error and sent the Powells a notice.

The IRS notice increased their income to over 400% and resulted in a subsidy overpayment of $17,652. The IRS wanted to know how the Powells preferred to repay that amount.

The Powells – understandably stunned – played one of the best gambits I have ever read. Let’s read the instructions to the tax form:

We then turn to the text of Schedule D, line 21, for the 2017 tax year, which states as follows:

         If line 16 is a loss, enter ... the smaller of:

·      The loss on line 16 or

·      $3,000

So?

The Powells pointed out that a loss of $123,822 is (technically) smaller than a loss of $3,000. Following the literal instructions, they were entitled to the $123,822 loss.

It is an incorrect reading, of course, and the Powells did not have a chance of winning. Still, the thinking is so outside-the-box that I give them kudos.

Yep, the Powells went over the cliff. It hurt.

Note that the Powell’s year was 2017.

Let’s go forward.

The American Rescue Plan eliminated any subsidy repayment for 2020.

COVID year. I understand.

The subsidy was reinstated for 2021 and 2022, but there was a twist. The cliff was replaced with a gradual slope; that is, the subsidy would decline as income increased. Yes, you would have to repay, but it would not be that in-your-face 100% repayment because you hit the cliff.

Makes sense.

What about 2023?

Let’s go to new tax law. The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act extended the slope-versus-cliff relief through 2025.

OK.

Congress of course just kicked the can down the road, as the cliff will return in 2026.

Our case this time was Robert Lester Powell and Svetlana Alekseevna Iakovenko v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-19.

Income and Credit Card Rebates

I am reading a case so unique that I doubt there is much takeaway taxwise, other than someone beat the IRS.

What gets the story started is automobile rebates back in the mid -70s. The economy was limping along, and car manufacturers wanted to sell cars. Buy a car, get money back from the manufacturer.

To a tax geek, receiving a check in the mail raises the question of whether there is income somewhere.

The overall concept behind taxable income is that one has experienced an accession to wealth. That is how discharge of debt can create income, for example. As one’s debt goes down, one’s wealth increases.

What to do with a car rebate?

The IRS did the obvious thing: it saw a car; it saw payment for a car; and it saw a rebate going back to whoever bought the car. There was no increase in wealth here, it decided. The result was that one paid less for the car.

There are countless variations on the theme. What to do with airline miles, for example?

Our case features Konstantin Anikeev (K). K got himself a Blue Cash American Express credit card. The card had a reward program. American Express would send you money for buying (approved) things with the card.

American Express disallowed certain purchases from the program, however, including:

(1)  Interest charges and fees

(2)  Balance transfers

(3)  Cash advances

(4)  Purchase of traveler’s checks

(5)  Purchase or reloading of prepaid cards

(6)   Purchase of any cash equivalent

I get it. American Express did not want someone to walk the transaction through back to cash.

K noticed something: the program did not address gift cards.

A gift card is just a prepaid card, right? Not quite. A gift card is not redeemable in cash or eligible for deposit into your bank account.

I had not really thought about it.

K did think about.

You know what you can do with a gift card?

You can buy a money order, that’s what. You then deposit the money order in the bank.

Sounds like a lot of work for a couple of bucks.

K went to town. Over the course of a year or so, he and his wife generated rebates of over $300 grand.

K knows how to commit.

Interestingly enough, American Express did not seem to care. 

The IRS however did care. They were going to tax K on his $300 grand. K pointed out that the IRS had provided guidance way back by saying that rebates were not income, and all he received were rebates. Granted, there were more bells and whistles here than a 1978 Chrysler Cordoba, but that did not change anything.

The IRS said nay-nay. The guidance they put out back in the 70s involved a product or service. That product or service had a cost, and that cost could then be reduced to absorb the effect of the rebate. There were no goods and services with K’s scheme. There was nothing to “absorb” the rebate.

Off they went to Tax Court.

There is a tax subtlety that we need to point out.

The IRS could have argued that the exchange of the gift card for a money order was a taxable event. Since the cost of the gift card had been adjusted down by the rebate K received (meaning the cost was less than a dollar-on-a-dollar), there would be a gain upon the exchange.

It is a formidable argument.

That is not what the IRS did. They instead argued that K had an income recognition event when he bought the gift card.

Huh? How?

Because he intended to ….

The Court was having none of this argument.

The Court reminded the IRS that gift cards are a product. The card has a uniform product code that the cashier uses to ring up the cost. It is a product, just like a car. The IRS was upset because it got gamed. It did not like the result, but that did not give the IRS leash to arbitrarily look down the road and back-up the tax truck when it did not like the destination. The IRS should tighten its rules.

Here is the Court:

These holdings are based on the unique circumstances of this case. We hope that respondent polices the IRS policy in the future in regulations or in public pronouncements rather than relying on piecemeal litigation.”

K won. He and his wife had tax-free cash.

BTW, K did all this with a card whose credit limit was $35 grand. I am REALLY curious how much time they put into this.

Our case this time was Anikeev v Commissioner, TC Memo 2012-23.

How Much Paperwork Does the IRS Want?

Sometimes practitioners disagree on how much supporting paperwork – if any – should go with a tax return.

The issue can take on a keener edge when one is working with amended returns or claims for refunds.

COMMENT: For the nerds, an amended return can technically be a claim for refund – if the amended return shows a refund.

It also can vary with the tax issue at play.

I am looking at two cases – the first being the initial hearing and the second the appeal – involving a research tax credit.

The research credit is easier to understand if we think of companies such as Johnson & Johnson or Pfizer. Lab coats, scientific equipment, people wearing safety glasses and so forth. The image screams research.

Mind you, there are accounting and recordkeeping issues that go with this credit.

A routine accounting system would capture functional costs (think payroll, rent, utilities), departmental costs (think auto parts versus auto service at a car dealership) and divisional costs (consumer and industrial, for example). The research credit wants even more detail from the accounting system. It wants detail at the research activity level.

What is a research activity?

You could be an activity. Say that you are an engineer. You work in manufacturing, but a portion of your time is spent on activities that might qualify for the credit. What would be an example? Let’s say improving a product or the process to manufacture that product.  

The accounting system easily captures your payroll as a functional cost.

The system also captures your payroll as a manufacturing cost.

What the system perhaps doesn’t do – at least without upgrades – is break-down your lab time into specific projects, some of which might qualify for the credit and others which might not. Yep, your time sheets going forward are going to be a bear.

Let’s be clear: if you are Pfizer, you likely have tweaked-out your accounting and reporting system to capture 360 degrees of data, including whatever is needed for the research credit. Our discussion here concerns more routine companies.

The Harpers owned a company that specializes in military design build projects. They initially filed returns not claiming a research tax credit.

Now pause and consider what they do.

Chances are that some of what they do has an element of uncertainty: what to, how to do it, what order to do it and so on. Depending upon, that uncertainty might trigger the research credit.

There are four principal requirements to the research credit:

(1)  There must be a reduction in uncertainty about the development or improvement of a product or process.

(2)  That development or improvement in turn involves experimentation – that is, there are different ways to get there from here. The experimentation involves determining which ways work and which ways do not.

(3)  The experimentation must involve hard sciences: engineering, chemistry and so forth. Experimenting with tax law, for example, will not work (sadly).

(4)  The purpose of the activity must be a new or improved product or process: performance, function, quality, reliability, that kind of thing.

The Harpers reviewed what they did and determined that the company had research activities qualifying for the credit. They amended their returns for 2008 and 2010. The credit amount was impressive:

         2008                    $437,632

         2010                    $388,325

The IRS reviewed the amended returns and denied the credit.

Off to Court they went. The first case was in California district court.

The IRS position was both straightforward and cynical:

The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof.”

Let me rephrase the position: we (the IRS) decide when we have enough facts and in any event the facts you submit are not sufficient to apprise us of anything until we say that they are sufficient.

The district court agreed with the IRS.  The taxpayer was required to establish all facts and details for its refund claim. The IRS said that the taxpayer had not, and the Court said that was all it needed to know.

Wow. Let me think how can this standard can possibly be abused….

The Harpers appealed the case to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Their argument?

• The IRS has the right to notice of a claim and its underlying facts so it can make an informed and appropriate determination. This is referred to as the “specificity” requirement.
• The IRS can always ask one more question. This makes attaching ALL possible paperwork to a claim virtually impossible.
• In practice, the IRS can review a claim with a taxpayer. One way is to audit the claim, of course. This act is considered a waiver of the specificity requirement.
• Why would the IRS review a claim and thereby waive anything? Consider the alternative. Tax practitioners would attach so much documentation to the research tax credit that the IRS would have to lease additional storage to house it all.  It is in both parties’ mutual interest to go along and get along.

The Harpers argued that the IRS had waived the specificity requirement.

How did the IRS do this?

By auditing the claim.

The IRS spent four years auditing the amended returns. The Harpers provided over 100,000 pages of supporting documentation. At no point in time did the IRS tell the Harpers that they had not provided ENOUGH documentation.

I am trying to be fair, but I am distressed by the IRS behavior.

It is common professional knowledge that the IRS can always ask for additional information. One can provide it and still get turned down, but the give and take allows the system – the IRS and tax practitioners - to function and not be overwhelmed.

Is that what happened here?

Nope.

The IRS did not go to Court arguing that it had reviewed 100,000 pages of supporting documentation and decided the Harpers did not qualify for the research credit.

The IRS argument was that the Harpers did not meet the specificity requirement – meaning the Harpers did not include enough paperwork.

The Appeals Court called out the IRS. It had waived the specificity requirement by auditing the amended returns.

The Appeals Court sent the case back to the district court. The case should never have been dismissed for the specificity requirement.

The Harpers may win or may lose, but they will have their day in court.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Harper v United States.

State Taxation of Telecommuting

The year 2020 has brought us a new state tax issue.

To be fair, the issue is not totally new, but it has taken on importance with stay-at-home mandates.

Here is the issue: You work in one state but live in another. Which state gets to tax you when you are working from home?

Let’s start with the general rule: state taxation belongs to the state where the employee performs services, not the state where the employee resides. The concept is referred to as “sourcing,” and it is the same reason a state can tax you if you have rental real estate there.

Let’s follow that with the first exception: states can agree to not follow the general rule. Ohio, for example, has a reciprocal agreement with Kentucky. The agreement provides that an employee will be taxed by his/her state of residence, not by the state where the employee works.   A Kentucky resident working in Ohio, for example, will be taxed by Kentucky and not by Ohio.

Let’s pull away from the Cincinnati tristate area, however. That reciprocal agreement makes too much sense.

We need two other states: let’s use Iowa and Missouri.

One lives in Iowa and commutes to Missouri. Both states have an individual income tax. We have 2020, COVID and stay-at-home. An employee of a Missouri employer works from home, with home being Iowa.

Which state gets to tax?

This one is simple. Iowa.

Why?

Because both states have the same rule: the state of residence gets to tax a telecommuter.

So where is the issue in this area?

With states that are … less reasonable … than Iowa and Missouri.

Let’s go to Captain Obvious: New York.

New York has a “convenience of the employer” addendum to the above discussion. Under this rule, New York asks why the employee is working remotely: is it for the convenience of the employer, or is it for the convenience of the employee? The tax consequence varies depending on the answer.

* If for the convenience of the (New York) employer, then the employee’s state of residence has the first right to tax.

* If for the convenience of the (nonresident) employee, then New York has the first right to tax.

We for example have a Tennessee client with a New York employer who walked into this issue. He lives and works in Memphis, infrequently travelling to New York. We were able to resolve the matter, but New York initially went after him rather aggressively.

How does New York’s rule work with 2020 and COVID?

It doesn’t.

All those employees not commuting to New York were very much observing the convenience of their employer.

Clearly, this was an unacceptable answer to New York.

Let’s change the rule, said New York: the employee’s “assigned or primary” location will now control. If my accounting office was located in New York, for example, that would be my “assigned or primary” office and New York could tax me, no matter where I was.

How could I avoid that result? I would need to have my employer open a bona fide office where I lived. Some people could do that. Most could not.

Yessir.

There is no evolving tax doctrine here. This is ad hoc and reactive taxation, with much caprice, little constancy and the sense that New York will say and do whatever to lift your wallet.

There are few other states that follow this “convenience” rule: Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey come to mind. It is more convenient for them to tax you than not to tax you, to reword the rule.

COVID introduced us to two more states feuding over the taxation of telecommuters: Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Massachusetts decreed that any employee who began working outside the state for “pandemic-related” circumstances would continue to be subject to Massachusetts income tax.

It is the same issue as New York, one might initially think. New Hampshire will allow a tax credit for the tax paid Massachusetts. The accounting fee goes up, but it works out in the end, right?

Nope.

Why?

New Hampshire does not tax W-2 income.

How do states like Massachusetts or New York justify their behavior?

There is an argument: Massachusetts and New York have roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so forth that attracted employers to locate there. Their tax is a fair and appropriate levy for providing and sustaining an environment which allows a person to be employed.

Got it.

Don’t buy it.

I grew up in Florida, which does not have an individual income tax. Somehow the state nonetheless has roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so forth. The only explanation must be divine intervention, it appears.

Additionally, if I lived in New Hampshire – and worked from there – I might prefer that my taxes go to New Hampshire. I after all would be using its roads, infrastructure, schools, universities, hospitals and so on, putting little – or no – demand on Massachusetts. I might in fact be quite pleased to not commute into Massachusetts regularly, if it all. It seems grotesque that Massachusetts will chase me across the fruited plains just because I need a job.

New Hampshire has filed a complaint against Massachusetts with the Supreme Court. The argument is rather simple: Massachusetts is infringing by imposing its tax on New Hampshire residents working in New Hampshire.  Interestingly, Connecticut and New Jersey have filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting New Hampshire’s position. Their beef is with New York and not Massachusetts, but they are clearly interested in the issue.

I personally expect the expansion and growing acceptance of telecommuting to be a permanent employment change as we come out of COVID and its attendant restrictions. With that as context, the treatment of telecommuting may well be one of the “next big things” in taxation.