A Charitable Deduction To An Estate

 

I had a difficult conversation with a client recently over an issue I had not seen in a while.

It involves an estate. The same issue would exist with a trust, as estates and trusts are (for the most part) taxed the same way.

Let’s set it up.

Someone passed away, hence the estate.

The estate is being probated, meaning that at least some of its assets and liabilities are under court review before payment or distribution. The estate has income while this process is going on and so files its own income tax return.

Many times, accountants will refer to this tax return as the “estate” return, but it should not be confused with the following, also called the “estate” return:

What is the difference?

Form 706 is the tax – sometimes called the death tax – on net assets when someone passes away. It is hard to trigger the death tax, as the Code presently allows a $13.6 million lifetime exclusion for combined estate and gift taxes (and twice that if one is married). Let’s be honest: $13.6 million excludes almost all of us.

Form 1041 is the income tax for the estate. Dying does not save one from income taxes.

Let’s talk about the client.

Dr W passed away unexpectedly. At death he had bank and brokerage accounts, a residence, retirement accounts, collectibles, and a farm. The estate is being probated in two states, as there is real estate in the second state. The probate has been unnecessarily troublesome. Dr W recorded a holographic will, and one of the states will not accept it.

COMMENT: Not all estate assets go through probate, by the way. Assets passing under will must be probated, but many assets do not pass under will.

What is an example of an asset that can pass outside of a will?

An IRA or 401(k).

That is the point of naming a beneficiary to your IRA or 401(k). If something happens to you, the IRA transfers automatically to the beneficiary under contract law. It does not need the permission of a probate judge.

Back to Dr W.

Our accountant prepared the Form 1041, I saw interest, dividends, capitals gains, farm income and … a whopping charitable donation.

What did the estate give away?

Books. Tons of books. I am seeing titles like these:

·       Techniques of Chinese Lacquer

·       Vergoldete Bronzen I & II

·       Pendules et Bronzes d’Ameublement

Some of these books are expensive. The donation wiped out whatever income the estate had for the year.

If the donation was deductible.

Look at the following:

§ 642 Special rules for credits and deductions.

      (c)  Deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside for a charitable purpose.

(1)  General rule.

In the case of an estate or trust ( other than a trust meeting the specifications of subpart B), there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing its taxable income (in lieu of the deduction allowed by section 170(a) , relating to deduction for charitable, etc., contributions and gifts) any amount of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument is, during the taxable year, paid for a purpose specified in section 170(c) (determined without regard to section 170(c)(2)(A) ). If a charitable contribution is paid after the close of such taxable year and on or before the last day of the year following the close of such taxable year, then the trustee or administrator may elect to treat such contribution as paid during such taxable year. The election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by regulations.

This not one of the well-known Code sections.

It lays out three requirements for an estate or trust to get a charitable deduction:

• Must be paid out of gross income.
• Must be paid pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument.
• Must be paid for a purpose described in IRC Sec. 170(c) without regard to Section 170(c)(2)(A). 

Let’s work backwards.

The “170(c) without …” verbiage opens up donations to foreign charities.

In general, contributions must be paid to domestic charities to be income-tax deductible. There are workarounds, of course, but that discussion is for another day. This restriction does not apply to estates, meaning they can contribute directly to foreign charities without a workaround.

This issue does not apply to Dr W.

Next, the instrument governing the estate must permit payments to charity. Without this permission, there is no income tax deduction.

I am looking at the holographic will, and there is something in there about charities. Close enough, methinks.

Finally, the donation must be from gross income. This term is usually interpreted as meaning gross taxable income, meaning sources such as municipal interest or qualified small business stock would create an issue.

The gross income test has two parts:

(1)  The donation cannot exceed the estate’s cumulative (and previously undistributed) taxable income over its existence.

(2)  The donation involves an asset acquired by that accumulated taxable income. A cash donation easily meets the test (if it does not exceed accumulated taxable income). An in-kind distribution will also qualify if the asset was acquired with cash that itself would have qualified.

The second part of that test concerns me.

Dr W gave away a ton of books.

The books were transferred to the estate as part of its initial funding. The term for these assets is “corpus,” and corpus is not gross income. Mind you, you probably could trace the books back to the doctor’s gross income, but that is not the test here.

I am not seeing a charitable deduction.

“I would not have done this had I known,” said the frustrated client.

I know.

We have talked about a repetitive issue with taxes: you do not know what you do not know.

How should this have been done?

Distribute the books to the beneficiary and let him make the donation personally. Those rules about gross income and whatnot have no equivalent when discussing donations by individuals.

What if the beneficiary does not itemize?

Understood, but you have lost nothing. The estate was not getting a deduction anyway.

Embezzlement And A Payroll Tax Penalty

It has been about a month since I last posted.

To (re)introduce myself, I am a practicing tax CPA. I like to think practice allows a certain reality check on topics we discuss here. I am hesitant to discuss topics I do not work with or have not worked with for a long time. On the other hand, I can be acerbic while bloviating within my wheelhouse. I have strong opinions, for example, with IRS administration of “reasonable cause” relief for certain penalties. Here is one: work someone 80, 90 or more hours per week, deprive him/her of adequate rest, maintain the stress meter at redline, and ... stuff ... just ... happens. Maybe - if we had a government union to drag high achievers down to the level of the common spongers - then stuff would stop happening.

The downside is that this blog is maintained by a practicing CPA, and we just finished busy season.

Let’s ease back into it.

Let’s talk about the big boy penalty - the BBP.

There are penalties when someone fails to remit withheld payroll taxes to the IRS. It makes sense when you think about it. Your employer withholds 6.2% of your gross paycheck for social security and another 1.45% for Medicare. Your employer is also withholding federal income tax. All that is your money - your employer is acting only as a go-between - and not remitting the tax to the IRS is tantamount to stealing from you. And from the IRS.

I have seen it many times over the years. Sometimes still do. Not grievous stuff like Madoff, but nonetheless happening when a business is laboring.

I get it: the business is doing the best it can. I am not saying it is right, but growing up includes acknowledging that a lot of things are not right.

The BBP is a 100% penalty on the withheld employee taxes.

You read that right: 100 percent.

It applies if you are a “responsible person.” That makes sense to me if you are the big cheese at the Provolone factory, but the IRS has been known to consider ordinary Joe’s – somebody stuck at a miserable job for a needed paycheck before another job allows an escape – to be responsible persons. A common thread is that someone has the authority to write checks, meaning the person can decide where the money (however limited) goes. Sounds great in a classroom, but it can lead to stupid in the real world.

Let’s look at Rodney Taylor.

He has degrees in political science, speech, and theater. He is multilingual. He has worked domestically and internationally. He now owns a management company called Taylor & Co.

He says that he suffers from a limited learning disability, one involving mathematics.

Couldn’t tell, but I believe him.

Over the years he delegated much of his financial stuff to professionals such as Robert Gard, his CPA.

OK.

Gard embezzled between one and two million dollars from Taylor. Some of those monies were earmarked as payroll tax deposits.

Gard had a heart attack during a meeting when his fraud was unearthed. It appears that Taylor is a good sort, as Gard survived and attributed his survival to actions Taylor immediately took in response to the heart attack.

And next we read about the lawsuits. And the insurance companies. And banks. And insurance reimbursements. You know the storyline.

While all of this was happening, Taylor paid himself a $77 thousand bonus.

STOP! Pay it back. Immediately. Not Kidding.

Taylor transferred funds from the company’s bank account to a new something he was launching.

DID YOU NOT HEAR STOP???

You know the IRS had a BBP issue here.

Taylor argued that he could not be a responsible person, as he was embezzled. He had difficulties with mathematical concepts. He hired people to do stuff.

I do not know who was advising Taylor - if anyone - but he lost the plot.

• Taylor owed the IRS.
• Taylor was CEO, hired and fired, controlled the financial affairs of the company, and made the decision to sue Gard. He couldn’t be any more responsible if he tried.
• Meanwhile, Taylor diverted money to himself while still owing the IRS.

The IRS gets snarky when you prioritize yourself when you still owe back payroll taxes.

Bam! Big boy penalty.

Yeah, and rain is wet.

Sometimes it … is … just … obvious.

Our case this time was Taylor v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-33.

Sonny Corleone’s IRA

I remember him as Sonny Corleone in The Godfather. He is James Caan, and he passed away in July 2022.

I am reading a Tax Court case involving his (more correctly: his estate’s) IRA.

There is a hedge fund involved.

For the most part, we are comfortable with “traditional” investments: money markets, CDs, stocks, bonds, mutual funds holding stocks and bonds and the mutual fund’s updated sibling: an ETF holding stocks and bonds.

Well, there are also nontraditional investments: gold, real estate, cryptocurrency, private equity, hedge funds. I get it: one is seeking additional diversification, low correlation to existing investments, enhanced protection against inflation and so forth.

For the most part, I consider nontraditional investments as more appropriate for wealthier individuals. Most people I know have not accumulated sufficient wealth to need nontraditional assets.

There are also tax traps with nontraditional assets in an IRA. We’ve talked before about gold. This time let’s talk about hedge funds.

James Caan had his cousin (Paul Caan) manage two IRAs at Credit Suisse. Paul wanted to take his career in a different direction, and he transferred management of the IRAs to Michael Margiotta. Margiotta left Credit Suisse in 2004, eventually winding up at UBS.

The wealthy are not like us. Caan, for example, utilized Philpott, Bills, Stoll and Meeks (PBSM) as his business manager. PBSM would:

·       Receive all Caan’s mail

·       Pay his bills

·       Send correspondence

·       Prepare his tax returns

·       Act as liaison with his financial advisors, attorneys, and accountants

I wish.

Caan had 2 IRAs at UBS. One was a regular, traditional, Mayberry-style IRA.

The second one owned a hedge fund.

The tax Code requires the IRA trustee or custodian to file reports every year. You probably have seen them: how much you contributed over the last year, or the balance in the IRA at year-end. Innocuous enough, except possibly for that year-end thing. Think nontraditional asset. How do you put a value on it? It depends, I suppose. It is easy enough to look up the price of gold. What if the asset is trickier: undeveloped land outside Huntsville, Alabama – or a hedge fund?

UBS had Caan sign an agreement for the IRA and its hedge fund.

The Client must furnish to the Custodian in writing the fair market value of each Investment annually by the 15th day of each January, valued as of the preceding December 31st, and within twenty days of any other written request from the Custodian, valued as of the date specified in such request. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that a statement that the fair market value is undeterminable, or that cost basis should be used is not acceptable and the Client agrees that the fair market value furnished to the Custodian will be obtained from the issuer of the Investment (which includes the general partner or managing member thereof). The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the issuer is unable or unwilling to provide a fair market value, the Client shall obtain the fair market value from an independent, qualified appraiser and the valuation shall be furnished on the letterhead of the person providing the valuation.

Got it. You have to provide a number by January 15 following year-end. If it is a hassle, you have to obtain (and you pay for) an appraisal.

What if you don’t?

The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that the Custodian shall rely upon the Client’s continuing attention, and timely performance, of this responsibility. The Client acknowledges, understands and agrees that if the Custodian does not receive a fair market value as of the preceding December 31, the Custodian shall distribute the Investment to the Client and issue an IRS Form 1099–R for the last available value of the Investment.

Isn’t that a peach? Hassle UBS and they will distribute the IRA and send you a 1099-R. Unless that IRA is rolled over correctly, that “distribution” is going to cost you “taxes.”

Let’s start the calendar.

March 2015		UBS contacted the hedge fund for a value.
June 2015		Margiotta left UBS for Merrill Lynch.
August 2015		Striking out, UBS contacted PBSM for a value.
October 2015		Hearing nothing, UBS sent PBSM a letter saying UBS was going to resign as IRA custodian in November.
October 2015		Margiotta had Caan sign paperwork to transfer the IRAs from UBS to Merrill Lynch.
		There was a problem: all the assets were transferred except for the hedge fund.
December 2015		UBS sent PBSM a letter saying that it had distributed the hedge fund to Caan.
January 2016		UBS sent a 1099-R.
March 2016		Caan’s accountant at PBSM sent an e-mail to Merrill Lynch asking why the hedge fund still showed UBS as custodian.
December 2016		Margiotta requested the hedge fund liquidate the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.
November 2017		The IRS sent the computer matching letter wanting tax on the IRA distribution. How did the IRS know about it? Because UBS sent that 1099-R.

The IRS wanted taxes of almost $780 grand, with penalties over $155 grand.

That caught everyone’s attention.

July 2018

Caan requested a private letter ruling from the IRS.

Caan wanted mitigation from an IRA rollover that went awry. This would be a moment for PBSM (or Merrill) to throw itself under the bus: taxpayer relied on us as experts to execute the transaction and was materially injured by our error or negligence….

That is not wanted they requested, though. They requested a waiver of the 60-day requirement for rollover of an IRA distribution.

I get it: accept that UBS correctly issued a 1099 for the distribution but argue that fairness required additional time to transfer the money to Merrill Lynch.

There is a gigantic technical issue, though.

Before that, I have a question: where was PBSM during this timeline? Caan was paying them to open and respond to his mail, including hiring and coordinating experts as needed. Somebody did a lousy job.

The Court wondered the same thing.

Both Margiotta and the PBSM accountant argued they never saw the letters from UBS until litigation started. Neither had known about UBS making a distribution.

Here is the Court:

            We do not find that portion of either witness’ testimony credible.

Explain, please.

We find it highly unlikely that PBSM received all mail from UBS— statements, the Form 1099–R, and other correspondence—except for the key letters (which were addressed to PBSM). Additionally, the March 2016 email between Ms. Cohn and Mr. Margiotta suggests that both of them knew of UBS’s representations that it had distributed the P&A Interest. It seems far more likely that there was simply a lack of communication and coordination between the professionals overseeing Mr. Caan’s affairs, especially given the timing of UBS’s letters, Mr. Margiotta’s move from UBS to Merrill Lynch, and the emails between Mr. Margiotta and Ms. Cohn. If all parties believed that UBS was still the P&A Interest’s custodian, why did no one follow up with UBS when it ceased to mail account statements for the IRAs? And why, if everyone was indeed blindsided by the Form 1099–R, did no one promptly follow up with UBS regarding it? (That followup did not occur until after the IRS issued its Form CP2000.) The Estate has offered no satisfactory explanation to fill these holes in its theory.

I agree with the Court.

I think that PBSM and/or Merrill Lynch should have thrown themselves under the bus.

But I would probably still have lost. Why? Look at this word salad:

        408(d) Tax treatment of distributions.

         (3)  Rollover contribution.

An amount is described in this paragraph as a rollover contribution if it meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(A)  In general. Paragraph (1) does not apply to any amount paid or distributed out of an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity to the individual for whose benefit the account or annuity is maintained if-

(i)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity (other than an endowment contract) for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the day on which he receives the payment or distribution; or

(ii)  the entire amount received (including money and any other property) is paid into an eligible retirement plan for the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day after the date on which the payment or distribution is received, except that the maximum amount which may be paid into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount received which is includible in gross income (determined without regard to this paragraph).

I highlighted the phrase “including money and any other property.” There is a case (Lemishow) that read a “same property” requirement into that phrase.

What does that mean in non-gibberish?

It means that if you took cash and property out of UBS, then the same cash and property must go into Merrill Lynch.

Isn’t that what happened?

No.

What came out of UBS?

Well, one thing was that hedge fund that caused this ruckus. UBS said it distributed the hedge fund to Caan. They even issued him a 1099-R for it.

What went into Merrill Lynch?

Margiotta requested the hedge fund sell the investment and send the cash to Merrill Lynch.

Cash went into Merrill Lynch.

What went out was not the same as what went in.

Caan (his estate, actually) was taxable on the hedge fund coming out of the UBS IRA.

Dumb. Unnecessary. Expensive.

Our case this time was Estate of James E. Caan v Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 6, filed October 18, 2023.

Part Time Bookkeeper, Big Time Penalty

 

We filed another petition with the Tax Court this week.

For a client new to the firm.

Much of this unfortunately was ICDIM: I can do it myself. The client did not understand how the IRS matches information. There was an oddball one-off transaction, resulting in nonstandard tax reporting. Stir in some you-do-not-know-what-you-do-not-know (YDNKWYDNK), some COVIDIRS202020212022 and now I am involved.

I am looking at case that just screams YDNKWYDNK.

Here is part of the first paragraph:

This case is before the Court on a Petition for review of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2018 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) filing (NFTL filing) with respect to trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) under section 6672. The TFRPs were assessed against petitioner for failing to collect and pay over employment taxes owed by Urgent Care Center, Inc. (Urgent Care), for taxable quarters ending June 30 and September 30, 2014 (periods at issue), resulting in outstanding liabilities of $6, 184.23 and $4, 190.77, respectively.

That section 6330 is hard procedural, and it is going to hurt.

Mr Kazmi was a bookkeeper. He worked part-time at Urgent Care. Urgent Care did not remit employment taxes for a stretch, and unfortunately that stretch included the period when Mr Kazmi was there.

We are talking the big boy penalty, otherwise known as the responsible person penalty. The point of the penalty is to migrate the tax due to someone who had enough authority and responsibility to have paid the IRS but chose not to.

Mr Kazmi had no ownership interest in Urgent Care. He was not an officer. He was not a signatory on any bank accounts. He had no authority to decide who got paid. At all times he worked under the authority of the person who owned the place (Dr Senno). What he did have was a tax power of attorney.

Folks, I probably have a thousand tax powers of attorney out there.

Sounds to me like Mr Kazmi was the least responsible person (at least for payroll taxes) at Urgent Care.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) thought otherwise and on December 16, 2015 issued Mr Kazmi a letter 1153, a letter which said “tag, you are a responsible party; have a nice day.”

From what I am reading, this was a preposterous position. I generally have respect for ROs, but this one is a bad apple.  

Still, there are consequences.

Procedurally Mr Kazmi had 60 days to challenge the 1153.

He did not.

Why?

He did not know what he did not know.

A little time passed and the IRS came for its money. It wanted a lien. It also wanted a vanilla waffle ice cream cone.

Mr Kazmi yelled: Halt! He filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In the paperwork he included the obvious:

I am just a part-time bookkeeper. I am not responsible for collection or accounting or making payments for any tax payments for Urgent Care.

Makes sense.

Doesn’t matter.

He did not know what he did not know.

Let’s talk about the “one bite at the apple” rule.  In the current context, the rule means that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability if he/she already had a prior opportunity to do so.

One bite.

Mr Kazmi had his one bite when he received his letter 1153. You remember – the one he blew off.

He was now in CDP wanting to challenge the penalty. He wanted a second bite.

Not going to get it.

CDP was happy to talk about a payment plan and deadbeat taxpayers and whatnot. What it wouldn’t do was talk about whether Mr Kazmi deserved the penalty chop to begin with.

I am not a fan of such hard procedural. The vast majority of us will go a lifetime having no interaction with the IRS, excepting perhaps a minor notice now and then. It seems unreasonable to hold an average someone to stringent and obscure rules, rules that most attorneys and CPAs – unless they are tax specialists – would themselves be unaware of.

Still, it is what it is.

Does Mr Kazmi have any options left?

I think so.

Maybe a request for reconsideration.

Odds? So-so, maybe less.

A liability offer in compromise?

I like that one better.

Folks, it would have been much easier to pop this balloon back when the IRS trotted out that inappropriate letter 1153.

Mr Kazmi did not know what he did not know.

Our case this time was Kazmi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-13.

  

A Day Trader and Wash Losses

 

We have had a difficult time with the tax return of someone who dove into the deep end of the day-trading pool last year. The year-end Fidelity statement reported the trades, but the calculation of gain and losses was way off. The draft return landed on my desk showing a wash loss of about $2.5 million. Problem: the client was trading approximately $250 grand in capital. She would have known if she lost $2.5 million as either she (1) would have had a capital call, (2) used margin, or (3) done a bit of both.

Let’s talk about wash sales.

The rule was created in 1921 because of a too-favorable tax strategy.

Let’s say that you own a stock. You really believe in it and have no intention of parting with it. You get near the end of the year and you are reviewing your to-date capital gains and losses with your advisor. You have $5 thousand in capital gains so far. That stock you like, however, took a dip and would show a $4 thousand loss … if you sold it. The broker hatches a plan.

“This is what we will do” says the broker. We will sell the stock on December 30 and buy it back on January 2. You will be out of the stock for a few days, but it should not move too much. What it will do is allow us to use that $4 thousand loss to offset the $5 thousand gain.”

It is a great plan.

Too great, in fact. Congress caught wind and changed the rules. If you sell a stock at a loss AND buy the same or substantially identical stock either

·      30 days before or

·      30 days after …

… the sale creating the loss, you will have a wash sale. What the tax law does is grab the loss ($4 thousand in our example) and add it to the basis of the stock that you bought during the 30 day before-and-after period. The loss is not permanently lost, but it is delayed.

Mind you, it only kicks-in if you sell at a loss. Sell at a gain and the government will always take your money.

Let’s go through an example:

·      On June 8 you sell 100 shares at a loss of $600.

·      On July 3 you buy 100 shares of the same stock.

You sold at a loss. You replaced the stock within the 61-day period. You have a wash loss. The tax Code will disallow the $600 loss on the June 8 trade and increase your basis in the July 3 trade by $600. The $600 loss did not disappear, but it is waiting until you sell that July 3 position.

Problem: you day trade. You cannot go 48 hours without trading in-and-out of your preferred group of stocks.

You will probably have a lot of wash sales. If you didn’t, you might want to consider quitting your day job and launching a hedge fund.

Problem: do this and you can blow-up the year-end tax statement Fidelity sends you. That is how I have a return on my desk showing $2.5 million of losses when the client had “only” $250 grand in the game.

I want to point something out.

Let’s return to our example and change the dates.

·      You already own 100 shares of a stock

·      On June 8 you buy another 100 shares

·      On July 3 you sell 100 shares at a loss

This too is a wash. Remember: 30 days BEFORE and after. It is a common mistake.

The “substantially identical” stock requirement can be difficult to address in practice. Much of the available guidance comes from Revenue Rulings and case law, leaving room for interpretation. Let’s go through a few examples.

·      You sell and buy 100 shares of Apple. That is easy: wash sale.

·      You sell 100 shares of Apple and buy 100 shares of Microsoft. That is not a wash as the stocks are not the same.

·      You sell 30-year Apple bonds and buy 10-year Apple bonds. This is not a wash, as bonds of different maturities are not considered substantially identical, even if issued by the same company.

·      You sell Goldman Sachs common stock and buy Goldman Sachs preferred. This is not a wash, as a company’s common and preferred stock are not considered substantially identical.

·      You sell 100 shares of American Funds Growth Fund and buy 100 shares of Fidelity Growth Company. The tax law gets murky here. There are all kinds of articles about portfolio overlap and whatnot trying to interpret the “substantially identical” language in the area of mutual funds.  Fortunately, the IRS has not beat the drums over the years when dealing with funds. I, for example, would consider the management team to be a significant factor when buying an actively-managed mutual fund. I would hesitate to consider two actively-managed funds as substantially identical when they are run by different teams. I would consider two passively-managed index funds, by contrast, as substantially identical if they tracked the same index.  

·      You sell 100 shares of iShares S&P 500 ETF and buy the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF.  I view this the same as two index mutual funds tracking the same index: the ETFs are substantially identical.

·      Let’s talk options. Say that you sell 100 shares of a stock and buy a call on the same stock (a call is the option to buy a stock at a set price within a set period of time). The tax Code considers a stock sale followed by the purchase of a call to be substantially identical.

·      Let’s continue with the stock/call combo. What if you reverse the order: sell the call for a loss and then buy the stock? You have a different answer: the IRS does not consider this a wash.

·      Staying with options, let’s say that you sell 100 shares of stock and sell a put on the same stock (a put is the option to sell a stock at a set price within a set period of time). The tax consequence of a put option is not as bright-line as a call option. The IRS looks at whether the put is “likely to be exercised,” generally interpreted as being “in the money.”

Puts can be confusing, so let’s walk through an example. Selling means that somebody pays me money. Somebody does that for the option of requiring me to buy their stock at a set price for a set period. Say they pay me $4 a share for the option of selling to me at $55 a share. Say the stock goes to $49 a share. Their breakeven is $51 a share ($55 minus $4). They can sell to me at net $51 or sell at the market for $49.  Folks, they are selling the stock to me. That put is “in-the-money.”  

Therefore, if I sell a put when it is in-the-money, I very likely have something substantially identical.

There are other rules out there concerning wash sales.

·      You sell the stock and your spouse buys the stock. That will be a wash.

·      You sell a stock in your Fidelity account and buy it in your Vanguard account. That will be a wash.

·      You sell a stock and your IRA buys the stock. All right, that one is not as obvious, but the IRS considers that a wash. I get it: one is taxable and the other is tax-deferred. But the IRS says it is a wash. I am not the one making the rules here.

·      There is a proportional rule. If you sell 100 shares at a loss and buy only 40 shares during the relevant 61-day period, then 40% (40/100) of the total loss will be disallowed as a wash.

Let’s circle back to our day trader. The term “trader” has a specific meaning in the tax Code. You might consider someone a trader because they buy and sell like a madman. Even so, the tax Code has a bias to NOT consider one a trader. There are numerous cases where someone trades on a regular, continuous and substantial basis – maybe keeping an office and perhaps even staff - but the IRS does not consider them a trader. Maybe there is a magic number that will persuade the IRS - 200 trading days a year, $10 million dollars in annual trades, a bazillion individual trades – but no one knows.

There is however one sure way to have the IRS recognize someone as a trader. It is the mark-to-market election. The wash loss rule will not apply, but one will pay tax on all open positions at year-end. Tax nerds refer to this as a “mark,” hence the name of the election.

The mark pretends that you sold everything at the end of the year, whether you actually did or did not. It plays pretend but with your wallet. This tax treatment is different from the general rule, the one where you actually have to sell (or constructively sell) something before the IRS can tax you.

Also, the election is permanent; one can only get out of it with IRS permission.

A word of caution: read up and possibly seek professional advice if you are considering a mark election. This is nonroutine stuff – even for a tax pro. I have been in practice for over 35 years, and I doubt I have seen a mark election a half-dozen times.

IRA Changes For 2020

 The issue came up last week with a retired client, so let’s talk about it.

What is going on in 2020 with your IRAs?

There are several things here, so let’s go step-by-step:

(1)  Do you have to take a minimum required distribution (MRD) if you turned 70 1/2 in 2020?

ANSWER: No. The new age requirement is age 72.

(2)  What if I turned 70 ½ in 2019 and delayed my initial MRD until 2020?

ANSWER: Thanks to the CARES Act, that initial MRD is delayed one more year – until 2021.

(3)   I am well over 70 ½.  Do I have a MRD for 2020?

ANSWER: No. You can take money out, but you are not required to.

(4)  What if I already took out my MRD?

ANSWER: There are two answers, depending on when you took the MRD.

(a) If you took the MRD in January 2020, there is nothing you can do at this point.

(b)  If you took the MRD after January 31, 2020, you have until July 15, 2020 to return the money.

BTW there is a possible tax trap here. You are allowed only one non-trustee-to-trustee rollover (meaning you received and cashed the check with the intent of paying it back within 60 days) within a rolling 12-month period. If you did this in 2019, you need to check whether you are caught within this 12-month dragnet.

(5)  I have an inherited IRA account. Is there any change for me?

ANSWER: If the decedent passed away before 2020, you do not have an MRD for 2020.

There is a technical point in here if one was waiting five years before emptying the inherited IRS account: 2020 will not be counted as a year. In effect, you now have six years to empty the account rather than five.

(6)  I am having cash-flow issues as a consequence of the virus-related lockdown. I am thinking about tapping my IRA in order to get through. Is there something for me?

ANSWER: There are several changes.

(1) The 10% penalty for pre-age-59 ½ payouts for COVID-related reasons is waived on distributions up to $100,000.

(2) The income tax on the distribution still applies, but the tax can be paid over three years.

(3) And you also have 3 years to put the money back in the IRA. If you do, the money restored will be treated like a qualified rollover.

a.    Remember, this is taking place over 3 years. It is possible that you will have paid income tax on some or all of the money you restore in your IRA. If so, you can file an amended return and get your income tax back.

(7)  I am taking “substantially equal periodic payments” from my IRA. I am under age 59 ½ and needed the money. Is there a break for me?

ANSWER: A SEPP program allows one to avoid the penalty for early withdrawals, but it comes at a price: on has to take withdrawals over a given period of time.

A SEPP is not the same as a MRD, so the new rules do not apply to you.

(8)  Is it too late to fund my IRA for 2019?

ANSWER: Normally, you have until April 15 of the following year to fund an IRA. For 2019, that deadline has been extended to July 15, 2020.