Why Does The IRS Want To Tax Donations Raised For A Cancer Patient?

Have you heard of a website called GoFundMe?

We are talking crowdfunding, and the technology is a dozen or so years old. It is made possible by the internet. Think of a cause, a website and a means to process payments from interested parties. The cause can vary. It might be a business startup, unexpected medical expenses, a legal defense or even a wedding fund.

There are number of crowdfunding websites, bit today our story involves GoFundMe.

I am reading the story of Casey Charf, a young Omaha woman who in 2013 was involved in a bad car crash. She had broken her neck and back. While in the hospital the doctors discovered that she had cancer.

She was interviewed by local television and her story went viral. There were fundraisers for her medical expenses, and toward that end her sister set up a GoFundMe account.

More than a thousand people donated online, raising over $50,000.

Casey has spent the last two years on medical travel and receiving treatment. The cancer unfortunately is still there, but at least it does not appear to be spreading.

In March of this year the IRS dropped in. They sent a notice that the monies raised through GoFundMe should have been reported as taxable income, and to please remit over $19 thousand in taxes, penalties and interest.

Needless to say Casey Charf is contesting the matter.

And I think she will win.

I speculate, but I think I know what triggered the IRS notice. I suspect Casey received a Form 1099-K notice.

The IRS uses the Forms 1099 series to have a third party report amounts paid you and likely representing income. A bank would send you a Form 1099-INT for interest paid on your savings, for example.

The 1099-K follows in that spirit, but it is sent by payment processors. This immediately tells us that we are dealing with debit or credit cards. Why did this enter the tax Code? Think eBay. People were conducting business activities but not sending the government its due. Congress therefore mandated that the companies that processed the payments issue annual 1099s, and it delegated to the IRS how to handle further details.

The IRS published Form 1099-K and said that the payment processor was required to file the form if (1) gross payments to a person exceeded $20,000 or (2) there were more than 200 transactions with a given person.    

GoFundMe uses WePay as its payment processor. I am willing to bet nickels to dollars that WePay issued a 1099-K to Casey Charf.

And the IRS sent a notice.

Why?

Because the IRS presumes that 1099-Ks are for business activity.

I suspect the IRS was trying to find a “business” number on the tax return that matched or exceeded the 1099-K. Finding none it churned out a notice.

Can the IRS not tell that monies are being raised for a charitable cause?

In short, no, not really.

And there is the unfortunate, inside truth of today’s IRS: every year more and more functions are being automated. The practice started out innocently enough: have third parties send information to the IRS and then have IRS computers match that information to your tax return. 

That worked well enough years ago, when reporting requirements were much lighter. They are becoming – if they haven’t already become – onerous, as the IRS wants to know every creak in the economy so Congress can tax it. Many of these notices are wrong, but they still cause angst and cost taxpayers professional fees. The dirty secret is that the IRS is intentionally shifting the cost of administering tax law to taxpayers with all these notices. They can send out anything and force you to explain how they are wrong. Fail to explain and the IRS can (and likely will) assess you.

Back to our story.

I see no reasonable tax theory under which these payments are income to Casey. There is no business activity, nor is there an employment or contractor relationship providing a backdrop for earnings from personal services. I suppose one could argue that it is akin to a lottery or bag of money found on the street, but that seems a stretch.

There is a donative intent, although as structured the amounts raised do not appear to rise to the level of a tax-deductible donation. There are strict rules with deducting payments made directly to an individual, and for the most part they require the participation of a 501(c)(3).

From a tax perspective these payments most closely resemble a gift. Gifts are not taxable.

Which is why I believe Casey Charf will win on this issue.

More importantly, may Casey have a full and speedy medical recovery.

Can A Land Fill Make A Charitable Donation?

I have a client on extension for their individual tax return. They donated real estate last year. I am waiting on an appraisal and a signed Form 8283 before sending in the return.  

Charitable contributions have become a “gotcha” area for the IRS. The rules border on the insane. Does it make sense to you that I need a letter from the charity for donations over $250 even if I have a cancelled check? The IRS will accept a cancelled check as proof of a travel expense or of a child-care payment, but not for proof of a donation. Fail to follow their rules and you may lose the deduction altogether.

Sure enough, someone thought they followed the rules. Let’s go through the story of Boone Operations.

Boone Operations owned a landfill (Speedway). Right next to them, the city of Tucson (Arizona) also owned a landfill (Tucson). Both were surrounded by commercial and residential development. 

Tucson must have been a mess. The flare in its collection system kept going out and water kept collecting because of poor drainage. Tucson stopped accepted waste materials, but there were issues closing the place down. The neighbors howled; hearings were held. Douglas Kennedy (Kennedy), Boone’s owner, was concerned that Tucson was going to drag him down. He offered to help. In 1996 the two parties were happy and holding hands. Boone agreed to:

·        Share the cost of an interim gas system

·        Negotiate a permanent gas system

·        Cooperate to extend Boone’s aquifer permit to Tucson

You also had the following text in an agreement the attorneys drew up:

6.  Acceptable Waste Fill and Soil Fill

[Boone] agrees to provide [Tucson] with, and [Tucson] agrees to accept, acceptable waste fill and soil.

6.1 Placement of Acceptable Waste Fill

Boone shall, at no cost to [Tucson], fill the *** with acceptable waste to the approved final grades.

Seems clear: Boone will provide waste fill.

The promising relationship between Boone and Tucson soon soured:

·        6/99 - Boone places waste on Tucson to comply with agreement

·        10/99 – the Department of Solid Waste Management wants to know why Boone placed waste on Tucson

·        11/99 – Tucson wants Boone to remove the waste  

·         03/00 – Boone sues Tucson for $20 million

·        04/01 – Tucson provides Boone a settlement offer

·        09/01  -  Tucson files civil and criminal charges

·        04/02 – Boone files with the Superior Court

Shame. They seemed like such a nice couple.

Anyway, in December 2002, they settle. Tucson agreed to a number of things, including (a) paying $450,000 for Boone to construct drainage, (b) helping with easements and (c) releasing Boone and Mr. Kennedy from lawsuits.

And then the magic words:

8.1 Prior Contribution.  [Tucson] acknowledges that as of the date of the Settlement Memorandum, it had accepted Boone’s charitable contribution of 95,000 cubic yards of Acceptable Fill.

8.2 Future Contribution.  Boone agrees to make another charitable contribution of an additional 105,000 cubic yards of Acceptable Fill.

To the uninitiated, it appears that Boone has made a contribution of 200,000 cubic yards of Acceptable Fill to Tucson, don’t you think?

Boone files tax returns showing a donation of $449,000 for one year and $706,000 for another.

The IRS disallows the deductions. It has two arguments:

           

(1)  Boone failed to obtain contemporaneous written acknowledgement.

(2)  Boone received significant cash and noncash consideration and failed to prove that the value of the fill provided exceeded the consideration received.

The IRS argued that a written acknowledgement must include the following magic words:

·        The amount of cash and a description (but not value) of any property other than cash contributed.

·        Whether the donee organization provided any goods or services in consideration, in whole or part, for any property described.

·        A description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods and services received, or, if such goods and services consist solely of intangible religious benefits, a statement to that effect.

What does Boone have? The Settlement Agreement from December 2002. Without the magic words, however, Boone does not have “written acknowledgement.”  Since the donation was over $250, no deduction is allowed without written acknowledgement.

The Court then went on the argument (2). It went through the appraisal process in painstaking detail. There appear to have been significant errors in the appraiser’s calculations, for example, leading to an overvaluation of the donated fill. The Court also pointed out that Boone and Mr. Kennedy were released from a potential lawsuit. That release could have a value. If so, should that value be taken into account?

I question why the Court did this. The Court had already disallowed the deduction for lack of written acknowledgement. Why keep going?

My thinking? The Court expects a challenge on issue [1], and it thinks it could be reversed by a superior court. The Court therefore kept going, reasoning that if was reversed on issue [1] it would be sustained on [2].

You know how this turned out: the Tax Court disallowed the charitable deductions under both arguments.

COMMENT: Please do not mess with IRS in this area. If you are thinking about a significant donation of anything other than cash, please call your tax advisor first.  Get your papers lined up and do not play “gotcha” with the IRS.

Can You Deduct Burning Down Your House?

Can you take a deduction for burning your house to the ground?

You may laugh, but I was reviewing a recent case on this issue. It is the third case involving a home barbeque I can remember over as many years.

The case from 3 years ago was Rolfs v Commissioner. It was – understandably – considered quite outside the box.

Theodore Rolfs and his wife (the Rolfs) owned a house on a 3-acre lakefront property in Wisconsin. The house was modest, built around 1900 and it would be fair to say that it was in need of an upgrade.

The Rolfs wanted to renovate, but the work required was so extensive that tearing down the house and constructing anew was a very viable option.

They estimated it would cost $10,000 to $15,000 to demolish the house and remove the debris.

They went a different path and donated the house to the fire department. There were restrictions on the donation: the fire department was to use the house for training exercises, with the understanding that the training would happen shortly after the donation. The Rolfs donated only the house. They did not donate the land on which the house sat.

The Rolfs needed a value for their donation. They contacted Richard Larkin, president of Larkin Appraisals, Inc. who valued the house at $76,000.

The Rolfs donated the house and took a charitable deduction of $76,000 on their tax return. They attached the appraisal report and a letter from the fire chief thanking them for the donation.

The IRS disallowed the charitable contribution.

The IRS argued that a charitable donor does not expect a financial benefit in exchange for the donation. The Rolfs however expected a substantial benefit: the $10,000 to $15,000 in avoided demolition costs, for example, not to mention the benefit of the tax deduction itself.

The IRS further argued that the restrictions the Rolfs imposed affected the value of any donation. The fire department could only use the house for training purposes, and the house was to be destroyed shortly after the donation.

The Rolfs countered that they had an appraisal for $76,000.  And what was the IRS talking about with “restrictions?” After the fire department did its thing, there was NO house standing. The fire department did not want a house. They wanted a house they could burn to the ground. Whatever “restrictions” the IRS was talking about went up in smoke.

The case went to Tax Court.

In a Solomonic gesture, the Court reasoned that there might be a donation, but the amount of any donation would be the value of the house over the value of any demolition and clean-up services received.

The Court observed that the Rolfs donated the house without its underlying land. This meant that an independent buyer would have to move the house. The house was very old and badly in need of renovation. What would someone pay for this? Not surprisingly, the house was almost worthless.

The house was not worth more than the demolition and removal services received from the fire department. The Court decided there was no donation. The Rolfs lost their case.

But they made the tax literature.

There are variations that might have resulted in a different outcome. For example, what if the house had enough value to make it worth the cost and effort of moving?

There is another way to help tax-subsidize a house demolition, however. Have you heard of “deconstruction?” This involves dismantling the house rather than razing it under a bulldozer. It is more expensive, but with deconstruction more home materials remain in usable condition. The materials are then donated, generating a tax deduction. If the value of the tax deduction exceeds the additional cost of the teardown, one has effectively tax-subsidized his/her demolition costs.

The value of the materials can add up. I was reading an article where the lighting fixtures alone were worth over $100 thousand. Can you imagine?