Don’t Be A Jerk

 

I am looking at a case containing one of my favorite slams so far this year.

Granted, it is 2020 COVID, so the bar is lower than usual.

The case caught my attention as it begins with the following:

The Johnsons brought this suit seeking refunds of $373,316, $192,299, and $114,500 ….”

Why, yes, I would want a refund too.

What is steering this boat?

… the IRS determined that the Johnsons were liable for claimed Schedule E losses related to real estate and to Dr. Johnson’s business investments.”

Got it. The first side of Schedule E is for rental real estate, so I gather the doctor is landlording. The second side reports Schedules K-1 from passthroughs, so the doctor must be invested in a business or two.

There is a certain predictability that comes from reviewing tax cases over the years. We have rental real estate and a doctor.

COMMENT: Me guesses that we have a case involving real estate professional status. Why? Because you can claim losses without the passive activity restrictions if you are a real estate pro.

It is almost impossible to win a real estate professional case if you have a full-time gig outside of real estate.  Why? Because the test involves a couple of hurdles:

·      You have to spend at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities, and

·      Those hours have to be more than ½ of hours in all activities.

One might make that first one, but one is almost certain to fail the second test if one has a full-time non-real-estate gig. Here we have a doctor, so I am thinking ….

Wait. It is Mrs. Johnson who is claiming real estate professional status.

That might work. Her status would impute to him, being married and all.

What real estate do they own?

They have properties near Big Bear, California.

These were not rented out. Scratch those.

There was another one near Big Bear, but they used a property management company to help manage it. One year they used the property personally.

Problem: how much is there to do if you hired a property management company? You are unlikely to rack-up a lot of hours, assuming that you are even actively involved to begin with.

Then there were properties near Las Vegas, but those also had management companies. For some reason these properties had minimal paperwork trails.

Toss up these softballs and the IRS will likely grind you into the dirt. They will scrutinize your time logs for any and every. Guess what, they found some discrepancies. For example, Mrs. Johnson had counted over 80 hours studying for the real estate exam.

Can’t do that. Those hours might be real-estate related, but the they are not considered operational hours - getting your hands dirty in the garage, so to speak. That hurt. Toss out 80-something hours and …. well, let’s just say she failed the 750-hour test.

No real estate professional status for her.

So much for those losses.

Let’s flip to the second side of the Schedule E, the one where the doctor reported Schedules K-1.

There can be all kinds of tax issues on the second side. The IRS will probably want to see the K-1s. The IRS might next inquire whether you are actually working in the business or just an investor – the distinction means something if there are losses. If there are losses, the IRS might also want to review whether you have enough money tied-up – that is, “basis” - to claim the loss. If you have had losses over several years, they may want to see a calculation whether any of that “basis” remains to absorb the current year loss.

 Let’s start easy, OK? Let’s see the K-1s.

The Johnson’s pointed to a 1000-plus page Freedom of Information request.

Here is the Court:

The Johnsons never provide specific citations to any information within this voluminous exhibit and instead invite the court to peruse it in its entirety to substantiate their arguments.”

Whoa there, guys! Just provide the K-1s. We are not here to make enemies.

Here is the Court:

It behooves litigants, particularly in a case with a record of this magnitude, to resist the temptation to treat judges as if they were pigs sniffing for truffles.”

That was a top-of-the-ropes body slam and one of the best lines of 2020.

The Johnsons lost across the board.

Is there a moral to this story?

Yes. Don’t be a jerk.

Our case this time was Johnson DC-Nevada, No 2:19-CV-674.

A BallPark Tax

I am a general tax practitioner, but even within that I set limits. There are certain types of work that I won’t do, if I do not do enough of it to (a) keep the technical issues somewhat fresh in my mind and (b) warrant the time it would require to remain current.

Staying current is a necessity. The tax landscape is littered with landmines.

For example, did you know there is a tax to pay for Nationals Park, the home to the Washington Nationals baseball team?

I am not talking about a sales tax or a fee when you buy a ticket to the game.

No, I mean that you have to file a return and pay yet another tax.

That strikes me as cra-cra.

At least the tax excludes business with gross receipts of less than $5 million sourced to the District of Columbia.

That should protect virtually all if not all of my clients. I might have a contractor go over, depending on where their jobs are located in any given year.

Except ….

Let’s go to the word “source.”

Chances are you think of “source” as actually being there. You have an office or a storefront in the District. You send in a construction work crew from Missouri. Maybe you send in a delivery truck from Maryland or Virginia.

I can work with that.

I am reading that the District now says that “source” includes revenues from services delivered to customers in the District, irrespective where the services are actually performed.

Huh?

What does that mean?

If I structure a business transaction for someone in D.C., am I expected to file and pay that ballpark tax? I am nowhere near D.C. I should at least get a courtesy tour of the stadium. And a free hot dog. And pretzel.

COMMENT: My case is a bad example. I have never invoiced a single client $5 million in my career. If I had, I might now be the Retired Cincinnati Tax Guy.

I can better understand the concept when discussing tangible property. I can see it being packaged and shipped; I can slip a barcode on it. There is some tie to reality.

The concept begins to slip when discussing services. What if the company has offices in multiple cities?  What if I make telephone calls and send e-mails to different locations? What if a key company person I am working with in turn works remotely? What if the Browns go to the Super Bowl?

The game de jour with state (and District) taxation is creative dismemberment of the definition of nexus.

Nexus means that one has sufficient ties to and connection with a state (or District) to allow the state (or District) to impose its taxation. New York cannot tax you just because you watched an episode of Friends. For many years it meant that one had a location there. If not a location, then perhaps one had an employee there, or kept inventory, or maybe sent trucks into the state for deliveries. There was something – or someone – tangible which served as the hook to drag one within the state’s power to tax.

That definition doesn’t work in an economy with Netflix, however.

The Wayfair decision changed the definition. Nexus now means that one has sales into the state exceeding a certain dollar threshold.

While that definition works with Netflix, it can lead to absurd results in other contexts. For example, I recently purchased a watch from Denmark. Let’s say that enough people in Kentucky like and purchase the same or a similar watch. Technically, that means the Danish company would have a Kentucky tax filing requirement, barring some miraculous escape under a treaty or the like.

What do you think the odds are that a chartered accountant in Denmark would have a clue that Kentucky expects him/her to file a Kentucky tax return?

Let’s go back to what D.C. did. They took nexus. They redefined nexus to mean sales into the District.  They redefined it again to include the sale of services provided by an out-of-District service provider.

This, folks, is bad tax law.

And a tax accident waiting to happen.

Can Payroll Taxes Put You In Jail?

Can you go to jail for not remitting payroll taxes?

Let’s set this up:

• You have a temporary nursing staffing agency in Minnesota.
• You treat your nurses as independent contractors.
• You had a predecessor company which the IRS charged with willfully misclassifying workers and failing to remit payroll taxes.  You survived that occasion by settling with the IRS, but the settlement included language similar to the following:

 “... with respect to any other business similar to the ... entities that he might own, operate or control in the future, he would treat as employees for tax purposes all workers who performed functions or duties that were the same or similar as the function or duties performed by the nurses and nursing assistants who worked for the ... entities. In other words, defendant ... was obligated to withhold and pay over employment taxes for the nursing professionals who worked for any of his entities.”

• Minnesota has a law requiring nursing staffing agencies to certify that they are treating their nurses as employees and not as independent contractors. You have made this certification to Minnesota.

So, can you go to jail for not remitting the nurses’ payroll taxes?

A too-common problem is a cash-strapped business falling behind on depositing their payroll taxes. You can fall behind on many types of taxes and still be able to work something out. You fall behind with payroll taxes, however, and the IRS can be very harsh. The reason is that the IRS (and the states also) considers it stealing. You pay an employee $700 and withhold $200 for taxes. That $200 is not your money: it is the employee’s money that you now hold as agent for remittance to the IRS. The IRS reserves one of its most frightening penalties for this: it is called the trust fund recovery penalty. This penalty is 100% (you read that right), and it attaches to you as an individual. You cannot shed that penalty by leaving or bankrupting the business, because the penalty applies to you. It follows you like a bad haircut.

That penalty however is not what we have here. What we have here is Francis Leroy McLain (U.S. v McLain). The case was appealed to the Eight Circuit from the District Court of Minnesota.

The IRS looked at two entities owned by McLain, Kind Hearts and Kirpal Nurses, and came to the conclusion that the nurses were employees.

OBSERVATION: The IRS will almost always say that someone is an employee, whether they are or not. They want the payroll taxes, of course.

McLain owed about $340,000 in payroll taxes. He had been down this path before, and the IRS had not forgotten. They dusted off Section 7202, a very special tax gem for someone who pushes the sled too far:

Any person required ... to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposes by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to the other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the cost of prosecution.”

McLain left the shores of the responsible person penalty far behind. He sailed into the deep waters of going to jail. He is now dealing with CID, the criminal side of the IRS.

NOTE: A word to the wise: you never want to deal with CID. These guys have badges. They have guns. And they will put you in jail. I know. I had a client who had gone to jail courtesy of CID, and I know a tax practitioner in northern Kentucky who will be going.

As a tax guy, I am hoping that McLain has some serious technical arguments to make in his defense. I am expecting a ferocious goal-line stand. Here comes his first play:

(1)   McLain referred to the two agencies, King Hearts and Kirpal Nurses, as “Kirpal.” He argued that Kirpal was the employer, and, as the employer, only Kirpal had a duty to account and pay over taxes on its employees.

COMMENT: McLain starts off by irritating me. There was a case on this issue before I even came out of school. The case is Slodov v United States. It was a Supreme Court case and included the following language:

“Sections 6672 and 7202 were designed to assure compliance by the employer with its obligation to withhold and pay the sums withheld, by subjecting the employer’s officials responsible for the employer’s decisions regarding withholding and payment to civil and criminal penalties ...”

            McLain was an officer. What part of this did he not get?

            SCORE: IRS (1) McLain (0)

(2)   McLain argues that he had a good faith belief that the nurses were not employees. The lawyers refer to this as “mens rea,” and he argued that his state of mind did not rise to “willful.” Without willfulness, McLain cannot come under Section 7202.

COMMENT: I like this argument. Unfortunately, he had a prior run-in with the IRS on this very same point, which greatly diluted the argument’s persuasiveness.

            SCORE: IRS (2) McLain (0)

(3)   McLain argues that the IRS has to pursue a civil penalty before it can pursue a criminal penalty, and the civil penalty requires a written notice. He received no written notice, so the IRS cannot proceed with criminal prosecution.

COMMENT: I noticed that the Court reminded McLain’s attorney that he “has an independent obligation, regardless of what his client may demand, to refrain from filing frivolous motions.”

            SCORE: IRS (3) McLain (0)

(4)   McLain moved to dismiss the charges because (1) he is a “natural human being” and the United States does not have authority over him.

COMMENT: McLain’s attorney blanched here, and McLain fired him. McLain represented himself from this point on.

A tax protest argument? Seriously?

SCORE: IRS (4) McLain (0)

McLain lost soundly.

This type of action by the IRS is rare. I can assure that – in almost all cases – the IRS does not want to put anyone in jail. They want your money, and being in jail impedes you getting the IRS any money. And all parties in the system – the IRS, the courts and judges, responsible practitioners – are tired of the tax protest siren song.

I am sympathetic to arguments that our tax system left the world of rational thought years ago, but that does not mean the income tax is illegal. It can be irrational, immoral, confiscatory, divisive and destimulative without being illegal.

McLain has taken what could have been a civil penalty – albeit a stiff one – and morphed it into a multi-year stay at Club Fed. There likely is a fairly impressive fine also. He did however enter the tax literature, primarily for being a blockhead.