A Psychiatrist, Chauffer, Physician, Peace Officer, Pheasant Hunter

 

He said that his patients often called him a psychiatrist, chauffer, physician, peace officer, or even a pheasant hunter.”

He is David Laudon, a chiropractor in Minnesota and the subject of one of the more entertaining Tax Court opinions of the last decade. Laudon, however, reached too far for too long, and he was about to learn about snapback.

Back to the Court:

But not a ghostbuster. The Commissioner rhetorically asserted that some of Laudon’s trips might have made more sense if he was claiming to be a ghostbuster. Laudon then disclaimed any employment as a ghostbuster. In his reply brief the Commissioner conceded that Laudon was not ‘employed or under contract to perform work as a ghostbuster during the tax years at issue in this case.’”

Methinks Laudon missed the joke.

How did Laudon get to court?

Easy: he was audited for years 2007 through 2009.

His records were … colorful, humorous, inadequate.

Laudon did not keep records of his income in any decipherable form.”

The IRS did a reconstruction of his business income by analyzing his bank accounts. The rule of thumb is straightforward: all deposits are income unless one can prove otherwise. A common otherwise is when a taxpayer transfers money between accounts.

Laudon contends that the Commissioner failed to classify certain deposits as nontaxable, including insurance payments for damage to several vehicles, one of which was involved in a ‘high speed police chase’ with a man ‘high on meth and cocaine.’”

There is something you do not see every day. The other thing the Court did not see was “any evidence” that the deposits were what and as Laudon described.

We therefore accept the Commissioner’s reconstruction of income.”

On to deductions.

He treats some of his patients in his home and claims to use roughly half of his house – the basement and half of the garage – for business.”

This could be a problem. Rember that an office in home deduction requires exclusive business use of the space. He claimed a lot of space, ratcheting the pressure on “exclusive.”

Like many chiropractic offices, Laudon’s has beds, tables, and a waiting area. But unlike most, his also comes equipped with a Wii, Xbox 360, big-screen TVs and, for a time, a working hair salon.”

Hair salon? What kind of chiropractic office is this?

I see that Laudon represented himself at Tax Court. I would also guess that he represented himself during the audit. Why do I say that?

We particularly disbelieve his claim that the Xbox, Wii, big-screen TVs and other electronics in his basement were used exclusively for chiropractic purposes since this claim conflicts with his much more plausible admission to the IRS examiner during audit that his daughter and his girlfriend’s son would play these video games while he was on the phone.”

There is an example of why I almost never have a client meet or speak directly with the IRS – I cannot control the exchange.

Laudon was deducting between 40,000 and 60,000 miles per year for business purposes.

.. for example, driving to a ‘schizophrenic’ patient who was – on more than one occasion – ‘running scared of demons’ down a rural Minnesota highway .…”

That last part should be incorporated into a folk or country song. I can almost hear the melody.

Laudon apparently had a penchant for adult beverages.

Laudon claimed to have driven hundreds of miles per day – sometimes without a valid license ….”

I’ll bite. What happened to his license?

Even his testimony about multiple entries in the logs where he wrote “DUI” was not credible: He claimed that these were not references to being stopped by the police while under the influence, or driving while his license was suspended .…”

Then what were they?

They “instead were his misspellings of a patient named: 'Dewey' - a supposed patient of his.'"

This is starting to read like a sit com script. I am waiting for the reference to tiger blood.

But he had a mileage log, right? Did that count for anything?

Laudon had a mileage log, but it fails to meet section 274(d)’s standards. The … entry, for example, describes his purpose as ‘travel to and from places.’”

Zen-like. Nice.

The Court also looked at other expenses, including “Other Expenses” for the three years under audit.

Most of this amount - $22,665 – was a deduction for the value of Laudon’s labor, supplies and stolen goods ….”

Wait on it.

… related to the renovation of a home that Laudon neither lived nor worked in, or even owned.”

It fits. Well done, sir.

Laudon was getting clipped on almost every deduction.

But wait.

You know the IRS wanted penalties.

Laudon asserts the defense that he reasonably relied on the advice of a tax professional.”

Yep, that is a defense, but you must use a tax professional, provide all information – good or bad – to the professional and actually rely on the professional.

Moreover, while he claimed to have brought all of his receipts to H&R Block along with his summaries, he later stated that his preparers didn’t want him to just walk in with his receipts and have them add it up ….”

Folks, accountants do not add up grocery bags of receipts. Considering that the profession usually bills based on work time, I doubt you want to pay someone for adding up your receipts.

The Court was direct:

We don’t need to address the …. because we don’t believe that Laudon provided ‘necessary and accurate information’ to his advisor.”

At this point, the Court did not believe anything Laudon was saying.

Having blinded H&R Block to the details and peculiarities of his chiropractic enterprise, Laudon cannot now claim that he relied on H&R Block’s advice. We sustain the penalty.”

Our case this time was David William Laudon v Commissioner. T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-54.

If you read only one, make it this one.

The Importance of Marking A Return As “Final”

I have worked tax controversy for many years now. I have seen the system work well; I have seen the system work poorly. I would say – with some generosity – that the system has been on the downslope for several years now.

It may be as simple as a tax notice.

It may be – even more simply – failing to indicate that a particular tax filing is a “Final.” Perhaps the business has been sold or closed. Maybe the company discontinued a line of business and will no longer have that specific filing. Maybe the company is reorganizing to another state and will not have the origin state’s filing anymore. There can be a host of reasons for a final.

I am looking at one involving Albertina Camaclang doing business as “Europa Guest Home,” which we will abbreviate as “EGH.”

EGH was a small residential care facility in California. She sold the business in 2002. She however never marked “final” on her Form 941, which is the form to report (and remit) federal withholding and social security payroll taxes.

Sixteen years later (16, you read that correctly) there was a dispute. The IRS said they mailed a notice to EGH informing that they had never received Forms 941 for 2008.

COMMENT: Six years after the sale.

EGH said it never received the IRS notice.

And the IRS could not produce a copy of the letter nor proof that it was mailed.

But the IRS did kindly prepare Forms 941 showing unpaid liabilities of over $600 thousand. These are referred to a “substitutes for return” or “SFRs.” It is generally preferable to file a return rather than allow the IRS to prepare an SFR. The IRS is not concerned with deductions, for one thing. We are not told what EGH’s annual 941 liability was back in the day, a useful bit of information as we weigh the $600 grand.

The IRS filed liens.

COMMENT: Yep, predictable.

Off to Tax Court.

We are now in 2019. EGH hired a tax lawyer. The lawyer requested a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. EGH’s defense was straightforward: the business was sold long before 2008.

Go to 2020, and a settlement officer (SO) was assigned to the case.

And there was this:

The settlement officer learned of a parallel criminal investigation into petitioner, which delayed further work into the case. On February 15, 2023, the IRS lifted the suspension, and the settlement officer resumed work on the matter.”

OK then.

The SO wanted to schedule a conference with EGH on March 24, 2023. The SO also wanted paperwork to substantiate the sale of the business as well as original tax returns (meaning the 941s) for 2008.

COMMENT: Easiest tax returns ever: zero all the way down.

EGH requested access to its administrative file. This delayed the conference to June 5, 2023.

Which the IRS wanted later to reschedule. How about July 13^th?

EGH responded on July 19^th, explaining that it had received the notice that very day.

Back to rescheduling.

Mind you, EGH still had not provided documentation on the sale of the business.

COMMENT: I would have led with that documentation. I cannot help but wonder if something was afoot, which is how IRS CID had gotten involved.

The attorney finally provided the SO with a grant deed showing sale of the real estate.

COMMENT: What about the business located on that real estate, counselor?

The SO wanted to know why EGH filed Forms 941 for 2004 and 2005 if it was sold in 2002.

COMMENT: So do I.

The attorney argued that the IRS prepared these returns fraudulently.

COMMENT: Interesting persuasion skills being flashed there.

In the alternative, the attorney argued that the accountant was an idiot and incorrectly filed another entity’s return as EGH.

And here is an understated sentence:

While discussing these discrepancies, there was a ‘breakdown’ in communication between petitioner’s counsel and the settlement officer.”

To be a fly on the wall.

On August 29, 2023, a new settlement officer ….

I will interrupt here. I have practiced procedure for decades. I have never – barring illness or something like that – replaced an SO midstream. I am getting the impression that the most interesting parts of the story were not written down.

On August 29, 2023, the new SO reached out to explain why the IRS had filed SFRs and liens to back them up.

COMMENT: Self-serving, but OK.

The new SO requested new signed returns reporting zero liability filed by September 5,2023.

COMMENT: I would file them that very afternoon and end this nightmare.

On August 30, 2023, the IRS sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the returns. The IRS also enclosed Form 12257 Summary Notice of Determination and Waiver of Judicial Review.

EGH declined to sign the 12257.

The SO said fine. The IRS would nonetheless issue a notice of determination indicating a zero balance.

The IRS closed the file on September 1, 2023.

The IRS released the liens on October 27,2023.

The Tax Court closed the case.

COMMENT: I do not understand the reluctance to sign the 12257. Granted, one would lose certain procedural rights (such as the right to appeal), but EGH got everything it wanted: tax reduced to zero, interest and penalties likewise reduced to zero, liens released. What was left to fight over?

On October 6, 2023, EGH filed with the Tax Court for a review of the notice of determination.

COMMENT: Why? Let me keep reading…. EGH wanted reimbursement of approximately $50,000 for its litigation costs.

Folks, it does not work this way. The Tax Court had already decided and closed the case. EGH now wanted the Tax Court to resurrect the matter (the word is “vacate.”). Please stop already.

Would you believe that the Tax Court agreed to vacate?

EGH got its day. It now had to prove certain things – including being the prevailing party – to obtain reimbursement of its litigation costs.

EGH had pushed too far.

Remember: EGH had delayed at every turn. 

Here is the Court:

Petitioner is not the prevailing party. Accordingly, we need not consider whether petitioner unreasonably protracted proceedings or claimed ‘reasonable costs.’ Petitioner is not entitled to administrative or litigation costs.”

Our case this time was Albertina Camaclang d.b.a Europa Guest Home, Docket No. 15761-23L, filed April 23, 2025.

IRS Gets Called Out In Offer In Compromise Case

 

I am looking at an offer in compromise (OIC) case.

These cases are almost futile for a taxpayer, as the Tax Court extends broad deference to the IRS in its analysis of and determinations on OICs. To win requires one to show that the IRS acted in bad faith.

COMMENT: I have soured on OICs as the years have gone by. Those commercials for “pennies on the dollar” stir unreasonable expectations and do not help. OICs are designed for people who have experienced a reversal of fortune - illness, unemployment, disability, or whatnot – which affect their ability to pay their taxes. It is not meant for someone who is irresponsible or inexplicably unfettered by decency or the responsibilities of the human condition. Not too long ago, for example, one of the clients wanted us to pursue an OIC, as he has racked up impressive tax debt but has no cash. I refused to be involved. Why? Because his cash is going to construct a $2-plus million dollar home. I am very pro-taxpayer, but this is not that. Were it up to me, we would fire him as a client.

Let’s look at the Whittaker case.

Mr. W is a veteran and was a self-employed personal trainer. Mrs. W worked in a local school district and had a side gig as a mall security guard. They were also very close to retirement.

The Ws owed everybody, it seems: a mortgage, student loans, the IRS, the state of Minnesota and so on.

In 2018 the IRS sent a notice of intent to levy.

The Ws requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing.

COMMENT: The Ws were represented by the University of Minnesota tax clinic, giving students a chance to represent clients before the IRS and courts.

The IRS of course wanted numbers: the Form 433 paperwork detailing income, expenses, assets, debt and so forth.

The Ws owed the IRS approximately $33 grand. The clinic calculated their reasonable collection potential as $1,629. They submitted a 20% payment of $325.80, per the rules, along with their OIC.

In the offer, the Ws stressed that their age and difficult financial situation meant that soon they would have to rely on retirement savings as a source of income rather than as a nest egg. Their house was in disrepair and had an unusual mortgage, meaning that it was extremely unlikely it could be refinanced to free up cash.

The IRS has a unit - the Centralized Offer in Compromise unit – that stepped in next. Someone at the unit calculated the Ws’ RCP as $250,000, which is wildly different from $1,629. The unit spoke with representatives at the clinic about the bad news. The clinic in turn emphasized special circumstances that the Ws brought to the table.  

That impasse transferred the OIC file to Appeals.

It was now March 2020.

Remember what happened in March 2020?

COVID.

The two sides finally spoke in September.

Appeals agreed with an RCP of $250 grand. The Settlement Officer (SO) figured that the Ws could draw retirement monies to pay-off the IRS.

Meanwhile Mr. W had retired and Mrs. W was gigging at the mall only two weekends a month.

The SO was not changing her mind. She figured that Mrs. W must have a pension from the school. She also surmised that Mr. W’s military pension must be $2,253 per month rather than $1,394. How did she know all this? Magic, I guess.

The W’s argued that they could not borrow against the house. They had refinanced it under something called the Home Affordability Refinance Program, which helps homeowners owing more than their house is worth. A ballon payment was due in 2034, and refinancing a house that is underwater is nearly impossible.

This did not concern the SO. She saw an assessed value of $243,000 on the internet, subtracted an $85 thousand mortgage, which left plenty of cash. The W’s pointed out that there was deferred maintenance on the house – a LOT of deferred maintenance. Between the impossible mortgage and the deferred maintenance, the house should be valued – they argued – at zero.

Nope, said the SO. The Ws could access their retirement to pay the tax. They did not have to involve the house, so the mortgage and deferred maintenance was a nonfactor. She then cautioned the W’s not to withdraw retirement monies for any reason other than the IRS. If they did so, she would consider the assets as “dissipated.” That is a bad thing.

Off to Tax Court they went. Remember my comment earlier: low chance of success. What choice did the Ws have? At least they were well represented by the tax clinic.

The Court saw three key issues.

Retirement Account

The W’s led off with a great argument:

 

  

This is Internal Revenue Manual 5.8.5.10, which states that a taxpayer within one year of retirement may have his/her retirement account(s) treated as income rather than as an asset. This is critical, as it means the IRS should not force someone to empty their 401(k) to pay off tax debt.

The SO was unmoved. The IRM says that the IRS “may” but does not say “must.”

Yep, that is the warm and fuzzy we expect from the IRS.

The Court acknowledged:

We see no erroneous view of the law and no clearly erroneous assessment of facts.”

But the Court was not pleased with the IRS:

But there may be a problem for the Commissioner – this reasoning didn’t make it into the notice of determination …”

The “notice of determination” comment is the Court saying the files were sloppy. The IRS must do certain things in a certain order, especially with OICs. Sloppy won’t cut it.

Home Equity

The W’s had offered to provide additional information on the loan terms, the deferred repairs to the house, the unwillingness of the banks to refinance.

The IRS worked from assessed values.

It is like the two were talking past each other.

Here is the Court:

The IRS does need to take problems with possible refinancing a home seriously.”

The Whittakers have a point – there’s nothing in the administrative record that states or even suggests that the examiner at the Unit or the settlement officer during the CDP hearing asked for any information in addition to the appraised value.”

There is no evidence in the record of any consideration of the Whittakers’ arguments on this point.”

Oh, oh.

Here is the first slam:

We therefore find that the settlement officer’s conclusion about the Whittaker’s ability to tap the equity in their home was clearly erroneous on this record. This makes her reliance on that equity in her RCP calculations an abuse of discretion.”

COVID

The W’s had alerted the IRS that Mr. W had completely retired and Mrs. W was working only two weekends a month. The SO disregarded the matter, reasoning that the W’s had enough pension income to compensate.

Which pension, you ask? Would that include the pension the SO unilaterally increased from $1,394 to $2,253 monthly?

The Commissioner now concedes that the settlement officer was mistaken, and that Mr. Whittaker had a military pension of only $1,394 per month.”

Oops.

There was the second slam.

The IRS – perhaps embarrassed – went on to note that the Mall of America opened after being COVID-closed for three months. Speaking of COVID, the lockdown had inspired a nationwide surge in demand for fitness equipment. Say …, wasn’t Mr. W a personal fitness trainer?

The Court erupted:

Upholding the rejection of the Whittakers’ offer because Mrs. Whittaker’s mall job may have resumed or Mr. Whittaker might be able to run a training business using potential clients’ possible pandemic purchases is entirely speculative.”

True that.

The settlement officer ‘did not think that the loss of the Whittaker’s wage income or self-employment income … sufficiently mattered to justify reworking the Offer Worksheet.’”

The Court was getting heated.

The settlement officer’s explicit refusal to rework the worksheet despite the very considerable discrepancy in the calculation before and after the pandemic is a clear error and thus an abuse of discretion.”

The Court remanded the matter back to IRS Appeals with clear instructions to get it right. It explicitly told the IRS to consider the material change in the Ws’ circumstances – changes that happened during the CDP hearing itself - and their ability to pay.

We said earlier “almost futile.” We did not say futile. The Ws won and are headed back to IRS Appeals to revisit the OIC.

Our case this time was Whittaker v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-59.

The Augusta Rule And Renting To Yourself

I came across the Augusta rule recently.

This is Code section 280A(g), the tax provision that allows one to rent their home for less than 15 days per year without paying tax on the income. It got its name from the famous Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. There would not be sufficient housing during the Masters without participation by local homeowners. The section has been with us since the 1970s.

There are requirements, of course:

(1)  The property must be in the U.S.

(2)  The property needs to be a residence. Mind you, it does not need to be your primary residence. It can be a second home. Or a third home, if you are so fortunate.

(3)  The house cannot be a place of business.

a.    The Augusta rule does not work well with an office-in-home, for example.

(4)  Rental expenses (excluding expenses such as mortgage interest and taxes which are deductible irrespective of any rental) become nondeductible.

(5)  A proprietorship (or disregarded single-member LLC) does not qualify. Mind you, a corporation you wholly own will qualify, but your proprietorship will not.

a.    Another way to say this is that both the rental income and expense cannot show up on the same tax return.

(6)  The rent must be reasonable.

(7)  There must be a business purpose for the rental.

Tax advisors long ago realized that they could leverage the Augusta rule if the homeowner also owned a business. How? Have the business rent the house from the homeowner for less than 15 days over a rolling 12-month period.

Can it work?

Sure.

Will the IRS challenge it?

Let’s look at a recent case to see a common IRS challenge to Augusta-rule rentals.

Two anesthesiologists and an orthopedic representative owned Planet LA, LLC (Planet). Planet in turn owned several Planet Fitness franchises in Louisiana. It opened its first one in 2013 and was up to five by 2017 when it sold all its franchises.

The three shareholders had issues with regular business meetings because of work schedules and distance. Beginning in 2015 they decided to have regular meetings at their residences. Planet would pay rent (of course), which varied in amount until it eventually settled on $3,000 per month to each shareholder.

One of the advantages of having three shareholders was being able to apply the Augusta rule to three houses. If you think about it, this allowed Planet to have up to 42 meetings annually without voiding the day count for any one residence.

Let’s do some quick math.

$3,000 x 3 shareholders x 14 meetings = $126,000

Planet could deduct up to $126,000 and the shareholders would report no rental income.

Sweet.

The IRS wanted to look at this.

Of course.

The first IRS challenge: show us agendas and notes for each meeting.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners failed to produce any credible evidence of what business was conducted at such meetings, and their testimony was vague and unconvincing regarding the meetings.”

Oh, oh.

The second challenge: the revenue agent researched local rental rates for meeting space. He determined that one could rent space accommodating up to 1,200 people for $500 per day.

The shareholders could not prove otherwise.

Here is the Court:

While petitioners argue that the $500 rent determined by … was not reasonable, we disagree and find to the contrary that $500 allowed per month is actually generous.”

This was almost too easy for the IRS.

·      Prove the number of meetings.

·      Multiply that number by $500.

The IRS allowed Planet rent deductions as follows:

          2017           none, as no meetings were proven

          2018           12 meetings times $500 = $6,000

          2019           9 meetings times $500 = $4,500

The shareholders had deducted $290,900 over three years.

The IRS allowed $10,500.

Yep, that is an IRS adjustment of over $280 grand over three years, with minimal effort by the IRS.

And that is how the IRS goes after the Augusta rule in a self-rental context.

The takeaway?

The Augusta rule can work, but you want to document and substantiate everything.

You want to have agendas for every meeting, perhaps followed up with minutes of the same.

Be careful (and reasonable) with the rental rate. This is not VRBO. You are renting a portion of a house, not the full house. You are renting for a portion of a day, not for days or weeks. You cannot just look up weekly house rentals online and divide them by seven. Those rental rates are for a different use and not necessarily comparable to business use of the residence.

You may want to formally invoice the business.

You want to pay the rent from the business bank account.

Our case this time was Sinopoli et al v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-105.

Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).

 

A House And A Specialized Trust

I saw a QPRT here at Galactic Command recently,

It had been a while. These things are not as common in a low interest rate environment.

A QPRT (pronounced “cue-pert”) is a specialized trust. It holds a primary or secondary residence and – usually – that is it.

Why in the world would someone do this?

 I’ll give you a common example: to own a second home.

Let’s say that you have a second home, perhaps a lake or mountain home. The children and grandchildren congregate there every year (say summer for a lake home or the holidays for a mountain home), and you would like for this routine and its memories to continue after you are gone.

A couple of alternatives come immediately to mind:  

(1)  You can bequeath the property under will when you die.

(2)  You can gift the property now.

Each has it pros and cons.

(1) The property could continue to appreciate. If you have significant other assets, this appreciation could cause or exacerbate potential estate taxes down the road.

(2) You enjoy having and using the property and are not quite ready to part with it. You might be ready years from now - you know: when you are “older.”

A QPRT might work. Here is what happens:

(1) You create an irrevocable trust.

a.    Irrevocable means that you cannot undo the trust. There are no backsies.

(2) You transfer a residence to the trust.

a.    The technique works better if there is no mortgage on the property. For one thing, if there is a mortgage, you must get money into the trust to make the mortgage payment. Hint: it can be a mess.

(3) You reserve the right to use the property for a period of years.

a.    This is where the fancy planning comes in.

b.    It starts off with the acknowledgement that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar a year (or years) from now. This is the “time value of money.”

c.    At some point in time the property is going to the kids and grandkids, but … not … right …now.     

d.    If the property is worth a million dollars today, the time value of money tells us that the gift (that is, when the property goes to the kids and grandkids) must be less than a million dollars.  

e.    There is a calculation here to figure out the amount of the gift. There are three key variables:

                                               i.     The age of the person making the gift

                                             ii.     The trust term

                                           iii.     An interest rate

A critical requirement of a QPRT is that you must outlive the trust term. The world doesn’t end if you do not (well, it does end for you), but the trust itself goes “poof.” Taxwise, it would be as if you never created a trust at all.

(4) There is a mortality consideration implicit here. The math is not the same for someone aged 50 compared to someone aged 90.

(5) Your retained right of use is the same thing as the trust term. You probably lean toward this period being as long as possible (if a dollar a year from now is worth less than a dollar today, imagine a dollar ten years from now!). That reduces the amount of the gift, which is good, but remember that you must outlive the trust term. There is push-and-pull here, and trust terms of 10 to 15 years are common.

We also need an interest rate to pull this sled. The government fortunately provides this rate.

But let’s go sidebar for a moment.

Let’s say you need to put away enough money today to have $5 a year from now. You put it in a bank CD, so the only help coming is the interest the CD will pay. Let’s say the CD pays 2%. How much do you have to put away today?

·      $5 divided by (100% + 2%) = $4.90

OK.

How much do you have to put away if the CD pays 6%?

·      $5 divided by (100% + 6%) = $4.72

It makes sense if you think about it. If the interest rate increases, then it is doing more of the heavy lifting to get you to $5. Another way to say this is that you need to put less away today, because the higher interest is picking up the slack.

Let’s flip this.

Say the money you are putting in the CD constitutes a gift. How much is your gift in the first example?

$4.90

How much is your gift in the second example?

$4.72

Your gift is less in the second example.

The amount of your gift goes down as interest rates go up.

What have interest rates been doing recently?

Rising, of course.

That makes certain interest-sensitive tax strategies more attractive.

Strategies like a QPRT.

Which explains why I had not seen any for a while.

Let me point out something subtle about this type of trust.

·      What did we say was the amount of the gift in the above examples?

·      Either $4.90 or $4.72, depending.

·      When did the gift occur?

·      When the trust was funded.

·      When do the kids and grandkids take over the property?

·      Years down the road.

·      How can you have a gift now when the property doesn’t transfer until years from now?

·      It’s tax magic.

But what it does is freeze the value of that house for purposes of the gift. The house could double or triple in value before it passes to the kids and grandkids without affecting the amount of your gift. That math was done upfront and will not change.

A couple of more nerd notes:

(6) We are also going to make the QPRT a “grantor” trust. This means that we have introduced language somewhere in the trust document so that the IRS does not consider the QPRT to be a “real” trust, at least for income tax purposes. Since it is not a “real” trust, it does not file a “real” income tax return. If so, how and where do the trust numbers get reported to the IRS? They will be reported on the grantor’s tax return (hence “grantor trust”). In this case, the grantor is the person who created the QPRT.

(7)  What happens after 10 (or 15 or whatever) years? Will the trust just kick you out of the house?

Nah, but you will have to pay fair-market rent when you use the place. It is not worst case.

There are other considerations with QPRTs – like selling the place, qualifying for the home sale exclusion, and forfeiting the step-up upon the grantor’s death. We’ll leave those topics for another day, though.