Just Pay The Tax, Boris

I have no problem with minimizing one’s tax liability.

But then there are people who will go to extremes.

Boris Putanec is one of these. I am skimming over a 34-page Tax Court case about a tax shelter he used.

Let’s travel back in time to the dot-com era.

Putanec was one of the founders of Ariba, a business-to-business software company. The initial idea was simple: let’s replace pencil- and pen-business functions with a computerized solution. There are any number of areas in business accounting - routine, repetitious, high-volume – that were begging for an easier way to get things done.

Enter Ariba.

Which eventually went public. Which meant stock. Which meant big bucks to the founders, including Putanec.

Up to this point I am on his side.

This guy wound-up owning more than 6 million shares in a company valued (at one point) around $40 billion.

How I wish I had those problems.

You can anticipate much of the next stretch of the story.

Most of Putanec’s money was tied-up in Ariba stock. That is generally considered unwise, and just about every financial planner in the world will tell you to diversify. When 90-plus-% of your net worth is held in one stock, “diversify” means “sell.”

Now Putanec acquired his stock when the company was barely a company. That meant that he paid nothing or close to nothing to get the stock. In tax talk, that nothing is his “basis.” Were he to sell his stock, he would subtract his basis from any sales proceeds to calculate his gain. He would pay tax on the gain, of course. Well, when you subtract nothing (-0-) from something, you have the same something left over.

In his case, big something.

Meaning big tax.

Rather than just paying the tax and celebrating his good fortune, Putanec was introduced to a tax shelter nicknamed CARDS.

Sigh.

CARDS stands for “custom adjustable rate debt structure.” Yes, it sounds like BS because it is. Tax shelters tend to have one thing in common: take a tax position, pretzel it into an unrecognizable configuration and then bury the whole thing in a series of transactions so convoluted and complex that it would take a team of tax attorneys and CPAs a half-year to figure out.

Let’s go through an example of a CARDS deal.

1. Someone has a gigantic capital gain, perhaps from selling Ariba sock.
1. CARDS deals routinely started at $50 million. That threshold easily weeds out you and me.
2. There will be a foreign bank (FB) involved. 
3. There will be foreign currency involved. 
4. The promoter forms a limited liability company (LLC) somewhere. 
5. The FB loans money (let’s say $100 million) to the LLC. 
1. The LLC deposits around 85% of the money in a bank – probably the same bank (FB) that started this thing. 
2. The LLC keeps the other 15%. 
3. The FB wants collateral, so the LLC gives the FB a promissory note. 
1. That note is special. The bank probably has 85% of its money in an account by this point, but the note is for 100%. Why? It’s part of the BS. 
2. There is also something crazy about this note. It can stretch out as long as 30 years, although the bank reserves the right to call it early (probably annually).
6. We now have an LLC somewhere on the planet with an $85 million CD or savings account, a $15 million checking account, and a $100 million promissory note. Just to remind, this is all happening overseas and in foreign currency.
2. Now we leave the rails. 
1. Someone (say Putanec) assumes joint and several liability for that $100 million loan. 
1. Remember that $85 million is already sitting in a CD or likewise, so this is not as crazy as it seems.
2. The LLC will continue to pay the bank interest on the loan. Said someone is not to be bothered. Goes without saying that the bank (FB) will eventually slide the $85 million to itself and make the loan go away.
3. Said someone also takes control of the $15 million parked in that foreign checking account. 
1. In the tax universe, the conversion of that foreign currency to American dollars is a taxable event. Let’s now add gas to the fire.
4. Remember that gain = proceeds – basis.
5. Proceeds in this case are $15 million.
6. Basis in this case … 
1. Is $100 million. 
2. Huh? Yep, because that someone gets to add that $85 million promissory note to his/her $15 million paid in cash.
7. The LOSS therefore is $15 million – $100 million = $85 million.

Now, this could make sense – if said someone had to - some day - write a check to the bank for $85 million.

Not going to happen. The bank already has that $85 million tucked-away in a CD or savings account it controls. The bank never has to leave its front door to get its hands on that $85 million.

But our someone has a sweet yet nutritiously-balanced $85 million capital loss to offset a capital gain.

If only we could come up with a capital gain…. What to do? What can we …? Visualize severe forehead frown.

Got it!!

Let’s sell that Ariba stock. That will generate the gain to absorb that $85 million loss.

Call me He-Man, Tax Master of the Universe.

Yes folks, that is what the gazillion-dollars-a-year “consultants” were peddling to people to avoid paying taxes on something with a huge, latent capital gain.

 Of which Boris Putanec was one.

 The Court bounced him with the following flourish:

The deal is the stuff of tax wizardry, while the Code treats us all as mere muggles. The loan he assumed wasn’t all genuine debt, and any potential obligation he had to repay the entire loan was unlikely or at best contingent.”

I suppose winning the lottery was not enough.

Just pay the tax, Boris.

“Destination-Based” “Border Adjustment” “Indirect Tax” … What?

The destination-based border adjustment tax.

I  have been reading about it recently.

If you cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.

Let’s talk about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income statement numbers are as follows:

Sales			10,000,000
Cost of sales			(3,500,000)
Operating expenses			(4,000,000)
Net profit			2,500,000

How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).

Cue the crazy stuff….

A new tax will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster, Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.

One way to do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an operating expense would be wages.

As a CPA by training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.

Our tax base becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out operating expenses.

Not feeling so good about this development, are we?

Well, to have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?

I see $6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.

Well, this is stinking up the joint.

VATs normally allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year, What do the numbers now look like? 

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

I am seeing $5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% =  $1,000,000 tax.

Still not in like with this thing.

Let’s jump on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.

Here are some updated numbers:

• Sales                                        10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
• Cost of Sales                             3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                  4,000,000
• Capital Additions                        1,500,000 

I see a tax of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 * 20% = $400,000 federal tax.

Looks like Mortimer does OK in this scenario.

What if Mortimer buys some of its products from overseas?

Oh oh.

Here are some updated, updated numbers:

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000 (import $875,000)
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

This border thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a deduction for what you import.

I see a tax of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% = $1,175,000 federal tax.

Mortimer is not doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just leave things as they are.

Substitute “Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to what degree.

By the way, the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.

We’ll be hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.

And the elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor, for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.

  

Talking Expatriation (And A Little Latin)

A friend contacted me recently. He was calling to discuss the tax issues of expatriating. As background, there are two types of expatriation. The first is renouncing citizenship, which he is not considering. The second is simply living outside the United States. One remains an American, but one lives elsewhere.

It is not as easy as it used to be. 

I have, for example, been quite critical of Treasury and IRS behavior when it comes to Americans with foreign bank accounts. If you or I moved overseas, one of the first things we would do is open a bank account. As soon as we did, we would immediately be subject to the same regime as the U.S. government applies to the uber-wealthy suspected of stashing money overseas.  

Some aspects of the regime include:

(1) Having to answer questions on your tax return about the existence of foreign accounts. By the way, lying is a criminal offense, although filing taxes is generally a civic matter.

(2) Having to complete a schedule to your tax return listing your foreign financial and other assets. Move here from a society that has communal family ownership of assets and you have a nightmare on your hands. What constitutes wealthy for purposes of this schedule? Let’s start at $50,000, the price of a (very) nice pickup truck.

(3) Having to file a separate report with the Department of Treasury should you have a foreign bank account with funds in excess of $10,000. The reporting also applies if it is not your account but you nonetheless have authority to sign: think about a foreign employer bank account. It should be fun when you explain to your foreign employer that you are required to provide information on their account to the IRS.

(4) Requiring foreign banks to both obtain and forward to the IRS information about your accounts. Technically the foreign banks have a choice, but fail to make the “correct” decision and the IRS will simply keep 30% of monies otherwise going to them.

To add further insult, all this reporting has some of the harshest penalties in the tax Code. Fail to file a given tax form, for example, and take a $10,000 automatic penalty. Fail to file that report with the Treasury Department and forfeit half of your account to the government.

Now, some of this might be palatable if the government limited its application solely to the bigwigs. You know the kind: owners of companies and hedge fund managers and inherited wealth. But they don’t. There cannot be ten thousand people in the country who have enough money overseas to justify this behavior, so one is left wondering why the need for overreach. It would be less intrusive (at least, to the rest of us 320 million Americans) to just audit these ten thousand people every year. There is precedence: the IRS already does this with the largest of the corporations.

Did you know that – if you fail to provide the above information – the IRS will deem your tax return to be “frivolous?” You will be lumped in there with tax protestors who believe that income tax is voluntary and, if not, it only applies to residents of the District of Columbia.

There is yet another penalty for filing a frivolous return: $5,000. That would be on top of all the other penalties, of course. It’s like a party.

Many practitioners, including me, believe this is one of the reasons why record numbers of Americans overseas are turning-in their citizenship. There are millions of American expats. Perhaps they were in the military or foreign service. Perhaps they travelled, studied, married a foreign national and remained overseas. Perhaps they are “accidental” Americans – born to an American parent but have never themselves been to the United States. Can you imagine them having a bank close their account, or perhaps having a bank refuse to open an account, because it would be too burdensome to provide endless reams of information to a never-sated IRS? Why wouldn’t the banks just ban Americans from opening an account? Unfortunately, that is what is happening.

So I am glad to see the IRS lose a case in this area.

The taxpayer timely filed his 2011 tax return. All parties agreed that he correctly reported his interest and dividend income. What he did not do was list every interest and dividend account in detail and answer the questions on Schedule B (that is, Interest and Dividends) Part III. He invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and he wrote that answering those questions might lead to incriminating evidence against him.

Not good enough. The IRS assessed the penalty. The taxpayer in response requested a Collections Due Process Hearing.

Taxpayer said he had an issue: a valid Fifth Amendment claim. The IRS Appeals officer did not care and upheld the penalty.

Off to Tax Court they went.

And the Court reviewed what constitutes “frivolous” for purpose of the Section 6702 penalty:

(1) The document must purport to be a tax return.

(2) The return must either (i) omit enough information to prevent the IRS from judging it as substantially correct or (ii) it must clearly appear to be substantially incorrect.

(3) Taxpayer’s position must demonstrate a desire to impede IRS administration of the tax Code.

The first test is easy: taxpayer filed a return and intended it to be construed as a tax return.

On to the second.

Taxpayer failed to provide the name of only one payer. All parties agreed that the total was correct, however. The IRS argued that it needed this information so that it may defend the homeland, repair roads and bridges and present an entertaining Super Bowl halftime show. The Court asked one question: why? The IRS was unable to give a cogent reply, so the Court considered the return as filed to be substantially correct.

The IRS was feeling froggy on the third test. You see, the IRS had previously issued a Notice declaring that even mentioning the Fifth Amendment on a tax return was de facto evidence of frivolousness. Faciemus quod volumus [*], thundered the IRS. The return was frivolous.

The Court however went back and read that IRS notice. It brought to the IRS’ attention that it had not said that omitting some information for fear of self-incrimination was frivolous. Rather it had said that omitting “all” financial information was frivolous. You cannot file a return with zeros on every line, for example, and be taken seriously. That however is not what happened here.

The IRS could not make a blanket declaration about mentioning the Fifth Amendment because there was judicial precedence it had to observe.  Previous Courts had determined that a return was non-frivolous if the taxpayer had disclosed enough information (while simultaneously not disclosing so much as to incriminate himself/herself) to allow a Court to conclude that there was a reasonable risk of self-incrimination.

The Court pointed out the following:

(1) The taxpayer provided enough information to constitute an accurate return; and

(2) The taxpayer provided enough information (while holding back enough information) that the Court was able to conclude that he was concerned about filing an FBAR. The questions on Schedule B Part III could easily be cross-checked to an FBAR. Given that willful failure to file a complete and accurate FBAR is a crime, the Court concluded that the taxpayer had a reasonable risk of self-incrimination.

The Court dismissed the penalty.

The case is Youssefzadeh v Commissioner, for the at-home players.

I am of course curious why the taxpayer felt that disclosure would be self-incrimination. Why not just file a complete and accurate FBAR and be done with it? Fair enough, but that is not the issue. One would expect that an agency named the Internal “Revenue” Service would task itself with collecting revenue. In this instance, all revenue was correctly reported and collected. With that backdrop, why did the IRS pursue the matter? That is the issue that concerns me. 

[*] Latin for “we do what we want”

What Does It Take To Exclude Foreign Income?

At this point of the tax season I usually lament not having won the lottery since last year’s tax season. I would travel extensively, most likely overseas.

That would put me out of the country, and you may have heard that there is a tax “break” for people who work outside the country.  I sincerely doubt it would apply to me in my imaginary lottery-fueled world, but let’s talk about it.

If you work overseas, you get to exclude up to $100,800 of earned income – such as salary – from U.S. tax. This sounds like a great deal, and usually it is, but remember that you would have been allowed a credit for income taxes paid the other country. If the foreign taxes are the same or higher than the U.S. taxes, the effect of the income exclusion is likely a push. If the other country has lower taxes than the U.S., however, this could be a very sweet deal for you.

There are ropes to claiming this exclusion. You have to meet one of two tests. The first test is being outside the U.S. for at least 330 days during the year. Think about this for a second. You take a job in Japan for a couple of years, but your family stays in the U.S. This means that you can see them up to 35 days a year – or forfeit the exclusion. I suppose they could travel to Japan instead, but you get the idea.

There is a second way, and that is to be a “bona fide” resident of the foreign country. This is hard to do, as it means that your home is there and not here. “Home” in this context does not just mean a place where you hang clothes and keep food in the refrigerator. The tax Code wants more: it wants your “main” home to be overseas.

Does this happen much? You bet. Think an American expatriate – perhaps retired military or someone who married overseas. I have family for example who have lived in England for decades. They have gone to school, worked, married and raised children there. They would easily qualify for the foreign income exclusion under the bona fide test.

What if one works overseas but still maintains ties to the U.S.? Can one also be a bona fide citizen of another country?

You can expect the IRS to be skeptical, especially if you leave a house or family behind. This is the IRS equivalent of New York Department of Revenue not believing you when you tell them you moved to Florida.

Let’s look at one someone who recently tried to make the bona fide argument.

Joel Evans took a job on Sakhalin Island in Russia, which has to count as going to the end of the world. He was working the oil rigs, both on land and offshore. His normal schedule was 30 days on followed by 30 days off. A 30- day stretch gave him the flexibility to return frequently to the U.S.  

He had a house in Louisiana, and somewhere in there he got divorced. His daughter moved into his house for a while. He returned to Louisiana whenever he could. He eventually married a second time, and his wife moved into, and his daughter moved out of, his house in Louisiana.

He claimed the foreign income exclusion for years 2007 through 2010. The IRS said no and wanted over $31,000 in back taxes from him

He had absolutely no chance under test one, as he spent way more than 35 days annually in the U.S. He argued instead that he was a bona fide resident of Russia.

I give him credit, I really do. It was his only argument. He spent a lot of time in Russia. He learned a little Russian. He fixed up a place to stay. He made friends. He even dated some Russian women, which I presume he ceased doing when he got remarried.

But that isn’t the test, is it?

The test is where his main home was. He pretty much gave his hand away when he kept returning to Louisiana almost every thirty days.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and disallowed his foreign income exclusion. He was not a bona fide resident of Russia, and he could not exclude his foreign earned income. He had failed both tests.

Let’s state the obvious: he had no chance winning this one.

In my practice, almost everyone relies on the 35-day test, and it is common to monitor the 35 days like a hawk. I suppose if I were an expat (that is, living overseas) preparing taxes for other expats, I would see the bona fide test more frequently. There are not too many bona fides who would need my services in Cincinnati.

Which rule – the 35 day or the bona fide – would trip me up when I hit the lottery?

Neither. It takes earned income – think self-employment or a salary – to power the foreign earned income exclusion. I have no intention of working.

The New Israeli Trust Tax

Have you settled (that is, funded) a trust with an Israeli beneficiary?

I have not, but many have.

If this is you: heads up. The tax rules have changed, and they have changed from the Israeli side, not the U.S.

Until this year, Israel has not taxed a trust set up by a foreign person, even if there were Israeli beneficiaries. It also did not bother to tax the beneficiaries themselves. This was a sweet deal.

The deal changed this year. The Israel Tax Authority (ITA) now says that many trusts previously exempt will henceforth be taxable.

Israel is looking for a beneficiary trust, meaning that all settlors are foreign persons and at least one beneficiary is a resident Israeli.

EXAMPLE: The grandparents live in Cincinnati; the son moves to Israel, marries and has children; the grandparents fund a grandchildren’s trust.

A beneficiary trust can be either

·        A “relatives trust,” meaning the settlor is still alive and related (as defined) to the beneficiary

·        A “non-relatives trust,” meaning the settlor is not alive or not related (as defined) to the beneficiary 

EXAMPLE: The grandparents in the above trust pass away.

The tax will work as follows:

·        A relatives trust

o   Pay tax currently at 25% on the portion allocable to Israeli beneficiaries, or

o   Delay the tax until distributed to an Israeli beneficiary, at which time the tax will be 30%.

·        A non-relatives trust

o   Pay tax on income allocable to Israeli beneficiaries at regular tax rates (meaning up to 52%)

If one does nothing by the end of 2014, a relatives trust is presumed to have elected the “pay currently” regime.

The ITA has indicated verbally that any U.S. tax paid will be accepted as a tax credit against the Israeli tax, whether the tax was paid by the settlor (think grantor trust), the trust itself or the beneficiary.

The retroactive part of the tax goes back to 2006, and the ITA is allowing two ways for beneficiary trusts to settle up:

·        The trust can pay a portion of its regular tax liability, depending upon the influence on the trust by the Israeli beneficiary.

·        The trust can pay tax on the value of the trust as of December 31, 2013.

Again, the rules have changed, and – if this is you – please contact your attorney or other advisor immediately.