Fish Bites Section 1239 Trap

 

Let’s talk about how a business purchase transaction can blow up.

The pepper in this stew is that the seller and buyer have different tax goals:

• The buyer wants to deduct as much as possible. In general, this means that the other side (the seller) will be recognizing ordinary income to offset those ordinary deductions.

• The seller wants as much capital gains as possible. In general, this means that the other side (the buyer) may have to amortize or depreciate assets over time rather than deducting them immediately.

M&A tax planning at heart comes down to the above tension.

Sometimes reading M&A cases can be difficult: numerous entities, mind-numbing detail, this move, that move, everyone come down and bust a move. Let’s take one case that caught my attention. As we have (sometimes) done before, we will modify the names to make the story easier to follow.

In 1996 Vernon started a one-man technology company in Kansas City. By 2004 it was one of the largest network security companies in the nation.

Let’s call his company Harry.

Vernon wanted cash for his troubles and travails. He would keep majority control of the company, but he would also have cash for little things - like expensive cars and multiple houses. I am with Vernon here.

Petunia was looking to invest in Harry.

Dial-in the tension between the seller and the buyer. Here is what they came up with

• Vernon owned 100% of Harry, an S corporation.
• Vernon transferred 100% of his stock in Harry to Hermione, a newly-formed S corporation.

COMMENT: There is a problem here: S corporations generally have to be owned by individuals, estates and certain trusts. A corporation cannot own an S corporation, except for …

• Harry immediately elected to be a Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary (QSSS), an exception to that corporation-owning-an-S thing. Hermione owned Harry and it was all okay.

• Petunia dropped $10.5 million into Hermione in exchange for 43% of newly-issued preferred stock.

COMMENT: The money is now in play. The issue is getting it out to Vernon.

• We have a problem with Hermione. First, an S corporation must have only one class of stock, and Hermione now had two: common and preferred. Second, a QSSS can have only one shareholder: a parent who owns 100% of the QSSS stock. Hermione now had two shareholders. No surprise …

• Hermione’s S election blew up.

COMMENT: This was intentional. Harry was deemed to have transferred its interest in Hermione to a new corporation in exchange for 57% of the new stock. Petunia was deemed to have transferred $10.5 million for the remaining 43% interest. We will call the new corporation Ron.

COMMENT: There is a Code section (Section 351) that normally prevents incorporations from being taxable. There are ways to make it taxable, but most planners stay far away from them. One way? Pay money back to an incorporator (in this case, Harry via Hermione). The geek term for this money is “boot.”

• Ron paid $9.7 million in boot to Harry/Hermione upon reincorporation.

COMMENT: There you go: the planners deliberately sprung the trap. I do not recall ever doing this in my career. Why did they do it? To move the money to Vernon, of course, but also to have a chance at capital gains treatment by rinsing it through a Section 351 transaction.

• Let’s take stock of where we are.

a.     Petunia wanted ordinary deductions. She now has it in the way of amortization and depreciation. She put money into Hermione/Ron – and that money was buying assets; tangible, intangible, whatever. Petunia never bought stock.

b.    Vernon wanted capital gains. The easiest way would have been to sell Harry/Hermione stock, but Petunia wasn’t interested. All this ambulation was to mimic the sale of stock.

I admit: the tax work up to this point is clever.

But someone overlooked this interloper:

26 U.S. Code § 1239 - Gain from sale of depreciable property between certain related taxpayers

(a) Treatment of gain as ordinary income

In the case of a sale or exchange of property, directly or indirectly, between related persons, any gain recognized to the transferor shall be treated as ordinary income if such property is, in the hands of the transferee, of a character which is subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 167.

The idea here is simple: Congress did not want related parties to depreciate assets and then sell them to a related party to start the depreciation over again.

Tax being tax, the words have a loaded meaning. For example, does “depreciation” under Section 167 include amortization, which is the equivalent of depreciation but for intangible assets? “Related persons” also has multiple definitions, depending upon where you are in the Code.

Let’s continue.

Remember that we are dealing with a technology consulting company in Kansas City. This is a not a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania with all kinds of real estate and machinery and equipment. Most of what Petunia bought for $10.5 million was intangible assets, amortizable under Section 197 over 15 years.

At which point I presume the tax planners stopped, reasoning that Section 197 is not Section 167 and therefore Section 1239 was not an issue.

Except for Reg 1.197-2(g)(8):

Also, an amortizable Section 197 intangible is section 1245 property and Section 1239 applies to any gain recognized upon its sale or exchange between related persons (as defined in Section 1239(b)).”

Buried deep, but there it is. Section 1239 slipped its first noose on the transaction.

But were the parties related? Could Harry/Hermione/Ron avoid the second noose?

Here is Section 267(f):

Think of Section 1563 as applying to consolidated corporations (where corporations own other corporations). Section 267 addresses individuals owning corporations (what we would call brother-sisters). Section 267 is taking a consolidation definition and changing it for brother-sisters. It is changing the definition to make it less stringent.

Section 1239 wants related parties, and Section 267 says you have related with more than 50% common ownership.

Vernon owned 100% of Harry and 100% of Hermione. He also owned 57% of Ron.

Yep, related.

Section 1239 applied.

Vernon got ordinary income, not capital gain, treatment on the $9-plus million dollars.

Petunia got her ordinary deductions - over time and not right away.

It is very tough to accommodate both sides.

But Vernon did get his $9-plus million dollars.

Our case this time, modified a spot for ease of writing and readability, was Fish v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2013 - 270.

Lost Records, A Dead Professional And A Tax Audit

 

I admit I was suspicious when I read the following:

The corporation had a bookkeeper during the years at issue, Robin Greenslade, who is now deceased. Petitioners trusted Ms. Greenslade to handle the accounting and did not regularly review her work.”

The corporation … also used the bookkeeping services of Joan Falanga during the years at issue. She recorded Mr. Ataya’s capital contributions …, but these records and, indeed, all of her records for the corporation are lost.”

That’s quite a run of bad luck.

By 2008 Hani Ataya had nearly 20 years’ experience in car sales. In 2008 he founded Cost U Less Cars, Inc., a California corporation, with a partner. The partner left in 2012 and Inaam Ataya (Hani’s mother) joined the business shortly thereafter. His mom had an IT degree and had worked for the state of California.

The business was relatively straightforward: it bought cars at auction and resold them. Hani was the primary buyer, and he regularly used cashier’s checks to buy cars. Sometimes he used them all, sometimes he did not. When he did not, he kept the unused checks in a desk drawer for later use.

COMMENT: Not loving this: it is weak control over cash and will look bad in the event of audit.

It appears Cost U Less Cars, Inc was making bank:

             

Wow.

The company then started losing money and ceased operations in 2020.

The company was audited by the IRS for years 2014 through 2017. The audit went poorly.

The company filed with the Tax Court. The filing was thrown out in August, 2023 because the corporation no longer existed under California law. A corporation is an artificial legal entity. It exists because a state says it exists and does not exist when a state says otherwise.

The IRS saw the Ataya’s taking approximately $1.5 million in 2015 via cashier’s checks to purchase a house in Granite Bay, California.

COMMENT: No problem as long as they reported it as income: wages, dividends, Nigerian prince 419 scam, whatever.

They took out additional cashier’s checks in 2016 to pay for flooring and improvements to the place.

COMMENT: Ditto.

The IRS next examined the two shareholder personal returns.

COMMENT: Not an uncommon expansion of the audit, and (frankly) expected in this instance.

Here are proposed adjustments to Hani’s 2015 and 2016 tax years:

     

Here are adjustments to his mom:

How can you miss $1.5 million? You would think they were in Congress or something.

The IRS came in hot. They wanted tax. They wanted penalties. And interest. Hani’s tab alone for the two years was over $600 grand.

The Ataya’s wanted penalty relief.

First up: Cost U Less Cars, Inc was hamstrung during its audit. Key players were gone. Its charter had been revoked, causing difficulties with obtaining alternative records.

Yep, the loss of two key players and business documentation was odd. What accounting remained was questionable, to such a degree that the IRS used bank account analysis to arrive at more solid numbers. Neither fact helped Hani and his mom, as those were outside normal business practices. And that charter thing was self-inflicted.

Next up: reliance on a professional.

I like it.

There were two bookkeepers, and someone (not a CPA) to prepare the tax returns.

Professionals.

Here are the ingredients to arguing reliance:

·       The advisor was competent with sufficient expertise to justify reliance.

·       The taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the advisor.

·       The taxpayer actually relied on the advisor’s judgement.

Then I read something I am unsure I have ever read before:

Although petitioners testified that they relied on … and … for bookkeeping services and on Mr. Packey for tax preparation services, the record lacks evidence of their professional qualifications or, in the case of Mr. Packey, evidence of his competence as a tax professional.”

Ouch. I am feeling vicarious pain on behalf of Mr. Packey.

The Tax Court sustained the penalties.

My thoughts?

I would have argued the penalties too. I almost have to, as a professional.

However, when I read the two Tax Court cases (business and personal), I was expecting fraud penalties at the end of the story.

Know when to walk away, folks.

Our case today was Ataya v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-55.

Paying Personal Expenses Through A Business

I am looking at a tax case.

It reminds me of something.

There is a too-common belief that paying an expense through a business can somehow transmute an otherwise personal expenditure into a tax deduction.

Here are common ways I have heard the question:

(1)  My spouse is going to replace her car. Should we buy it through the business?

(2)  I run my business from my home. That makes my home a “headquarters,” right? Can’t I deduct all the expenses related to my business headquarters?

(3)  I am going to borrow money to [go on vacation/pay college tuition/buy a boat I’ve been wanting]. Should I have the business borrow the money to make it deductible?

Do not misunderstand, many times there is a more tax-efficient way to accomplish something. There may still be some tax though, and the goal is to minimize the tax. Making it disappear may not be an option, at least for a responsible practitioner.

Let’s look at the above questions.

(1) Realistically, if there is no business use of the vehicle, you are not allowed to deduct any of the ownership or operating expenses of a vehicle. Despite that, does it happen routinely? Of course. Practitioners do what they can, but it is like fighting the tide.

(2)  I consider this quackery, but it is a true story. No, working from home does not make your house fully deductible. You might get a home office deduction out of it, but that is a fraction of some – and not all – expenses. No, your house is not Proctor and Gamble. Get over it.

(3) This one might have traction, but in general the answer is no. Even if the interest is deductible, how is the company getting you the money? Is it going to lend it to you? If so, you will have to pay interest to the company, although you may be able to arbitrage the rate. Will the company bonus you the money? If so, I see FICA and income taxes in your future. Explain to me the win condition here.

Let’s look at Justin Maderia (JM).

JM lived in Florida and owned 50% of Lindy Inc (Lindy).

Lindy must be a C corporation, which is the type that pays its own taxes. I say this because the Court refers to earnings and profits (E&P), which is a C corporation concept. The purpose of E&P is to track a corporation’s ability to pay dividends. When it pays dividends, a corporation is sharing its accumulated profits with its shareholders. The corporation has already paid taxes on these profits (remember: a C corporation pays taxes). When it pays dividends, you are personally taxed on that previously taxed profit. This is the reason for “qualified dividends” in the tax Code: to cut you a break on that second round of taxation.

The IRS was looking at JM’s 2018 personal return. It was also looking at Lindy’s 2018 business return.

COMMENT: It is not unusual to include a closely held company with the audit of an individual tax return.

The IRS wanted to increase JM’s 2018 income by $192 grand of “stuff” that Lindy paid on his behalf.

COMMENT:  Sounds to me like Lindy was paying for EVERYTHING.

Let’s talk procedure here.

The IRS identified personal transactions in Lindy. Lindy was the type of corporation that could pay dividends, and the IRS argument was – to the extent Lindy paid for personal stuff – that such payments represented constructive dividends to JM.

Fair. Consider that the serve.

JM gets to return.

He would argue that the payments were not personal because … well, who knows why.

JM did nothing.

Huh?

JM did nothing because he had a previous audit, and the IRS never pursued the issue of Lindy payments. JM believed he was immunized.

Mind you, there is a kernel of truth here, but JM has googled the concept beyond all recognition.

IF the IRS looks at an issue AND makes no change to your tax return for that issue, you can challenge a later proposed assessment based on that same issue. You might not win, mind you, but you have grounds for the challenge.

Is this what happened to JM?

Let’s look at it.

The IRS examined his prior year return.

Score one for JM.

The IRS never looked at Lindy.

We are done.

There is no immunity. JM cannot challenge a proposed 2018 assessment on an issue the IRS did not examine in a prior year.

JM had to return on different grounds. He did not. He - procedurally speaking - automatically lost.

JM had $192 grand of additional income.

The IRS next wanted the accuracy-related penalty.

Well, of course they did. If they were any more predictable, we could just put it on a calendar.

The Court said “no” to the penalty.

Why?

Because the IRS had looked at JM’s previous return. The IRS either did not bring up or dismissed the Lindy issue, so JM kept reporting the same way. While this would not protect him from a challenge of additional income, it did provide a “reasonable basis” defense against penalties.

Our case this time was Maderia v Commissioner, T.C. Summary 2024-5.

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.

IRS Challenges Rent In A Small Town

Let’s look at a case involving rent.

What sets this up is a C corporation in Montana.

A C corporation means that it pays its own tax. Contrast this with an S corporation, which (with rare exception) passes-through its income to its shareholders, who then combine that income with their own income (W-2, interest and dividends) and pay tax personally.

As a generalization, a tax advisor working with entrepreneurial clients is much more likely to work with S corporations (or LLCs, an increasingly popular choice). The reason is simple: a C corporation has two levels of tax: once to the company itself and then to the owners when distributed as dividends. Now that may not be an issue to a Fortune 1000, some of which are larger than certain countries and themselves are near-permanent entities - expected to outlive any current corporate officer or investor. It however is an issue to a closely-held company that will be lucky to transition one generation and unlikely to transition two.

Plentywood Drug is a Montana corporation that operates the only pharmacy in Plentywood, Montana and serves four counties spanning 7,200 square miles.

The company has four owners, representing two families.

It leases a building owned by its four owners.

COMMENT: So far, there is zero unusual about this.

The company paid the following rent:

           2011                       $ 83,584

           2012                       $192,000

           2013                       $192,000

The IRS did not like this one bit.

Why not?

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. The IRS said that the company was paying too much in rent. Rent is deductible. Excess rent is considered a dividend and is not deductible. The corporation would lose a deduction for its excess rent. The owners however received $192,000, so they are going to be taxed on that amount. How will they be taxed if the IRS ratches-down the rent? The excess will be considered dividends and taxed to them accordingly.

Remember: a C corporation does not get a deduction for dividends. The IRS gets more tax from the company while the individual taxes of the four owners stays the same. It’s a win for the IRS.

An S corporation does not have this issue, as all income of the S is taxed to its owners. This is another reason that tax advisors representing entrepreneurial wealth prefer working with S corporations.

How does the IRS win this?

Well, it has to show that $192,000 is too much rent.

Problem: the town of Plentywood has 1,700 people.

Another problem: Montana is a nondisclosure state, meaning real estate data – such as sales prices – is legally confidential and simply not available.

The IRS brought in its valuation specialist. Third problem: Montanans do not tend to share financial information easily with strangers.

The IRS expert remarked that that he did not identify himself as an IRS agent while he was in Plentywood.

Probably for the best.

Then the IRS expert made a fateful decision: he would base his appraisal solely on Plentywood data.

Well, that should take about half a day.

He looked at the post office, two apartment buildings and a 625-square-foot commercial space.

He did the best he could to compensate by making adjustments: for commercial versus residential, for the safety of the Post Office as a tenant, for Aaron Rodgers possibly leaving the Packers.

The two families brought in their specialist, who supplemented his database by including Williston, North Dakota – the “big town” about an hour away and with a population about eight times the size.

The IRS argued that Williston was simply not comparable.

Here is the Court:

We therefore do not accept the Williston properties as being reasonable comparisons.”

Oh oh.

The two families argued that the IRS specialist was mixing tamarinds and eggplants.

Here is the Court:

His expert used two residential properties in his analysis. Government-subsidized multifamily residential housing is like a retail drugstore in that both are rented. But not in much else.”

You can tell the Court was frustrated.

How about the post office? Both sides used the post office.

Yet even though both sides agree that the post office is comparable, they disagree about the number of square feet it has.”

The Court – having to do something – decided that fair rent was $171,187.

The IRS then wanted penalties. The IRS always wants penalties.

What for?

The Commissioner alleges that the first cause on this list – negligence or disregard of rules or regulations … - applies to Plentywood Drug ….”

The Court squinted and said: What? You brought a trial, the rent turned out to be within $20 grand of what the families deducted in the first place, we have heard far too much about appraising properties over frontier America and you have the nerve to say that there was negligence or disregard?

The Court adjusted the rent and nixed the penalties.

Our case this time was Plentywood Drug Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-45.