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.

 

The Skip Tax - Part Two

 

How does one work with the skip?

In my experience, the skip is usually the realm of the tax attorneys, although that is not to say the tax CPA does not have a role. The reason is that most skips involve trusts, and trusts are legal documents. CPAs cannot create legal documents. However, let that trust age a few decades, and it is possible that the next set of eyes to notice a technical termination or taxable distribution will be the CPA.

Let’s pause for a moment and talk about the annual exclusion and lifetime exemption.

The gift tax has an annual exclusion of $18,000 per donee per year. There is also a (combined gift and estate tax) lifetime exemption of $13.6 million per person. If you gift more than $18 grand to someone, you start carving into that $13.6 million lifetime exemption.

The skip tax has the same exclusion and exemption limits as the gift tax.

The problem is that a gift and a skip may not happen at the same time.

Let’s take two examples.

(1)  A direct skip

That is the proverbial gift to the grandchild. Let’s say that it well over $18 grand, so you must file a return with the IRS.

You gift her a $100 grand.

The gift is complete, so you file Form 709 (the gift tax return) with your individual tax return next year.

The transfer immediately dropped at least two generations, so the skip is complete. You complete the additional sections in Form 709 relating to skips. You claim the annual exclusion of $18 grand, and you apply some of the $13.6 million exemption to cover the remaining $82 grand.

Done. Directs skips are easy.

(2)  An indirect skip

Indirects are another way of saying trusts.

Remember we discussed that there is a scenario (the taxable termination) where the trust itself is responsible for the skip tax. However, there is no skip tax until the exemption is exhausted. The skip may not occur for years, even decades, down the road. How is one to know if any exemption remains?

Enter something called the “inclusion ratio.”

Let’s use an example.

(1)  You fund a trust with $16 million, and you have $4 million of (skip) lifetime exemption remaining. 

(2)  The skip calculates a ratio for this trust.

4 divided by 16 is 25%.

Seems to me that you have inoculated 25% of that trust against GST tax.

(3)  Let’s calculate another ratio.

1 minus 25% is 75%.

This is called the inclusion ratio.

It tells you how much of that trust will be exposed to the skip tax someday.

(4)  Calculate the tax. 

Let’s say that the there is a taxable termination when the trust is worth $20 million.

$20 million times 75% equals $15 million.

$15 million is exposed to the skip tax.

Let’s say the skip tax rate is 40% for the year the taxable termination occurs.

The skip tax is $6 million.

That trust is permanently tainted by that inclusion ratio.

Now, in practice this is unlikely to happen. The attorney or CPA would instead create two trusts: one for $4 million and another for $11 million. The $4 million trust would be allocated the entire remaining $4 million exemption. The ratio for this trust would be as follows:

                       4 divided by 4 equals 1

                       1 minus 1 equals -0-.

                       The inclusion ratio is zero.

                       This trust will never have skip tax.

What about the second trust with $11 million?

You have no remaining lifetime exemption.

The second trust will have an inclusion ratio of one.

There will be skip tax on 100% of something in the future.

Expensive?

Yep, but what are you going to do?

In practice, these are sometimes called Exempt and Nonexempt trusts, for the obvious reason.

Reflecting, you will see that a direct skip does not have an equivalent to the “inclusion ratio.” The direct skip is easier to work with.

A significant issue involved with allocating is missing the issue and not allocating at all.

Does it happen?

Yes, and a lot. In fact, it happens often enough that the Code has default allocations, so that one does not automatically wind up having trusts with inclusion ratios of one.

But the default may not be what you intended. Say you have $5 million in lifetime exemption remaining. You simultaneously create two trusts, each for $5 million. What is that default going to do? Will it allocate the $5 million across both trusts, meaning that both trusts have an inclusion ratio of 50%? That is probably not what you intended. It is much more likely that you intend to allocate to only one trust, giving it an inclusion ratio of zero.

There is another potential problem.

The default does not allocate until it sees a “GST trust.”

What is a GST trust?

It is a trust that can have a skip with respect to the transferor unless one or more of six exceptions apply.

OK, exceptions like what?

Exception #1 – “25/46” exception. The trust instrument provides that more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the trust principal must be distributed (or may be withdrawn) by one or more persons who are non-skip persons before that individual reaches age forty-six (46) (or by a date that will occur or under other circumstances that are likely to occur before that individual reaches age forty-six (46)) (IRC §2632(c)(3)(B)(i)).”

Here is another:

Exception #2 – “25/10” exception. The trust instrument provides that more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the trust principal must be distributed (or may be withdrawn) by one or more persons who are non-skip persons and who are living on the date of the death of another person identified in the instrument who is more than ten (10) years older than such individual (IRC §2632(c)(3)(B)(ii)).”

Folks, this is hard terrain to navigate. Get it wrong and the Code does not automatically allocate any exemption until … well, who knows when?

Fortunately, the Code does allow you to override the default and hard allocate the exemption. You must remember to do so, of course.

There is another potential problem, and this one is abstruse.

One must be the “transferor” to allocate the exemption.

So what, you say? It makes sense that my neighbor cannot allocate my exemption.

There are ways in trust planning to change the “transferor.”

You want an example?

You set up a dynasty trust for your child and grandchildren. You give your child a testamentary general power of appointment over trust assets.

A general power of appointment means that the child can redirect the assets to anyone he/she wishes.

Here is a question: who is the ultimate transferor of trust assets – you or your child?

It is your child, as he/she has last control.

You create and fund the trust. You file a gift tax return. You hard allocate the skip exemption. You are feeling pretty good about your estate planning.

But you have allocated skip exemption to a trust for which you are not the “transferor.” Your child is the transferor. The allocation fizzles.

Can you imagine being the attorney, CPA, or trustee decades later when your child dies and discovering this? That is a tough day at the office.

I will add one more comment about working in this area: you would be surprised how legal documents and tax returns disappear over the years. People move. Documents are misplaced or inadvertently thrown out. The attorney has long since retired. The law firm itself may no longer exist or has been acquired by another firm. There is a good chance that your present attorney or CPA has no idea how – or if – anything was allocated many years ago. Granted, that is not a concern for average folks who will never approach the $13.6 million threshold for the skip, but it could be a valid concern for someone who hires the attorney or CPA in the first place. Or if Congress dramatically lowers the exemption amount in their relentless chase for the last quarter or dollar rolling free in the economy.

With that, let’s conclude our talk about skipping.

 

Spotting The Skip Tax - Part One

I was reviewing something this week we may not have discussed before. Mind you, there is a reason we haven’t: it is a high-rent problem, not easy to understand or likely to ever apply to us normals. If you work or advise in this area (as attorney, CPA, trustee or so on), however, it can wreck you if you miss it.

Let’s talk a bit about the generation skipping tax. It sometimes abbreviated “GST,” and I generally refer to it as the “skip.”

Why does this thing even exist?

It has to do with gift and estate taxes.

You know the gift tax: you are allowed to make annual gifts up to a certain amount per donee before having to report the gifts to the IRS. Even then, you are spotted an allowance for lifetime gifts. While there may be paperwork, you do not actually pay gift tax until you exhaust that lifetime allowance.

You know the estate tax: die with enough assets and you may have a death tax. Once again, there is an allowance, and no tax is due until you exceed that allowance. The 2024 lifetime exemption is $13.6 million per person, so you can be wealthy and still avoid this tax.

As I said, we are discussing high-end tax problems.

Then there is the third in this group of taxes: the generation skipping tax. It is there as a backstop. Without it, gift and estate taxes would lose a significant amount of their bite.

Why Does the Skip Exist?

Let go through an example.

When does the estate tax apply (setting aside that super-high lifetime exemption for this discussion)?

It applies when (a) someone with a certain level of assets (b) dies.

How would a planner work with this?

Here is an idea: what if one transfers assets to something that itself cannot die? Without a second death, the estate tax is not triggered again.

What cannot die, without going all Lovecraftian?

How about a corporation?

Or – more likely – a trust?

When Does The Skip Apply?

It applies when someone transfers assets to a skip person.

Let’s keep this understandable and not go through every exception or exception to the exception.

A skip person is someone two or more generations below the transferor.

          EXAMPLE:

·       A transfer to my kid would not be a skip.

·       A transfer to my grandchild would be a skip.

What Constitutes a Transfer?

There are two main types:

·       I simply transfer assets to my grandchild. Perhaps she finishes her medical degree, and I buy and deed her first house.

·       I transfer assets through a trust.

The first type is called a direct skip. Those are relatively easy to spot, trigger the skip immediately and require a tax filing.

You already know the form on which the skip is reported: the gift tax return itself (Form 709). The form has additional sections when the skip tax applies.

          EXAMPLE:

·       I give my son a hundred grand. This is over the annual dollar limit, so a gift tax return is required. My son is not a skip person, so I need not concern myself with the skip tax sections of Form 709.

·       I give my grandson a hundred grand. This is over the annual limit, so a gift tax return is required. My grandson is also a skip person, so I need to complete the skip tax sections of Form 709.

What Is the Second Type of Transfer?

Use a trust.

Here is an example:

• Create a trust in a state that has relaxed its rule against perpetuities (RAP).

a.     This rule comes from English common law, and its intent was to limit how long a person can control the ownership and transfer of property after his/her death.

• Fund the trust at the settlor’s death.

a.     If that someone is Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, there could be some serious money involved here.

•   The settlor’s children receive distributions from the trust. When they die, the settlor’s grandchildren take their place.

• When the grandchildren die, the great grandchildren take their place, and so on.

What we described above BTW is a dynasty trust.

The key here is - before the skip tax entered the Code in the 1970s - the then-existing gift and estate tax rules would NOT pull that trust back onto anyone’s estate return for another round of taxation.

Congress was not amused.

And you can see why a skip is defined as two generations below the transferor. Congress wanted a bite into that apple every generation, if possible.

How Does Skipping Through A Trust Work?

There are two main ways: 

EXAMPLE ONE: Say the trust has a mix of skip and nonskip beneficiaries, say children (nonskip) and grandchildren (skip). The IRS chills, because the trust might yet be includable in the taxable estate of a nonskip person. Say the last nonskip person dies (leaving only skips as beneficiaries) AND nothing is includable in an estate return somewhere. Yeah, no: this will trigger the skip tax. To make things confusing, the skip refers to this as a “termination,” even though nothing has actually terminated.   

EXAMPLE TWO: The trust again has a mix of skip and nonskip beneficiaries. This just like the preceding, except we will not kill-off the nonskip beneficiary. Instead, the trust simply distributes to a skip or skips (say the grandchildren or great-grandchildren). This triggers the skip tax and is easier to identify and understand.

If Skipping Through A Trust, When Is the Tax Due?

Look at Example One above. This could be years – or decades – after the creation of the trust.  

The trustee is supposed to recognize that there has been a skip “termination” of the trust. The trustee would file the (Form 709) tax return, and the trust would pay the skip tax.

And – yes – in the real world it is a problem. What if the trustee (or attorney or CPA) misses the termination as a taxable event?

Malpractice, that’s what. An insurance company will probably be involved.

What About Example Two?

This is a backstop to the first type of transfer. In the second type there is still a nonskip beneficiary, meaning that the trust has not “terminated” for skip purposes. The trust distributes, but the distribution goes to a skip.

Say the trust distributes a 1965 Shelby Mustang GT350 R.

First, nice.

Second, the skip tax is paid by the beneficiary receiving the distribution. The trust does not pay this one.

Third, the trustee may want to warn the beneficiary that he/she owes skip tax on a car worth at least $3.5 million.

Fourth, realistically the trust is going to pay, whether upfront or as a reimbursement to the beneficiary. The tax paid is itself subject to the skip tax if it comes out of the trust.

How Much Is the Skip Tax?

Right now, it is 40 percent.

It changes with changes to the gift and estate tax rates.

That 1965 Shelby GT 350R comes with a skip tax of at least $1.4 million. It takes a lot of green to ride mean.

How Do You Plan for This Tax?

The skip is very much a function of using trusts in estate planning.

Trust taxation can be oddball on its own.

Introduce skip tax and you can go near hallucinatory.

This is a good spot for us to break.

We will return next post to continue our skip talk.

Sonny Corleone’s IRA

I remember him as Sonny Corleone in The Godfather. He is James Caan, and he passed away in July 2022.

I am reading a Tax Court case involving his (more correctly: his estate’s) IRA.

There is a hedge fund involved.

For the most part, we are comfortable with “traditional” investments: money markets, CDs, stocks, bonds, mutual funds holding stocks and bonds and the mutual fund’s updated sibling: an ETF holding stocks and bonds.

Well, there are also nontraditional investments: gold, real estate, cryptocurrency, private equity, hedge funds. I get it: one is seeking additional diversification, low correlation to existing investments, enhanced protection against inflation and so forth.

For the most part, I consider nontraditional investments as more appropriate for wealthier individuals. Most people I know have not accumulated sufficient wealth to need nontraditional assets.

There are also tax traps with nontraditional assets in an IRA. We’ve talked before about gold. This time let’s talk about hedge funds.

James Caan had his cousin (Paul Caan) manage two IRAs at Credit Suisse. Paul wanted to take his career in a different direction, and he transferred management of the IRAs to Michael Margiotta. Margiotta left Credit Suisse in 2004, eventually winding up at UBS.

The wealthy are not like us. Caan, for example, utilized Philpott, Bills, Stoll and Meeks (PBSM) as his business manager. PBSM would:

·       Receive all Caan’s mail

·       Pay his bills

·       Send correspondence

·       Prepare his tax returns

·       Act as liaison with his financial advisors, attorneys, and accountants

I wish.

Caan had 2 IRAs at UBS. One was a regular, traditional, Mayberry-style IRA.

The second one owned a hedge fund.

The tax Code requires the IRA trustee or custodian to file reports every year. You probably have seen them: how much you contributed over the last year, or the balance in the IRA at year-end. Innocuous enough, except possibly for that year-end thing. Think nontraditional asset. How do you put a value on it? It depends, I suppose. It is easy enough to look up the price of gold. What if the asset is trickier: undeveloped land outside Huntsville, Alabama – or a hedge fund?

UBS had Caan sign an agreement for the IRA and its hedge fund.

The Client must furnish to the Custodian in writing the fair market value of each Investment annually by the 15th day of each January, valued as of the preceding December 31st, and within twenty days of any other written request from the Custodian, valued as of the date specified in such request. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that a statement that the fair market value is undeterminable, or that cost basis should be used is not acceptable and the Client agrees that the fair market value furnished to the Custodian will be obtained from the issuer of the Investment (which includes the general partner or managing member thereof). The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the issuer is unable or unwilling to provide a fair market value, the Client shall obtain the fair market value from an independent, qualified appraiser and the valuation shall be furnished on the letterhead of the person providing the valuation.

Got it. You have to provide a number by January 15 following year-end. If it is a hassle, you have to obtain (and you pay for) an appraisal.

What if you don’t?

The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that the Custodian shall rely upon the Client’s continuing attention, and timely performance, of this responsibility. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the Custodian does not receive a fair market value as of the preceding December 31, the Custodian shall distribute the Investment to the Client and issue an IRS Form 1099–R for the last available value of the Investment.

Isn’t that a peach? Hassle UBS and they will distribute the IRA and send you a 1099-R. Unless that IRA is rolled over correctly, that “distribution” is going to cost you “taxes.”

Let’s start the calendar.

March 2015		UBS contacted the hedge fund for a value.
June 2015		Margiotta left UBS for Merrill Lynch.
August 2015		Striking out, UBS contacted PBSM for a value.
October 2015		Hearing nothing, UBS sent PBSM a letter saying UBS was going to resign as IRA custodian in November.
October 2015		Margiotta had Caan sign paperwork to transfer the IRAs from UBS to Merrill Lynch.
		There was a problem: all the assets were transferred except for the hedge fund.
December 2015		UBS sent PBSM a letter saying that it had distributed the hedge fund to Caan.
January 2016		UBS sent a 1099-R.
March 2016		Caan’s accountant at PBSM sent an e-mail to Merrill Lynch asking why the hedge fund still showed UBS as custodian.
December 2016		Margiotta requested the hedge fund liquidate the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.
November 2017		The IRS sent the computer matching letter wanting tax on the IRA distribution. How did the IRS know about it? Because UBS sent that 1099-R.

The IRS wanted taxes of almost $780 grand, with penalties over $155 grand.

That caught everyone’s attention.

July 2018

Caan requested a private letter ruling from the IRS.

Caan wanted mitigation from an IRA rollover that went awry. This would be a moment for PBSM (or Merrill) to throw itself under the bus: taxpayer relied on us as experts to execute the transaction and was materially injured by our error or negligence….

That is not wanted they requested, though. They requested a waiver of the 60-day requirement for rollover of an IRA distribution.

I get it: accept that UBS correctly issued a 1099 for the distribution but argue that fairness required additional time to transfer the money to Merrill Lynch.

There is a gigantic technical issue, though.

Before that, I have a question: where was PBSM during this timeline? Caan was paying them to open and respond to his mail, including hiring and coordinating experts as needed. Somebody did a lousy job.

The Court wondered the same thing.

Both Margiotta and the PBSM accountant argued they never saw the letters from UBS until litigation started. Neither had known about UBS making a distribution.

Here is the Court:

            We do not find that portion of either witness’ testimony credible.

Explain, please.

We find it highly unlikely that PBSM received all mail from UBS— statements, the Form 1099–R, and other correspondence—except for the key letters (which were addressed to PBSM). Additionally, the March 2016 email between Ms. Cohn and Mr. Margiotta suggests that both of them knew of UBS’s representations that it had distributed the P&A Interest. It seems far more likely that there was simply a lack of communication and coordination between the professionals overseeing Mr. Caan’s affairs, especially given the timing of UBS’s letters, Mr. Margiotta’s move from UBS to Merrill Lynch, and the emails between Mr. Margiotta and Ms. Cohn. If all parties believed that UBS was still the P&A Interest’s custodian, why did no one follow up with UBS when it ceased to mail account statements for the IRAs? And why, if everyone was indeed blindsided by the Form 1099–R, did no one promptly follow up with UBS regarding it? (That followup did not occur until after the IRS issued its Form CP2000.) The Estate has offered no satisfactory explanation to fill these holes in its theory.

I agree with the Court.

I think that PBSM and/or Merrill Lynch should have thrown themselves under the bus.

But I would probably still have lost. Why? Look at this word salad:

        408(d) Tax treatment of distributions.

         (3)  Rollover contribution.

An amount is described in this paragraph as a rollover contribution if it meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(A)  In general. Paragraph (1) does not apply to any amount paid or distributed out of an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity to the individual for whose benefit the account or annuity is maintained if-

(i)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity (other than an endowment contract) for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the day on which he receives the payment or distribution; or

(ii)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an eligible retirement plan for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received, except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount received which is includible in gross income (determined without regard to this paragraph).

I highlighted the phrase “including money and any other property.” There is a case (Lemishow) that read a “same property” requirement into that phrase.

What does that mean in non-gibberish?

It means that if you took cash and property out of UBS, then the same cash and property must go into Merrill Lynch.

Isn’t that what happened?

No.

What came out of UBS?

Well, one thing was that hedge fund that caused this ruckus. UBS said it distributed the hedge fund to Caan. They even issued him a 1099-R for it.

What went into Merrill Lynch?

Margiotta requested the hedge fund sell the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.

Cash went into Merrill Lynch.

What went out was not the same as what went in.

Caan (his estate, actually) was taxable on the hedge fund coming out of the UBS IRA.

Dumb. Unnecessary. Expensive.

Our case this time was Estate of James E. Caan v Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 6, filed October 18, 2023.