A Charitable Deduction To An Estate

 

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

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

Let’s set it up.

Someone passed away, hence the estate.

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

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

What is the difference?

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

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

Let’s talk about the client.

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

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

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

An IRA or 401(k).

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

Back to Dr W.

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

What did the estate give away?

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

·       Techniques of Chinese Lacquer

·       Vergoldete Bronzen I & II

·       Pendules et Bronzes d’Ameublement

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

If the donation was deductible.

Look at the following:

§ 642 Special rules for credits and deductions.

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

(1)  General rule.

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

This not one of the well-known Code sections.

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

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

Let’s work backwards.

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

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

This issue does not apply to Dr W.

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

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

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

The gross income test has two parts:

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

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

The second part of that test concerns me.

Dr W gave away a ton of books.

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

I am not seeing a charitable deduction.

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

I know.

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

How should this have been done?

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

What if the beneficiary does not itemize?

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

Donating Cryptocurrency

 

I was reading something recently, and it reminded me how muddled our tax Code is.

Let’s talk about cryptocurrency. I know that there is bad odor to this topic after Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX, but cryptocurrencies and their exchanges are likely a permanent fixture in the financial landscape.

I admit that I think of cryptos – at least the main ones such as Bitcoin, Ethereum or Binance Coin – as akin to publicly traded stock. You go to www.finance.yahoo.com , enter the ticker symbol and see Bitcoin’s trading price. If you want to buy Bitcoin, you will need around $23 grand as I write this.

Sounds a lot like buying stock to me.   

The IRS reinforced that perspective in 2014 when it explained that virtual currency is to be treated as property for federal income tax purposes. The key here is that crypto is NOT considered a currency. If you buy something at Lululemon, you do not have gain or loss from the transaction. Both parties are transacting in American dollars, and there is no gain or loss from exchanging the same currency.

COMMENT: Mind you, this is different from a business transaction involving different currencies. Say that my business buys from a Norwegian supplier, and the terms require payment in krone within 20 days. Next say that the dollar appreciates against the krone (meaning that it takes fewer dollars to purchase the same amount of krone). I bought something costing XX dollars. Had I paid for it then and there, the conversation is done. But I did not. I am paying 20 days later, and I pay XX minus Y dollars. That “Y” is a currency gain, and it is taxable.

So, what happens if crypto is considered property rather than currency?

It would be like selling Proctor and Gamble stock (or a piece of P&G stock) when I pay my Norwegian supplier. I would have gain or loss. The tax Code is not concerned with the use of cash from the sale.

Let’s substitute Bitcoin for P&G. You have a Bitcoin-denominated wallet. On your way to work you pick-up and pay for dry cleaning, a cup of coffee and donuts for the office. What have you done? You just racked up more taxable trades before 9 a.m. than most people will all day, that is what you have done.

Got it. We can analogize using crypto to trading stock.

Let’s set up a tax trap involving crypto.

I donate Bitcoin.

The tax Code requires a qualified appraisal when donating property worth over $5,000.

I go to www.marketwatch.com.

I enter BTC-USD.

I see that it closed at $22,987 on January 27, 2023. I print out the screen shot and attach it to my tax return as substantiation for my donation.

Where is the trap?

The IRS has previously said crypto is property, not cash.

A donation of property worth over $5 grand generally requires an appraisal. Not all property, though. Publicly-traded securities do not require an appraisal.

So is Bitcoin a publicly-traded security?

Let’s see. It trades. There is an organized market. We can look up daily prices and volumes.

Sounds publicly-traded.

Let’s look at Section 165(g)(2), however:

    (2)  Security defined.

For purposes of this subsection, the term "security" means-

(A)  a share of stock in a corporation;

(B)  a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation; or

(C)  a bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by a corporation or by a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel looked at this and concluded that it could not see crypto fitting the above categories.

Crypto could therefore not be considered a security.

As property not a security, any donation over $5 grand would require a qualified appraisal.

There was no qualified appraisal in our example. All I did was take a screen shot and include it with the return.

That means no charitable deduction.

I have not done a historical dive on Section 165(g)(2), but I know top-of-mind that it has been in the Code since at least 1986.

Do you know what did not exist in 1986?

The obvious.

Time to update the law, me thinks.

This time we were discussing CCA 202302012.

Deducting “Tax Insurance” Premiums

 There is an insurance type that I have never worked with professionally: tax liability insurance.

It is what it sounds like: you are purchasing an insurance policy for unwanted tax liabilities.

It makes sense in the area of Fortune 500 mergers and acquisitions. Those deals are enormous, involving earth-shaking money and a potentially disastrous tax riptide if something goes awry. What if one the parties is undergoing a substantial and potentially expensive tax examination? What if the IRS refuses to provide advance guidance on the transaction? There is a key feature to this type of insurance: one is generally insuring a specific transaction or limited number of transactions. It is less common to insure an entire tax return.  

My practice, on the other hand, has involved entrepreneurial wealth – not institutional money - for almost my entire career. On occasion we have seen an entrepreneur take his/her company public, but that has been the exception. Tax liability insurance is not a common arrow in my quiver. For my clients, representation and warranty insurance can be sufficient for any mergers and acquisitions, especially if combined with an escrow.

Treasury has been concerned about these tax liability policies, and at one time thought of requiring their mandatory disclosure as “reportable” transactions. Treasury was understandably concerned about their use with tax shelter activities. The problem is that many routine and legitimate business transactions are also insured, and requiring mandatory disclosure could have a chilling effect on the pricing of the policies, if not their very existence. For those reasons Treasury never imposed mandatory disclosure.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum involving tax liability insurance.

What is a Memorandum?

Think of them as legal position papers for internal IRS use. They explain high-level IRS thinking on selected issues.

The IRS was looking at the deductibility by a partnership of tax insurance premiums. The partnership was insuring a charitable contribution.

I immediately considered this odd. Who insures a charitable contribution?

Except …

We have talked about a type of contribution that has gathered recent IRS attention: the conservation easement.

The conservation easement started-off with good intentions. Think of someone owning land on the outskirts of an ever-expanding city. Perhaps that person would like to see that land preserved – for their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on – and not bulldozed, paved and developed for the next interchangeable strip of gourmet hamburger or burrito restaurants. That person might donate development rights to a charitable organization which will outlive him and never permit such development. That right is referred to as an easement, and the transfer of the easement (if properly structured) generates a charitable tax deduction.

There are folks out there who have taken this idea and stretched it beyond recognition. Someone buys land in Tennessee for $10 million, donates a development and scenic easement and deducts $40 million as a charitable deduction. Promoters then ratcheted this strategy by forming partnerships, having the partners contribute $10 million to purchase land, and then allocating $40 million among them as a charitable deduction. The partners probably never even saw the land. Their sole interest was getting a four-for-one tax deduction.

The IRS considers many of these deals to be tax shelters.

I agree with the IRS.

Back to the Memorandum.

The IRS began its analysis with Section 162, which is the Code section for the vast majority of business deductions on a tax return. Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses directly connected with or pertaining to a taxpayer’s trade or business.

Lots of buzz words in there to trip one up.

You my recall that a partnership does not pay federal tax. Instead, its numbers are chopped up and allocated to the partners who pay tax on their personal returns.

To a tax nerd, that beggars the question of whether the Section 162 buzz words apply at the partnership level (as it does not pay federal tax) or the partner level (who do pay federal tax).

There is a tax case on this point (Brannen). The test is at the partnership level.

The IRS reasoned:

·      The tax insurance premiums must be related to the trade or business, tested at the partnership level.

·      The insurance reimburses for federal income tax.

·      Federal income tax itself is not deductible.

·      Deducting a premium for insurance on something which itself is not deductible does not make sense.

There was also an alternate (but related argument) which we will not go into here.

I follow the reasoning, but I am unpersuaded by it.

·      I see a partnership transaction: a contribution.

·      The partnership purchased a policy for possible consequences from that transaction.

·      That – to me - is the tie-in to the partnership’s trade or business.

·      The premium would be deductible under Section 162.

I would continue the reasoning further.

·      What if the partnership collected on the policy? Would the insurance proceeds be taxable or nontaxable?

o  I would say that if the premiums were deductible on the way out then the proceeds would be taxable on the way in.

o  The effect – if one collected – would be income far in excess of the deductible premium. There would be no further offset, as the federal tax paid with the insurance proceeds is not deductible.

o  Considering that premiums normally run 10 to 20 cents-on-the-dollar for this insurance, I anticipate that the net tax effect of actually collecting on a policy would have a discouraging impact on purchasing a policy in the first place.

The IRS however went in a different direction.

Which is why I am thinking that – albeit uncommented on in the Memorandum – the IRS was reviewing a conservation easement that had reached too far. The IRS was hammering because it has lost patience with these transactions.

No Shareholder, No S Corporation Election

 Our case this time takes us to Louisville.

There is a nonprofit called the Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC). It has existed since 1986, and its mission is to development, redevelop and revitalize certain industrial areas around the Ohio river downtown. I would probably shy away from getting involved - anticipating unceasing headaches from the city, Jefferson county and the Commonwealth of Kentucky - but I am glad that there are people who will lift that load.

One of those individuals was Clinton Deckard, who wanted to assist WDC financially, and to that effect he formed Waterfront Fashion Week Inc. (WFWI) in 2012. WFWI was going to organize and promote Waterfront Fashion Week – essentially a fundraiser for WDC.

Seems laudable.

Mr Deckard had been advised to form a nonprofit, on the presumption that a nonprofit would encourage people and businesses to contribute. He saw an attorney who organized WFWI as a nonprofit corporation under Kentucky statute.

Unfortunately, Waterfront Fashion Week failed to raise funds; in fact, it lost money. Mr Deckard wound up putting in more than $275,000 of his own money into WFWI to shore up the leaks. There was nothing to contribute to WDC.  What remained was a financial crater-in-the-ground of approximately $300 grand. Whereas WFWI had been organized as a nonprofit for state law purposes, it had not obtained tax-exempt status from the IRS. If it had, Mr Deckard could have gotten a tax-deductible donation for his generosity.

COMMENT: While we use the terms “nonprofit” and “tax-exempt” interchangeably at times, in this instance the technical difference is critical. WFWI was a nonprofit because it was a nonprofit corporation under state law. If it wanted to be tax-exempt, it had to keep going and obtain exempt status from the IRS.  One has to be organized under as a nonprofit for the IRS to consider tax-exempt status, but there also many more requirements.

No doubt Mr Deckard would have just written a check for $275 grand to WDC had he foreseen how this was going to turn out. WDC was tax-exempt, so he could have gotten a tax-deductible donation. As it was, he had ….

…. an idea. He tried something. WFWI had never applied for tax-exempt status with the IRS.

WFWI filed instead for S corporation status. Granted, it filed late, but there are procedures that a knowledgeable tax advisor can use. Mr Deckard signed the election as president of WFWI. An S election requires S corporation tax returns, which it filed. Mind you, the returns were late – the tax advisor would have to face off against near-certain IRS penalties - but it was better than nothing.

Why do this?

An S corporation generally does not pay tax. Rather it passes its income (or deductions) on to its shareholders who then include the income or deductions with their other income and deductions and then pay tax personally on the amalgamation

It was a clever move.

Except ….

Remember that the attorney organized WFWI as a nonprofit corporation under Kentucky statute.

So?

Under Kentucky law, a nonprofit corporation does not have shareholders.

And what does the tax Code require before electing S corporation status?

Mr Deckard has to be a shareholder in the S corporation.

He tried, he really did. He presented a number of arguments that he was the beneficial owner of WFWI, and that beneficial status was sufficient to allow  an S corporation election.

But a shareholder by definition would get to share in the profits or losses of the S corporation. Under Kentucky statute, Mr Deckard could NEVER participate in those profits or losses. Since he could never participate, he could never be a shareholder as intended by the tax Code. There was no shareholder, no S corporation election, no S corporation – none of that.

He struck out.

The sad thing is that it is doubtful whether WFWI needed to have organized as a nonprofit in the first place.

Why do I say that?

If you or I make a donation, we need a tax-exempt organization on the other side. The only way we can get some tax pop is as a donation.

A business has another option.

The payment could just be a trade or business expense.

Say that you have a restaurant downtown (obviously pre-COVID days). You send a check to a charitable event that will fill-up downtown for a good portion of the weekend. Is it a donation? Could be. It could also be just a promotion expense – there are going to be crowds downtown, you are downtown, people have to eat, and you happen to be conveniently located to the crowds. Is that payment more-than-50% promotion or more-than-50-% donation?

I think of generosity when I think of a donation. I think of return-on-investment when I think of promotion or business expenses.

What difference does it make? The more-than-50% promotion or business deduction does not require a tax-exempt on the other side. It is a business expense on its own power; it does not need an assist.

I cannot help but suspect that WFWI was primarily recruiting money from Louisville businesses. I also suspect that many if not most would have had a keen interest in downtown development and revitalization. Are we closer to our promotion example or our donation example?

Perhaps Mr Deckard never needed a nonprofit corporation.

The Tax Doctrine Of The Fruit And The Tree

 

I am uncertain what the IRS saw in the case. The facts were very much in the taxpayer’s favor.

The IRS was throwing a penalty flag and asking the Court to call an assignment of income foul.

Let’s talk about it.

The tax concept for assignment-of-income is that a transaction has progressed so far that one has – for all real and practical purposes – realized income. One is just waiting for the check to arrive in the mail.

But what if one gives away the transaction – all, part or whatever – to someone else? Why? Well, one reason is to move the tax to someone else.

A classic case in this area is Helvering v Horst. Horst goes back to old days of coupon bonds, which actually had perforated coupons. One would tear-off a coupon and redeem it to receive an interest check. In this case the father owned the bonds. He tore off the coupons and gave them to his son, who in turn redeemed them and reported the income. Helvering v Horst gave tax practitioners the now-famous analogy of a tree and its fruit. The tree was the bond, and the fruit was the coupon. The Court observed:

… The fruit is not to be attributed to a different tree from that on which it grew.”

The Court decided that the father had income. If he wanted to move the income (the fruit) then he would have to move the bond (the tree).

Jon Dickinson (JD) was the chief financial officer and a shareholder of a Florida engineering firm. Several shareholders – including JD – had requested permission to transfer some of their shares to the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (Fidelity). Why did they seek permission? There can be several reasons, but one appears key: it is Fidelity’s policy to immediately liquidate the donated stock. Being a private company, Fidelity could not just sell the shares in the stock market. No, the company would have to buy-back the stock. I presume that JD and the others shareholders wanted some assurance that the company would do so.

JD buttoned-down the donation:

·      The Board approved the transfers to Fidelity.

·      The company confirmed to Fidelity that its books and records reflected Fidelity as the new owner of the shares.

·      JD also sent a letter to Fidelity with each donation indicating that the transferred stock was “exclusively owned and controlled by Fidelity” and that Fidelity “is not and will not be under any obligation to redeem, sell or otherwise transfer” the stock.

·      Fidelity sent a letter to JD after each donation explaining that it had received and thereafter exercised “exclusive legal control over the contributed asset.”

So what did the IRS see here?

The IRS saw Fidelity’s standing policy to liquidate donated stock. As far as the IRS was concerned, the stock had been approved for redemption while JD still owned it. This would trigger Horst – that is, the transaction had progressed so far that JD was an inextricable part. Under the IRS scenario, JD would have a stock redemption – the company would have bought-back the stock from him and not Fidelity – and he would have taxable gain. Granted, JD would also have a donation (because he would have donated the cash from the stock sale to Fidelity), but the tax rules on charitable deductions would increase his income (for the gain) more than the decrease in his income (for the contribution). JD would owe tax.

The Court looked at two key issues:

(1)  Did JD part with the property absolutely and completely?

This one was a quick “yes.” The paperwork was buttoned-up as tight as could be.

(2)  Did JD donate the property before there was a fixed and determinable right to sale?

You can see where the IRS was swinging. All parties knew that Fidelity would redeem the stock; it was Fidelity’s policy. By approving the transfer of shares, the company had – in effect – “locked-in” the redemption while JD still owned the stock. This would trigger assignment-of-income, argued the IRS.

Except that there is a list of cases that look at formalities in situations like this. Fidelity had the right to request redemption – but the redemption had not been approved at the time of donation. While a seemingly gossamer distinction, it is a distinction with tremendous tax weight. Make a sizeable donation but fail to get the magic tax letter from the charity; you will quickly find out how serious the IRS is about formalities. Same thing here. JD and the company had checked all the boxes.

The Court did not see a tree and fruit scenario. There was no assignment of income. JD got his stock donation.

Our case this time was Dickinson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-128.

Donating Eyeglasses

Some tax cases take near forever to wrap-up.

I am looking at a case involving tax year 2008; it was decided in April, 2020. It involves over $300 grand in taxes and penalties.

Let’s set it up.

A.  Take an accounting firm with offices in Cerritos, California and Kansas City, Missouri.

B.   Through them the taxpayers (Campbell) learned of a donation program involving Lions in Sight. The program was rather straightforward.

a.    A company (ZD Products) consolidates eyeglass frames (let’s say approximately 170,000).

b.   The company breaks down that number into lots (let’s say approximately 3,400 frames).

c.    It then sells the lots for approximately $50 grand each.

d.   If you buy a lot, you are advised to wait a year before doing anything. Not to fear, they will take care of your lot for you.

e.    After a year you donate the lot to Lions in Sight.

                                             i.     This is prearranged.

                                           ii.     Lions in Sight is affiliated with the Lions Club International. Its mission is to collect and provide used eyeglasses for use worldwide and to provide eye care assistance to the needy and low-income. In truth, it sounds like a fine charity.

f.     You will get a bright shiny appraisal saying that your donation was worth approximately $225 grand.

It sounds like the program ran well. In 2007 Lions in Sight had so many frames in storage that they requested ZD Products to store a sizeable new donation until 2008, when they could free up space.

Nice problem to have.

The IRS became aware and did not care for this at all. No surprise: one puts in $50 grand and – a year and a day later – gets a donation worth $225 grand.  Quick math tells me that someone with a tax rate over 23% comes out ahead.

What do we have? Someone takes a good cause (the Lions Club), stirs in a for-profit party (both the company selling the eyeglasses and the company organizing the deal), and has a sacerdote (the appraiser) bless the bona fides. Everybody wins; well, everybody but the IRS.   

We have seen something similar to this with conservation easements. Take a good cause – say preserve a wetland … or just green space. Bring in the marketers, attorneys and valuation experts. Stick the property into an LLC; sell interests in the LLC; donate the LLC interests to who-knows-who and – voila – instant big bucks tax deduction for someone who was never really that interested in wetlands or green space to begin with.

I have a question for you. Why do you think that the IRS has so many rules concerning donations? You know them: you need a receipt; past a certain dollar limit you need a letter from the charity; past another dollar limit you need an appraisal; somewhere in there you have a form attached to your tax return just for the donation.

Tripwires.

Let me give you one.

If you need an appraisal, then the appraisal has to be for what you actually donated.

Bear with me.

This story started off with approximately 170,000 eyeglass frames. They are of varying sizes, styles, quality and value. An appraisal is done on the mother lode.

Break the lode into lots of approximately 3,400.

Donate the lots.

The appraisal was done on the 170,000.

You need an appraisal on your 3,400.

You do not have this. Best you have is 34/1,700 of an appraisal.

But it is virtually impossible that each lot will be the same. There are too many combinations of styles, sizes, designers, costs and whatnot.  Just taking a percentage (34/1,700) is not good enough – not for this purpose.

You have no appraisal.

You have no deduction.

Tripwire.

The case for the home gamers is Campbell v Commissioner.

Marijuana And Tax-Exempt Status

I am not surprised.

I am looking at a Private Letter Ruling on a tax -exempt application for an entity involved with marijuana and CBD.

I doubt the CBD plays any role here. It is all about marijuana.

I have become sensitive to the issue as I have two friends who are dealing with chronic pain. The pain has risen to the level that it is injuring both their careers. The two have chosen different ways to manage: one does so through prescriptions and the other through marijuana.

Through one I have seen the debilitating effect of prescription painkillers.

The other friend wants me to establish a marijuana specialization here at Command Center.

I am not. I am looking to reduce, not expand, my work load.

What sets up the tax issue?

Federal tax law. More specifically, this Code section:

        § 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs.

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, so it runs full-face into Section 280E. There is “no deduction or credit” allowed on that tax return.

There is one exception, and that has to do with the cost of the marijuana itself. Accountants refer to this as “cost of sales,” and it would include more than just the cost of the product. It would include costs associated with buying the product or storing it, for example. Still, the big bucks would be with the cost of the product itself.

There is a Court decision which defines taxable revenues as revenues after deduction for cost of goods sold. The decision applies to all businesses, not just marijuana.

What it leaves out is everything other than cost of sales, such as rent, utilities or the wages required to staff and run the business.

That gets expensive. One is paying taxes on business profit, without being allowed to deduct all the costs and expenses normally allowed in calculating business profit. That is not really “profit” in the common usage of the word.

I am reading that someone applied for tax exempt status. They argued that their exempt purpose was:

·      To aid financially disadvantaged patients and families affected by the cost of THC and CBD medical treatment

·      To educate health providers about THC and CBD medical treatments

·      To support research into said THC and CBD medical treatments

The entity anticipated the usual stuff:

·      It will be supported by contributions and gifts

·      It will develop a website, which will give it another venue to educate about its mission as well as fundraise

·      It will develop relevant medical and treatment literature

·      It will conduct relevant seminars and classes

·      It will organize support groups for patients and their families

·      It will track and publish relevant medical data

The IRS led with:

You were formed to aid financially disadvantaged patients and patient’s families who are affected by the costs of THC and CBD medical treatment by providing financial support to cover costs of living and other expenses that the patients may incur.”

It continued:

… you are providing funding to the users of these substances who may be struggling to pay living and/or travel expenses because of their use of these illegal substances. Furthermore, your financial assistance is only available to users of these substances.”

In response the entity argued that it did not directly provide THC or CBD to individuals nor did it provide direct funding for the same.

The IRS was unmoved:

You were formed for the purpose of providing financial assistance to individuals who are engaged [in] an illegal activity which is contrary to public policy.”

The IRS rejected the tax-exempt application.

There are numerous tax-exempts throughout the nation that counsel, research, educate and proselytize concerning their mission. A substance abuse clinic can provide methadone, for example. What it cannot do is provide the heroin.

The entity could, I suppose, withdraw the financial support platform from its mission statement, greatly increasing the likelihood for tax-exempt status.

If its core mission was to provide such financial support, however, this alternative might be unacceptable.

If I were advising, I might consider qualifying the entity as a supporting organization for a pain clinic. The clinic would likely address more than marijuana therapy (it would have to, otherwise we are just circling the block), which represents a dilution of the original mission. In addition, a supporting organization transfers some of its governance and authority to the supported organization. It may be that either or both of these factors could be deal-breakers.

It has been interesting to see the continuing push on this area of tax law.