Tomato Supplier Must Change Accounting Method

 

Let’s talk about when we can deduct something on a tax return.

We are talking about accrual accounting. Cash accounting would be easy: you are not allowed to deduct something until it is paid.

Not surprisingly, there is a Code section for this.

Code § 461 - General rule for taxable year of deduction

            (h) Certain liabilities not incurred before economic performance

(1) In general

 

For purposes of this title, in determining whether an amount has been incurred with respect to any item during any taxable year, the all events test shall not be treated as met any earlier than when economic performance with respect to such item occurs.

We see two key terms: the all-events test and economic performance.

First, a potential deduction must pass the all-events test before it can even think of landing on a tax return.

Second, that potential deduction must next pass a second test – economic performance – before it is allowed as a deduction.

Let’s spend time today on the first hurdle: the all-events test.     

Back to the Code:

            All events test

For purposes of this subsection, the all events test is met with respect to any item if all events have occurred which determine the fact of liability and the amount of such liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

There are two prongs there:

·       The fact  

·       The amount  

Much of the literature in this area concerns economic performance, which is the next test after the above two are met. One might presume that the all- events test is a low bar, and that an expense accrued under GAAP for financial reporting purposes would almost automatically meet the all-events test for tax reporting purposes.

You would be surprised how often this is not true, and tax accounting will not give the same answer as financial reporting accounting.

I was reviewing a case this past week. It comes from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit which includes California.

Morning Star Packing Company and Liberty Packing Company appealed their Tax Court decisions. Both are based in California, and – combined – they supply approximately 40% of the U.S.’s tomato pastes and diced tomatoes. 

Tomato season in California lasts approximately 100 days – from June to September. During this period Morning Star runs its production facilities at maximum capacity 24 hours a day. When the season ends in October, the equipment has been traumatized and needs extensive reconditioning before going into production again. For assorted reasons, Morning Star normally waits near the start of the following season before doing such reconditioning.

Let’s assign dates so we can understand the tax issue.

Say that the frenetic 100-day production activity occurred in 2022.

Morning Star will recondition the equipment before the start of the next production cycle – that is, in 2023.

Reconditioning costs are substantial and can be north of $20 million.

Morning Star deducts the anticipated reconditioning costs to be incurred in 2023 on its 2022 tax return.

What do you think? Can Morning Star clear the all-events test?

Here is the taxpayer:

·       Our customers generally require that the tomato products meet certain quality and sanitary standards. Many customers require independent testing. The facilities are also inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the California Department of Public Health.

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment is strongly implied by the need to meet governmental regulations.

o   Failure to meet such standards could result in the company being required to pay farmers for spoiled tomatoes and/or paying customers for failure to provide tomato products. Any such payments could be catastrophic to the company.

·       The company has credit agreements with several banks. These agreements include numerous covenants such as the following:

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall (i) maintain all material licenses, Permits, governmental approvals, rights, privileges, and franchises reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall … conduct its business activities in compliance with all laws and material contractual obligations applicable ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall …keep all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted….

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment can be inferred from the “all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order” covenant.

Here is the IRS:

·       The credit agreements do not specifically fix the company’s obligation.

o   The agreements do not specify which laws or regulations must be complied with.

o   The agreements do not specify which property must be kept in good working order.

o   The term “wear and tear” refers to ordinary use; “ordinary” wear and tear is excepted; the agreements therefore do not require the company to refurbish its equipment because it would meet the “ordinary wear and tear” exception.

·       The customer agreements are production specific and do not directly require reconditioning costs. Granted, failure to perform could be financially catastrophic, which implies a high degree of certainty that reconditioning will occur, but a high likelihood is different from a certain obligation.

Both the Tax Court and the Appeals Court agreed with the IRS.

I am divided.

I believe that the IRS is technically correct. There was no explicit obligation, requirement, or guarantee that Morning Star will recondition its facilities before the start of the next season’s production run. I however consider that a false flag. Economic and business reality assures me that it will recondition, because a failure to do so could invite business and financial ruin. Would the USDA or FDA even allow them to start next year’s production run without reconditioning?

Decisions like this unfortunately pull tax practice closer to a wizard’s incantation. The practitioner must be certain to include the magic words, intonating appropriately at proper moments to evoke the intervention of unseen eldritch forces. Fail to include, intone, or evoke correctly and lose the spell – or tax deduction.

Here is Judge Bumatay’s dissent:

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has a shocking view of taxpayer’s money. According to the IRS’ counsel at oral argument, any disagreement on when a tax payment is due constitutes ‘an interest-free loan from the government' to the taxpayer. That’s completely wrong. Simply, the income of everyday Americans is not government property.”

In fact, Morning Star has used this method since its founding. And the IRS had endorsed this practice – it audited Morning Star in the early 1990s and concluded that this practice was acceptable. But now, after Morning Star’s deductions for years, the IRS changes its mind and demands that Morning Star alter how it recognizes the reconditioning costs.”

Morning Star’s liability was fixed at the end of each season’s production run.”

… the law does not require the taxpayer to prove the fixed obligation to a metaphysical certitude.”

You go, Judge B.

I am not impressed that the IRS previously looked at the accounting method, found it acceptable and now wants to change its mind. That is not the way it works in professional practice, folks. The CPA cannot be reviewing every possible accounting issue de novo every year.

And I am less than impressed that an IRS representative argued that the change was necessary because the government was assuming the risk that the company would not be able to pay its taxes should it encounter a bad harvest or other financial malady.

Seriously? The owners of Morning Star face multiple business dangers every day and the government is “assuming the risk?” We cannot DOGE these people and bureaucracies soon enough.

But then again, Morning Star could have boosted its case with a minor change to its credit agreements. How? Include annual reconditioning as a requirement to retain its credit facility. If Morning Star is going to recondition anyway, making it a requirement might be the magical incantation we need.

Our case this time is Morning Star Packing Company L.P., 9^th Circuit, No. 21-71191.

Why Do We Keep Vehicle Logs?

  

November proved to be an interesting month here at Galactic Command. Everything changes; we have changed; there is sadness about the change. We may talk about this someday, but for today let’s keep our discussion to matters of tax.

Here is an easy one, but many get it wrong: can you estimate your auto expenses?

The use of estimates in accounting is prevalent: a bad debt reserve, an inventory write-down, even something as prosaic as depreciation.  It has to be this way, otherwise you could not get financial results out in time to be useful. For example, say you have a warranty program on a newer – and significant – product line. You may want to accrue a warranty reserve on this product line, but the line does not have sufficient track record to be statistically reliable.  I suppose you could skip a reserve altogether (not a good answer) or wait until there is enough history before issuing financials (also not a good answer).

Tax returns also use these numbers. Mind you, a tax return has a separate purpose from financial accounting - the purpose of a tax return being to separate you from your money. Depending upon, the IRS may flat-out tell you what accounting method to use. In most cases, though, tax and financial accounting coexist well enough.

There was a case in the 1930s that many tax advisors have studied: Cohan.

George Cohan was a famous Broadway star, producer and manager in the early part of the 1900s. He was known for his over-the-top entertaining of both fans and critics, and entertainment was a significant part of his business expenses. What George was not good at, though, was keeping receipts and records. He got audited, and the IRS proposed to disallow a raft of deductions because Cohan could not substantiate them. The IRS won before the Tax Board of Appeals (think the predecessor to today’s Tax Court).

Cohan had no intention of rolling over. He appealed.

And he won on his appeal.

The Court reasoned that approximating his expenses may be unsatisfactory, but an outright denial of his expenses was erroneous.

So, the Court estimated what his expenses would be. Mind you, there were some guardrails, such as the proving a right to deduct the expenses and providing some basis for the deduction (restaurant booking registers, for example), such that an independent person could agree that an expense was incurred and when.

This estimating of expenses has since been known as the Cohan rule.

But you know who did not like the rule? Congress. They wrote the following into the tax Code:

Section 274(d)

               (d) Substantiation required

No deduction or credit shall be allowed—

(1) under section 162 or 212 for any traveling expense (including meals and lodging while away from home),

(2) for any expense for gifts, or

(3) with respect to any listed property (as defined in section 280F(d)(4)),

unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement (A) the amount of such expense or other item, (B) the time and place of the travel or the date and description of the gift, (C) the business purpose of the expense or other item, and (D) the business relationship to the taxpayer of the person receiving the benefit. The Secretary may by regulations provide that some or all of the requirements of the preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of an expense which does not exceed an amount prescribed pursuant to such regulations. This subsection shall not apply to any qualified nonpersonal use vehicle (as defined in subsection (i)).

Yes, it reads like gobbledygook but note the phrase “unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement.” Congress was saying that – for certain expenses – Cohan would be insufficient to save the day. One of those expenses was “listed property” which normal people refer to as a car or truck.

The Cohan rule will not save you when it comes to car and truck expenses. You have to keep records, such as a log or something similar for the business use of the vehicle.

Lisa Nkonoki deducted $22,936 for vehicle expenses on her 2009 federal tax return. Most of it was for the use of her Mercedes, but there were also rental cars during the year. She did not have a fixed office, meaning that she travelled – a lot.

The IRS wanted that mileage log.

Lisa refused. Off to Court they went.

Now the Court wanted the log.

Lisa told the Court that she had provided the log to the accountant who prepared her return, but the accountant failed to return it to her.

This placed the Court in a tough spot.

Her word alone was insufficient to substantiate the deduction.  The Court knew that her work involved travel – meaning that vehicle expenses were to be expected – but Section 274(d) would not let the Court estimate those expenses.

The Court disallowed her vehicle expenses.

I am curious why Nkonoki did not provide an alternative:

Using her e-mail, telephone and credit card records, could she have recreated an alternate log of her travel, including clients, dates and distances? We think of a log as being created at the moment (“contemporaneous”), but the Courts have noted that is not the correct meaning. Contemporaneous also encompasses other information (think e-mails) created at or near the time the expenses were incurred. Perhaps one transcribes that information into more usable form at a later time (such as a Tax Court hearing), but the information underlying such transcription was created at or near the time – that is, it was contemporaneous.

Our case this time was Nkonoki v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2016-93.

Whose Job Is It Anyway?

One of our accountants asked me recently:

R:      Do you think [so and so] qualifies as a real estate professional?

CTG: I do not know [so and so]. Tell me a little.

R:      Husband pulls a W-2.

CTG: How much and how many hours?

R:      Blah blah dollars.

CTG: Works in real estate?

R:      Nah.

CTG: Hours?

R:      Maybe 2,000.

CTG: Is the wife in real estate?

R:      No.

I have told you (almost) everything you need to answer the question.

Let’s look at the Warren case.

James Warren organized Warren Assisted Living, LLC in 2015.

He purchased a group home in 2016.

He started repairing the home almost immediately.

In 2017 he worked at Lockheed Martin for 1,913 hours as an engineer.

On his 2017 tax return he claimed a $41 thousand-plus loss from the group home. He claimed he was a real estate professional.

Warren did not keep time logs.

What sets this up are the passive activity rules under Section 469. As initially passed, that Section considered rental activities (with minimal exceptions) to be “per se” passive.

The passive activity rules would then stifle your ability to claim losses. You – for the most part – had to wait until you had income from the activity. You could then use the losses against the income. 

Well, that caught real estate landlords and others around the country by surprise. When you do one thing, it is difficult to have a Congressional staffer decide that your thing is not a regular thing like the next thing across the street.

Congress made a change.

(c)(7)  Special rules for taxpayers in real property business.

 

(A)  In general. If this paragraph applies to any taxpayer for a taxable year-

 

(i)  paragraph (2) shall not apply to any rental real estate activity of such taxpayer for such taxable year, and

(ii)  this section shall be applied as if each interest of the taxpayer in rental real estate were a separate activity.

 

Notwithstanding clause (ii) , a taxpayer may elect to treat all interests in rental real estate as one activity. Nothing in the preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall be construed as affecting the determination of whether the taxpayer materially participates with respect to any interest in a limited partnership as a limited partner.

 

(B)   Taxpayers to whom paragraph applies. This paragraph shall apply to a taxpayer for a taxable year if-

 

(i)  more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer during such taxable year are performed in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates, and

(ii)  such taxpayer performs more than 750 hours of services during the taxable year in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.

 

In the case of a joint return, the requirements of the preceding sentence are satisfied if and only if either spouse separately satisfies such requirements. For purposes of the preceding sentence, activities in which a spouse materially participates shall be determined under subsection (h) .

The above is called the real estate professional exception. It is a mercy release from the per se rule that would otherwise inaccurately (and unfairly) consider people who work in real estate all day to not be working at all.

It has two main parts:

(1) You have to spend at least 750 hours working in real estate, and

(2)  You have to spend more than 50% of your “working at something” total hours actually “working in real estate.”

If you are a real estate professional, you avoid the “per se” label. You have not yet escaped the passive activity rules – you still have to show that you worked - but at least you have the opportunity to present your case.

The Court looked at Warren’s 1,913 hours at Lockheed. That means he would need 3,827 total hours for real estate to be more than ½ of his total work hours. (1,913 times 2 plus 1).

First of all, 3,827 total hours means he was working at least 74 hours a week, every week, without fail, for the entire year.

Maybe. Doubt it.

Warren is going to need really good records to prove it.

Here is the Court:

Mr Warren did not keep contemporaneous logs of his time renovating the group home.”

Not good, but not necessarily fatal. I represented a client who kept Outlook and other records. She created her log after the fact but from records which themselves were contemporaneous. Mind you, we had to go to Appeals, but she won.

In preparation for trial, Mr Warren created – and presented – two time logs.”

Good grief.

The first log maintained that he worked 1,421 hours at the group home; it was created one week before trial.”

End it. That is less than his 1,913 hours at Lockheed.

The second log maintained that Mr. Warren worked 1,628 at the group home; it was created the night before trial.”

Why bother?

This was a slam dunk for the Court. They did not have to dwell on contemporaneous or competing logs or believability or whether the Bengals will turn their season around. Whether 1,421 or 1,628, he could not get to more-than-50%.

Warren lost.

As a rule of thumb, if you have a full-time W-2, it will be almost impossible to qualify as a real estate professional. The exception is when your full-time W-2 is in real estate, maybe with an employer such as CBRE or Cushman & Wakefield.  At 1,900-plus Lockheed hours, I have no idea what Warren was thinking, although I see that it was a per se case. That means he represented himself, and it shows.

I suppose one could have a W-2 and work crazy hours and meet the more-than-50% requirement, but your records should be much tighter. And skip the night before thing.

BTW another way to meet this test is by being married.

Look at (B)(ii) again:

In the case of a joint return, the requirements of the preceding sentence are satisfied if and only if either spouse separately satisfies such requirements. For purposes of the preceding sentence, activities in which a spouse materially participates shall be determined under subsection (h) .

If your spouse can meet the test (both parts), then you will qualify by riding on the shoulders of your spouse.

Our case this time was Warren v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2024-20.

Caleb William’s NFL Contract

 It may be that the NFL saved him from bad tax advice.

We are talking about Caleb Williams, the 2024 NFL number one overall draft pick by the Chicago Bears. He signed a four-year fully guaranteed contract for $39.5 million.

I can only wish.

But it was two additional negotiating positions that caught my eye.

(1)  He wanted to be paid via an LLC.

(2)  He wanted some/all of his contract to be structured as a forgivable loan.

I read that he was represented by his father, who has experience in commercial real estate but is not a registered agent.

But it helps to explain the LLC. The use of LLCs for real estate is extremely common, so his father would have seen their use repetitively. Still, what is the point of an LLC with an NFL contract?

It might be the expenses that an NFL player might incur: agent fees, union dues, specialized training and related travel, certain therapies and so forth. As those receiving a W-2 know, employee business expenses are presently nondeductible. If Caleb could run his NFL earnings through an LLC, perhaps he could avoid employee business expense classification and deduct them instead as regular business expenses.

There is a hitch, though. None of the four major team sports will pay compensation to an entity rather than directly to the athlete. In contrast, non-team athletes – like golfers – can route their earnings through a business entity. A key difference is that the PGA considers its golfers to be independent contractors, whereas the NFL (or MLB, NBA, or NHL) considers its players to be employees.

There is speculation that Caleb may have preferred an LLC because LLCs – ahem – “do not file tax returns.”   

Not quite. The tax treatment of LLCs is quite straightforward:

(1)  If the LLC has partners, then it will file a partnership return.

(2)  If the LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation, then it will file a corporate return. If an S election in place, it will file an S corporation return.

(3)  If the LLC has a single member, then the LLC is disregarded and does not file a tax return.

Do not misunderstand that last one: it does not say that income belonging to the LLC does not land on a tax return.

Let’s say that Caleb created a single member LLC (SMLLC). SMLLCs are also referred to as disregarded entities. The tax  Code instead considers Caleb and his SMLLC to be the same taxpayer. That is why there is no separate LLC return: all the income would be reportable on Caleb’s personal return.

Could someone have read the above and thought that income routed through an SMLLC is not taxed at all?

If so, Caleb really needs to hire a tax professional yesterday.

What about the loan forgiveness proposal?

I get it: loans are normally not considered income, as any increase in wealth is immediately offset by an obligation to repay the loan.

OK, Caleb receives contract monies, but he is liable for their repayment to the NFL. This potential liability means no immediate income to him. He would have income when the loan is forgiven, and (hopefully) he has some control when that happens.

But the NFL can call his loan, meaning he then must repay.

Oh puhleeeze.

Not to worry, says whoever. The NFL has no intention of calling the loan.

I am a huge NFL fan, but I am not an NFL team owner fan. There is no way I am trusting my money to owners who are monetizing their sport to such a degree that many fans cannot even see the games. Seriously, how many streaming services do they think an average person can afford?

What if Caleb includes conditions and guarantees and collateral and puts and ….?

Listen to yourself. You are leaving loan-land and whatever tax idea you started with. The IRS will come to the same conclusion. You have accomplished nothing, and you may even be exposing yourself to fraud charges.

I suppose Caleb could structure it as deferred compensation, the way Shohei Ohtani did with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Deferred compensation can get into crazy tax tripwires, but at least we are no longer talking about loans. If this is what he wants, then drop the loan talk and negotiate deferred compensation.

That is BTW what I would do. There is enough money here to make Caleb rich both now and later.

The NFL did Caleb Williams a favor by shooting down both proposals. 

A Charitable Deduction To An Estate

 

I had a difficult conversation with a client recently over an issue I had not seen in a while.

It involves an estate. The same issue would exist with a trust, as estates and trusts are (for the most part) taxed the same way.

Let’s set it up.

Someone passed away, hence the estate.

The estate is being probated, meaning that at least some of its assets and liabilities are under court review before payment or distribution. The estate has income while this process is going on and so files its own income tax return.

Many times, accountants will refer to this tax return as the “estate” return, but it should not be confused with the following, also called the “estate” return:

What is the difference?

Form 706 is the tax – sometimes called the death tax – on net assets when someone passes away. It is hard to trigger the death tax, as the Code presently allows a $13.6 million lifetime exclusion for combined estate and gift taxes (and twice that if one is married). Let’s be honest: $13.6 million excludes almost all of us.

Form 1041 is the income tax for the estate. Dying does not save one from income taxes.

Let’s talk about the client.

Dr W passed away unexpectedly. At death he had bank and brokerage accounts, a residence, retirement accounts, collectibles, and a farm. The estate is being probated in two states, as there is real estate in the second state. The probate has been unnecessarily troublesome. Dr W recorded a holographic will, and one of the states will not accept it.

COMMENT: Not all estate assets go through probate, by the way. Assets passing under will must be probated, but many assets do not pass under will.

What is an example of an asset that can pass outside of a will?

An IRA or 401(k).

That is the point of naming a beneficiary to your IRA or 401(k). If something happens to you, the IRA transfers automatically to the beneficiary under contract law. It does not need the permission of a probate judge.

Back to Dr W.

Our accountant prepared the Form 1041, I saw interest, dividends, capitals gains, farm income and … a whopping charitable donation.

What did the estate give away?

Books. Tons of books. I am seeing titles like these:

·       Techniques of Chinese Lacquer

·       Vergoldete Bronzen I & II

·       Pendules et Bronzes d’Ameublement

Some of these books are expensive. The donation wiped out whatever income the estate had for the year.

If the donation was deductible.

Look at the following:

§ 642 Special rules for credits and deductions.

      (c)  Deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside for a charitable purpose.

(1)  General rule.

In the case of an estate or trust ( other than a trust meeting the specifications of subpart B), there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing its taxable income (in lieu of the deduction allowed by section 170(a) , relating to deduction for charitable, etc., contributions and gifts) any amount of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument is, during the taxable year, paid for a purpose specified in section 170(c) (determined without regard to section 170(c)(2)(A) ). If a charitable contribution is paid after the close of such taxable year and on or before the last day of the year following the close of such taxable year, then the trustee or administrator may elect to treat such contribution as paid during such taxable year. The election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by regulations.

This not one of the well-known Code sections.

It lays out three requirements for an estate or trust to get a charitable deduction:

• Must be paid out of gross income.
• Must be paid pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument.
• Must be paid for a purpose described in IRC Sec. 170(c) without regard to Section 170(c)(2)(A). 

Let’s work backwards.

The “170(c) without …” verbiage opens up donations to foreign charities.

In general, contributions must be paid to domestic charities to be income-tax deductible. There are workarounds, of course, but that discussion is for another day. This restriction does not apply to estates, meaning they can contribute directly to foreign charities without a workaround.

This issue does not apply to Dr W.

Next, the instrument governing the estate must permit payments to charity. Without this permission, there is no income tax deduction.

I am looking at the holographic will, and there is something in there about charities. Close enough, methinks.

Finally, the donation must be from gross income. This term is usually interpreted as meaning gross taxable income, meaning sources such as municipal interest or qualified small business stock would create an issue.

The gross income test has two parts:

(1)  The donation cannot exceed the estate’s cumulative (and previously undistributed) taxable income over its existence.

(2)  The donation involves an asset acquired by that accumulated taxable income. A cash donation easily meets the test (if it does not exceed accumulated taxable income). An in-kind distribution will also qualify if the asset was acquired with cash that itself would have qualified.

The second part of that test concerns me.

Dr W gave away a ton of books.

The books were transferred to the estate as part of its initial funding. The term for these assets is “corpus,” and corpus is not gross income. Mind you, you probably could trace the books back to the doctor’s gross income, but that is not the test here.

I am not seeing a charitable deduction.

“I would not have done this had I known,” said the frustrated client.

I know.

We have talked about a repetitive issue with taxes: you do not know what you do not know.

How should this have been done?

Distribute the books to the beneficiary and let him make the donation personally. Those rules about gross income and whatnot have no equivalent when discussing donations by individuals.

What if the beneficiary does not itemize?

Understood, but you have lost nothing. The estate was not getting a deduction anyway.