No Penalty Abatement When Taxes Not Paid For Years

 

I am looking at a case where the taxpayers wanted penalty abatement for reasonable cause.

I have been cynical for years about the IRS allowing reasonable cause, but let’s read on.

The Koncurats owed for years 2005, 2006 and 2010 through 2016.

CTG: There is a donut in there from 2007 through 2009. I wonder what happened?

For the years at issue Stephen Koncurat owned his own company in the insurance industry. Tamara Koncurat maintained their home and raised four children.

The interest and penalties added up, exceeding $670 grand. To their credit, the Koncurats did not argue the tax due. They did feel, however, that penalty abatement was warranted because “circumstances largely beyond his control” prevented them from meeting their tax obligations.

There were a lot of years involved, though. What were those circumstances?

·      Around 2007 or 2008 Stephen had six rental properties foreclosed.

COMMENT: Got it. That was the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the near implosion of the American housing market.

·      From 2010 to 2011 Stephen’s income dropped sharply from over $450K to about $96K.

·      There was a stretch where they could not even afford to make their house payment. Stephen’s father made the payments for them. 

OBSERVATION: This is years after 2005 and 2006, however. I can see going into a payment plan, then negotiating with the IRS to reduce or interrupt payments because of subsequent events cratering one’s income. It is not the easiest thing to do, but it can be done. 

·      Around 2014 or 2015 Stephen broke his back.

·      In 2018 he was diagnosed with cancer and a blocked artery.

·      He thereafter underwent three major surgeries and attended over 100 medical appointments.

He continued to work, as best he could., They reported the following income:

         2005          $274,359

         2006          $251,902

         2010          $462,455

         2011          $95,974

         2012          $71,847

         2013          $109,072

2014          $171,648

2015          $207,398

2016          $314,491                              

I get it. The 2011 through 2013 tax years were aberrant.

I am impressed how well he did during the broken back, cancer and surgery years, though.

Stephen voluntarily paid $1,500 a month to the IRS.

Good.

Starting January 2020.

What? Starting …??

I admit, this is going to be a problem. Unexpected circumstances can knock you off your feet. Maybe you don’t file or pay for a couple of years, but there is a beginning and end to the story. Somewhere in there the IRS – and reasonable cause – expects you to put on your big boy pants and try to comply. Hopefully you can file and pay, but maybe all you can do is file. Fine, then file and request a payment plan. Will the IRS be unreasonable? Of course. What if they want more than you can pay? Then request a Collections Due Process hearing.

The point is: get back into the system.

If you don’t, then reasonable cause – hard to obtain under regular circumstances – takes a step up the difficulty ladder. You now have to present “unavoidable obstacles” to your compliance.

Short of being in a coma or Marvel Universe superheroes destroying your city, that “unavoidable” threshold is going to be near-nigh impossible to meet.

Here is the Court:

·      They have alleged no details sufficient to support a finding that any of the hardships they experienced actually presented unavoidable obstacles.”

·      Further, the Koncurats have not alleged … that they ‘didn’t have [the money] or couldn’t keep [the installment plan] going…’”

·      While the family’s financial troubles were significant at times, the record reflects that they have had consistent access to financial resources throughout the years at issue.”

·      They were … contributing tuition, housing and wedding expenses to children….”

That last one doesn’t make sense for broke people.

·      Stephen Koncurat earned more than one million dollars in income in 2019, and again in 2021.”

So we are not talking about broke people. Broke people do not make a million dollars a year.

The Court wanted to know why – with that million dollars – they did not clean-up their tax debt – or at least a chunk of it – rather than delaying payment and tying up the Court’s time.

There was no reasonable cause for the Koncurats. Heck, one could have looked at the extended failure to pay and instead concluded that there was willful neglect.

Meaning no penalty abatement.

No surprise there.

The Koncurats dug themselves a hole by letting the matter go on long enough to attend high school. The likelihood of reasonable cause over that much time was minimal, but I do think that there was something they could have done to improve their odds.

What would that have been?

Take that $1 million dollars and pay the IRS.

They would then have gone before the Court and argued that they had a bad stretch, causing them to fail in their obligations and run afoul of the tax system. However, when their fortune improved, the first party they took care of was … the IRS.

Would this have allowed reasonable cause? Financial difficulties generally do not lead to eligibility for reasonable cause relief.

But it would not have hurt. It also would have lifted the needle off zero and given the Court something specific to support a taxpayer-favorable determination.  

Our case this time was United States v Koncurat, USDC MD, Case No 1:21-cv-00676.

A Penalty Against A Tax Preparer

 

Did you know that the IRS can assess penalties against a tax preparer as well as a taxpayer?

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum recommending a preparer be penalized for a deduction on a client return.

You do not see that every day.

Let’s talk about it.

As is our way, we will streamline the issue so that it is something you might want to read and something I might want to write.

A taxpayer accrued expenses on its books for customer early payment discounts and estimated write-offs for disputed billing and shipping charges.

Sure, easy for a CPA to say.

Let’s clarify. The company sold stuff. It allowed discounts if a customer paid early. It also had routine billing disputes – for quantity, quality, price, damage and so on. As part of its general accounting, it estimated these charges and recorded them as expenses when the related sale was recorded.

Makes sense to me. Generally accepted accounting wants one to record all related expenses when the sale is recorded. This is called the “timing principle,” and the idea is to present net profit from a sales transaction as well as reasonably possible. What if all the expenses are not known at that precise moment - say, for example - the amount of product that will be returned because of damage in shipping? Generally accepted accounting will allow one to estimate that number, normally by statistical analysis of historical experience.

BTW you better do this if you expect to have your financial statements audited. Part of an audit is a review of your accounting method, and the “estimate that number” described above is considered a best-of-breed.

Generally accepted accounting might not work when you get to your tax return, however. Why? Well, generally accepted accounting is trying to get to the “best” number in an economic sense. Tax accounting is not trying to get to the “best” number; rather, it is trying to measure your ability to pay. Pay what? Taxes, of course.

Let’s go back to our taxpayer. They estimated a bunch of expenses when they recorded a sale. They included those numbers on their financial statements. They then wanted to deduct those same numbers on their tax return.

Problem:

The taxpayer utilized statistics to record the expenses for the two items. The courts held that statistics were not a valid method to record the amounts.”

Their CPA firm had to review the accounting method and decide whether it was acceptable for tax purposes.

There is even a Code section and Regulations:

           Reg § 1.461-1. General rules for taxable year of deduction

(a)(2) Taxpayer using an accrual method.

(i) In general. Under an accrual method of accounting, a liability (as defined in §1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)) is incurred, and generally is taken into account for Federal income tax purposes, in the taxable year in which all the events have occurred that establish the fact of the liability, the amount of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and economic performance has occurred with respect to the liability. 

 

You see that last sentence and its reference to “economic performance?”

 

For generally accepted accounting, one must:

        

·      Establish the fact of the liability.

·      Measure the amount of the liability with reasonable accuracy.

 

Tax then adds one more requirement:

        

·      Economic performance on the liability must have occurred.

 

That third requirement is what slows down the tax deduction.

 

What is an example of economic performance?

 

Say that you record expenses for services related to the sale. Economic performance wants to see those services performed before allowing the deduction. What if you know - because it has happened millions of times before and can be calculated with near-arithmetic certainty – that the services will occur? Tax doesn’t care.  

 

But the auditors signed-off on the financial statements, you say. Doesn’t that mean that experts agreed that the accounting method was valid?      

A taxpayer’s conformity with its accrual method used for financial accounting purposes does not create a presumption that its tax accrual method clearly reflects income.”

And there you have a brief introduction to why a company’s financial statements and its tax return might show different numbers. Financial statement accounting and tax accounting serve different purposes, and those differences have real-world consequences.

 

In this situation, I side with the IRS. Work in a CPA firm for any meaningful period and you will see tax people repetitively “tweak” the audit people’s numbers. It happens so often it has a term: “M-1.” Schedule M-1 is a tax schedule that reconciles the profit per the financial statements to the profit per the tax return. The possible list of differences is near endless:

 

·      Entertainment

·      Depreciation

·      Allowance for uncollectible receivables

·      Accrued bonuses

·      Reserve for warranties

·      Deferred rent

·      Controlled foreign corporation income

·      Opportunity zone income

 

And on and on. Knowing these differences is part of being a tax pro.

 

The Chief Counsel wanted to know why the tax pros at this particular CPA firm did not know that this generally accepted accounting method would not work for purposes of the tax return.

 

To be fair, methinks, because it is complicated …?

 

No dice, said the Counsel’s office. The preparer should have known.

 

The items deducted constituted a substantial part of the return. 

TRANSLATION: It was a big deduction.

And therefore the preparer penalty is appropriate.  

TRANSLATION: Someone has to pay.

Mind you, a Chief Counsel memorandum is internal to the IRS. The taxpayer – and by extension, its CPA firm – might appeal the matter to the Tax Court. I would expect them to, frankly. The memorandum is just the IRS’ side.

For the home gamers, today we have been discussing Chief Counsel Memorandum 20223301F.

 

Abandoning A Partnership Interest

I suspect that most taxpayers know that there is a difference between long-term capital gains and ordinary income. Long-term capital gains receive a lower tax rate, incentivizing one to prefer long-terms gains, if at all possible.

Capital losses are not as useful. Capital losses offset capital gains, whether short-term or long-term. If one has net capital losses left over, then one can claim up to $3,000 of such losses to offset non-capital gain income (think your W-2).

That $3,000 number has not changed since I was in school.

And there is an example of a back-door tax increase. Congress has imposed an effective tax increase by not pegging the $3,000 to (at least) the rate of inflation for the last how-many decades. It is the same thing they have done with the threshold amount for the net investment income or the additional Medicare tax. It is an easy way to raise taxes without publicly raising taxes.

I am looking at a case where two brothers owned Edwin Watts Golf. Most of the stores were located on real estate also owned by the brothers, so the brothers owned two things: a golf supply business and the real estate it was housed in.

In 2003 a private equity firm (Wellspring) offered the brothers $93 million for the business. The brothers took the money (so would I), kept the real estate and agreed to certain terms, such as Wellspring having control over any sale of the business. The brothers also received a small partnership position with Wellspring.

Why did they keep the real estate? Because the golf businesses were paying rent, meaning that even more money went their way.

The day eventually came when Wellspring wanted out; that is what private equity does, after all. It was looking at two offers: one was with Dick’s Sporting Goods and the other with Sun Capital.  Dick’s Sporting already had its own stores and would have no need for the existing golf shop locations. The brothers realized that would be catastrophic for the easy-peasy rental income that was coming in, so they threw their weight behind the offer by Sun Capital.

Now, one does not own a private equity firm by being a dummy, so Wellspring wanted something in return for choosing Sun Capital over Dick’s Sporting.

Fine, said the brothers: you can keep our share of the sales proceeds.

The brothers did not run the proposed transaction past their tax advisor. This was unfortunate, as there was a tax trap waiting to spring.  

Generally speaking, the sale or exchange of a partnership interest results in capital gain or loss. The partners received no cash from the sale. Assuming they had basis (that is, money invested) in the partnership, the sale or exchange would have resulted in a capital loss.

Granted, one can use capital losses against capital gains, but that means one needs capital gains.   What if you do not have enough gains? Any gains? We then get back to an obsolete $3,000 per year allowance. Have a big enough loss and one would need the lifespan of a Tolkien elf to use-up the loss.

The brothers’ accountant found out what happened during tax season and well after the fact. He too knew the issue with capital losses. He played a card, in truth the only card he had. Could what happened be reinterpreted as the abandonment of a partnership interest?

There is something you don’t see every day.

Let’s talk about it.

This talk gets us into Code sections, as the reasoning is that one does not have a “sale or exchange” of a partnership interest if one abandons the interest. This gets the tax nerd away from the capital gain/loss requirement of Section 741 and into the more temperate climes of Section 165. One would plan the transaction to get to a more favorable Code section (165) and avoid a less favorable one (741). 

There are hurdles here, though. The first two are generally not a problem, but the third can be brutal.

The first two are as follows:

(1) The taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the interest; and

(2)  The taxpayer must show an affirmative act of abandonment.

This is not particularly hard to do, methinks. I would send a letter to the tax matters or general partner indicating my intent to abandon the interest, and then I would send (to all partners, if possible) a letter that I have in fact abandoned my interest and relinquished all rights and benefits thereunder. This assumes there is no partners’ meeting. If there was a meeting, I would do it there. Heck, I might do both to avoid all doubt.

What is the third hurdle?

There can be no “consideration” on the way out.

Consideration in tax means more than just receiving money. It also includes someone assuming debt you were previously responsible for.

The rule-of-thumb in a general partnership is that the partners are responsible for their allocable share of partnership debt. This is a problem, especially if one is not interested in being liable for any share of any debt. This is how we got to limited partnerships, where the general partner is responsible for the debts and the limited partners are not.

Extrapolating the above, a general partner in a general partnership is going to have issues abandoning a partnership interest if the partnership has debt. The partnership would have to pay-off that debt, refinance the debt from recourse to nonrecourse, or perhaps a partner or group of partners could assume the debt, excluding the partner who wants to abandon.

Yea, the planning can be messy for a general partnership.

It would be less messy for a limited partner in a limited partnership.

Then we have the limited liability companies. (LLCs). Those bad boys have a splash of general partnership, a sprinkling of limited partnership, and they can result in a stew of both rules.

The third plank to the abandonment of a partnership interest can be formidable, depending on how the entity is organized and how the debts are structured. If a partner wants an abandonment, it is more likely than not that pieces on the board have to be moved in order to get there.   

The brothers’ accountant however had no chance to move pieces before Wellspring sold Edwin Watts Golf. He held his breath and prepared tax returns showing the brothers as abandoning their partnership interests. This gave them ordinary losses, meaning that the losses were immediately useful on their tax returns.

The IRS caught it and said “no way.”

There were multiple chapters in the telling of this story, but in the end the Court decided for the IRS.

Why?

Because the brothers had the option of structuring the transaction to obtain the tax result they desired. If they wanted an abandonment, then they should have taken the steps necessary for an abandonment. They did not. There is a long-standing doctrine in the Code that a taxpayer is allowed to structure a transaction anyway he/she wishes, but once structured the taxpayer has to live with the consequences. This doctrine is not tolerant of taxpayer do-overs.

The brothers had a capital and not an ordinary loss. They were limited to capital gains plus $3 grand per year. Yay.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Watts, T.C. Memo 2017-114.

A BallPark Tax

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

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

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

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

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

That strikes me as cra-cra.

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

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

Except ….

Let’s go to the word “source.”

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

I can work with that.

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

Huh?

What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This, folks, is bad tax law.

And a tax accident waiting to happen.

Splitting With The IRS Over Insurance

I am reading a case where the Tax Court just entered a “partial” summary judgement. This means that at least one issue has been decided but the remaining issue or issues are still being litigated.

And I think I see what the attorneys are up to.

We are talking about split-dollar life insurance. 

This had been a rather humdrum area of tax until 2002. The IRS then issued new rules which tipped the apple cart and sent planners scrambling to review – and likely revise – their clients’ split dollar arrangements (SDAs). I know because I had the misfortune of being point man on this issue at a CPA firm. There is a certain wild freedom when the IRS decides to reset an area of tax, with revisions to previous interim Notices, postponed deadlines and clients who considered you crazed.

To set-up the issue, a classic split dollar arrangement involves an employer buying a life insurance policy on an employee. The insurance is permanent – meaning cash value build-up - and the intent is for the employee to eventually walk away with the policy or for the employee’s estate to receive the death benefits. The only thing the employer wants is a return of the premiums it paid.

Find a policy where the cash value grows faster than the cumulative premiums paid and you have a tax vehicle ready to hit the highway. 

Our case involves the Morrissette family, owners of a large moving company. Grandmom (Clara Morrissette) had a living trust, to which she contributed all her company stock. She was quite concerned about the company remaining in the hands of the family. She had her attorney establish three trusts, one for each son. The sons, trusts and grandmom then entered into an agreement, whereby each son – through his trust – would buy the company stock of a deceased brother. If one brother died, for example, the remaining two would buy his stock. In the jargon, this is called a “cross purchase.”

This takes money, so each trust bought life insurance on the two other brothers.

This too takes money, which grandmom forwarded from her trust.

How much money? About $30 million for single-premium life policies.

Wow.

Obviously the moving company was extremely successful. Also obviously there must have been a life insurance person celebrating like a madman that day.

The only thing grandmom’s trust wanted was to be reimbursed the greater of the policies’ cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

Which gets us to those IRS Regulations from back when.

The IRS had decreed that henceforth SDAs would be divided into two camps:

(1) The employee owns the policy and the employer has a right to the cash value or some other amount.

This works fine until the premiums get expensive. Under this scenario the employee either has income or has a loan. Income of course is taxable, and the IRS insisted that a loan behave like a loan. The employee had to pay interest and the employer had to report interest income, with whatever income tax consequence followed.

And a loan has to be paid back. Many SDAs are set-up with the intent of the employee walking away someday. How will he/she pay back the loan at that time? This is a serious problem for the tax planners. 

(2)  The employer owns the policy and the employee has a right to something – likely the insurance in excess of the cash value or cumulative premiums paid.

The employee has income under this scenario, equal to the value of the insurance he/she is receiving annually. The life insurance companies publish tables, so practitioners can plan for this number.

But this leaves a dangerous possible tax issue: what happens once the cash value exceeds the amount to which the employer is entitled (say cumulative premiums)? Let’s say the cash value goes up by $250,000, and the employer’s share is met. Does the employee have $250,000 in income? There is a lot of lawyering on this point.

The Court decided that the grandmom had the second type – type (2) of SDA, albeit of the “family” and not the “employer” variety. The sons’ trusts had to report income equal the economic benefit of the life insurance, the same as an employee under the classic model.

This doesn’t sound like much, but the IRS was swinging for a type (1) SDA. If the sons’ trusts owned the policies, the next tax question would be the source of the money. The IRS was arguing that the grandmom trust made taxable gifts to the sons. Granted the gift and estate tax exclusion has been raised to over $5 million, but $30 million is more than $5 million and would trigger a hefty gift tax. The IRS was smelling money here.                 

The partial summary was solely on the income tax issue.

The Court will get back to the gift tax issue.

However, having won the income tax issue must make the Morrissette family feel better about winning the gift tax issue. According to the IRS’ own rules, grandmom’s trust owned the policies. What was the gift when the trust will get back all its money? The attorneys can defend from high ground, so to speak.

And there is one more thing.

Grandmom passed away. She was already in her 90s when the sons’ trusts were set up.

She died with the sons’ trusts owing her trust around $30 million.

Which her estate will not collect until the sons pass away or the SDAs are terminated. Who knows when that will be?

And what is a dollar worth X years from now? 

One thing we can agree on is that it not worth a dollar today.

Her estate valued the SDA receivables at approximately $7 million.

And the IRS is coming after her. There is no way the IRS is going to roll-over on those split dollar arrangements reducing her estate by $23 million.

You know the IRS did not think this through back in 2002 when they were writing and rewriting the split dollar rules.

Is There A Tax Difference Between A Company And An Activity?

Some tax cases are just fun to read.

Our story takes place in south Florida.  

Dad started a business many years ago. It did well, and Dad in turn started three businesses for his children. He structured each business so that one sibling owned 60% and the remaining two siblings owned the balance. He gave each child (two daughters and a son) a controlling interest in their own business, with the remaining siblings owning a (non-controlling) interest.

All these businesses were somehow tied-in to real estate, whether by selling lumber, providing mortgages, payroll services or other activities.

Our protagonist (Jose Antonio Lamas) owned a company called Adrimar.

However the company we are interested is called Shoma, and it is (majority) owned by Jose’s sister and her husband (Masoud Shojaee).

Shoma formed an LLC (Greens at Doral) pursuant to a condominium development. The two companies were closely intertwined. Greens had the same ownership as Shoma, operated out of the same office, used the same employees and so on. Shoma intended to liquidate Greens once the project was done, which is the standard structure for these projects.

 

Shoma got itself into financial straits. Jose was called in to help turn Shoma around.

The soap opera is in the details of how Shoma got itself into difficulties. Turns out that Mr. Shojaee was using Shoma to guarantee loans for a non-family company he owned. He made a pledge to the University of Miami for $1.5 million, in return for which they were going to name a building after him. That is swell, except that he had no intention of using his own money. Instead he used Shoma money to fund the donation. He developed Shoma land – and we have a feel for his ethics at this point – but decided to run the development (and profits) through his own company.

Somewhere in here Jose and his sister had enough and in 2008 sued Mr. Shojaee.

Knock me over with a feather.

Shoma must have been losing crazy-level money, as Jose filed for a tax refund of over $5 million.

Here is an easy quiz: what happens when you file a tax refund of over $5 million with the IRS?

The IRS audits you, that’s what.

What is there to audit, you ask? The “real” audit would be on the business books, not Jose’s personal return, right?

Not so fast.

You see, if Jose did not “materially participate” in the business, then the business would be “passive” to him. He would not be able to offset his other income with that big “passive” loss. The loss would have to wait for passive income to someday soak it up.

Jose needed to provide time records to show that he worked over 500 hours, which is the gold-plated standard of showing “material participation” to the IRS.

Problem: he was not accustomed to working someplace where he kept time records. He didn’t have any. He had to go to plan B, which means evidencing his times through other means, such as by showing regular appointments and obtaining the testimony of other people.

He talked to Tania Martin, who was CFO for Shoma. She testified that she did not see Jose at the office, except maybe one time. There was a problem with her testimony, though. You see she worked remotely from North Carolina.

Francisco Silva was in-house counsel for Shoma. He testified that that Mr. Lamas would walk past his office in the morning and say “hi.” Other than that, he didn’t know “what, if anything, he was doing. I just don’t know.”

Then there was a stream of other people who worked regularly and extensively with Jose, including obtaining financing, soliciting investors, visiting jobsites and so on.

Alex Penelas, for example, was a former Miami-Date County mayor who testified that it was “more effective” to talk with Jose than Mr. Shojaee.

Jose had provided a letter to the IRS from his employer – Shoma - and signed by Mr. Shojaee, stating that he was a full-time employee. It appears that after brother and sister decided to sue, Mr. Shojaee sent a corrected letter to the IRS wherein he stated:

"Recently Shoma Development learned that the IRS requires active participation and 500 hours of work to qualify” and that “Jose Antonio Lamas had no direct nor indirect involvement with Shoma.”

Mr. Shojaee did request the IRS to keep this letter quiet, of course, lest it cause him family trouble. He is clearly all about the family.

The case finally gets to Court, which decides that Jose did work over 500 hours and that Mr. Shojaee was a creep.

But… there is one more thing.

You see, Jose worked for Shoma (an S corporation), not Greens (an LLC), and Greens was a substantial part of the loss.

Which brings us to the tax issue herein: can Shoma and Greens be combined, so that by showing material participation in Shoma, Jose also showed material participation in Greens?

The concept at play is whether the activities comprise an “appropriate economic unit,” a concept introduced to the tax Code as part of the passive loss rules in 1986. An example would be four related companies, each of which owns theaters: one east, one south, one north and one west. The common activity is owning theaters, and if there are enough other similarities then one could determine that the four companies comprise one economic activity. How is this important? If one shows a big loss while the other three show profits, for example. If they are one economic unit, the income and loss would automatically offset without having to employ a lot of tax planning.

So the Tax Court reviewed the rules in Regulation 1.469-4(c) for evaluating an appropriate economic unit:

(1)  similarities and differences in types of business

(2)  the extent of common control

(3)  the extent of common ownership

(4)  geographical location, and

(5)  other interdependencies

It found that there was sufficient overlap between Shoma and Greens that Jose was materially participating in both, and that he was entitled to his tax refund.

And I suspect that Mr. Shojaee is no longer invited to family functions.