Use Of Wrong Form Costs A Tax Refund

Let’s talk about the following Regulation:

26 CFR § 301.6402-2

Claims for credit or refund

(b) Grounds set forth in claim.

(1) No refund or credit will be allowed after the expiration of the statutory period of limitation applicable to the filing of a claim therefor except upon one or more of the grounds set forth in a claim filed before the expiration of such period. The claim must set forth in detail each ground upon which a credit or refund is claimed and facts sufficient to apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis thereof. The statement of the grounds and facts must be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury. A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

That last sentence is critical and – potentially – punishing.

I suspect the most common “claim for refund” is an amended return. There are other ways to claim, however, depending on the tax at issue. For example, businesses requested refunds of federal payroll taxes under the employee retention credit (“ERC”) program by filing Form 941-X. You or I would (more likely) file our claim for refund on Form 1040-X. 

File a 1040-X and the tax “variance doctrine” comes into play. This means that the filing must substantially inform the IRS of the grounds and reasons that one is requesting a refund. Both parties have responsibilities in tax administration. A taxpayer must adequately apprise so the IRS can consider the request without further investigation or the time and expense of litigation.

Here is a Court on this point in Charter Co v United States:

The law requires a taxpayer “to do more than give the government a good lead based on the government’s ability to infer interconnectedness.”

Another way to say this is that the IRS is not required to go all Sherlock Holmes to figure out what you are talking about. 

Let’s look at the Shleifer case.

Scott Shleifer was a partner in an investment firm. He travelled domestically and abroad to investigate new and existing investment opportunities. Scott was not a fan of commercial airfare, so he used his personal plane. He waived off reimbursement from the partnership for his air travel.

COMMENT: Scott is different from you or me.

The Shleifers filed their 2014 joint individual tax return. Whereas it is not stated in the case, we can assume that their 2014 return was extended to October 15, 2015.

In October 2018 they filed an amended return requesting a refund of almost $1.9 million.

COMMENT: And there you have your claim. In addition, notice that the two Octobers were three years apart. Remember that the statute of limitations for amending a return is three years. Coincidence? No, no coincidence.

What drove the amended return was depreciation on the plane. The accountant put the depreciation on Schedule C. It was – in fact – the only number on the Schedule C.

In July 2020 the IRS selected the amended return for audit.

COMMENT: A refund of almost $1.9 million will do that.

The Shleifer’s accountant represented them throughout the audit.

In March 2022 the IRS denied the refund.

Why?

Look at the Schedule C header above. It refers to a profit or loss “from business.” Scott was not “in business” with his plane. It instead was his personal plane. He did not sell tickets for flights on his plane. He did not rent or lease the plane for other pilots to use. It was a personal asset, a toy if you will, and perhaps comparable to a very high-end car. Granted, he sometimes used the plane for business purposes, but it did not cease being his toy. What it wasn’t was a business.

The accountant put the depreciation on the wrong form.

As a partner, Scott would have received a Schedule K-1 from the investment partnership. The business income thereon would have been reported on his Schedule E. While the letters C and E are close together in the alphabet, these forms represent different things. For example:

·       There must be a trade or business to file a Schedule C. Lack of said trade or business is a common denominator in the “hobby loss” cases that populate tax literature.

·       A partnership must be in a trade or business to file Schedule E. A partner himself/herself does not need to be active or participating. The testing of trade or business is done at the partnership - not the partner - level.

·       A partner can and might incur expenses on behalf of a partnership. White there are requirements (it’s tax: there are always requirements), a partner might be able to show those expenses along with the Schedule K-1 numbers on his/her Schedule E. This does have the elegance of keeping the partnership numbers close together on the same form.   

After the audit went south, the accountant explained to the IRS examiner that he was now preparing, and Scott was now reporting the airplane expenses as unreimbursed partner expenses. He further commented that the arithmetic was the same whether the airplane expenses were reported on Schedule C or on Schedule E. The examiner seemed to agree, as he noted in his report that the depreciation might have been valid for 2014 if only the accountant had put the number on the correct form.

You know the matter went to litigation.

The Shleifers had several arguments, including the conversation the accountant had with the examiner (doesn’t that count for something?); that they met the substantive requirements for a depreciation deduction; and that the IRS was well aware that their claim for refund was due to depreciation on a plane.

The Court nonetheless decided in favor of the IRS.

Why?

Go back to the last sentence of Reg 301.6402-2(b)(1):

A claim which does not comply with this paragraph will not be considered for any purpose as a claim for refund or credit.

The Shleifers did not file a valid refund claim that the Court could review.

Here is the Court:

Although the mistake was costly and the result is harsh …”

Yes, it was.

What do I think?

You see here the ongoing tension between complying with the technical requirements of the Code and substantially complying with its spirit and intent.

I find it hard to believe that the IRS – at some point – did not realize that the depreciation deduction related to a business in which Scott was a partner. However, did the IRS have the authority to “move” the depreciation from one form to another? Then again, they did not have to. The accountant was right: the arithmetic worked out the same. All the IRS had to do was close the file and … move on.

But the IRS also had a point. The audit of Schedule C is different from that of Schedule E. For example, we mentioned earlier that there are requirements for claiming partnership expenses paid directly by a partner. Had the examiner known this, he likely would have wanted partnership documents, such as any reimbursement policy for these expenses. Granted, the examiner may have realized this as the audit went along, but the IRS did not know this when it selected the return for audit. I personally suspect the IRS would not have audited the return had the depreciation been reported correctly as a partner expense. 

And there you have the reason for the variance doctrine: the IRS has the right to rely on taxpayer representations in performing its tax administration. The IRS would have relied on these representations when it issued a $1.9 million refund – or selected the return for audit.

What a taxpayer cannot do is play bait and switch.

Our case this time was Shleifer v United States, U.S. District Court, So District Fla, Case #24-CV-80713-Rosenberg.

You Sell Your Lottery Winnings

I was looking at a case where someone won the New York State Lottery.

I could have worse issues, methinks.

But there was a tax issue that is worth talking about.

Let’s say you won $17.5 million in the lottery.

You elect to receive it 26 years.

          QUESTION: How is this going to be taxed?

Easy enough: the tax Code considers lottery proceeds to be the same as gambling income. It will be taxed the same as a W-2 or an IRA distribution. You will pay ordinary tax rates. You will probably be maxing the tax rates, truthfully.

Let’s say you collected for three years and then sold the remaining amounts-to-be-received for $7.1 million.

          QUESTION: How is this going to be taxed?

I see what you are doing. You are hoping to get that $7.1 million taxed at a capital gains rate.

You googled the definition of a capital asset and find the following:

            § 1221 Capital asset defined.

(a)  In general.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term "capital asset" means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include-

(1)  stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business;

(2) property, used in his trade or business, of a character which is subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 167 , or real property used in his trade or business;

(3) a patent, invention, model or design (whether or not patented), a secret formula or process, a copyright, a literary, musical, or artistic composition, a letter or memorandum, or similar property, held by-

(A)  a taxpayer whose personal efforts created such property,

(B)  in the case of a letter, memorandum, or similar property, a taxpayer for whom such property was prepared or produced, or

(C)  a taxpayer in whose hands the basis of such property is determined, for purposes of determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or part by reference to the basis of such property in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A) or (B) ;

(4) accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of trade or business for services rendered or from the sale of property described in paragraph (1) ;

(5) a publication of the United States Government (including the Congressional Record) which is received from the United States Government or any agency thereof, other than by purchase at the price at which it is offered for sale to the public, and which is held by-

(A)  a taxpayer who so received such publication, or

(B)  a taxpayer in whose hands the basis of such publication is determined, for purposes of determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or in part by reference to the basis of such publication in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A) ;

(6) any commodities derivative financial instrument held by a commodities derivatives dealer, unless-

(A)  it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such instrument has no connection to the activities of such dealer as a dealer, and

(B)  such instrument is clearly identified in such dealer's records as being described in subparagraph (A) before the close of the day on which it was acquired, originated, or entered into (or such other time as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe);

(7) any hedging transaction which is clearly identified as such before the close of the day on which it was acquired, originated, or entered into (or such other time as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe); or

(8) supplies of a type regularly used or consumed by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of a trade or business of the taxpayer.

Did you notice how this Code section is worded: a capital asset is property that is not …?

You don’t see anything there that looks like your lottery, and you are thinking maybe you have a capital asset. The sale of a capital asset gets one to capital gains tax, right?

You call me with your tax insight and planning.

If tax practice were only that easy.

You see, over the years the Courts have developed doctrines to fill-in the gaps in statutory Code language.

We have spoken of several doctrines before. One was the Cohan rule, named after George Cohan, who showed up at a tax audit long on deductions and short on supporting documentation.  The Court nonetheless allowed estimates for many of his expenses, reasoning that the Court knew he had incurred expenses and it would be unreasonable to allow nothing because of inadequate paperwork.

Congress felt that the Cohan rule could lead to abuses when it came to certain expenses such as meals, entertainment and travel. That is how Code section 274(d) came to be: as the anti-Cohan rule for selected expense types. No documentation means no deduction under Sec 274(d).

Back to our capital gains.

Look at the following language:

We do not see here any conversion of a capital investment. The lump sum consideration seems essentially a substitute for what would otherwise be received at a future time as ordinary income."

The substance of what was assigned was the right to receive future income. The substance of what was received was the present value of income which the recipient would otherwise obtain in the future. In short, consideration was paid for the right to receive future income, not for an increase in the value of the income-producing property."

This is from the Commissioner v PG Lake case in 1958.

The Court is describing what has come to be referred to as the “substitute for ordinary income” doctrine.

The easiest example is when you receive money right now for a future payment or series of future payments that would be treated as ordinary income when received.

Like a series of future lottery payments.

Mind you, there are limits on this doctrine. For example, one could argue that the value of a common stock is equal to its expected stream of future cash payments, whether as dividends or in liquidation. When looked at in such light, does that mean that the sale of stock today would be ordinary and not capital gain income?

The tax nerds would argue that it is not the same. You do not have the right to those future dividends until the company declares them, for example. Contrast that to a lottery that someone has already begun collecting. There is nothing left to do in that case but to wait for the mailman to come with your check.

I get the difference.

In our example the taxpayer got to pay ordinary tax rates on her $7.1 million. The Court relied on the “substitute for ordinary income” doctrine and a case from before many of us were born.

Our case this time was Prebola v Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-240.

The IRS And Bull

One thing with a blog by a practicing tax CPA: you get a feel for whatever is going across my desk at the moment.

Let’s get historical and look at a Supreme Court case from 1935.

The case is Bull v United States. I kid you not.

Mr. Bull died in 1920.

He was a partner in a partnership.

His share of the partnership profits through his date of death was $24,124. His share of the profits for the rest of the year was $212,719.

The executor filed an estate tax return (that is, the tax return on the net assets Mr. Bull died with). That return included both the $24,124 and the $212,719. The executor paid whatever the estate tax was.

The executor then filed an income tax return for the estate.

COMMENT: Mr. Bull would have had a personal income tax return up to the day of his death. His estate would also have an income tax return, starting the day after he died. The estate would pay income tax until the assets were distributed (by will, contract or whatever). Whoever received the assets would pick-up their income tax consequence from that point on.

The executor did not include the $212,719 representing Mr. Bull’s share of the profits after his death.

COMMENT: The quirky detail here is that the partnership agreement allowed Mr. Bull to participate in profits for the year even after he died. I interpret that to mean that his estate would participate, as Mr. Bull could not do so personally. After all, he died.

The IRS threw a conniption, arguing that the estate should have reported the $212,719 on its income tax return. The IRS assessed income taxes.

I think the IRS is right: the partnership income after Mr. Bull’s death is (income) taxable to his estate.

But I think the IRS was wrong to include that same income on the estate (that is, his net assets at death) tax return. Why? Simple: That income could not have been an asset to Mr. Bull at death as it did not exist as of the date of his death.

I say that the executor paid too much estate tax.

The executor agreed and wanted the taxes back.

Problem: too much time had elapsed. The refund was barred under the statute of limitations. The IRS had zero intention of refunding even a penny.

What to do?

There was nothing in the tax law per se for a situation like this. Folks, this was the 1930s.

But we had a tradition of English common law and equity. The Supreme Court acknowledged that what was happening here was unfair.

The Supreme Court reasoned:

·      There is one transaction underlying both tax situations.

·      The IRS claim for a deficiency allows for an argument of recoupment, since the overpayment and deficiency arose from the same transaction.

·      Recoupment as a defense is never barred by the statute of limitations. It cannot, as it is a doctrine of equity.

If the Supreme Court could not get to this result using the tax statutes available, it would get to the result by introducing what has come to be known as “equitable recoupment.”

The IRS had to allow the estate to offset one tax against the other. Allowing two bites at the same apple was inequitable. The key is that one transaction – the same transaction – is triggering two or more taxes

Bull was – from what I understand – the first time we see the equitable recoupment doctrine in tax law. In Bull it mitigated the otherwise severe absolutism of the statute of limitations.

OK, this was not a particularly thrilling day at my desk.