Renting Real Estate And Self-Employment Tax

 

I was looking at a tax return recently. There was an issue there that I did not immediately recognize.

Let’s go over it.

The client is a new venue for cocktail parties, formal dinners, corporate meetings, bridal showers, wedding rehearsals and receptions, and other such occasions.

The client will configure the space as you wish, but you will have to use a preselected list of caterers should you want food. There is a bar, but you will have to provide your own bartender. You can decorate, but there are strict rules on affixing decorations to walls, fixtures, and such. Nonroutine decorations must be approved in advance. You will have to bring your own sound system should you want music, as no system exists. The client will clean the space at the end of the event, but you must first remove all personal items from the property.

Somewhat specialized and not a business I would pursue, but I gave it no further thought.

The question came up: is this ordinary business income or rental income?

Another way to phrase the question is whether the income would or would not be subject to self-employment tax.

Let’s say you have a duplex. One would be hard pressed to think of a reasonable scenario where you would be paying self-employment tax, as rental income from real estate is generally excepted from self-employment income.

Let’s change the facts. You own a Hyatt Hotel. Yes, it is real estate. Yes, there is rental income. This income, however, will be subject to self-employment tax.

What is the difference? Well, the scale of the activity is one, obviously. Another is the provision of additional services. You may bring in a repairman if there were a problem at the duplex, but you are not going into the unit to wash dishes, vacuum carpets, change bed linens or provide fresh towels. There is a limit. On the other hand, who knows what concierge services at a high-end hotel might be able to provide or arrange.

We are on a spectrum, it appears. It would help to have some clarification on which services are innocuous and which are taunting the bull.

IRS Chief Counsel Advice 202151005 addressed the spectrum in the context of residential rental property.

First a warning. A CCA provides insight into IRS thinking on a topic, but that thinking is not considered precedent, nor does it constitute substantial authority in case of litigation. That is fine for us, as we have no intention of litigating anything or having a tax doctrine named after us.

Here is scenario one from the CCA:

·       You are not a real estate dealer.

·       You rent beachfront property via online marketplaces (think Airbnb).

·       You provide kitchen items, Wi-Fi, recreational equipment, prepaid ride-share vouchers to the business district and daily maid service.

Here is scenario two:

·       You are not a real estate dealer.

·       You rent out a bedroom and bathroom in your home via online marketplaces.

·       A renter has access to common areas only to enter and exit.

·       You clean the bedroom and bathroom after each renter’s stay.

I am not overwhelmed by either scenario. Scenario one offers a little more than scenario two, but neither is a stay at the Hotel Jerome.

Here is the CCA walkthrough:

·       Tax law considers rental income collected by a non-dealer to be non-self- employment income.

·       However, the law says nothing about providing services.

·       Allowable services include:

o   Those clearly required to maintain the property in condition for occupancy, and

o   Are a sufficiently insubstantial portion of the rent.

·       Nonallowable services include:

o   Those not clearly required to maintain the property in condition for occupancy, and

o   Are so substantial as to comprise a material portion of the rent.

The CCA considered scenario two to be fine.

COMMENT: I would think so. The services are minimal unless you consider ingress and egress to be substantial services.

The CCA considered scenario one not to be fine.

Why not?

·       The services are for the convenience of the occupants.

·       The services are beyond those necessary to maintain the space for occupancy.

·       The services are sufficient to constitute a material portion of the rent.       

I get the big picture: the closer you get to hotel accommodations the more likely you are to be subject to self-employment tax. I am instead having trouble with the smaller picture – the details a tax practitioner is looking for – and which signal one’s location on the spectrum.

·       Is the IRS saying that services beyond the mere availability of a bed and bathroom are the path to the dark side?

·       IRS Regulations refer to services customarily provided.

o   How is one to test customarily: with reference to nearby full-service hotels or only with other nearby online rentals?

o   In truth, did the IRS look at any nearby services in scenario one?

·       What does material portion mean?

o   Would the provision of services at a lower rent situs (say Athens, Georgia) result in a different answer from the provision of comparable services at a higher rent situs (say Aspen, Colorado)?

o   What about a different time of year? Can one provide more services during a peak rental period (say the NCAA Tournament) and not run afoul of the material portion requirement??

One wonders how much this CCA has reinforced online rental policies such as running-the-dishwasher and take-out-the-trash-when-you-leave. There is no question that I would advise an Airbnb client not to provide daily services, whatever they may be.

I also suspect why our client set up their venue the way they did.

A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.

Incompetent Employees And IRS Penalties

 

“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” Compania General De Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Taft, C.J.). For good reason, there are few lawful justifications for failing to pay one's taxes. Plaintiff All Stacked Up Masonry, Inc. (“All Stacked Up”), a corporation, believes it has such an excuse. It brings this suit to challenge penalties and interest assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) following its failure to file the appropriate payroll tax documents and its failure to timely pay payroll tax liabilities for multiple tax periods.

The above is how the Court decision starts.

Here are the facts from 30,000 feet.

·      The company provides masonry services.

·      The company got into payroll tax issues from 2013 through 2015.

·      The company paid over $95 thousand in penalties and interest.

·      It now wanted that money back. To do so it had to present reasonable cause for how it got into this mess in the first place.

Proving reasonable cause is not easy, as the IRS keeps shrinking the universe of reasonable cause.  An example is an accountant missing a timely extension. There is a case out there called Boyle, and the case divides an accountant’s services into two broad camps:

·      Advice on technical issues, and

·      Stuff a monkey could do.

Let’s say that CTG Galactic Command is planning a corporate reorganization and we blow a step, causing significant tax due. Reliance on us as your advisors will probably constitute reasonable cause, as the transaction under consideration was complex and required specialized expertise. Let’s say however that we fail to extend the corporate return – or we file it two days after its extended due date. Boyle stands for the position that anyone can google when the return was due, meaning that relying on us as your tax advisors to comply with your filing deadline is not reasonable.

As a practitioner, I have very little patience with Boyle. We prepare well over a thousand individual tax returns, not to mention business, nonprofit, payroll, sales tax, paper airplanes and everything in between. Visit this office during the last few days before April 15th, for example, and you can feel the tension like the hum from an electrical transformer. What returns are finished? What returns are only missing an item or two and can hopefully be finished? What returns cannot possibly be finished? Do we have enough information to make an educated guess at tax due? Who is calling the client?  Who is tracking and recording all this to be sure that nothing is overlooked? Why do we do this to ourselves?

Yeah, mistakes happen in practice. Boyle just doesn’t care. Boyle holds practitioners to a standard that the IRS itself cannot rise to. I have several files in my office just waiting, because the IRS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO. I brought in the Taxpayer Advocate recently because IRS Kansas City botched a client. We filed an amended return in response to a Notice of Deficiency the client did not inform us about. The amended must have appeared as “too much work” to some IRS employee, and we were informed that Kansas City inexplicably closed the file. This act occurred well before but was fortuitously masked by subsequent COVID issues. The after-effects were breathtaking, with lien notices, our requests for releases, telephone calls with IRS attorneys, Collection’s laughable insistence on a payment plan, and – ultimately – a delay on the client’s refinancing. IRS incompetence cumulatively cost me the better part of a day’s work. Considering what I do for a living, that is time and money I cannot get back

I should be able to bill the IRS for wasting my time over stuff a monkey could do.

The Advocate did a good job, by the way.

Let’s get back to All Stacked Up, the company whose payroll issues we were discussing.

The owner fell on ice and suffered significant injuries. This led to the owner relying on an employee for tax compliance. That reliance was misplaced.

·      The first two quarterly payroll returns for 2013 were filed late.

·      The fourth quarter, 2013 return would have been due January 31, 2014. It was not filed until July 13, 2015.

·      None of the 2014 quarterly returns were filed until the summer of 2015.

·      To complete this sound track, the payroll tax deposits were no timelier than the filing of the returns themselves.

Frankly, the company should just have let its CPA firm take care of the matter. Had the firm botched the work this badly, at least the company would have a possible malpractice lawsuit.

The company pleaded reasonable cause. The owner was injured and tried to delegate the tax duties to someone during his absence. Granted, it did not go well, but that does mean that the owner did not try to behave as a prudent business person.

I get the argument. All Stacked Up is not Apple or Microsoft, with acres and acres of lawyers and accountants. They did the best they could with the (clearly limited) resources they had.

The company appealed the penalties. IRS Appeals was willing to compromise – but only a bit. Appeals would abate 16.66% of the penalties and related interest. This presented a tough call: accept the abatement or go for it all.

The company went for it all.

Here is the Court:

Applying Boyle to this case, it is clear as a matter of law that retention of an employee or software to prepare and remit tax filings, make required deposits, and tender payments cannot, in itself, constitute “reasonable cause” for All Stacked Up’s failure to satisfy those tax obligations. The employee’s failures are All Stacked Up’s failures, no matter how prudent the delegation of those duties may have been.”

And there is full Boyle: we don’t care about your problems and you doing your best with the resources available. Your standard is perfection, and do not ask whether we hold ourselves to the same standard.

I wonder if that employee is still there.

I mean the one at IRS Kansas City.

Our case this time was All Stacked Up v U.S., 2020 PTC 340 (Fed Cl 2020).

Can You Have Cancellation Of Debt Income If You Are Still Paying On The Debt?

Harold is a native Hawaiian. He has worked in the telecommunications industry for more than 40 years. In 1996 he founded Summit Communications, Inc (Summit), which he served in the capacity of president, chief executive officer and director.

Al has a background similar to Harold's, but his company was called Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc (SIC). In 1997 he desperately needed a telecommunications executive. Al met Harold and wanted Harold to come work for him.

Harold was already involved with Summit, which was having business issues. Harold felt a commitment to the company and his employees.

But Al was not going to let go easily.

In 1998 Al sweetened the offer by including a $450,000 loan. He knew that Harold would immediately loan the monies to Summit. In fact, that is why Al offered the deal. He wanted to loan to be to Harold so that he and SIC did not have to deal with Summit's board of directors.

SIC also wanted to contract with Summit for operations and technical support.

Harold signed on with SIC, and Al let him stay on as Summit's director and chief executive officer.

They signed a note, stipulating that Harold had to repay the loan if he ever left SIC's employment.

The relationship went well, and by the end of 1999 Summit was booming, although - granted - SIC represented 60% of its revenues. It was growing so much that it need Harold back. Al, basically being a good guy, agreed that Harold should return.

No one remembered that Harold had to repay the loan.

SIC then received a large loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which it used to upgrade its operations and technical staff. As it did, SIC's reliance on Summit decreased. By 2002 Summit filed a bankruptcy petition. By 2005 Harold had gone back to work for Al.

In 2010 the IRS audited SIC.

In 2011 Al met with Harold and reminded him that the loan was still due. Harold arranged for payroll deductions - first for $300 per month, then $600 and finally a $1,000 a month - to repay the loan.

The IRS sent a notice to Harold. The IRS said that SIC had discharged his loan, and he had cancellation of indebtedness income.

Think about this for a moment. The IRS wanted taxes from Harold because he had been let off the hook for a $450,000 loan. The problem is that Harold was still paying on the loan. Both cannot be true at the same time, so what was the IRS' reasoning?

It primarily had to do with how many years SIC had to pursue collection before the statute of limitations ran out. Remember: Harold did not start paying the loan until 2011. According to the IRS, there was no enforceable loan at that time, as SIC had gone too long without any evident collection activity. That was the triggering event for income to Harold: when the debt was no longer enforceable.

The IRS had a good point.

The IRS also argued that Harold starting repaying on the loan because it had noticed the defaulted loan on audit and Harold did not want to pay taxes on it.

Harold and Al appeared before the Court and testified that they both considered the loan outstanding, and the Court found them both to be "honest, forthright, and credible."

The Court could not help but notice that Harold and Al were on separate sides with respect to the loan.

 ... respondent argues that any repayment activity taken after the commencement of the examination should be discounted. We disagree. The testimony suggests instead that [Harold] sought to repay the SIC loan because he understood that it was his obligation to repay it. Additionally, a reasonable person in this case would not agree to pay an unenforceable debt to save a fraction of that debt on taxes. Repayment, in other words, is against [Harold's] economic interests."

The Court agreed that cancellation of income requires a triggering event, but it disagreed that the expiration of the statute automatically rose to that level.

... the expiration of the period of limitations generally does not cancel an underlying debt obligation but simply provides an affirmative defense for the debtor in an action by the creditor."

The Court decided that Harold owed the debt. He did not have income.

Why did the IRS pursue this? It certainly did not put a smiley face on their public persona.

I suspect the IRS considered themselves backed into a corner. If the loan really was uncollectible AND the IRS did not pursue, then the regular three-year statute on tax assessments would close on Harold's tax year. At that point, the IRS could not reach Harold again if it wanted to. If however the IRS went to Court - even if it lost - it would mean that the loan was either still in place or discharged in a later year. In either case, the IRS could reach Harold.

Does An LLC Member Pay Self-Employment Tax?

There is an issue concerning LLCs that has existed for approximately as long as I have been in the profession. I am thinking about it because I recently finished a research memo which included this issue.

This time we are talking about limited liability companies (LLCs) and self-employment income. One pays self-employment tax on self-employment income, and the dollars can add up rather quickly.

The offending party is the following enchanting prose from Code section 1402(a)(13) addressing self-employment income:

           

… there shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in … "

We do not need degrees in taxation to zero in on the term “limited partner” as being the key to this car. If you are a limited partner you get to exclude “the distributive share” of something. Since the IRS wants you to pay tax on something, the less of that something is probably a good thing.

So what is a limited partner in this conversation?

We don’t know.

The above wording came from an IRS proposed Regulation in 1977. The IRS stirred such a hornet’s nest that Congress put a hold on the Regulation. The hold has long since expired, but the IRS has not wanted to walk back onto that hill. It has been 37 years.

To be fair, the playing field changed on the IRS.

Have you ever heard of the Estate of Ellsasser? Don’t worry if you haven’t, as I suspect that many tax CPAs have not. Let’s time travel back to 1976. In addition to Bob Newhart and the Carol Burnett Show, people were buying tax shelters. The shelters worked pretty well back then, long before the passive activity rules entered the game. One of those shelters used to provide one with self-employment income, on which one would pay self-employment – also known as social security – tax.

Doesn’t sound like much of a shelter, doesn’t it?

The purpose was to get social security credits for someone who had not worked, had not earned enough credits, or had not earned enough to maximize their social security benefits.

The IRS did not like this at all, because at the time it was concerned with people taking advantage of social security. That was before our government decided to bankrupt us all, which act has now switched to the IRS demanding money from anyone foolish enough to make eye contact.

You see, in those days, there were entities known as “limited partnerships” in which a general partner made all the decisions and in return the limited partners got regular checks. A limited partner had little or no sway over the management of the place. It was an investment, like buying IBM or Xerox stock. There was no way the IRS was going to let a limited partner buy social security credits on the back of a limited partnership investment. No sir. Go get a job.

Fast forward about twenty years. There is a new sheriff in town, and that sheriff is the limited liability company (LLC). The states had created these new toys, and their claim to fame is that one could both work there and limit one’s liability at the same time. Unheard of! A limited partnership could not do that. In fact, if a limited partner started working at the place he/she would lose the protection from partnership liabilities. No limited partner was going to do that voluntarily.

And there you have a tax Regulation written in the 1970s referencing a “limited” partner. Twenty years later something new appears “limiting” one’s exposure to entity liabilities, but not being at all what the IRS had in mind two decades before.

And so the question became: does an LLC member have to pay self-employment tax?

And the issue has recently compounded, because there is also a new ObamaCare tax (the additional Medicare tax of 0.9%) which applies to …. wait on it… self-employment income. Yep, it applies to something the IRS cannot even define.

And then you have tax professionals trying to work with this nonsense. We do not have the option of putting the issue on the shelf until the baby is old enough to go to college. We have to prepare tax returns annually.

So I was looking at something titled “CCA 201436049.” It is nowhere as interesting as the final season of Sons of Anarchy, but it does touch upon our magic two words from the 1970s.

BTW, a “CCA” is a “Chief Counsel Advice” and represents an internal IRS document. It cannot be cited or used as precedence, but it gives you a VERY GOOD idea of what the IRS is thinking.

In our CCA, there is company that manages mutual funds. The management company used to be an S corporation and is now an LLC. The members of the management company pretty much do all the investment activity for the mutual funds, and the management company gets paid big bucks. The management company in turn pays its members via a W-2 and then “distributes” the remaining profit to them. The members pay social security on the W-2 (same as you or I) but not on the distributive share.

OBSERVATION: For the tax purist, a partnership is not allowed to pay its partner a W-2. The reason is that a partner in a partnership is considered to be self-employed, and self-employed people do not receive W-2s. LLCs have thrown a wrench into practice, however, and it is not uncommon to see an LLC member receive a W-2.

To get a CCA, the taxpayer has to be in examination. An IRS person in the field requests direction on how to handle an issue. The issue here is whether that distributive share should be subject to self-employment tax or not. A CCA is therefore like giving instructions to IRS examiners in the field.

The IRS goes through the same tax history we talked about above, and it is very skeptical that just “limiting” someone’s liability was the intent of the 1970s Regulation. It goes on to take a look at two recent cases.

In Renkemeyer, the Tax Court determined that lawyers within a law practice did not fit the “limited partner” exception, especially since they were actively working, something a 1970s “limited partner” could not do. They had to pay self-employment taxes on their distributive income.

In Reither the taxpayer issued W-2s and argued that that was sufficient to keep the rest of the distributive income from being subject to self-employment tax. The District Court made short work of the argument, primarily because there is no statutory support for it.

So … surprise, surprise… the CCA determined that the management company’s distributive share was subject to self-employment tax.

By itself, this is not surprising. What I did notice is that the IRS is paying more attention to this issue, and it is winning its cases. How much longer can it be before Congress finds this “new” source of tax revenue?

Granted, I think the odds of any meaningful tax legislation between Congress and this White House to be close to zero. There will be at least a couple of years.  That said, I suspect that tax planners have only so many years left to ramp this car onto the interstate before Congress takes our keys away.