Company’s Tuition Payment Was Not Deductible

 

Let me give you a fact pattern and you tell me whether there is a tax deduction.

·      You own a company.

·      A young man is dating your daughter.

·      The young man wants to take a computer course at Northwestern University. If it turns out he has both aptitude and interest, perhaps he can maintain the company’s website, at least for a while.

·      The company pays for the course.

Let me up the ante: is there a tax deduction to you and tax-free income to the young man?

You are thinking: maybe.

For example, my firm pays for my expenses when I attend professional seminars or conferences. Then again, my CPA license carries a continuing education requirement, so the seminars and conferences are necessary for me keep my gig as a practicing CPA.

Sounds like a working condition fringe benefit. The “working condition” qualifier means that the employer is paying for something that the employee could deduct (at least before the tax Code nixed miscellaneous itemized deductions) had the employee paid for it.

Alternatively, there are companies who pay (or help pay) tuition for employees who go to college. There are hitches to this educational assistance arrangement, though: it has to be available to everybody, cannot discriminate in favor of highly-compensated employees, and so on.

I am not seeing a tax deduction down either path. Why? Notice that a fringe benefit or assistance program requires an employer:employee relationship. You have no such relationship with the young man.

I suppose you could make him an employee.

No, you say.  Dating your daughter does not put him on the payroll.

You circle back to the possibility that he could take care of your website, at least for a while. That costs money to do. If he did so for free, or at a substantially reduced rate, the cost of that course could be a drop in the bucket compared to what you would have paid a webmaster.

OK. I am certain that the tuition is more than $600, so you pay for the course, send him a 1099 and he will have to settle-up while he files his tax return. On the upside, he should get a tax credit for taking that course.

Nope, you say. You want to deduct it as a business expense but not issue a W-2 or a 1099. None of that.

And that is how Robert and Swanette Ward appeared before the Tax Court. Clearly the IRS disagreed with the tax outcome they wanted.

Here is the Court:

While [] has provided services to Sherwin [CTG: Mrs Ward’s company] free of charge that would likely have cost Sherwin more than the amount of the tuition, we nonetheless find that the petitioners have not established that Sherwin is entitled to deduct the tuition.”

Why not?

Mr [] was not an employee of Sherwin.”

Yes, but what of the possibility that he would help with the website?

The Wards did not have an agreement with Mr [] that he would perform any services in exchange for the tuition payment.”

What, do you want a written contract or something?

Sherwin paid the tuition without any expectation of a return and thus did not have a business purpose for the payment. The tuition was a personal expense, and Sherwin is not entitled to deduct it.”

Why is the Court is circling the wagons on this one?

Folks, sometimes tax law occurs in the folds and the corners. There is something I have not yet told you that might explain the Court’s obstinacy.

That young man eventually married your daughter.

The Court saw a personal expense all the way.

I get it.

There is a distinction in the Code between deductible business expenses and nondeductible personal expenses. One could reason that showing some business angle or benefit – however abstract or hypothetical – can make the expense deductible, even if the primary factor for incurring the expense was personal. One would be wrong, but one could reason.

Our case this time was Sherwin Community Painters Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-19.

The Parking Lot Tax

Last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a 21% tax on transportation-related fringe benefits provided by nonprofits.

That does not sound so bad until you consider that qualified transportation fringe benefits include:

1.    Transit passes or reimbursement for the same

2.    Use of a commuter highway vehicle or reimbursement for the same

3.    Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement

4.    Qualified parking expenses or reimbursement for the same

That last one proved to be a shocker.

What started the issue was the new deduction disallowance for qualified transportation fringe benefits paid by taxable employers. For example, if the employer pays for employee parking, up to $260 per month can be excluded from the employee’s 2018 W-2. In the past the employer could deduct that $260 on its tax return. Now it could not. Congress felt that – if taxable employers were to be affected – then nonprofit employers should also be affected.

But how does a nonprofit even pay tax?

It can happen, and it is called unrelated business income. In general, it means that the nonprofit is veering away from its charitable mission and is conducting an activity that is virtually indistinguishable from a for-profit business next door.

The nonprofit has to separately account for this activity. The IRS then spots it a $1,000 exemption. If it has more than a $1,000 in profit then it has to pay tax at the corporate rate – which is now 21%.

This change entered the tax Code in December, 2017 via Code Section 512(a)(7):

      (7)  Increase in unrelated business taxable income by disallowed fringe.

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under this chapter by reason of section 274 and which is paid or incurred by such organization for any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in section 132(f) ), any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking (as defined in section 132(f)(5)(C) ), or any on-premises athletic facility (as defined in section 132(j)(4)(B) ).

There are three things to note here:

(1)  Congress is treating these disallowed deductions as if they were income to the nonprofit.

(2)  We have to track down the meaning of “qualified parking,” and

(3)  The phrase “deduction is not allowable” has a meaning that is not immediately apparent.

Let’s start with qualified parking, defined as:

… parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work …. 

Qualified parking does not include parking provided near the employee’s residence. 

Employer-provided parking includes parking on property an employer owns or leases, parking for which the employer pays, or parking for which an employer reimburses an employee.

So we know that qualified parking is provided near the employer and the employer pays for, reimburses, leases or owns the parking facility.

This makes sense if there is a public garage across the street and the employer pays the garage directly or reimburses an employee who paid the garage. However, how does this work if the employer owns the parking lot?  More specifically, how does this work if the parking lot is available to employees, customers – that is, to everyone and for free?

There is (what appears to be) a Congressional mistake when drafting Code Section 512(a)(7).

In 1994 the IRS published a rule in Notice 94-3, conveniently titled “IRS Explains Rules For Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits.” Here is Question 10 and its example:

EXAMPLE. Employer Z operates an industrial plant in a rural area in which no commercial parking is available. Z furnishes ample parking for its employees on the business premises, free of charge. The parking provided by Z has a fair market value of $0 because an individual other than an employee ordinarily would not pay to park there.

The answer makes sense. Anyone can park on that lot for free. If an employee parks there, it seems reasonable that the value of the parking would be zero (-0-).

That is not what Code Section 512(a)(7) did:

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable ….

There is no reference here to value. To the contrary, the reference is to a deduction – which to an accountant means cost. Parking may be free to the user, but it will cost something to maintain that parking facility. The cost may be a lot or a little, but there is a cost.

The Notice 94-3 rule that tax practitioners had gotten used to was overturned.

Needless to say, there were many questions on what the new rules meant and how to apply them. Consider that a nonprofit is supposed to make quarterly estimated tax payments against any expected unrelated-business-income tax, and guidance was needed sooner rather than later. On December 10, 2018 the IRS published interim guidance (Notice 2018-99) on qualified transportation fringe benefits. 

It started with the easiest example:

A taxable employer pays a garage $12,000 annually so that its employees can park. None of this exceeds the $260 monthly threshold per employee for 2018. The entire $12,000 is non-deductible by the employer.

Introduce any complexity and there are steps to the calculation:   

(1)  Calculate the cost for reserved employee spots.

a.     These costs are disallowed.

(2)  Calculate the primary use of the remaining spots.

a.     If more than 50% is for customers, clients and the general public, the calculation ends.

                                                             i.     Any remaining cost is fully deductible.

b.    If more than 50% is for employees, there is math:

                                                             i.     Calculate the cost for reserved nonemployee parking; these costs are allowed.

                                                           ii.     Calculate the cost for nonreserved employee parking; these costs are disallowed.

Let’s go through an example from the Notice.

An accounting firm leases a parking lot for $10,000 next to its office. The lot has 100 spaces, used by clients and employees. The firm has 60 employees.

(1)  There are no reserved employee parking spaces

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(2)  The primary use is for employees (60/100).

a.     We have math.

(3)  There are no reserved nonemployee parking spaces (think visitor parking).

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(4)  One must use a reasonable allocation method. The accounting firm determines that employee use constitutes 60% (60/100) of parking lot use during business days, with no adjustment for evenings, weekends or holidays. The disallowance is $6,000 ($10,000 times 60%).

An accounting firm is a taxable entity, so the $6,000 is not deductible on its return.

What if we were talking about a nonprofit? Then the $6,000 magically “transforms” into unrelated business taxable income. The IRS spots $1,000 exemption, so the taxable amount is $5,000. Apply a 21% tax rate and the tax on the parking lot is $1,050.

What if the employer owns the parking lot? What costs could there be to a parking lot?

The IRS thought of this:

For purposes of this notice, “total parking expenses” include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, utility costs, insurance, property taxes, interest, snow and ice removal, leaf removal, trash removal, cleaning, landscape costs, parking lot attendant expenses, security, and rent or lease payments or a portion of a rent or lease payment (if not broken out separately). A deduction for an allowance for depreciation on a parking structure owned by a taxpayer and used for parking by the taxpayer’s employees is an allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence of property, and not a parking expense for purposes of this notice.

At a minimum, I anticipate that one is allocating insurance and taxes.

So a nonprofit can have tax because it provides parking to its employees. You may have heard this referred to as the “church parking lot tax.” Yes, churches are 501(c)(3)s, meaning they are nonprofits just like the March of Dimes. Granted, there are additional tax breaks to being a church, such as not having to file a Form 990. The unrelated business income tax is not filed on a Form 990, however; it is filed on a Form 990-T. They both have “990” in their name, but they are separate tax forms. Who knows how many churches will have to file a Form 990-T for the first time for 2018, even though their board has never filed – or even seen - a Form 990.

How can a church have income from its parking lot?

If it charges for parking, obviously. That however is a low probability event.

Another way would be to have reserved employee parking spaces. Those are allocated cost (which morphs into income) immediately.

A third way is the employee:nonemployee calculation. That calculation would be tricky because of the uneven use of a church over an average week. One would somehow weight the use of the parking lot. Church employees are there Monday through Friday. The congregation is there on Sunday and (maybe) one night during the week. Perhaps employee parking is weighted using a factor of eight (hours) and congregational use is weighted using a factor of 2.5 (hours). Hopefully the result is to get congregational use above 50%. Why?

Remember: if nonemployee use at step (2) is more than 50%, the calculation ends. All the church would have to pay tax on is income from reserved employee parking. If that is below $1,000, there is no tax.

There is an effort to include a repeal of Code Section 512(a)(7) on any extender or other bill that Congress may pass, but that would require Congress to be able to pass a bill – any bill – in the near future.

The Notice also has one of the more unusual “make-up” provisions I have seen. Say that you want to do away reserved employee parking (that is, step (1)) because the tax gets expensive. It is way too late to do anything for 2018, as the guidance came out in December. The Notice allows you to make the change by March 31, 2019 and consider it retroactive to January 1, 2018.

Our church would have no step (1) income as long as it did away with reserved employee parking by March 31, 2019. That would mean taking down the sign saying “Pastor Parking Only,” but that may be the best alternative until Congress can correct this mess.

Hockey Team Meals And Fairy Dust

Let’s say that you own a professional hockey team.

What is your biggest expense?

Your players, I would think.

You train them, coach them, house them, feed them, transport them.

Wait … did we say “feed them?”

Uh, yes. Here is an easy example: the team has an out-of-town game. I presume you are going to feed them while they are away from home and hearth.

We have walked into one of the tax Code’s nonsensicals.

Yes, I know: which one?

Are their on-the-road meals deductible?

Yes, but you may remember that only 50% of the meals and entertainment costs is deductible. The company has to eat the other 50%.

Why? Because of three-martini lunches and all that.

Fat cats. Write-offs. Loopholes. The Hallmark Channel.

Let’s say there is an uber-expensive – and secret - lunch in Georgetown between a media mouth and some cobbling bureaucrat. Why should you and I have to subsidize that behavior with a tax deduction?

But that is not your situation. You are feeding your players. Maybe you feed them because you want them present by a certain time, or you want your dietician to monitor their intake, or you want to minimize interruptions were they to go out for meals. Perhaps it gives everyone an opportunity to review game plans and prepare for media interviews.

But the tax Code lumps you in with those Georgetown pseudologists.

The Boston Bruins decided to push this issue. They deducted the full cost of their meals, not just 50%.

COMMENT: For the tax nerds, the issue before the Court was the “away” meals. The IRS was not concerned with “home” meals, for reasons we will not address here.

Two of their tax years – 2009 and 2010 – went to Court.

I had considered this is an uphill climb.

Code Section 274(n) waives the 50% axe.

(n)  Only 50 percent of meal and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction.

(1)  In general.

The amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for-

(A)  any expense for food or beverages, and

(B)  any item with respect to an activity which is of a type generally considered to constitute entertainment, amusement, or recreation, or with respect to a facility used in connection with such activity,

shall not exceed 50 percent of the amount of such expense or item which would (but for this paragraph) be allowable as a deduction under this chapter.

But are there exceptions?

Yep.

For example, “de minimis” fringe benefits are not taxable to the employee.

Well, that is great for coffee and sodas at the office, but it seems that we are stretching the word too ….

Wait, a “employer-operated eating facility” can qualify as a de minimis fringe benefit.

Well, that is hay of a different barn. What does it take to be such a facility?

Here are two of several requirements:

(1) The facility has to cover its own direct costs on an annual basis.

(2)  The facility must be located on or near the employer’s business premises.

Hah, you say. There is no way that the Bruins can meet test one, as there is no “revenue” here. The whole thing is a “cost.”  

Would you believe me that there is a way – an obscure, head-scratching way – to string the tax Code together to spontaneously spark the required “revenue?”

There is and the Bruins made it. I will spare you the details.

On to test two.

Let’s say they are in Pittsburgh playing the Penguins.

Google tells me there is approximately 575 miles between Boston and Pittsburgh.

Seems a stretch that the Bruins are “on or near” their training facilities in Brighton, Massachusetts.

But have the Bruins rent-out a banquet room in a Pittsburgh hotel. Can one sprinkle fairy dust and argue that the rental transmogrifies the banquet room into Bruins “business premises” – at least for a while?

The Court really seemed to be in a favorable mood towards the Bruins. They emphasized the “function” of the banquet room rather than its actual location in space and time. Perhaps the banquet room identified as Bostonian.

We conclude that away city hotels were part of the Bruins’ business premises for the years in issue. In arriving at this conclusion we consider the traveling hockey employees’ performance of significant business duties at away city hotels along with the unique nature of the Bruins’ business (i.e., professional hockey).”

Having met that test, the Pittsburgh hotel in essence became “business premises” of the Bruins.

Bam! The Bruins have business premises in Pittsburgh.

The Court next considered whether the eating-facility-on-Bruins-business-premises-in-Pittsburgh qualified as a “de minimis” fringe benefit.

Well heck, I think the Court telegraphed its hand when it decided that a Pittsburgh hotel was “on or near” Brighton, Massachusetts.

To wrap this up, someone on the Court is a huge hockey fan and the Bruins got their 100% deduction.

I suspect that this type of meal expense is not what Congress was after with its Section 274(n) chop. It is nonsensical that the Code disallows a 50% deduction for employee meals when their job requires travel. This more resembles the histrionics of class envy than any rational tax argument.

However – and let’s be fair – that is what the tax Code says. 

Or said, more accurately.

All it takes is a court willing to sprinkle fairy dust.

Worst. Tax. Advice. Ever.

Dad owned a tool and die company. Son-in-law worked there. The company was facing severe foreign competition, and - sure enough - in time the company closed. For a couple of years the son-in-law was considerably underpaid, and dad wanted to make it up to him.

The company's accountant had dad infuse capital into the business. The accountant even recommended that the money be kept in a separate bank account. Son-in-law was allowed to tap into that account near-weekly to supplement his W-2. The accountant reasoned that - since the money came from dad - the transaction represented a gift from dad to son-in-law.

Let's go through the tax give-and-take on this.

In general, corporations do not make gifts. Now, do not misunderstand me: corporations can make donations but almost never a gift. Gifts are different from donations. Donations are deductible (within limits) by the payor and can be tax-free to the payee, if the payee has obtained that coveted 501(c)(3) status. Donations stay within the income tax system.

Gifts leave the income tax system, although they may be subject to a separate gift tax. Corporations, by the way, do not pay gift taxes, so the idea of a gift by a corporation does not make tax sense.

The classic gift case is Duberstein, where the Supreme Court decided that a gift must be made under a "detached and disinterested generosity" or "out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses." The key factor the Court was looking for is intent.

And it has been generally held that corporations do not have that "detached and disinterested" intent that Duberstein wants.  Albeit comprised of individuals, corporations are separate legal entities, created and existing under state law for a profit-seeking purpose. Within that context, it becomes quite difficult to argue that corporations can be "detached and disinterested."

It similarly is the reason - for example - that almost every job-related benefit will be taxable to an employee - unless the benefit can fit under narrow exceptions for nontaxable fringes or awards. If I give an employee a $50 Christmas debit card, I must include it in his/her W-2. The IRS sees an employer, an employee and very little chance that a $50 debit card would be for any reason other than that employment relationship.   

What did the accountant advise?

Make a cash payment to the son-in-law from corporate funds.

But the monies came from dad, you say.

It does not matter. The money lost its "dad-stamp" when it went into the business.

What about the separate bank account?

You mean that separate account titled in the company's name?

It certainly did not help that the son-in-law was undercompensated. The tax Code already wants to say that all payments to employees are a reward for past service or an incentive for future effort. Throw in an undercompensated employee and there is no hope.

The case is Hajek and the taxpayer lost. The son-in-law had compensation, although I suppose the corporation would have an offsetting tax deduction. However, remember that compensation requires FICA and income tax withholding - and no withholdings on the separate funds were remitted to the IRS - and you can see this story quickly going south. Payroll penalties are some of the worst in the tax Code.

What should the advisor have done?

Simple: have dad write the check to son-in-law. Leave the company out of it.

Silicon Valley Cafeterias And Tax-Free Meals

I have a friend who lives and works on the north side of Cincinnati (or as we south-of-the-river-residents call it: “Ohio”). He works for significant company, and one of the perks is a company cafeteria. The cafeteria provides breakfast, should one choose, and of course it provides lunch. Free.

I admit I am a bit envious.

In this day and age when just about everything is taxed – at least once – you may wonder how this can happen. It has to do with Code Section 119:

(a) Meals and lodging furnished to employee, his spouse, and his dependents, pursuant to employment

There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals or lodging furnished to him, his spouse, or any of his dependents by or on behalf of his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if—

(1)     in the case of meals, the meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer

                                                                     

How did this provision come to be?

It officially entered the Code in 1954, although employers were already taking the deduction (and employees excluding the income) under administrative and judicial decisions.  Prior to 1954 there was some inconsistency on what was required for the employee to omit the income. Sometimes the courts focused exclusively on the convenience of the employer. Other times the courts would look at whether there was a compensatory reason for the meal. Depending on the focus, they could arrive at different answers, of course.

So Congress stepped-in in 1954 and gave us Section 119. There were differences between the House and Senate bills (The House did not want a convenience-of-the-employer test, but the Senate did). Both House and Senate booted out the issue of “compensatory reason.” If it were primarily for the convenience of the employer, then the meals were free. Whether the employee considered it compensatory was beside the point.

Let’s use an extreme example to understand what Congress was after. In Olkjer, for example, the taxpayer was employed at a remote location in Greenland. The employer provided meals (and, in this case, lodging also) because there was nowhere else to go.

And there any number of examples like that. Think of emergency room personnel. Could they hypothetically get in a car and go to a restaurant for lunch? Of course they could. It would not serve the hospital’s needs, however, and hence they are required to stay on premises. The same can be said for casino workers.

Fast forward a few decades and we now have Silicon Valley. Take Google, for example. If you work at the Googleplex you can eat breakfast, lunch and dinner for free. I recall that the personal chef for the Grateful Dead was one of the early chefs at Google. These companies prey on each other’s chefs, too. Facebook hired a chef away from Google, for example. Facebook now serves Thai-spiced cilantro chicken and salmon with red curry sauce. Their chef will also prepare a special meal as an employee award or recognition. These meals can be quite upscale, featuring seven courses on white tablecloth.

No doubt Section 119 has come a long way from what Congress was thinking back in 1954.

And there is the rub.

In 2013 the Wall Street Journal published an article on these cafeterias, including the question whether the provision of gourmet-level meals were intended to be tax-free. Spring forward a year or so and the IRS has included the issue in their 2014-2015 Priority Guidance Plan. It appears the IRS is shifting resources to develop tax lines-of-reasoning requiring such benefits be reported as taxable compensation to employees.

How? Actually, the direction is fairly straightforward. The IRS will challenge the perk as not being “primarily” for the convenience of the employer. They cannot challenge whether there is a “compensatory” reason, as the reports to the 1954 tax Code makes it clear that Congress was not concerned with that issue.

The companies of course argue that such perks are “primarily” for their convenience. How?

           

·        Encourage employees to arrive early

·        Encourage employees to stay late

·        Employees do not waste time going out to eat

·        Maximize collaboration opportunities, as employees eat together rather than taking individual cars and dining alone elsewhere

·        Help retain people and foster employee trust

·        Help attract prospective employees

You must admit, the companies have a point. My hunch is that the IRS will restrict the definition of “convenience” to require a closer connection between the cafeteria perk and the alleged convenience.

What do I think? I have been in tax practice long enough to see provisions come into the tax Code, and then see practitioners take said provisions into places and distances that Congress or the IRS never intended. There is uproar, and Congress or the IRS then cracks-down. The practitioners regroup, study tape, develop new game plans and all parties eventually take the field again for the next game. It is just the wheel and rhythm of tax law and practice.

I suspect the same will happen here.

I have over the years worked unreasonable hours, and many (not all, mind you) CPA firms will make some provision for their staff during busy season. These meals have been tax-free, as the impetus for the meal was exclusively for the convenience of the CPA firm (as far as I was concerned). There was nothing there that approached this level, however.

But then, Google and Twitter and companies like them have taken this provision into places and distances that Congress likely never intended.

I admit I am a bit envious.