Pilgrim's Pride, A Senator And Tax Complexity

The Democratic staff of the Senate Finance Committee published a report last month titled “How Tax Pros Make the Code Less Fair and Efficient: Several New Strategies and Solutions.”

I set it aside, because it was March, I am a tax CPA and I was, you know, working. I apparently did not have the time liberties of Congressional staffers. You know the type: those who do not have to go in when it snows. When I was younger I wanted one of those jobs. Heck, I still do.

There was a statement from Senator Wyden, the ranking Democrat senator from Oregon:

Those without access to fancy tax planning tools shouldn’t feel like the system is rigged against them. 

Sophisticated taxpayers are able to hire lawyers and accountants to take advantage of … dodges, but hearing about these loopholes make middle-class taxpayers want to pull their hair out.”

There is some interesting stuff in here, albeit it is quite out of my day-to-day practice. The inclusion of derivatives caught my eye, as that of course was the technique by which the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee transmuted $1,000 into $100,000 over the span of ten months once her husband became governor of Arkansas. It must have taken courage for the staffers to have included that one.

Problem is, of course, that tax advisors do not write the law.  

There are complex business transactions taking place all the time, with any number of moving parts. Sometimes those parts raise tax issues, and many times those issues are unresolved. A stable body of tax law allows both the IRS and the courts to fill in the blanks, allowing practitioners to know what the law intended, what certain words mean, whether those words retain their same meaning as one travels throughout the Code and whether the monster comes to life after one stitches together a tax transaction incorporating dozens if not hundreds of Code sections. And that is “IF” the tax Code remains stable, which is of course a joke.

Let’s take an example.

Pilgrim’s Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the world. In the late 1990s it acquired almost $100 million in preferred stock from Southern States Cooperative. The deal went bad.  Southern gave Pilgrim an out: it would redeem the stock for approximately $20 million.

I would leap at a $20 million, but then again I am not a multinational corporation. There was a tax consideration … and it was gigantic.

You see, if Pilgrim sold then stock, it would have an $80 million capital loss. Realistically, current tax law would never allow it to use up that much loss. What did it do instead? Pilgrim abandoned the stock, meaning that it put it outside on the curb for big trash pick-up day.

Sound insane?

Well, the tax Code considered a redemption to be a “sale or exchange,” meaning that any loss would be capital loss. Abandoning the stock meant that there was no sale or exchange and thus no mandatory capital loss.

Pilgrim took its ordinary loss and the IRS took Pilgrim to Court.

Tax law was on Pilgrim’s side, however. Presaging the present era of law being whatever Oz says for the day, the IRS conscripted an unusual Code section – Section 1234A – to argue its position.

Section 1234A came into existence to address options and futures, more specifically a combination of options and futures called a straddle. . What options and futures have in common is that one is not buying an underlying asset but rather is buying a right to said underlying asset. A straddle involves both a sale and a purchase of that underlying asset, and you can be certain that the tax planners wanted one side to be capital (probably the gain) and the other side to be ordinary (probably the loss). Congress wanted both sides to be capital transactions (hence capital gains and losses) even though the underlying capital asset was never bought or sold – only the right to it was bought or sold.

This is not one of the easiest Code sections to work with, truthfully, but you get an idea of what Congress was after.

Reflect for a moment. Did Pilgrim have (A) a capital asset or (B) a right to a capital asset?

Pilgrim owned stock – the textbook example of a capital asset.

Still, what is stock but the right to participate in the profits and management of a company? The IRS argued that – when Pilgrim gave up its stock – it also gave up its rights to participate in the profits and management of Southern. Its relinquishment of these rights pulled the transaction into the ambit of Section 1234A.

You have to admit, there are some creative minds at the IRS. Still, it feels … wrong, doesn’t it? It is like saying that a sandwich and a right to a sandwich are the same thing. One you can eat and the other you cannot, and we instead are being wound in a string ball of legal verbiage.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS.  Pilgrim appealed, of course. It had to; this was a $80 million issue. The Appeals Court has now overturned the Tax Court.

The Appeal Court’s reasoning?

A “right” is a claim to something one does not presently have. Pilgrim already owned all the rights it was ever going to have, which means that it could not have had a right as envisioned under Section 1234A.

The tax law changed after Pilgrim went into this transaction, by the way.

Do I blame the attorneys and accountants for arguing the issue? No, of course not. The fact that an Appeals Court agreed with Pilgrim means the tax advisors were right. The fact that the law was later changed means the IRS also had a point.

And none of the parties involved  – Pilgrim and its attorneys and accountants, the IRS , the Tax Court and the Appeals Court wrote the law, did they?

Although the way Congress works nowadays, they may have been the first ones to actually read the bill-become-law. There perhaps is the real disgrace.

What ObamaCare Tax Forms Should You Expect For Your 2014 Return?

Are you wondering what, if any, new ObamaCare tax forms you will either be receiving in the mail or including with your tax return come April?

This was a topic at a tax seminar I attended very recently. What may surprise you is that the ObamaCare tax forms are still in draft; yes, “draft,” and I am writing this in the middle of December.

Let’s go over the principal tax forms you may see and how they fit into the overall puzzle. The 2015 filing season will be the initial launch, and some rules have been relaxed or deferred until the 2016 filing season. This means you may or may not see or receive certain forms, depending upon the size of your employer and what type of insurance is offered. Let’s agree to speak in general terms and not include every technicality, otherwise we will both be pulling out our hair before this is over.

The key form (I suspect) you will receive is Form 1095-B.

Form 1095-B

You will be receiving the “B” from the employer’s insurance company. Its purpose is to show that you had health insurance (“minimum essential coverage” or “MEC,” in the lingo), as failure to have health insurance will trigger a penalty. The form has four parts, as follows:

(1) The name and address of the principal insured person (probably you)

(2) The name and address of the employer

(3) The name and address of the insurance company

(4) The name and social security number of every person covered under the policy for the principal insured person. There are boxes for all 12 months, as the ObamaCare penalty is a month-by-month calculation.

What if your employer did not provide health insurance and you purchased coverage on the exchange? Now we are talking Form 1095-A, and the exchange will send it to you. It has three parts:

(1) The name of the principal insured person, as well as information about the marketplace itself and some policy information.

(2) The names and social security numbers of those covered under the policy.

(3) Monthly information, such as the premium amount and the amount of any subsidy (“advance payment”) received.

Form 1095-A

You will have received this form because you or a family member obtained health insurance through the exchange. You already know that the principal insured person (likely you) has to settle up with the IRS at year-end, comparing his/her household income, any subsidy received and any subsidy actually entitled to. The information on the “A” will – in turn – be reported on that form, which we will discuss in a minute.

We still have one more “1095” to talk about: the 1095-C. Frankly, I find this one to be the most confusing of the three.

Form 1095-C

The employer issues the “C.” Not all employers, mind you, only the “large employers,” as defined and subject to the $2,000/$3,000 penalty for not offering health insurance or offering health insurance that is not affordable.

You will not receive a “C” in 2015. Rather, you will receive one in 2016 if you were a full-time employee anytime during 2015. It can be included with your 2015 W-2, should your employer choose.

It has three parts:

(1) Employee and employer information, including identification numbers and addresses

(2) Recap of insurance coverage offered the employee, detailed for each month of the year. There are a series of codes to fill-in, depending upon a matrix of minimum essential coverage, minimum value, affordability and availability of family coverage.

(3) The third part applies only if the employer is self-insured.

BTW, you may have read that there is 2015 transition relief for employers having between 50 and 99 employees. That applies to the penalty, not to filing this paperwork. An employer with between 50 and 99 employees still has to file the “C.” You will receive this form in 2016 - if your employer has at least 50 employees.

NOTE: The IRS has said that employers can file this form “voluntarily” in 2015 for the 2014 tax year. Uh, sure.

Let’s recap. You would have received the “A”or “B” from a third party and (unlikely) a “C” from your employer. You now have to prepare your individual tax return. What new forms will you see there?

If you acquired insurance on an exchange, you will receive Form 1095-A. You will in turn use information from the “A” to complete Form 8962. Since you are on an exchange, you have to run the numbers to see if you are entitled to a subsidy. Combine this with the possibility that you received an advance subsidy, and you get the following combinations:

(1) You received a subsidy and it is exactly the subsidy to which you are entitled. I expect to see zero of these in my practice.

(2) You received a subsidy and it is less than you are entitled to. Congratulations, you have won a prize. Your tax preparer will include the difference and your tax refund will be larger than it would otherwise be.

(3) You received a subsidy and it is more than you are entitled to. Sorry, you now have to pay it back. Your refund will be less than it would otherwise be.

(4) You received no subsidy and you are entitled to no subsidy. I expect this to be the default in my tax practice. I suspect that we will not even have to file the form in this case, but I am waiting for clarification.

What if you did not have insurance and you did not go on the exchange? There are two more forms:

(1) If you have an exemption from buying insurance, you will file Form 8965. You have to provide a reason (that is, an “exemption”) for not buying health insurance.

(2) All right, technically the next one is not a form but rather a “worksheet” to Form 8965. The difference is that a worksheet may, but does not have to be, included with your tax return. A “form” must be included.

Form 8965

Form 8965 Instructions and Worksheet 

You are here if you did not go on the exchange and you do not have an exemption. You will owe the ObamaCare penalty, and this is where you calculate it. The penalty will go from here to your Form 1040 as additional taxes you owe.

And there you have it.

By the way, expect your tax preparation fees to go up.

Is Suing Your Tax Advisor Taxable?

For those who know me or occasionally read my blog, you know that I am not a “high wire” type of tax practitioner. Pushing the edges of tax law is for the very wealthy and largest of taxpayers: think Apple or Donald Trump. This is – generally speaking - not an exercise for the average person. 

I understand the frustration. A number of years ago I was called upon to research the tax consequence for an ownership structure involving an S corporation with four trusts for two daughters. This structure predated me and had worked well in profitable years, but I (unfortunately) got called upon for a year when the company was unprofitable. The issue was straightforward: were the losses “active” or “passive” to the trusts and, by extension, to the daughters behind the trusts. There was some serious money here in the way of tax refunds – if the trusts/daughters could use the losses. This active/passive law change happened in 1986, and here I was researching during the aughts – approximately 20 years later. The IRS had refused to provide direction in this area, although there were off record comments by IRS officials that were against our clients’ interests. I strongly disagreed with those comments, by the way.

What do you do?

I advised the client that a decision to claim the losses would be a simultaneous decision to hire a tax attorney if the returns got audited and the losses disallowed. I believed there was a reasonable chance we would eventually win, but I also believed we would have to be committed to litigation. I thought the IRS was unlikely to roll on the matter, but our willingness to go to Tax Court might give them pause. 

I was not a popular guy.

But to say otherwise would be to invite a malpractice lawsuit should the whole thing go south.

And this was a fairly prosaic area of tax law, far and remote from any tax shelter. There was no “shelter” there. There was, rather, the unwillingness of the IRS to clarify a tax law that was old enough to go to college.

I am reading about a CPA firm that decided to advise a tax shelter. It went south. They got sued. It cost them $375,000.

Here is a question that we have not discussed before: is the $375,000 taxable to the (former) client?

Let’s discuss the case.

The Cosentinos and their controlled entities (G.A.C. Investments, LLC and Consentino Estates, LLC) had a track record of Section 1031 exchanges and real estate.

COMMENT: A Section 1031 is also known as a “like kind” exchange, whereby one trades one piece of property for another. If done correctly, there is no tax on the exchange.

The Consentinos played a conservative game, as they had an adult disabled daughter who would always need assistance. They accumulated real estate via Section 1031 transactions, with the intent that – upon their death – the daughter would inherit. They were looking out for her.

They were looking at one more exchange when their CPA firm presented an alternative tax strategy that would allow them to (a) receive cash from the deal and (b) defer taxes. The Consentinos had been down this road before, and receiving cash was not their understanding of a Section 1031. Nonetheless the advisors assured them, and the Consentinos went ahead with the strategy.

OBSERVATION: It is very difficult to walk away from a Section 1031 with cash in hand and yet avoid tax.

Wouldn’t you know that the strategy was declared a tax shelter?

The IRS bounced the whole thing. There was almost $600,000 in federal and state taxes, interest and penalties. Not to mention what they paid the CPA firm for structuring the transaction.

The Consentinos did what you or I would do: they sued the CPA firm. They won and received $375,000. They did not report or pay tax on said $375,000, reasoning that it was less than the tax they paid. The IRS sent them a love letter noting the oversight and asking for the tax.

Both parties were Tax Court bound.

The taxpayers relied upon several cases, a key one being Clark v Commissioner. The Clarks had filed a joint rather than a married-filing-separately return on the advice of their tax advisor. It was a bad decision, as filing-jointly cost them approximately $20,000 more than filing-separately. They sued their advisor and won.

The Court decided that the $20,000 was not income to the Clarks, as they were merely being reimbursed for the $20,000 they overpaid in taxes. There was no net increase in their wealth; rather they were just being made whole.

The Clark decision has been around since 1939, so it is “established” law as far as established can be.

The Court decided that the same principle applied to the Cosentinos. To the extent that they were being made whole, there was nothing to tax. This meant, for example:

·        To extent that anything was taxable, it shall be a fraction (using the $375,000 as the numerator and total losses as the denominator).

·        The amount allocable to federal tax is nontaxable, as the Cosentinos are merely being reimbursed.

·        The amount allocable to state taxes however will be taxable, to the extent that the Cosentinos had previously deducted state taxes and received a tax benefit from the deduction.

·        The same concept (as for state taxes) applied to the accounting fees. Accounting fees would have been deducted –meaning there was a tax benefit. Now that they were repaid, that tax benefit swings and becomes a tax detriment, resulting in tax.

There were some other expense categories which we won’t discuss.

By the way, the Court’s reasoning is referred to as the “origin of the claim” doctrine, and it is the foundation for the taxation of lawsuit and settlement proceeds.  

So the IRS won a bit, as the Cosentinos had excluded the whole amount, whereas the Court wanted a ratio, meaning that some of the $375,000 was taxable.

Are you curious what the CPA firm charged for this fiasco?

$45,000.