The IRS Goes Rounds With Cohan

 

The decision begins with the IRS seeking taxes of $805,149, $1,145,104, $1,161,864, and $831,771 for years 2013 through 2016. The penalties were unsurprisingly also enormous.

I want to know what happened here.

The taxpayer was Mohammad Nasser Aboui, and he was the sole shareholder of an S corporation called HPPO. He owned several used vehicle lots, and in 2009 he put them into HPPO as its initial corporate capitalization.

It sounds like a tough business:

·       Most of HPPO customers had bad credit.

·       Many did not have a checking account and instead paid HPPO in cash.

·       HPPO financed between 90% and 95% of its sales.

·       Customers repaid their loans less than 10% of the time.

·       HPPO repossessed approximately 25% of the cars it sold within 3 or 4 months.

·       HPPO had quite the barter system going with its mechanics: the mechanic would work on HPPO cars in exchange for rent of HPPO’s garage space.

Around 2014 Aboui decided to close the business. There were serious family health issues and HPPO was not making any money.

The IRS started its audit in September 2015.

HPPO’s accountant was ill at the time and later died.

To its credit, the IRS waited.

More than 3 years later HPPO engaged another accountant to represent the audit.

The second accountant made immediate mistakes, such as getting HPPO’s accounting method wrong when dealing with the IRS Revenue Agent (RA).

COMMENT: More specifically, the accountant told the RA that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting. HPPO did not. In fact, it could not because inventory was a material income-producing factor.

The RA wanted HPPO’s books and records, including access to its accounting software. HPPO could provide much but not the software. Its software license expired when it left the vehicle business in 2018.

This is a nightmare.

HPPO did eventually reactivate the software, but it was too late to help with the RA.

The RA – being told by the second accountant that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting – decided to use bank statements to reconstruct gross income.

BTW HPPO wound up dismissing the second accountant.

The results were odd: HPPO had reported more sales for 2013 through 2015 – nearly $3.25 million - than was deposited at the bank.

The pattern reversed in 2016 when HPPO deposited approximately $539 grand more than it reported in sales.

COMMENT: I have an idea what happened.

The RA also saw following bad debt expense:

          2013             $1,069,739

          2014             $ 668,537

          2015             $ 902,967

          2016             $ 436,738    

Here is something about the cash basis of accounting: you cannot have bad debt expense. It makes sense when you remember that gross income is reported as monies are deposited. Bad debts are receivables that are never collected, meaning there is nothing to deposit. One never leaves home plate.

So, the RA disallowed the bad debt expense entirely.

I am pretty sure about my earlier hunch.

The RA also determined that HPPO had distributed the following monies to Aboui, one way or another:

          2013             $2,476,301

          2014             $1,704,329

          2015             $1,406,893

2016             $1,934,033

There were other issues too.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Remember what I said about reactivating the accounting software license? Aboui now presented thousands of pages to document cost of sales and other expenses. The Court encouraged the IRS to accept and review the new records.

The IRS said, “nah, we’re good.”

COMMENT: Strike one.

The Court started its opinion with HPPO’s sales.

The RA stated to the Court that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting.

Don’t think so, said the Court. The Court saw HPPO using the accrual basis of accounting for sales and the cash basis of accounting for everything else.

COMMENT: This is referred to as a hybrid method: a pinch of this, a sprinkle of that. If one is consistent – and the results are not misleading – a hybrid is an acceptable method of accounting.

The Court asked Treasury why it thought that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting.

Treasury replied that it had never said that.

The Court pointed out that the RA had said that she understood HPPO to be a cash basis taxpayer. To be fair, that is what the second accountant had told her.

Nope, never used the cash method insisted Treasury.

COMMENT: An explanation is in order here. Treasury Department attorneys take over when the matter goes to Court. Perhaps the attorneys meant “direct” Treasury. The RA – while working for the IRS which itself is part of the Treasury – would then be “indirect” Treasury. I am only speculating, as this unforced error makes no sense. Clearly it bothered the Court.

Strike two.

The Court then reasoned why HPPO was reporting more sales than it deposited in the bank: it was reporting the total vehicle sale price in revenues at the time of sale. That also explained the bad debt expense: HPPO financed most of its sales and most of those loans went sour.

But why the reversal in 2016?

Aboui explained to the Court that by 2016 he was closing the vehicle business. He would have slowed and eventually stopped selling cars, with the result that he would be depositing more in the bank than he currently sold.

The Court decided that HPPO had correctly recorded its sales for the years at issue.

Next came the cost of vehicles sold.

This accounting was complicated because so much cash was running through the business. Sometimes cash was used to immediately pay expenses without first being deposited into a bank account – NOT a recommended accounting practice.

The RA had also identified certain debits to HPPO’s bank account that were either distributions or otherwise nondeductible.

The Court could find no evidence that those identified debits had been deducted on the tax returns.

The RA – and by extension, the … Treasury – was losing credibility.

Aboui meanwhile provided extensive documentation of HPPO’s expenses at trial. Some of these were records the Court had asked the IRS to accept and review – and which the IRS passed on.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners provided extensive documentation at trial to substantiate the COGS and business expenses. Mr. Aboui testified that HPPO was unprofitable. Given the record in its entirety, we find that petitioners have substantiated HPPO’s COGS and business expenses as reported on HPPO’s returns for each year at issue, except for meal and entertainment expenses of …..”

COMMENT: Strike three.

The Court went to the bad debts.

Mr. Aboui credibly testified that he was unable to repossess approximately 250 cars during the years at issue. The loss of these cars adequately substantiates the amount of HPPO’s bad debt deductions for the years at issue under the Cohan rule.”

The Court went to the distributions.

Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report approximately $7.5 million in taxable distributions from HPPO during the years at issue.”

COMMENT: Remember that HPPO is an S corporation, and Aboui would be able to withdraw his invested capital – plus any business income he had paid taxes on personally but left in the business – without further tax. This amount is Aboui’s “basis” in his S corporation stock.

Here is the Court:

Respondent argues that petitioners have not established Mr. Aboui’s basis in HPPO during the years at issue. We disagree and that the record and Mr. Aboui’s credible testimony provides sufficient evidence for us to reasonably estimate his basis under the Cohan rule.”

The IRS won a partial victory with the distributions. The Court thought Aboui’s basis in HPPO was approximately $5.1 million.

The IRS had wanted zero basis.

The effect was to reduce the excess distributions to $$2.4 million ($7.5 minus $5.1).

Still, it was a rare win for the IRS.

Excess distributions are taxable. Aboui had taxable distributions of $2.4 million. Yes, it is a lot, but it is also a lot less than the IRS wanted.

COMMENT: The nerd part of me wonders how the Court arrived at an estimate of $5.1 million for Aboui’s basis. Unfortunately, there is no further explanation on this point.

Oh, one more thing from the Court:

… we hold that petitioners are not liable for any penalties.”

While not contained within the four corners of this decision, I am curious why the Court repetitively went to the Cohan rule. I have followed this literature for years, and this result is not normal. Courts generally expect a business to maintain an accounting system that produces reliable numbers. Yes, every now and then there may be a leak in the numbers, and the court may use Cohan to plug said leak. That is not what we have here, though. This boat was sinking.

Perhaps Aboui presented his case well.

Mr. Aboui was incredibly forthright in his testimony.”

And perhaps the IRS should not have argued that an RA – an IRS employee – is not the IRS.

Our case this time was Aboui and Mizani v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-106.

An Erroneous Tax Refund Check In The Mail

 

Let’s start with the Code section:

§ 6532 Periods of limitation on suits.

(b)  Suits by United States for recovery of erroneous refunds.

 

Recovery of an erroneous refund by suit under section 7405 shall be allowed only if such suit is begun within 2 years after the making of such refund, except that such suit may be brought at any time within 5 years from the making of the refund if it appears that any part of the refund was induced by fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact.

 

I have not lost sleep trying to understand that sentence.

But someone has.

Let’s introduce Jeffrey Page. He filed a 2016 tax return showing a $3,463 refund. In early May 2017, he received a refund check of $491,104. We are told that the IRS made a clerical error.

COMMENT: Stay tuned for more observations from Captain Obvious.

Page held the check for almost a year, finally cashing it on April 5, 2018.

The IRS – having seen the check cash – wanted the excess refund repaid.

Page wanted to enjoy the spoils.

Enter back and forth. Eventually Page returned $210,000 and kept the rest.

On March 31, 2020, Treasury sued Page in district court.

Page blew it off.

Treasury saw an easy victory and asked the district court for default judgement.

The court said no.

Why?

The court started with March 31, 2020. It subtracted two years to arrive at March 31, 2018. The court said that it did not know when Page received the check, but it most likely was before that date. If so, more than two years had passed, and Treasury could not pass Section 6532(b). They would not grant default. Treasury would have to prove its case.

Treasury argued that it was not the check issuance date being tested but rather the check clearance date. If one used the clearance date, the suit was timely.

The district court was having none of that. It pointed to precedence – from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - and dismissed the case.

The government appealed.

To the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ironically.

The Ninth wanted to know when a refund was “made.”

“within 2 years after the making of such refund …”

Is this when the refund is allowed or permitted or is it when the check clears or funds otherwise change hands?

The Ninth reasoned that merely holding the check does not rise to the threshold of “making” a refund.

Why, we ask?

Because Treasury could cancel the check.

OK. Score one for the government.

The Ninth further reasoned that the statute of limitations cannot start until the government is able to sue.

Why, we again ask?

Had Page shredded the check, could the government sue for nearly half a million dollars? Of course not. Well then, that indicates that a refund was not “made” when Page merely received a check.

Score two for the government.

The Ninth continued its reasoning, but we will fast forward to the conclusion:

… we hold that a refund is made when the check clears the Federal Reserve.”

Under that analysis, Treasury was timely in bring suit. The Ninth reversed the district court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What do I think?

I see common sense, although I admit the Ninth has many times previously eluded common sense. Decide otherwise, however, and Treasury could be negatively impacted by factors as uncontrollable as poor mail delivery.

Or by Page’s curious delay in depositing the check.

Then again, maybe a non-professional was researching the matter, and it took a while to navigate to Section 6532 and its two years.

Our case this time was U.S. v Page, No 21-17083 (9th Cir. June 26, 2024).

IRAs and Nonqualified Compensation Plans

Can an erroneous Form 1099 save you from tax and penalties?

It’s an oddball question, methinks. I anticipate the other side of that see-saw is whether one knew, or should have known, better.

Let’s look at the Clair Couturier case.

Clair is a man, by the way. His wife’s is named Vicki.

Clair used to be the president of Noll Manufacturing (Noll).

Clair and Noll had varieties of deferred compensation going on: 

(1)   He owned shares in the company employee stock ownership program (ESOP).

(2)   He had a deferred compensation arrangement (his “Compensation Continuation Agreement”) wherein he would receive monthly payments of $30 grand when he retired.

(3)   He participated in an incentive stock option plan.

(4)   He also participated in another that sounds like a phantom stock arrangement or its cousin. The plan flavor doesn’t matter; no matter what flavor you select Clair is being served nonqualified deferred compensation in a cone.

Sounds to me like Noll was taking care of Clair.

There was a corporate reorganization in 2004.

Someone wanted Clair out.

COMMENT: Let’s talk about an ESOP briefly, as it is germane to what happened here. AN ESOP is a retirement plan. Think of it as 401(k), except that you own stock in the company sponsoring the ESOP and not mutual funds at Fidelity or Vanguard. In this case, Noll sponsored the ESOP, so the ESOP would own Noll stock. How much Noll stock would it own? It can vary. It doesn’t have to be 100%, but it might be. Let’s say that it was 100% for this conversation. In that case, Clair would not own any Noll stock directly, but he would own a ton of stock indirectly through the ESOP.

If someone wanted him out, they would have to buy him out through the ESOP.

Somebody bought out Clair for $26 million.

COMMENT: I wish.

The ESOP sent Clair a Form 1099 reporting a distribution of $26 million. The 1099 indicated that he rolled-over this amount to an IRA.

Clair reported the roll-over on his 2004 tax return. It was just reporting; there is no tax on a roll-over unless someone blows it.

QUESTION: Did someone blow it?

Let’s go back. Clair had four pieces to his deferred compensation, of which the ESOP was but one. What happened to the other three?

Well, I suppose the deal might have been altered. Maybe Clair forfeited the other three. If you pay me enough, I will go away.

Problem:

         § 409 Qualifications for tax credit employee stock ownership plans

So?

        (p)  Prohibited allocations of securities in an S corporation

                      (4)  Disqualified person

Clair was a disqualified person to the ESOP. He couldn’t just make-up whatever deal he wanted. Well, technically he could, but the government reserved the right to drop the hammer.

The government dropped the hammer.

The Department of Labor got involved. The DOL referred the case to the IRS Employee Plan Division. The IRS was looking for prohibited transactions.

Found something close enough.

Clair was paid $26 million for his stock.

The IRS determined that the stock was worth less than a million.

QUESTION: What about that 1099 for the rollover?

ANSWER: You mean the 1099 that apparently was never sent to the IRS?

What was the remaining $25 million about?

It was about those three nonqualified compensation plans.

Oh, oh.

This is going to cost.

Why?

Because only funds in a qualified plan can be rolled to an IRA.

Funds in a nonqualified plan cannot.

Clair rolled $26 million. He should have rolled less than a million.

Wait. In what year did the IRS drop the hammer?

In 2016.

Wasn’t that outside the three-year window for auditing Clair’s return?

Yep.

So Clair was scot-free?

Nope.

The IRS could not adjust Clair’s income tax for 2004. It could however tag him with a penalty for overfunding his IRA by $25 million.

Potato, poetawtoe. Both would clock out under the statute of limitations, right?

Nope.

There is an excise tax (normal folk call it a “penalty”) in the Code for overfunding an IRA. The tax is 6 percent. That doesn’t sound so bad, until you realize that the tax is 6 percent per year until you take the excess contribution out of the IRA.

Clair never took anything out of his IRA.

This thing has been compounding at 6 percent per year for … how many years?

The IRS wanted around $8.5 million.

The Tax Court agreed.

Clair owed.

Big.

Our case this time was Couturier v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-69.

Overcontributing To Your 401(k)

 

One of the accountants had a question for me:

A:               I added up the W-2s, but the wages per the software does not agree to my number.

CTG:          Is your number lower?

A:               Yes.

Let’s talk about 401(k)s. More specifically, let’s talk about 401(k)s when one changes jobs during the year. It can be an issue if one is making decent bank.

You are under age 50. How much can you defer in a 401(k)?

For 2021 you can defer $19,500. The limit increased to $20,500 for 2022.

You change jobs during 2021. Say you contributed $14,000 at your first job. The second job doesn’t know how much you contributed at first job. You contribute $12,000 at your second job.

Is there a tax problem?

First, congrats. You are making good money or are a serious saver. It could be both, I suppose.

But, yes, there is a tax problem.

The universe of retirement plans is divided into two broad categories:

·      Defined benefit

·      Defined contribution

Defined benefit are also known as pension plans. Realistically, these plans are becoming extinct outside of a union setting, with the government counting as union.

Defined contribution plans are more commonly represented by 401(k)s, 403(b)s, SIMPLES and so forth. Their common feature is that some – maybe most – of the dollars involved are the employee’s own dollars.

Being tax creatures, you know that both categories have limits. The defined benefit will have a benefit limit (the math can be crazy). The defined contribution will have a contribution limit.

And that contribution limit is $19,500 in 2021 for someone under age 50.

COMMENT: If you google “defined contribution 2021” and come back with $58,000, you may wonder about the difference between the two numbers. The $58,000 includes the employer contribution. Our $19,500 is just the employee contribution. This difference is one of the reasons that solo 401(k)s work as well as they do: they max-out the employer contribution – assuming that the income is there to power the thing, of course.  

Let’s go back to our example. You deferred $26,000 for 2021.

Are you over the limit?

Yep.

If you add your two W-2s together, is the sum your correct taxable wages for 2021?

Nope.

Why not?

Because a 401(k) contribution lowers your (income) taxable wages. You went $6,500 over the limit. Your taxable wages are $6,500 lower than they should be.

 What do you do?

There are two general courses of action:

(1)  Contact one of the employers (probably the second one) explain the issue and request that the W-2 be amended by the deadline date for filing your return – that is, April 15. Rest assured, you have just drawn the wrath of someone in the accounting or payroll department, but you have only so many options. 

BTW the earnings on the excess contributions are also taxable to you. Say that you earned 1% on the excess. That $65 will be taxable to you, but it will be taxable the following year. 

In summary,

§  Your 2021 W-2 income goes up by $6,500

§  You will report the $65 earnings on the excess contribution in 2022.

    It is a mess, but the second option is worse.

(2)  You do not contact one of the employers, or you contact them too late for them to react by April 15.

Your 2021 W-2s show excessive 401(k) deferral.

Your tax preparer will probably catch this and increase your taxable W-2 totals by $6,500. This is what created the accountant’s question at the beginning of this post.

Oh well, you say. You are back to the same place as option one. No harm, no foul – right?

Not quite. 

First, your employer may not be too happy if the issue is later discovered. This is an operational plan issue, and there can be penalties for operational plan issues. 

Second, once you go past the time allowed for correction, the money is stuck in the plan until you are allowed take a distribution (or until the employer learns of the issue and corrects the plan on its own power). 

Say you never tell them. Let’s not burn this bridge, right? 

Problem. Take a look at this bad boy: 

                 Section 402(g)(6)  Coordination with section 72 .

For purposes of applying section 72 , any amount includible in gross income for any taxable year under this subsection but which is not distributed from the plan during such taxable year shall not be treated as investment in the contract.

What does this assemblage of mostly unintelligible words mean?    

It means that you will be taxed again when the 401(k) finally distributes the excess contribution to you. 

Yep, you will be taxed twice on the same income. 

That $6,500 got expensive. 

Upon reflection, there really is no option 2. You have to tell your employer and have them correct the W-2.      

Abusing A Tax-Exempt

I am looking at a tax-exempt case that went off the rails.

There are rules in the tax-exempt area to encourage one to keep their nose clean. The rules can be different depending on whether the entity is a private foundation or not. The reason is that a foundation is generally considered more susceptible to influence than a “classic” tax-exempt, such as a 501(c)(3), as a foundation generally has a smaller pool of donors.

A doctor (Dr O) organized a 501(c)(3) called American Medical Missionary Care, Inc (AMMC) in 1998. In 2000 it applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS. Its exempt purpose was to operate a clinic in Michigan providing medical examination and treatment for individuals unable to afford such services.

Sounds like a great cause to me.

Dr O served as president. His spouse (Mrs O) served on the board of directors as well as secretary and treasurer over the years.

In 2013 AMMC filed its Form 990 reporting compensation of $26,000 paid Dr O and $21,000 paid Mrs O.

AMMC however issued W-2s of $26,000 apiece.

There is a mistake here, but it is not necessarily a big deal. They should tighten down the numbers going forward, though.

On its 2014 Form 990 AMMC reported no compensation to Dr or Mrs O.

Seems odd. Compensation does not tend to turn off and on like a spigot.

Meanwhile, Dr O had gotten in trouble with the Michigan Board of Medicine in 2014. He was required to pay a significant amount of money and also relinquished his medical license. Dr O eventually returned to Nigeria in 2017, leaving his wife in the United States.

The IRS selected the nonprofit for examination.

The revenue agent dug around the AMMC’s various bank accounts for 2014 and found biweekly checks to Mrs O of $1,000 each. There were also certified checks ranging from $6,000 to $10,000. In all, Dr and Mrs O had received cash, checks and money orders from AMMC totaling approximately $130 thousand.

The 990 showed the $130 grand as a loan receivable from Dr O.

Oh please.

Dr O got into trouble and needed cash. He turned to AMMC because that is where the money was. A loan implies an ability to repay and intent to collect, all within the normal course and conduct of business. I seriously doubt that is what we had here.

Dr O and Mrs O had outsized influence over the (c)(3). Who was going to tell them no, much less point out that making loans to officers and board members is minefield territory in the tax Code?

The IRS revenue agent felt the same way and assessed a tier-one penalty.

Penalties in the nonprofit area can be a bit different. There can be penalties on an individual or on the entity itself, for example. The more severe penalties revolve around “excess benefit” transactions and “disqualified persons,” which are – as you might suspect – people with substantial authority or influence over the tax-exempt. Dr O organized AMMC years before and served as its president. He was a poster child for a disqualified person.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500. It also revoked the exempt status of AMMC.

Let’s walk through the tiered penalty.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500 on the O's. This is 25% of the $130,000 that Dr and Mrs O drew in 2014. The reason I call it a “tier-one” is that there is a possible “tier two.” To avoid a tier-two, one has to return the money to the tax-exempt.

What happens if one fails to return the money?

The penalty goes to 200%.

This is one of the severest penalties in the tax Code, and Congress intended it that way. Years ago, the only recourse the IRS had was to revoke the entity’s exempt status. Congress felt that this response was a sledgehammer, and it instead created a set of “intermediate” penalties, shifting the burden to the person benefiting from the transaction. With that as background, Congress did not consider 200 percent as excessive.

So the O’s now had another penalty of $230,000.

COMMENT: 200 percent of $130,000 is $260,000, not $230,000. The Court made some tweaks which need not concern us here.

You may be wondering why Dr O would care, if he was safely ensconced in Nigeria.

For one, his wife was still in the United States.

And she was on the Board. She had served as secretary and treasurer. She was a disqualified person in her own right. She was also considered to be a disqualified person by being married to a disqualified person. She was not getting out of this snare.

Mrs O was going to get hammered.

She fielded a last stand:

(1) She argued that much of the money was distributed to needy people to help with rent and utilities, after-school programs for the kids and so forth.

Problem was: she had no records to substantiate any of this. She had not drawn checks in a manner commensurate with this storyline, although she testified that she would hold and re-deposit the certified checks back into the (c)(3) if and as needed. The Court was – by this point – quite skeptical of anything she had to say.

(2)  She argued that much of the money represented compensation to either her or both Dr O and her.

This was her best argument, but unfortunately this route was closed to her.

You see, AMMC should have issued W-2s if it intended for the monies to represent compensation. The tax-exempt did not issue W-2s for 2014. It did not even authorize compensation in its minutes. Some things have to be done currently, and this is one of those things.

A W-2 (or 1099) would have saved a penalty equal to twice its face amount. That is, a $26,000 W-2 to Dr O would have saved a penalty of $52,000 ($26,000 times 200%).

It was a worst-case scenario for the O’s.

Then again, they abused AMCC. That money did not belong to the O’s. It belonged to the (c)(3). The exempt purpose of AMMC was to assist the poor with access to medical care, not to enrich its founding family after the loss of a medical license.

Our case this time was Ononuju v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-94.

 

Excess Business Loss Problems

To a tax accountant, October 15 signifies the extended due date for individual tax returns.

As a generalization, our most complicated returns go on extension. There is a reason: it is likely that the information necessary to prepare the return is not yet available. For example, you are waiting on a Schedule K-1 from a partnership, LLC or S corporation. That K-1 might not be prepared until after April 15. There is only so much work an office of accountants can generate within 75 days, irrespective of government diktats.

More recently I am also seeing personal returns being extended because we are expecting a broker’s information report to be revised and perhaps revised again. It happens repetitively.

Let’s talk about a new twist for 2018 personal returns. There are a few twists, actually, but let’s focus on the “excess business loss” rule.

First, this applies only to noncorporate taxpayers. As noncorporate taxpayers, that could be you or me.

Its purpose is to stop you or me from claiming losses past a certain amount.

Now think about this for a moment.

Go out there, sign a sports contract for big bucks and Uncle Sam is draped all over you like a childhood best friend.

Get booted from the league, however, and you get a very different response.

How can losses happen?

Easy. Let me give you an example. We represent a sizeable contractor. The swing in their numbers from year-to-year can gray your hair. When times are good, they are virtually printing money. When times are bad, it feels like they are taking-on the national debt.

I presume one does not even know the meaning of risk if one wants to be an owner there.

To me, fairness requires that the tax law share in my misery when I am losing money if it also wants me to cooperatively send taxes when I am making money. Call me old-fashioned that way.

The “excess business loss” rule is not concerned with old-fashioned fairness.

Let’s use some numbers to make sense of this.

          Dividends                      100,000

 Capital gains                  400,000

          Schedule K-1                (600,000)

The concept is that you can offset a business loss against nonbusiness income, but only up to a point. That point is $250,000 if you are nonmarried and twice that if you are. Using the above numbers, we have:

 Dividends                       100,000

          Capital gains                  400,000

          Schedule K-1                (600,000)

                                                   (100,000)

          Excess business loss     100,000

         

Interest, dividends and capital gains are the classic nonbusiness income categories. You are allowed to offset $500,000 of nonbusiness income (assuming married) but you are showing $600,000 of business losses. The excess business loss rule will magically adjust $100,000 into your income tax return to get the numbers to work.

It is like a Penn and Teller show.

Let’s tweak our example:

Wages                            100,000

Dividends                       100,000

         Capital gains                  400,000

         Schedule K-1                (600,000)

What now? Do you get to include that W-2 as part of your business income, meaning that you no longer have a $100,000 excess business loss?

Believe it or not, tax professionals are not certain.

Here is what sets up the issue:

The Joint Committee of Taxation published its “Bluebook” describing Congress’ intention when drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In it, the JCT states that “an excess business loss … does not take into account gross income, or gains or deductions attributable to the trade or business of performing services as an employee.”        

The “trade or business of performing services as an employee” is fancy talk for wages and salaries.

However, the IRS came out with a shiny new tax form for the excess business loss calculation. The instructions indicate that one should add-up all business income, including wages and tips.

We have two different answers.

Let’s get nerdy, as it matters here.

Elsewhere in the Code, we also have a new 20% deduction for “qualified business income.” The Code has to define “business income,” as that is the way tax law works. The Code does so by explicitly excluding the trade or business of “being an employee.”

There is a concept of statutory construction that comes into play. If one Code section has to EXPLICITLY exclude wages (that is, the trade or business of being an employee), then it is reasonably presumable that business income includes wages.

Which means foul when another Code section pops up and says “No, it does not.”

Of course, no one will know for certain until a court decides.

Or Congress defies all reasonable expectations and actually works rather than enable the Dunning-Kruger psychopaths currently housed there.

Why does this “excess business loss” Code section even exist?

Think $150 billion in taxes over 10 years. That is why.

To be fair, the excess is not lost. It carries over to the following year as a net operating loss.

That probably means little if you have just lost your shirt and I am calling you to make an extension payment on April 15 – you know, because of that “excess business loss” thing.

Meanwhile tax professionals have to march on. We cannot wait. After all, those noncorporate returns are due October 15.