Taxing A 5-Hour Energy Drink

 

I am skimming a decision from the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. I am surprised that it is only 15 pages long, as it involves a gnarly intersection of partnership tax and the taxation of nonresident aliens.

Let’s talk about it.

In general, partnerships are not treated as a taxable entity. A partnership is a reporting entity; it reports income and expenses and then allocates the same to its partners for reporting on their tax returns. Mind you, this can get mind-numbing, as a partner in a partnership can itself be another partnership. Keep this going a few iterations and being a tax professional begins to lose its charm.

A partner will - again, in general - report the income as if the partner received the income directly rather than through the partnership. If it was ordinary income or capital gain to the partnership, it will likewise be ordinary income or capital gain to the partner.

Let’s introduce a nonresident alien partner.

We have another tranche of tax law to wade through.

A nonresident alien is fancy talk for someone who does not live in the United States. That person could still have U.S. income and U.S. tax, though.

How?

Well, through a partnership, for example.

Say the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. A nonresident alien generally pays tax on income received from sources within the United States. Let’s look at one type of income: business income. We will get to nonbusiness income in a moment.

The tax Code wants to know if that business income is “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business.

The business income in our example is effectively connected, as the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. One cannot be any more connected than that.

The partnership will issue Schedules K-1 to its partners, including its nonresident alien partner who will file a U.S. nonresident tax return (Form 1040-NR).

Question: Will any nonbusiness income on the K-1 be reportable on the nonresident?

The tax Code separates business and nonbusiness income because they might be taxed differently for nonresidents. Nonbusiness income can go from having 30% withholding at the source (think dividends) to not being taxed at all (think most types of interest income).

What if the Schedule K-1 reports capital gains?

I normally think of capital gains as nonbusiness income.

But they do not have to be.

There is a test:

If the income is derived from assets used or held for use in the conduct of an effectively connected business – and business activities were a material factor in generating the income  – then the income will taxable to a nonresident alien.

Think capital gain from the sale of farm assets. Held for use in farming? Check. Material factor in generating farm income? Check. This capital gain will be taxable to a nonresident.

Forget the K-1. Say that the nonresident alien sold his/her partnership interest altogether.

On first impression, I am not seeing capital gain from the sale of the partnership interest (rather than assets inside the partnership) as meeting the “held for use/material factor” test.

Problem: partnership taxation has something called the “hot asset” rule. The purpose is to disallow capital gains treatment to the extent any gain is attributable to certain no-no assets – that is, the “hot assets.”

An example of a hot asset is inventory.

The Code does not want the partnership to load up on inventory with substantial markup and then have a partner sell his/her partnership interest rather than wait for the partnership to sell the inventory. This would be a flip between ordinary and capital gain income, and the IRS is having none of it.

Question: have you ever had a 5-hour Energy drink?

That is the company we are talking about today.

Indu Rawat was a 29.2% partner in a Michigan partnership which sells 5-hour Energy. She sold her stake in 2008 for $438 million.

I can only wish.

At the time of sale, the company had inventory with a cost of $6.4 million and a sales price of $22.4 million. Her slice of the profit pending in that inventory was $6.5 million.

A hot asset.

The IRS wanted tax on the $6.5 million.

Mind you, Indu Rawat did not sell inventory. She sold a partnership interest in a business that owned inventory. That would be enough to catch you or me, but could the hot asset rule catch a nonresident alien?

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the hot asset gain was taxable to her.

That decision was appealed.

The Appeals Court reversed the Tax Court.

The Appeals Court noted that there had to be a taxable gain before the hot asset rule could kick in. The rule recharacterizes – but does not create – capital gain.

This capital gain does not appear to meet the “held for use/material factor test” we talked about above. You can recharacterize all you want, but when you start at zero, the amount recharacterized cannot be more than zero.

Indu Rawat won on Appeal.

By the way, tax law in this area has changed since Rawat’s sale. New law would tax Rawat on her share of effectively connected gain as if the partnership had sold all its assets at fair market value. Congress made a statement, and that statement was “no more.”

Our case this time was  Indu Rawat v Commissioner, No 23-1142 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024).

Substantially Disclosing A Gift To The IRS

Take a look at this memorable prose:

         Sec 6501(c) (9) Gift tax on certain gifts not shown on return.

If any gift of property the value of which (or any increase in taxable gifts required under section 2701(d) which) is required to be shown on a return of tax imposed by chapter 12 (without regard to section 2503(b) ), and is not shown on such return, any tax imposed by chapter 12 on such gift may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any item which is disclosed in such return, or in a statement attached to the return, in a manner adequate to apprise the Secretary of the nature of such item.

I get it: if you never disclose the gift, the IRS can come after you until the end of time. The reverse is what concerns us today: if you disclose the gift “in a manner adequate,” then the IRS does not have until the end of time.

Gift tax cases can be … idiosyncratic, to be diplomatic. All tax is personal, but gift tax can be Addams Family idiosyncratic.

Ronald Schlapfer (RS) was a Swiss-born businessman. He had ties to both Switzerland and the United States. He owned a life insurance policy issued in 2006.The policy in turn owned all the stock in EMG, a Panamanian company previously owned by RS.

It was 2006 and RS was a nonresident of the U.S. He gifted his interest in EMG to his mother, aunt and uncle.

He obtained U.S. citizenship in 2008.

Got it: he gifted before he became subject to U.S. gift tax.

In 2013 – and after obtaining his citizenship – RS decided to play it safe and submitted an offshore voluntary disclosure filing with the IRS. It included a gift tax return for 2006, which informed the IRS of the gift to his family. The return included the following:

“A protective filing is being submitted. On July 6, 2006, taxpayer made a gift of controlled foreign company stock valued at $6,056,686 per U.S. Treasury Regulation 25.2501-1(B). The taxpayer is not subject to U.S. gift tax as he did not intend to reside permanently in the United States until citizenship was obtained in 2008.”

COMMENT: In this situation, a protective filing means that the taxpayer is unsure if a filing is even required but is submitting one, nonetheless. It is an attempt to backstop penalties and other bad things that could happen from a failure to file.

COMMENT: International practice has become increasingly paranoid for many years now. The IRS seems convinced that every UBER driver has unreported foreign accounts, and one’s failure to follow arbitrary and obscure rules are a per se admission of culpability. In this case, for example, there was technical doubt whether the gift was reportable as the transfer of a life insurance policy or as the transfer of a company owned by that policy. Why was there doubt? Well, the IRS itself created it. Rest assured, whichever way you chose the IRS would fall the other way.

The IRS disagreed that the gift occurred in 2006. There was a hitch in the transfer, and the attorney did not resolve the matter until 2007. RS in turn argued that 2007 was but a scrivener’s error. According to well-trod ground, a scrivener’s error is considered administrative, not substantive, and does not mark the actual date of the underlying transaction.

Sometime in here RS agreed to extend the limitations period.

In 2019 the IRS issued the statutory notice of deficiency (SNOD). That is also called a 90-day letter, and it meant that the next step was Tax Court - if RS wanted to further pursue the matter.

Off to Tax Court they went.

RS’ argument was simple: the statute of limitations had expired.

The IRS argued that the gift was not adequately disclosed.

The IRS argued that disclosure requires the following:

·       Description of the property gifted, and any consideration received by the donor.

·       The identity and relationship between the parties.

·       There is additional disclosure for property is transferred in trust.

·       A detailed explanation of how one arrived at the fair market value of the property gifted.

·       Whether one has taken a position contrary to any Regulations or rulings

The IRS was trying to catch RS in the first requirement above: a description of the property gifted.

Was it an insurance policy, ownership in a company, or something else?

Here is the Court:

While Schlapfer may have failed to describe the gift in the correct way, he provided enough information to identify the underlying property that was transferred.”

RS won his case. The IRS had blown the statute of limitations.

Our case this time was Schlapfer v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-65.

A Too Rare Taxpayer Win Over Foreign Reporting

I have become cynical about IRS penalties.

Like many accountants, I initially learned that penalties were in the system as a deterrent. If one complies with reporting responsibilities, penalties should not enter the picture. If they do, they surely would be for ministerial causes (think late payment of an estimated tax) and minor, and – if somehow major – waivable upon showing reasonable cause for the mistake.  

Poppycock.

Congress has been raising and creating penalties for decades to “pay for” their tax bills. I would also argue that the IRS has used penalties as a backstop to its funding, especially during Republican budget stringency after the Lois Lerner fiasco.  

The IRS often assesses penalties automatically, without anyone even glancing at your return. This transfers tax administration from the IRS to you – and then by extension – to me. Say that you have a reportable interest in a foreign corporation. The IRS says you must file a certain information report. I get it: the IRS wants to know what is going on. You file the report, but you file it late. Why late? Who knows. Your accountant was on health leave. You were misadvised. You were never advised because you did not recognize it as a tax-sensitive issue. You will – soon enough – get an automatic IRS notice for a $10,000 penalty – or more. You complied, but not fast enough.

Reasonable cause?

Depends on who defines reasonable. As a practicing tax CPA for decades, I am much more open to reasonable cause. Why? I am closer to the day-to-day, so I do not have the anesthesia of distance and disinterest. Things ... just … happen. No one likes paying, but let’s not use that same brush to accuse one of gaming the system.

Let’s take a look at Wrzesinski.

We will call him “W” to keep our sanity.

W was born in Poland. He moved to the United States when he was 19 years old.

A few years later his mom, who still lived in Poland, won the Polish lottery.

Sweet.

Mom gifted him $830,000 over a couple of years.

W knew about U.S. tax. He contacted his tax advisor to ask what the consequences would be. His advisor (G) correctly told him that the gift would not be taxable, but incorrectly told him that no further reporting was required.

I know that G was wrong, but how could the IRS expect W to know that?

Fast forward a few years and W wanted to make a gift to his godson in Poland. He did an internet search, at which time he realized that – while not taxable – reporting was still required. He realized this situation as his own years before, and he contacted an attorney with expertise in foreign tax matters.

W got into an IRS program for late filing of certain foreign-related returns. The IRS would tread lightly if one had reasonable cause, and both W and his attorney thought he had reasonable cause to spare.

I agree.

The IRS came back with its automatic penalties: they wanted $87,500 for one year and $120,000 for the second.

Their reason?

The Notices stated that …

… ignorance of the tax laws was not a basis for penalty abatement under the “reasonable cause” standard and that ordinary business care and prudence require that the taxpayers be aware of their obligations and file or deposit accordingly.”

I would argue the opposite: good faith “ignorance” of tax laws is exactly the basis for the reasonable cause standard. We have more than once huddled here at Galactic Command analyzing tax consequences, especially if planning a transaction. We sometimes disagree. We have run into gaps in tax law, as Congress is churning out this stuff faster than the IRS and the profession can interpret. We have run into contradictions in tax law, especially when the aforesaid gaps are working their way through the courts system. Did I mention that we are all CPAs with varying tax backgrounds? I am, for example, a tax specialist. It is all I do and have done for years.

Consider that there was no tax shelter here, no attempt to avoid reporting income or of claiming bogus deductions. There was a gift from a mother to a son. A gift unfortunately involving some of the most arcane reporting rules embedded in the tax Code. There was no need for the IRS to flog the guy.

W and his attorney protested the penalties.

The IRS lost W’s protest.

Yes, they “lost” his protest.

It took the Taxpayer Advocate to find it.

The IRS abated all but $40 thousand or so of penalties.

W paid it.

And he immediately filed claims for refund.

I like this guy.

The IRS bounced the first claim, saying he did not establish reasonable cause.

You may be figuring out the IRS schtick when in this situation. It is a one-play gamebook: nothing is reasonable. Boyle. Go away.

The IRS bounced the second claim, saying that it was “frivolous.”

Folks, never ever tell a tax practitioner that his/her position is “frivolous.” That is a loaded word in tax practice.

This thing … NO SURPRISE … went to Court.

Let’s fast forward.

In a too-rare taxpayer win, the DOJ conceded the case on February 7, 2023, and requested six to eight weeks to refund W his remaining penalties.

But look at the effort it took.

Our case this time was Krzysztof Wrzesinski v The United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

An Intelligence Site, A Tax Treaty, and a Closing Agreement

I am looking at a case involving IRS closing agreements and the U.S. Pine Gap facility in Australia.

It gives us a chance to talk about closing agreements, an uncommon topic.

It also gives a chance to talk about Pine Gap, which is a U.S. Intelligence-gathering facility in the Northern Territory of Australia. It started decades ago as a monitoring station for Soviet ballistic testing, and with the years it has acquired several new roles. Think of drone attacks in Pakistan, and you have an idea of what happens at Pine Gap.

FIRST ACT: we have a spooky intelligence site.

Let’s move on to a treaty.

Under general tax rules, Australia would be able to tax American workers at Pine Gap. They are - after all – working in Australia. This was not the desired result, so a treaty in the 1960s exempted American workers at Pine Gap from Australian tax. There was a requisite, though: to be exempt, the wages had to be taxed by the U.S.

Got it. There was a one-bite-at-the-apple rule. Australia would back off if the U.S. got the first bite.

But U.S. tax law also includes a foreign earned income exclusion, whereby an American worker overseas could exempt some (or all) of his/her wages from tax, if certain requirements were met.  

How could Australia be sure that the wages were being taxed by the U.S.? Mind you, the alternative was for Australia to apply the default rule, meaning that both Australia and the U.S. would tax the wages. Sure, the worker could claim a foreign tax credit on his/her U.S. tax return, but the tax consequences of working at Pine Gap would have escalated unappealingly.  

The treaty was revised in the 1980s to allow American workers at Pine Gap to relinquish their foreign earned income exclusion by entering into a closing agreement with the IRS.

SECOND ACT: we have an income tax treaty.

Cory was a U.S. Air Force veteran and engineer. In 2009 he received a job offer from Raytheon to work at Pine Gap. He was informed that Australia would not tax him, but to get there he would have to sign a closing agreement with the IRS. The agreement was straightforward: he would not claim the foreign earned income exclusion.

Mind you, he did not have to sign a closing agreement. Australia would then tax him, and his U.S. return would get a little more complicated.

Cory signed the agreement.

The point behind a closing agreement is finality. Both sides agree, settle, and move on. Excepting fraud or malfeasance, there are no “do-overs.” That is - as you would expect - the reason that one requests one. An example is the wrap-up of a taxable estate. The tax practitioner does not want that estate resurrecting later, causing headaches when all parties considered the matter closed.

Cory wanted out of his closing agreement.

Problem.

Closing agreements arise under a Code section. This means that the Court would be reviewing statutory law (that is, the Code as statute on the matter) and not just the general principles of contract law (offer, acceptance, and all that).

That Code section doesn’t let one off the hook without showing malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact.

Cory argued that he met that standard. Somebody somewhere at the IRS did not have appropriate signature authority; the IRS committed malfeasance by sharing information with his employer, Raytheon; he was induced to sign by false representations.

I think Cory was grasping at straws.

The Court apparently thought the same way. The Court decided Cory was stuck with the agreement. He signed it; he owned it.

THIRD ACT: we have a closing agreement.

This is a specialized case pulling-in several different areas of the Code.

I get Cory’s point. He wanted exemption both from Australian tax AND some/all U.S. tax.

Me too, Cory. Me too.

Our case this time was Cory H Smith v Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3 (Aug 25,2022).

IRS Wants Near $9 Million Penalty From A Holocaust Survivor

 

I’ll tell you what caught my eye:

This is a tax case in which the Government alleges that Defendant Walter Schik, a Holocaust survivor, failed to file a foreign bank account reporting form with the Internal Revenue Service …, which now seeks by this action to collect an almost nine-million-dollar civil penalty assessed against him for that failure.”

There are so many things wrong with that sentence.

Let’s talk about Form TD F 90-22.1, also known as the FBAR (“Eff- Bar”). The form existed before I took my first course in accounting years ago, but it has gathered steam and interest when Treasury started to chase overseas bank accounts during the aughts. If one has a foreign account, or has authority over a foreign account, which exceeds $10,000 during the taxable year, one is required to disclose on one’s individual income tax return (on Schedule B) and file Form TD F 9-22.1 with the Treasury.

Up to this point, it is just another form to file. We are drowning in forms, so what is the big deal?

The deal is the penalties for not filing the form. Let’s separate not filing the form because you did not know you had to file from knowing you had to file but deciding not to. That second one is considered “willful” (which makes sense) and can cost you a penalty from $100,000 to 50% of the account balance at the time of violation.

This is VERY expensive money.

The IRS assessed a penalty of almost $9 million against Schik for failure to file an FBAR.

Some background:

·      Mr Schik is a Holocaust survivor.

·      His education was cut short by, how shall we say this …, being in a concentration camp.

·      After the war, he immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen.

·      After becoming a citizen, he opened a Swiss bank account where he deposited monies recovered from relatives who were slaughtered during the Holocaust.

·      He left the monies in Switzerland as he was fearful that another Holocaust-like event could occur.

·      Schik did not touch or manage the money. That was done by his son and a Swiss money manager.

·      Schik did talk with the money manager occasionally, though.

·      By 2017 one of those Swiss accounts had over $15 million.

·      His accountant never asked Schik if he had overseas bank accounts or explained the recently heightened IRS interest in the area.

I am sympathetic with the accountant. What are the odds of having a client who is a Holocaust survivor and having over $15 million in a Swiss bank account? One could go a career. I have.

The year at issue is 2007. There is a question on the individual tax return whether one has an interest or signature authority over a foreign bank account. Schik’s accountant answered it “No.” Schik did not correct his accountant. More fairly, Schik did not even notice the question.

Wouldn’t you know that Schik’s Swiss money manager got pulled into the UBS investigation?

UBS entered into a deferred prosecution arrangement with the United States. It however had to provide identities of U.S. citizens and residents who were customers of the bank.

At which point Schik submitted a voluntary disclosure to the IRS.

Which the IRS denied.

Without an alternative, Schik submitted a late FBAR.

The IRS then slapped the 50% penalty we are talking about.

Which brings us up to speed.

The penalty requires one’s behavior to be “willful.” Not surprisingly, the word has specific meaning under the law, and the Court evaluated whether Schik’s behavior was willful.

Treasury argued that “willful” means “objectively reckless.”

Got it. Ignoring an issue to an extreme degree is the same as knowing and not caring.

Schik argued that willful means “intentional disregard.”

The difference?

Schik argued that the underlying law was opaque, long-ignored and now quickly – if somewhat capriciously – conscripted into action. He no more intentionally disregarded his tax reporting obligations than he intentionally disregarded the newest developments in cosmological galaxy formation. There was no conspiracy by hundred-year-old Holocaust survivors: he just didn’t know.

And such is tax law. Nine million dollars hangs on the meaning of a word.

The Court noted that other courts – relying on records similar to those available to it - have found willfulness.

Not good for Schik. 

However, the Court was concerned about the many countervailing factors:

·      Schik was nearly 100 years old.

·      Schik had minimal formal education.

·      Schik did not manage the money.

·      Schik did not prepare his own tax returns.

·      Schik had no idea about a disclosure requirement.

·      Schik’s accountant did not explain the disclosure requirement.

·      The question answered “No” was pre-filled by the accountant’s software and did not represent any assertion made by Schik.

The Court denied the IRS summary judgement, noting there was a substantial question of fact.

I agree.

Who will review and clarify the facts?

“The Court believes that the Parties in this case would benefit from mediation. By separate order the Court will refer the Parties to the Southern District of New York’s Mediation Program. … the assigned District Judge … may determine that a case is appropriate for mediation and may order that case to mediation, with or without the consent of the parties.”

Methinks the IRS should just have allowed the voluntary disclosure.  

Was the IRS encouraging compliance, promoting education and providing a ramp to enter/reenter the tax system? Or is this something else, something with the purpose of terrifying the next person?

Our case this time was United States of America v Walter Schik, 20-cv-02211 (MKV)

Taxing Foreign Investment In U.S. Real Estate

One of the Ps buzzed me about a dividend item on a year-end brokers’ statement.

P:      “What is a Section 897 gain?”

CTG: It has to do with the sale of real estate. It is extremely unlikely to affect any of our clients.

P:      Why haven’t I ever seen this before?

CTG: Because this is new tax reporting.

We are talking about something called the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act, abbreviated FIRPTA and pronounced FERP-TUH. This thing has been around for decades, and it has nothing to do with most of us. The reporting, however, is new. To power it, you need a nonresident alien – that is, someone who is not a U.S. citizen or resident alien (think green card) – and who owns U.S. real estate. FIRPTA rears its head when that person sells said real estate.

This is specialized stuff.

We had several nonresident alien clients until we decided to exit that area of practice. The rules have reached the point of absurdity – even for a tax practitioner – and the penalties can be brutal. There is an encroaching, if unspoken, presumption in tax law that international assets or activities mean that one is gaming the system. Miss something – a form, a schedule, an extension, an election - and face a $10,000 penalty. The IRS sends this penalty notice automatically; they do not even pretend to have an employee review anything before mailing. The practitioner is the first live person in the chain, He/she now must persuade the IRS of reasonable cause for whatever happened, and that a penalty is not appropriate. The IRS looks at the file - for the first time, mind you - says “No” and demands $10,000.

And that is how a practitioner gets barreled into a time-destroying gyre of appealing the penalty, getting rejected, requesting reconsideration, getting rejected again and likely winding up in Tax Court. Combine that with the bureaucratic rigor mortis of IRSCOVID202020212022, and one can understand withdrawing from that line of work.

Back to Section 897.

The IRS wants its vig at the closing table. The general withholding is 15% of selling price, although there is a way to reduce it to 10% (or even to zero, in special circumstances). You do not want to blow this off, unless you want to assume substitute liability for sending money to the IRS.

The 15% is a deposit. The IRS is hopeful that whoever sold the real estate will file a nonresident U.S. income tax return, report the sale and settle up on taxes. If not, well the IRS keeps the deposit.

You may wonder how this wound up on a year-end brokers’ tax statement. If someone sells real estate, the matter is confined to the seller, buyer and title company, right? Not quite. The real estate might be in a mutual fund, or more likely a REIT. While you are a U.S. citizen, the mutual fund or REIT does not know whether its shareholders are U.S. citizens or resident aliens. It therefore reports tax information using the widest possible net, just in case.

A CPA’s Signature And The Informal Claim Doctrine

 

I am looking at case where the CPA signed a return on behalf of a client.

Been there and done that.

There is a hard-and-fast rule when you do this.

Let’s go through it.

The Mattsons were working in Australia for the Raytheon Corporation.

In April, 2017 they timely filed their 2016 individual tax return, paying $21,190 in federal taxes.

COMMENT: This immediately strikes me as odd. I would have anticipated a foreign income exclusion. Maybe they were over the exclusion limit, meaning that some of their income was exposed to U.S. tax. Even so, I would then have expected a foreign tax credit, offsetting U.S. tax by taxes paid to Australia.

Turns out they had signed a closing agreement when they went to Australia. The agreement was with the IRS, and they waived their right to claim the foreign income exclusion.

Ahh, that answers my first question.

Why would they do this?

In return for agreeing not to claim the 911 exclusion, the government of Australia has entered into an agreement with the United States Government not to subject the income earned by the taxpayer to Australian taxes."

Yep, there are advantages to working with the big company. It also answers my second question.

Seems to me that we are done here. Taxpayers paid taxes on their Australian wages solely to the United States. In exchange they forwent the foreign income exclusion. Makes sense.

The Mattsons changed CPA firms. The new firm prepared an amended 2016 return for – you guessed it – the foreign income exclusion.

COMMENT: I presume the new firm did not know about the closing agreement.

A CPA at the firm signed the amended return on behalf of the Mattsons.

No problem, but she did not attach a power of attorney authorizing the CPA to sign the return.

Not good, but there is time to fix this.

The IRS held the amended return and sent a letter wanting to know why the Mattsons had taken a position contrary to the closing agreement.

Me too.

In May, 2019 the CPA firm requested an Appeals hearing.

OK.

In July, 2019 the IRS sent a letter that they were disallowing the refund.

The taxpayers filed suit in Court.

To me, the controversy was done with discovery of the closing agreement. There is a Don Quixote quality to this story once that fact came to light.

There is a requirement in the tax Code and a list of cases as long as my arm that taxpayers have to sign a return, especially a claim (that is, a return requesting a refund). A CPA can sign the return on behalf of a client, but the CPA is charged with attaching a copy of a power of attorney to the return.

Hold on, argued the CPA. We sent a power of attorney to the IRS in November, 2018.

This is new information.

And it introduces the “informal claim” doctrine to our discussion.

The idea is that the taxpayer can correct the defect in a claim. That is what “informal” means in this context – think of the first claim as a placeholder until it is perfected. The CPA firm had failed to initially attach a power of attorney, but it subsequently corrected this error in November, 2018.

Issue: the claim has to be perfected BEFORE the start of a lawsuit.

Fact One: the lawsuit was filed in July, 2019.

Fact Two: the power was sent to the IRS in November, 2018.

Reasoning: the dates work.

Question: did the taxpayer correct their claim in time?

I sign powers of attorney all the time. I doubt I go a week without filing at least one with the IRS. I like to explain to clients (unless they have been through the process before) what the limitations are to a standard tax power of attorney. I can call the IRS, request and/or agree to adjustments or stays, and so forth.

However, what our standard power does not do is allow me to sign the return. A client can give me that authority, true, but is has to be separately stated on the power. Our routine powers here at Galactic Command, for example, do not include the authority to sign a return on behalf of a client. In truth, unless there are exceptional circumstances, I do not want that authority. I don’t want to receive a client’s refund check, either.

I can almost visualize what happened.

The CPA signed the return. She knew that she needed a power, so she – or a staff accountant – generated one from their software. It was a default power, the one they – like we – use in almost all cases. No one paused to consider that the default power was not appropriate in this instance.

There was still time to fix this. The firm could revise the power to allow the CPA authority to sign, collect the appropriate signatures and record the power with the IRS.

But they had to do this before bringing suit.

Which they did not.

The informal claim doctrine did not apply, because the placeholder claim was not perfected before filing suit.

Our case this time was Mattson v U.S., 2021 PTC 110 (Fed Cl 2021).

Foreign Investment In U.S. Rental Real Estate

We have spoken about Congress’ and the IRS’ increasing reliance on penalties.

Here is one from the new Taxpayer First Act of 2019:

The minimum penalty for filing a return more than 60 days later will now be no less than the lesser of:

·        $330 or

·        100% of the amount required to be shown on the tax return.

The previous marker was $205, adjusted for inflation.

Thanks for saving the republic from near-certain extinction there, Congress.

There is another one that has caught my attention, as it impacts my practice.

By happenstance I represent a fair number of foreign nationals who own rental real estate in the U.S.

Why would a foreign national want to own rental real estate in Georgetown, KY, Lebanon, OH or Arlington, TN?

I don’t get it, truthfully, but then I am not a landlord by disposition. I certainly am not a long-distance landlord.

There is a common structure to these arrangements. The foreign national sets up an U.S.-based LLC, and the LLC buys and operates the rentals. Practitioners do not often use corporations for this purpose.

There is a very nasty tax trap here.

There is special reporting for a foreign corporation doing business in the United States. As a flip to that coin, there is also special reporting for a U.S. corporation that is 25%-or-more owned by nonresidents. We are referring to Form 5472, and it is used to highlight “reportable transactions,” with no dollar minimum.

“Reportable transactions” sounds scary. I suppose we are looking for laundering of illicit money or something similar, right?

Here is an example of a “reportable transaction”:

·        borrowing money

Here is another:

·        paying interest on borrowed money

Yep, we are going full CSI on that bad boy.

Let’s play with definitions and drag down a few unattentive tax practitioners, why don’t we?

An LLC with one owner can be considered to be the same as its owner for tax purposes.

Say that Emilio from Argentina sets up an Ohio LLC.  He is the only owner. The LLC goes on to buy rental properties in Cincinnati and Columbus.

For federal income tax purposes, the LLC is disregarded and Emilio is deemed to own the properties individually.

For purposes of information reporting, however, the IRS wants you to treat Emilio’s single-member LLC as a corporation.

A “corporation” that is more-than-25% owned by a nonresident.

Meaning that you have a Form 5472 filing requirement.

What happens if the tax practitioner doesn’t catch this wordplay?

An automatic penalty of $10,000 for not filing that 5472.

Granted, the practitioner will fight the penalty. What choice is there?

Let’s up the ante.

Buried in the new tax law for 2018 (that is, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), Congress increased the minimum penalty from $10,000 to $25,000.

So a foreign national buys a rental house or two in name-a-city, and somehow he/she is on par with an Alibaba or Banco Santander?

The IRS automatically charges the penalty if the form is filed late. The practitioner would have to provide reasonable cause to have the penalty abated.  

Remember next that the IRS does not consider an accountant’s error to be necessarily provide reasonable cause, and you can anticipate how this story may not turn out well.

Owing A Million Dollar Penalty

What caught my attention was the size of the penalty.

The story involves Letantia Russell, a dermatologist from California who has been in the professional literature way too much over too many years. The story started with her attorneys reorganizing her medical practice into a three-tiered structure and concealing ownership through use of nominees. Then there was the offshore bank account.

Let’s talk about that offshore account.

Back when I came out of school, one had to report foreign accounts above a certain dollar balance. The form was called the “TD 90-22.1.” I remember accountants who had never heard of it. It just wasn’t a thing.

The requirement hasn’t changed, but the times have.

If you have an overseas bank account, you are supposed to disclose it. The IRS has a question on Schedule B (where you report interest and dividends) whether you have a foreign bank account. If you answer yes, you are required to file that TD 90-22.1. The form does not go to the IRS; it instead goes to the Treasury Department. Mind you, the IRS is part of Treasury, but there are arcane rules about information sharing between government agencies and whatnot. Send to Treasury: good. Send to IRS: bad.

The rules were fairly straightforward: bank account, balance over $10 grand, own or able to sign on the account, required to file. There was no rocket science here.

Don’t play games with account types, either. A checking account is the same as a savings account which is the same as a money market and so on. Leave that hair-splitting stuff to the lawyers.

About a decade or so ago, the government decided to pursue people who were hiding money overseas. Think the traditional Swiss bank account, where the banker would risk jail rather than provide information on the ownership of an account. That Swiss quirk developed before the Second World War and was in response to the unstable Third Republic of France and Weimar government of Germany. Monies were moving fast and furious to Switzerland, and Swiss bankers made it a criminal offense to break a strict confidentiality requirement.

Thurston Howell III joked about it on Gilligan’s Island.

Travel forward to the aughts and the UBS scandal and the U.S. government was not laughing.

Swiss banks eventually agreed to disclose.

The IRS thundered that those who had … ahem, “underreported” … their foreign income in the past might want to clean-up their affairs.

The government dusted-off that old 90-22.1 and gave it a new name: FinCen 114 Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.

The IRS was still miffed about that government-agency-sharing thing, so it came up with its own form: Form 8938 Statement of Foreign Financial Assets.

So you had to report that bank account to Treasury on the FinCen and to the IRS on Form 8938.  Trust me, even the accountants were trying to understand that curveball.

Resistance is futile, roared the IRS.

Many practitioners, me included, believed then and now that the IRS went fishing with dynamite. The IRS seemed unwilling to distinguish someone who inherited his/her mom’s bank account in India from a gazillionaire hedge-fund manager who knew exactly what he/she was doing when hiding the money overseas.

And you always have … those people.

Letantia Russell is one of those people.

The penalties can hurt. Fail to fail by mistake and the penalty begins at $10,000. Willfully fail to file and the penalty can be the greater of

·      $100,000 or

·      ½ the balance in the account

Letantia dew a $1.2 million penalty on her 2006 tax return. I normally sympathize with the taxpayer, but I do not here. One has to be a taxpayer before we can have that conversation.

It went to District Court. It then went to Appeals, where her attorneys lobbed every possible objection, including the unfortunate trade of Jimmy Garappolo from the New England Patriots to the San Francisco 49ers.

It was to no avail. She gets to pay a penalty that would make a nice retirement account for many of us.