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.

Someone Fought Back Against Ohio – And Won

I admit it will be a challenge to make this topic interesting.

Let’s give it a shot.

Imagine that you are an owner of a business. The business is a LLC, meaning that it “passes-through” its income to its owners, who in turn take their share of the business income, include it with their own income, and pay tax on the agglomeration.

You own 79.29% of the business. It has headquarters in Perrysville, Ohio, owns plants in Texas and California, and does business in all states.

The business has made a couple of bucks. It has allowed you a life of leisure. You fly-in for occasional Board meetings in northern Ohio, but you otherwise hire people to run the business for you. You have golf elsewhere to attend to.

You sold the business. More specifically, you sold the stock in the business. Your gain was over $27 million.

Then you received a notice from Ohio. They congratulated you on your good fortune and … oh, by the way … would you send them approximately $675,000?

Here is a key fact: you do not live in Ohio. You are not a resident. You fly in and fly out for the meetings.

Why does Ohio think it should receive a vig?

Because the business did business in Ohio. Some of its sales, its payroll and its assets were in Ohio.

Cannot argue with that.

Except “the business” did not sell anything. It still has its sales, its payroll and its assets. What you sold were your shares in the business, which is not the same as the business itself.

Seems to you that Ohio should test at your level and not at the business level: are you an Ohio resident? Are you not? Is there yet another way that Ohio can get to you personally?

You bet, said Ohio. Try this remarkable stretch of the English language on for size:

ORC 5747.212 (B) A taxpayer, directly or indirectly, owning at any time during the three-year period ending on the last day of the taxpayer's taxable year at least twenty per cent of the equity voting rights of a section 5747.212 entity shall apportion any income, including gain or loss, realized from each sale, exchange, or other disposition of a debt or equity interest in that entity as prescribed in this section. For such purposes, in lieu of using the method prescribed by sections 5747.20 and5747.21 of the Revised Code, the investor shall apportion the income using the average of the section 5747.212 entity's apportionment fractions otherwise applicable under section 5733.05, 5733.056, or 5747.21 of the Revised Code for the current and two preceding taxable years. If the section 5747.212 entity was not in business for one or more of those years, each year that the entity was not in business shall be excluded in determining the average.

Ohio is saying that it will substitute the business apportionment factors (sales, payroll and property) for yours. It will do this for the immediately preceding three years, take the average and drag you down with it.

Begone with thy spurious nonresidency, ye festering cur!

To be fair, I get it. If the business itself had sold the assets, there is no question that Ohio would have gotten its share. Why then is it a different result if one sells shares in the business rather than the underlying assets themselves? That is just smoke and mirrors, form over substance, putting jelly on bread before the peanut butter.

Well, for one reason: because form matters all over the place in the tax Code. Try claiming a $1,000 charitable deduction without getting a “magic letter” from the charity; or deducting auto expenses without keeping a mileage log; or claiming a child as a dependent when you paid everything for the child – but the divorce agreement says your spouse gets the deduction this year. Yeah, try arguing smoke and mirrors, form and substance and see how far it gets you.

But it’s not fair ….

Which can join the list of everything that is not fair: it’s not fair that Firefly was cancelled after one season; it’s not fair that there aren’t microwave fireplaces; it’s not fair that we cannot wear capes at work.

Take a number.

Our protagonist had a couple of nickels ($27 million worth, if I recall) to protest. He paid a portion of the tax and immediately filed a refund claim for the same amount. 

The Ohio tax commissioner denied the claim.

COMMENT: No one could have seen that coming.

The taxpayer appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, which ruled in favor of the Tax Commissioner.

The taxpayer then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

He presented a Due Process argument under the U.S. Constitution.

And the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Ohio had violated Due Process by conflating our protagonist with a company he owned shares in. One was a human being. The other was a piece of paper filed in Columbus.

The taxpayer won.

But the Court backed-off immediately, making the following points:

(1)  The decision applied only to this specific taxpayer; one was not to extrapolate the Court’s decision;

(2)  The Court night have decided differently if the taxpayer had enough activity in his own name to find a “unitary relationship” with the business being sold; and

(3)  The statute could still be valid if applied to another taxpayer with different facts.

Points (1) and (3) can apply to just about any tax case.

Point (2) is interesting. The phrase “unitary relationship” simply means that our protagonist did not do enough in Ohio to take-on the tax aroma of the company itself. Make him an officer and I suspect you have a different answer. Heck, I suspect that one Board meeting a year would save him but five would doom him. Who knows until a Court tells us?

With that you see tax law in the making.

By the way, if this is you – or someone you know – you may want to check-out the case for yourself: Corrigan v Testa. Someone may have a few tax dollars coming back.

Testa, not Tesla

Tax Break For Wealthy (Federal Government) People

Let's talk about a tax break; some may even call it a gimmick. It will never affect your or me, unless we go into the federal government.

Here is Code section 1043:

Sale of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements 

(a) Nonrecognition of gain

If an eligible person sells any property pursuant to a certificate of divestiture, at the election of the taxpayer, gain from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that the amount realized on such sale exceeds the cost (to the extent not previously taken into account under this subsection) of any permitted property purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the date of such sale.

(b) Definitions

For purposes of this section -

(1) Eligible person

The term "eligible person" means -

(A) an officer or employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer, of the Federal Government, but does not mean a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code, and

(B) any spouse or minor or dependent child whose ownership of any property is attributable under statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon, or executive order referred to in paragraph (2) t a person referred to in subparagraph (A).

Let's say that you are pulling down several million dollars a year from your day job. You have the opportunity to head-up the EPA or the National Park Service. It is almost certain that your paycheck will shrink, and the Congressional committee investigating you may request you sell certain investments or other holdings to avoid conflict of interest concerns.

Folks, this is an uber-elite tax problem.

To ease your decision, the tax Code will allow you to sell your investments without paying any tax. To do so you are required to buy replacement securities within 60 days, and the non-taxed gain will reduce your basis in the new securities.

OBFUSCATION ALERT: To say it differently, your "basis" in the old securities sold will carry-over as your basis in the new securities.

By way, it is not necessary to have Congress to tell you to unload your investments. There is a more lenient "reasonably necessary" standard that might work for you. I am reasonably certain I could come up with some necessary argument so I would not pay tax.

While sweet, Section 1043 is not a complete escape clause. If you think about it, all you have done is delay the taxable gain until you sell the new securities. I suppose an escape clause is to die without selling, but I generally do not consider dying to be a viable tax strategy.

The numbers can add-up, though. It is estimated that Paul O'Neill, a former Treasury Secretary, sold approximately $100 million of Alcoa stock when he took the position. I do not know what the gain would have been (as we do not know the cost), but the tax he deferred must have been eye-opening.

By the way, you can get the same break by drawing a judicial appointment.

I do have a question: do you wonder why the politicos never mention Section 1043 whenever they rail against "tax breaks" used by wealthy people?

Nah, there is no wonder at all.

The Income Awakens

Despite the chatter of politicians, we are not soon filing income taxes on the back of a postcard. A major reason is the calculation of income itself. There can be reasonable dispute in calculating income, even for ordinary taxpayers and far removed from the rarified realms of the ultra-wealthy or the multinationals.    

How? Easy. Say you have a rental duplex. What depreciation period should you use for the property: 15 years? 25? 35? No depreciation at all? Something else?

And sometimes the reason is because the taxpayer knows just enough tax law to be dangerous.

Let’s talk about a fact pattern you do not see every day. Someone sells a principal residence – you know, a house with its $500,000 tax exclusion. There is a twist: they sell the house on a land contract. They collect on the contract for a few years, and then the buyer defaults. The house comes back.  

How would you calculate their income from a real estate deal gone bad?

You can anticipate it has something to do with that $500,000 exclusion.

Marvin DeBough bought a house on 80 acres of land. He bought it back in the 1960s for $25,000. In 2006 he sold it for $1.4 million. He sold it on a land contract.

COMMENT: A land contract means that the seller is playing bank. The buyer has a mortgage, but the mortgage is to the seller. To secure the mortgage, the seller retains the deed to the property, and the buyer does not receive the deed until the mortgage is paid off. This is in contrast to a regular mortgage, where the buyer receives the deed but the deed is subject to the mortgage. The reason that sellers like land contracts is because it is easier to foreclose in the event of nonpayment.

 

 DeBough had a gain of $657,796.

OBSERVATION: I know: $1.4 million minus $25,000 is not $657,796. Almost all of the difference was a step-up in basis when his wife passed away.  

DeBough excluded $500,000 of gain, as it was his principal residence. That resulted in taxable gain of $157,796. He was to receive $1.4 million. As a percentage, 11.27 cents on every dollar he receives ($157,796 divided by $1,400,000) would be taxable gain.

He received $505,000. Multiply that by 11.27% and he reported $56,920 as gain.

In 2009 the buyers defaulted and the property returned to DeBough. It cost him $3,723 in fees to reacquire the property. He then held on to the property.

What is DeBough’s income?

Here is his calculation:

Original gain		157,796
Reported to-date		(56,920)
Cost of foreclosure		(3,723)
		97,153

I don’t think so, said the IRS. Here is their calculation:

Cash received		505,000
Reported to-date		(56,920)
		448,080

DeBough was outraged. He wanted to know what the IRS had done with his $500,000 exclusion.

The IRS trotted out Section 1038(e):

         (e)  Principal residences.

If-

(1) subsection (a) applies to a reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence); and

(2)  within 1 year after the date of the reacquisition of such property by the seller, such property is resold by him,

then, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsections (b) , (c) , and (d) of this section shall not apply to the reacquisition of such property and, for purposes of applying section 121 , the resale of such property shall be treated as a part of the transaction constituting the original sale of such property.

DeBough was not happy about that “I year after the date of the reacquisition” language. However, he pointed out, it does not technically say that the $500,000 is NOT AVAILABLE if the property is NOT SOLD WITHIN ONE YEAR.

I give him credit. He is a lawyer by temperament, apparently.  DeBough could find actionable language on the back of a baseball card.

It was an uphill climb. Still, others have pulled it off, so maybe he had a chance.

The Court observed that there is no explanation in the legislative history why Congress limited the exclusion to sellers who resell within one year of reacquisition. Still, it seemed clear that Congress did in fact limit the exclusion, so the “why” was going to have to wait for another day.

DeBough lost his case. He owed tax.

And the Court was right. The general rule – when the property returned to DeBough – is that every dollar DeBough received was taxable income, reduced by any gain previously taxed and limited to the overall gain from the sale. DeBough was back to where he was before, except that he received $505,000 in the interim. The IRS wanted its cut of the $505,000.

Yes, Congress put an exception in there should the property be resold within one year. The offset – although unspoken – is that the seller can claim the $500,000 exclusion, but he/she claims it on the first sale, not the second. One cannot keep claiming the $500,000 over and over again on the same property.

Since Debough did not sell within one year, he will claim the $500,000 when he sells the property a second time.

When you look at it that way, he is not out anything. He will have his day, but that day has to wait until he sells the property again.

And there is an example of tax law. Congress put in an exception to a rule, but even the Court cannot tell you what Congress was thinking.

The Sale of "American Pie"

Did you see where Don McLean sold his original manuscript for “American Pie” at Christie’s? He sold the work for $1.2 million, and it included his handwritten notes and deletions from the 1971-72 hit that – at 8 ½ minutes – was the longest song to ever top the U.S. charts.

The song of course is famous for its allusions. The “day the music died” refers to the death of Buddy Holly, whereas “the king” supposedly refers to Elvis Presley while “the jester on the sidelines” refers to Bob Dylan after his motorcycle accident. It became an anthem to disillusionment, to the sense of our best days being behind us and the ennui and hopelessness of a society being carted off in the wrong direction.

Sounds eerily contemporary.

He explained that he had forgotten he had the manuscript. He found it in the proverbial old box that had survived several moves. The sale allowed him to provide for his family, now and into the future.

Yes, $1.2 million will do that.

So what are the tax consequences from the sale of his manuscript?

We are talking about intellectual property and a subset we will call creative properties.

For the most part, self-created properties cannot be a capital asset in the hands of its creator. This causes a problem, as one requires a capital asset if one wants capital gains.

Take it a step further. If someone else owns the asset but its tax basis (that is, its cost for purposes of calculating gain or loss) is determined by reference to the creator’s basis, then it cannot be a capital asset.  How can this happen? Easy. You could gift the property, for example, or you could contribute the property to a family limited partnership. In either case the recipient will “take over” your basis in the creative property. Since the basis remains the same, it cannot be a capital asset.

The vocabulary gets tricky when discussing creative property. For example, an author (say Stephen King) may receive a “royalty.” Coincidently, find oil in your backyard and chances are an oil company will also pay you a royalty. Since the word “royalty” is the same, are the tax consequences the same?

The answer is no. If you write a book or score a movie soundtrack, that royalty is probably ordinary income to you. In fact, it is reported on Schedule C of your individual tax return, the same as your self-employment income from Uber. The oil royalty, on the other hand, is reported on Schedule E, along with rents. The Schedule C royalty will trigger self-employment tax. The Schedule E will not. 

OBSERVATION: We have discussed before that sometimes a word will have different meanings as it travels through the tax Code. Here is an example.

As always, there are exceptions. Let’s say you write one book and never write again. The IRS will likely consider that to be ordinary income but not self-employment income. Why? Supposedly it takes two or more books to establish that you are in the trade or business of writing books.

OBSERVATION: I am curious how the IRS would apply this standard to Harper Lee. She published, you will recall, To Kill a Mockingbird in 1960. It was only this year that she published her second work (Go Set a Watchman) – 55 years later. What do you think: is this self-employment income or not?

Remember when Michael Jackson bought the catalog of Beatles music? He bought it as a non-alternative investment, akin to stocks and bonds. Like a stock or bond, Michael Jackson would have had capital gains had he sold the catalog.

This created a fuss among songwriters. If they sold their own compositions, they would have ordinary and self-employment income. Introduce Michael Jackson and the tax result transmuted to capital gains.

So Congress passed Section 1221(b)(3), which incorporated a provision from the Songwriter’s Capital Gains Equity Act, promoted by the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NASI). It extended capital gains to self-created music owned for more than one year. It requires an election, and the songwriter/creative can elect for one musical composition and not for another. It does require the transfer of a musical composition or a copyright in the same; transfer something less and the result defaults to ordinary income.

NASI argued that the industry had changed. By the 1990s many music artists were acting as their own publishers or co-publishers, meaning they had some control over the exploitation of their songs. Gone were the days of Hank Williams and Bill Monroe, when songwriters sold their songs outright to music publishers with no right to ongoing income.

Congress listened.

Don McLean now has a tax option that he did not have years ago when he recorded “American Pie.” I suppose that there could be a scenario where it would be more advantageous to recognize the $1.2 million as ordinary income rather than as capital gains, but I cannot easily think of any that do not require low-probability tax considerations.

I would say he is making the election.

Distinguishing Capital Gains From Ordinary Income

The holy grail of tax planning is to get to a zero tax rate. That is a rare species. I have seen only one repeatable fact pattern in the last few years leading to a zero tax rate, and that pattern involved not making much money. You can guess that there isn’t much demand for a tax strategy that begins with “you cannot make a lot of money….”

The next best plan is capital gains. There is a difference in tax rates between ordinary income (up to 39.6%) and capital gains (up to 20%). A tax geek could muddy the water by including phase-outs (such as itemized deductions or personal exemptions), the 15% capital gains rate (for incomes below $457,600 if you are married) or the net investment income tax (3.8%), but let’s limit our discussion just to the 20% versus 39.6% tax rates. You can bet that a lot of tax alchemy goes into creating capital gains at the expense of ordinary income.

The tax literature is littered with cases involving the sale of land and capital gains. If you or I sell a piece of raw land, it is almost incontrovertibly a capital gain. Let’s say that you are a developer, however, and make your living selling land. The answer changes, as land is inventory for you, the same as that flat screen TV is inventory for Best Buy.

Let’s say that I see you doing well, and you motivate me to devote less energy to tax practice and more to real estate. At what point do I become a developer like you: after my second sale, after my first million dollars, or is it something else?

The tax Code comes in with Section 1221(a), which defines a capital asset by exclusion: every asset is a capital asset unless the Code says otherwise.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include—

(1)  stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business;

Let’s take Section 1221(a)(1) out for a spin, shall we? Let’s talk about Long, and you tell me whether we have a capital asset or not.

Philip Long lives in Florida, which immediately strikes me as a good idea as we go into winter here. From 1994 to 2006 he operated a sole proprietorship by the name of Las Olas Tower Company (LOTC). Long had a drive and desire to build a high-rise condominium, which he was going to call Las Olas Tower.

He is going to build a condo, make millions and sit on a beach.

Problem: he doesn’t own the land on which to put the condo. Solution: He has to buy the land.

He finds someone with land, and that someone is Las Olas Riverside Hotel (LORH). LORC and LORH are not the same people, by the way, although “Las Olas” seems a popular name down there. Long enters into an agreement to buy land owned by LORH.

Long steps up his involvement: he is reviewing designs with an architect, obtaining government permits and approval, distributing promotional materials, meeting with potential customers. The ground hasn’t even been cleared or graded and he has twenty percent of the condo units under contract. Long is working it.

LORH gets cold feet and decides not to sell the land.

Yipes! Considering that Long needs to land on which to erect the condo, this presents an issue. He does the only thing he can do: he sues for specific performance. He needs that land.

He is also running out of cash. A friend of his lends money to another company owned by Long to keep this thing afloat. Long is juggling. Who knows how much longer Long can keep the balls in the air?

In November, 2005 Long wins his case. The Court gives LORH 326 days to comply with the sales agreement.

But this has taken its toll on Long. He wants out. Let someone finish the lawsuit, buy the land, erect the condo, make the sales. Long has had enough. He meets someone who takes this thing off his hands for $5,750,000. He sells what he has, mess and all. 

    QUESTION: Is this ordinary or capital gain income?

The difference means approximately $1.4 million in tax, so give it some thought.

The closer Long gets to being a developer the closer he gets to a maximum tax rate. The Courts have looked at the Winthrop case, which provides factors for divining someone’s primary purpose for holding real property. The factors include:

1. The purpose for acquisition of property
2. The extent of developing the property            
3. The extent of the taxpayer’s efforts to sell

The Tax Court looked and saw that Long had a history of developing land, had hired an architect, obtained permits and government approvals and had even gotten sales contracts on approximately 20% of the to-be-built condo units. A developer has ordinary income. Long was a developer. Long had ordinary income.

Is this the answer you expected?

It wasn’t the answer Long expected. He appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

What were the grounds for appeal?

Think about Long’s story. There is no denying that a developer subdivides, improves and sells real estate. Long was missing a crucial ingredient however: he did not have any real estate to sell. All he had was a contract to buy, which is not the same thing. In fact, when he cashed out he still did not have real estate. He had won a case ordering someone to sell real estate, but the sale had not yet occurred.

The IRS did not see it that way. As far as they were concerned, Long had found a pot of gold, and that gold was ordinary income under the assignment of income doctrine. That doctrine says that you cannot sell a right to money (think a lottery winning, for example) and convert ordinary income to capital gains. You cannot sell your winning lottery ticket and get capital gains, because if you had just collected the lottery winnings you would have had ordinary income. All you did was “assign” that ordinary income to someone else.

The problem with the IRS point of view is that someone still had to buy the land, finish the permit process, clear and grade, erect a building, form a condo association, market the condos, sell individual units and so on. Long wasn’t going to do it. There was the potential there to make money, but the money truck had not yet backed into Long’s loading dock. Long was not selling profit had had already earned, because nothing had yet been “earned.”

Long won his day in Appeals Court.

He had ordinary income in Tax Court and then he had capital gains in Appeals Court.

Even the pros can have a hard time telling the difference sometimes.