A Horse Activity And Owning A Horse

Her story has been out there for a while.

I did a quick search and found that she appeared before the Tax Court in 2013. She was back in 2015 and now again in 2019.

Her name is Denise Celeste McMillan (McMillan), and she has to do with horses.

In the tax world, horses have to do with hobby losses.

Let’s take a moment on what that term means.

Let’s say that you take on a side gig. It is arguable how serious you are about the gig, but there is no argument that you are losing money doing it.

And you keep losing money … year after year.

The first thing you or I would ask is: why? The second question would be: how are you affording to do this?

There you have the two issues at the heart of a hobby loss challenge:

(1) Are you running your gig as a business? If the gig is lagging, a business owner would do something: market more effectively, swap-out products offered for sale, move to another location with better traffic, maybe even close the business and try something else.

(2) How can you afford this? Maybe you sold your business for huge bucks and are now following your lifelong dream of collecting every Ukrainian comic title printed from the 1950s through the 1970s. It is not a lucrative business, but it has a loyal following. You can afford to live the dream because of that big-bucks thing.

McMillan definitely loves horses. She started riding at age four and started formal lessons at age nine. She won numerous awards. She started a specialized business, taking difficult horses on consignment. She would retrain them and later sell them at a profit.

Sounds interesting.

She normally kept between one and six horses.

The more the better, methinks.

She went through a difficult stretch (ten years) owning just own horse (Goldrush).  Goldrush had issues and did not compete, show or breed.

Not good.

In 2007 she sent Goldrush to Australia to stand at stud.

That should get the revenues going again, hopefully.

In 2008 and two months after arriving in Australia, Goldrush died.

Wow.

I guess she will have to get another horse or few and restart.

She did not.

What she did however is keep deducting horse-related expenses.

And now we have her third trip to Tax Court.

She says she has a business.

The IRS says she does not.

What do you think?

Here is the Court:

We believe Ms. McMillan when she says that she’s been continuously involved with horses since the 1970s. But her last horse died in 2008, at which point she hadn’t shown or bred in a decade. We therefore find that if her horse activity was ever a trade or business, that trade or business ended before 2010, and in that year she was at most looking at starting anew.”

The Court is being diplomatic here. It is saying that her previous activity had ended, but perhaps another had taken its place.

So the question is: had she started a new activity after the death of Goldrush?

Remember that in tax-speak, an activity requires “regular and continuous” involvement. It does not have to be a 24/7 thing, but it does have to be more than “someday isle” dreamweaving over beers with a friend.

Ms. McMillan’s ‘horse breeding/showing’ business hadn’t actually commenced or resumed by the end of 2010.”        

Guess not. The best she could get would be start-up expenses, to be deducted over time once that business in fact started.

The moral of story seems clear: if you want to say that you are in the horse business, you may want to own a horse.

Tax Mulligans and Tennessee Walking Horses

Here is the Court:

While a taxpayer is fee to organize [her] affairs as [she] chooses, nevertheless once having done so, [she] must accept the tax consequences of her choice, whether contemplated or not, and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route [she] might have chosen to follow but did not.”

This is the tax equivalent of “you made your bed, now lie in it.” The IRS reserves the right to challenge how you structure a transaction, but – once decided – you yourself are bound by your decision. 

Let’s talk about Stuller v Commissioner.  They were appealing a District Court decision.

The Stullers lived in Illinois, and they owned several Steak ‘n Shake franchises. Apparently they did relatively well, as they raised Tennessee walking horses. In 1985 they decided to move their horses to warmer climes, so they bought a farm in Tennessee. They entered into an agreement with a horse trainer addressing prize monies, breeding, ownership of foals and so on.

In 1992 they put the horse activity into an S corporation.

They soon needed a larger farm, so they purchased a house and 332 acres (again in Tennessee) for $800,000. They did not put the farm into the S corporation but rather kept it personally and charged the farm rent.

So far this is routine tax planning.

Between 1994 and 2005, the S corporation lost money, except for 1997 when it reported a $1,500 profit. All in all, the Stullers invested around $1.5 million to keep the horse activity afloat.

Let’s brush up on S corporations. The “classic” corporations – like McDonald’s and Pfizer – are “C” corporations. These entities pay tax on their profits, and when they pay what is left over (that is, pay dividends) their shareholders are taxed again.  The government loves C corporations. It is the tax gift that keeps giving and giving.

However C corporations have lost favor among entrepreneurs for the same reason the government loves them. Generally speaking, entrepreneurs are wagering their own money – at least at the start. They are generally of different temperament from the professional managers that run the Fortune 500. Entrepreneurs have increasingly favored S corporations over the C, as the S allows one level of income tax rather than two. In fact, while S corporations file a tax return, they themselves do not pay federal income tax (except in unusual circumstances).  The S corporation income is instead reported by the shareholders, who combine it with their own W-2s and other personal income and then pay tax on their individual tax returns.

Back to the Stullers.

They put in $1.5 million over the years and took a tax deduction for the same $1.5 million.

Somewhere in there this caught the IRS’ attention.

The IRS wanted to know if the farm was a real business or just somebody’s version of collecting coins or baseball cards. The IRS doesn’t care if you have a hobby, but it gets testy when you try to deduct your hobby. The IRS wants your hobby to be paid for with after-tax money.

So the IRS went after the Stullers, arguing that their horse activity was a hobby. An expensive hobby, granted, but still a hobby.

There is a decision grid of sorts that the courts use to determine whether an activity is a business or a hobby. We won’t get into the nitty gritty of it here, other than to point out a few examples:

·        Has the activity ever shown a profit?

·        Is the profit anywhere near the amount of losses from the activity?

·        Have you sought professional advice, especially when the activity starting losing buckets of money?

·        Do you have big bucks somewhere else that benefits from a tax deduction from this activity?

It appears the Stullers were rocking high income, so they probably could use the deduction. Any profit from the activity was negligible, especially considering the cumulative losses. The Court was not amused when they argued that land appreciation might bail-out the activity.

The Court decided the Stullers had a hobby, meaning NO deduction for those losses. This also meant there was a big check going to the IRS.

Do you remember the Tennessee farm?

The Stullers rented the farm to the S corporation. The S corporation would have deducted the rent. The Stullers would have reported rental income. It was a wash.

Until the hobby loss.

The Stullers switched gears and argued that they should not be required to report the rental income. It was not fair. They did not get a deduction for it, so to tax it would be to tax phantom income. The IRS cannot tax phantom income, right?

And with that we have looped back to the Court’s quote from National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co. at the beginning of this blog.

Uh, yes, the Stullers had to report the rental income.

Why? An S corporation is different from its shareholders. Its income might ultimately be taxed on an individual return, but it is considered a separate tax entity. It can select accounting periods, for example, and choose and change accounting methods. A shareholder cannot override those decisions on his/her personal return. Granted, 99 times out of 100 a shareholder’s return will change if the S corporation itself changes. This however was that one time.

Perhaps had they used a single-member LLC, which the tax Code disregards and considers the same as its member, there might have been a different answer.

But that is not what the Stullers did. They now have to live with the consequences of that decision.

Civil War Horses, Con Men and Lois Lerner

I think I have been insulted.

I am reading this morning that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is hearing the IRS appeal of the Loving decision.  That decision concerned the recent effort by the IRS to regulate tax preparers, and the IRS lost the case. There were three parts to the IRS effort:

• a unique preparer identification number, called a PTIN (“pea tin”). The PTIN would allow – in theory - the IRS to track which individuals prepared which returns. I say “in theory” because it is not uncommon for larger returns to have two or more preparers and one or more reviewers. Traditionally the highest-ranking last person in the chain is considered the official preparer, but the IRS did not write its regulations that way.

• a competency test. CPAs, enrolled actuaries, attorneys and enrolled agents were exempt, as their credentialing already includes a competency test.

• a continuing education requirement. Tax laws change frequently, so the IRS thought that continuing education would be a good idea. It is.

Here is the rub: where does the IRS get the authority to make these proclamations? I know it sounds a bit quaint to talk about “government of laws rather than of men” in the current political environment, but there are a few sticklers out there who still believe in the concept. One of them was Judge Boasberg in the Loving decision.

Yesterday the IRS trotted out its attorneys, arguing that they have the right to regulate whatever they want under the “Horse Act of 1884.” Folks, that is “18” 84. 

Do you remember the following words?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

This is the 16^th amendment, creating the income tax and ratified in February 1913. That is “19”13. Which comes after “18”84, for most people. Let’s be blunt here: how can a law from the 1800’s give the IRS any authority over income tax preparers when the income tax was not even created until 1913?

I have to admit, I had to look up the Horse Act of 1884. We must have missed that bright shiny in high school American History. After the Civil War, people brought claims against the U.S. for dead or missing horses. Makes sense, as horses were required to work the farm or for transportation, and their loss would have been keenly felt. Always seeking a vacuum, fraudsters soon appeared to help people press horse claims against the government. Soon all horses were thoroughbreds, and the government was facing more actions than there were horses lost in the Civil War. The government realized they were being scammed by con men and, in defense, starting regulating those people. The government even used the term “enrolled agent,” a term still used today for a class of preparer who has passed a competency examination given by the IRS itself.

So the IRS attorneys are arguing that tax CPAs like me are akin to fraudsters who inflated the value of dead or missing horses in action against the government following the Civil War?

As I said, I think I have been insulted.

I am also reading that Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, is retiring. You may remember that she invoked the Fifth Amendment when appearing before Congress on May 22, 2013. She was the political hack from the Federal Elections Commission who somehow wound up at the IRS reviewing and delaying applications from conservative groups, especially Tea Party organizations, seeking 504(c)(4) status in time for the 2012 presidential election. Good thing she was there too or the election may have gone a different way. She was quite happy to initially throw a few Cincinnati IRS employees under the bus, saying they had gone “rogue.” Later investigation, including e-mails, put a rest to that lie. Congress could have instead spoken with a few practicing tax CPAs, and we could have told them the same thing.  

She has been on “administrative” leave since then, drawing an approximate $170,000 salary. Now she gets to retire. It’s a nice retirement too, as she able to look for another government position and still collect her retirement pay, estimated over $50,000 annually. 

I would love a deal like that. Unfortunately, the IRS thinks of me as a con man.