Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).

 

Losing A Tax Exemption

The taxation of tax-exempts can sometimes be tricky.

The reason is that a tax-exempt can – depending on the facts – owe income tax. This type of income is referred to as unrelated business income, and the tax issue developed because Congress did not want tax-exempts to mimic the activities of for-profit companies while not paying tax.

There are certain areas – such as permitting third-party use of membership data – that can trigger the unrelated business tax.

Another would be the rental of real estate with associated indebtedness.

The organization will owe tax on these activities.

Then there is the worst-case scenario: the revocation of the tax-exempt status itself. Think Elon Musk putting Tesla in a 501(c)(3) – the IRS is going to blow-up that arrangement.

Let’s discuss a recent case that walked the revocation ledge.

There is an organization in New York. It is open to seniors from age 55 to 90. To become a member a senior must submit an application and application fee. 

It appears to have four principal activities:

·      To provide burial benefits for members and assistance to surviving family

·      To provide information and referrals to seniors regarding burial as well as general concerns

·      To provide organized activities for senior citizens

·      To provide annual scholarships to needy, promising students

The organization charges fees as follows:

·      An application fee of $100 for seniors age 55 to 70

·      An application fee of $150 for seniors age 71 to 90

·      A $30 annual fee

·      A $10 fee every time a member dies

It doesn’t appear unreasonable to me.

There was an interesting and heartwarming twist to their activities: the organization would pay a separate amount directly to the family of a deceased member, pursuant to a Korean tradition. The organization paid, for example, $11 thousand directly to a funeral home and over $3,200 to the family of a deceased member.

Since we are talking about them, you know that the organization went to audit.

The IRS wanted to revoke their tax-exempt status.

Why?

The is an over-arching requirement that a tax-exempt be operated “exclusively” for an exempt purpose. There is some latitude in the “exclusive” requirement, otherwise de minimis and silly stuff could cost an organization its exemption.

Still, what did the IRS see here?

The first is that benefits were available only to members.

COMMENT: The organization had expressed an intent to include nonmembers, but as of the audit year that goal remained aspirational.

OBSERVATION: The organization had told the IRS of its intent to include nonmembers when it requested exempt status. Upon audit and failure to find nonmember benefits, the IRS argued that the organization had failed to operate in the manner it had previously represented to the IRS. 

Second is that a member was required to pay dues. In fact, if a member failed to pay dues for 90 days after receiving written notice, the organization could terminate the membership and – with it – the requirement to pay any burial benefits.

COMMENT: Sounds a bit like an insurance company, doesn’t it?

Third is that the amount of burial benefits was based on the number of years the deceased had been a member. A member of 12 years would receive more than a member of 5 years.

The IRS brought big heat. The organization was organized in 1996, applied for exempt status in 1998 and was being audited for 2013.

OK, a reasonable number of years had passed since receiving exempt status.

The organization had reported over $2.3 million in revenues on their Form 990.

Sounds to me like they were doing well.

In 2008 they bought a condominium, paying over $800 grand.

Oh, oh.

You can begin to understand where the IRS was coming from. As operated, the organization was looking like a small insurance company. It was accumulating a bank balance; it had bought real estate. The IRS wanted to see obvious charitable activities. If the organization could swing $800 grand on a condo, then they could shake loose a few dollars and waive dues for someone who was broke. They were operating dangerously close to a private club. That is fine, but do not ask for (c)(3) status.

The organization had a remaining argument: there was no diversion of earnings or money. There couldn’t be, as no benefits occurred until someone passed away.

The Court however separated this argument into two parts:

(1)  The earnings and assets of the organization cannot inure (that is, return to) to a member.

The organization successfully argued this point.

(2)  There must be no private benefit.

This makes more sense if one flips the wording: there must be a public benefit. The Court did not see a public benefit, as the organization was not providing benefits to nonmembers or allowing for reduction or abatement of dues for financial need. Not seeing a public benefit, the Court saw a private benefit.

The organization was operating in a manner too close to a for-profit business, and it lost its tax-exempt status.

I get the technical issues, but I do not agree as vigorously as the Court that there was that much private benefit here. Society has an interest in promoting the causes and issues of senior citizens, and the organization – in its own way – was helping. By aiding seniors with government agencies, it was reducing the strain on social services. By assisting seniors with planning and paying for funeral services, it was reducing costs otherwise defaulting to the municipality.

One would have preferred a warning, an opportunity for the organization to right its course, so to speak. What happened instead was akin to burning down the bridge.  

Still, that is how issues in this area go: one is working on a spectrum. The advisor has to judge whether one is on the safe or the non-safe side of the spectrum.

The Court decided the organization had wandered too far to the non-safe side.

Our case this time was The Korean-American Senior Mutual Association v Commissioner.

A Condo Association, Dogs Running Wild and An Office In Home

This time we are talking about an office-in-home. Many of us have one, but few of us can actually claim a tax deduction for it.

The office-in-home deduction has five main rules, two of which are highly specialized. The remaining three require one to:

1. Use the office exclusively and regularly as a principal place of business
2. Use the office exclusively and regularly as a place to meet or deal with patients, clients or customers in the normal course of business
3. Use the office in connection with a trade or business – but only if the office is a separate structure

If you are an employee, then you are in the trade or business of being an employee. If your office is in a separate structure, you are home-free under test (3). 

OBSERVATION: I suppose a converted, oversized shed could meet this test.   

I have a CPA friend who practices out of her basement. She would qualify under test (2), as she regularly meets with her clients there. I however almost always meet clients either at their office or mine, so I would not qualify.

That leaves us with test (1), which is an almost impossible standard to meet if one has an office elsewhere. Fortunately there was a Supreme Court decision a number of years ago (Soliman), which allowed one to consider administrative or management duties for purposes of this test.  

Soliman was an anesthesiologist, and the three hospitals where he worked did not provide him with an office. He used a spare bedroom for work-related activities, such as contacting patients and billing. The IRS had previously taken a very hard line with test (1) and denied the deduction. The IRS reasoned that Soliman’s job was to put people to sleep, and he did that job at the hospital. This meant that the hospital was his “principal” place of business.  The IRS was not going to be persuaded otherwise, at least until the Supreme Court told them to knock it off and allow Soliman his deduction.

Great. So I can do administrative work at home – such as scheduling or billing – and have my office qualify for a deduction, right?

Not so fast.

There are two more tests if one is an employee. The one that concerns us is the requirement that the office be for the convenience of the employer.

Those words sound innocuous, but they are not.

For most of us, having an office at home is for our convenience. In fact, the IRS takes this farther, arguing that – if your employer provides you with an office – then it is virtually impossible for the home office to be for the employer’s convenience.  The IRS reasons that the employer would not care if you showed up, as it had an office waiting. There are some exceptions, such as telecommuting or requiring work hours when the office is closed, but you get the idea. For the vast majority of employees, one cannot get past that convenience-of-employer test.

What if one is self-employed? Forget the convenience test. There is no employer.

Let’s look at McMillan v Commissioner. There will be a quiz at the end.

Denise McMillan had a couple of things going on, but what we are interested in is her home office. She was self-employed.

She claimed an office-in-home deduction on her 2009 return. I am not certain of her housing situation, but her office was 50% of her home. I cannot easily visualize how this is possible, especially given the requirement that the office space not be used for any other purpose. That is a lot of space that she is not using for another purpose – like living there.

She lived in a condo. She had gotten into it with the homeowners association over construction defects related to mold and noise, dogs running wild, dogs barking incessantly and leaving dog memorabilia as dogs will when running wild and barking nonstop.

The condo association would do nothing, so she sued them.

The condo association – highlighting the quality of its Board – sued her back.

Wow, send me a flyer so I can consider buying at this bus station to paradise.

All in all, she was out over $26 thousand in legal fees and expenses.

And she deducted 50% of them through her office-in-home deduction.

QUIZ: Is this a valid tax deduction?

She sued because of events which were interfering with her use and enjoyment of her property.  Had this property been exclusively her residence, the conversation would be over. But one-half of it was being used for business purposes.

She next had to show that the litigation also had an effect on her business activity.

 QUESTION: Have you decided yet?

The Court observed that she was suing over noise, animal waste and similar issues. She argued that they were affecting her ability to work. Makes sense to me.

The IRS did not challenge her argument. 

NOTE: My hunch is that the IRS was relying upon an origin-of-claim doctrine. The lawsuit originated from a personal asset – her residence – so the tax consequences therefrom should remain personal. In this case, personal means nondeductible.

Since the IRS did not challenge, the Court could not – or would not - conclude that there was no effect on her ability to work.

The IRS had not challenged the 50% percentage either.

So the Court decided that she was entitled to a tax deduction for 50% of her legal expenses.

By the way, how did you answer?