An Intelligence Site, A Tax Treaty, and a Closing Agreement

I am looking at a case involving IRS closing agreements and the U.S. Pine Gap facility in Australia.

It gives us a chance to talk about closing agreements, an uncommon topic.

It also gives a chance to talk about Pine Gap, which is a U.S. Intelligence-gathering facility in the Northern Territory of Australia. It started decades ago as a monitoring station for Soviet ballistic testing, and with the years it has acquired several new roles. Think of drone attacks in Pakistan, and you have an idea of what happens at Pine Gap.

FIRST ACT: we have a spooky intelligence site.

Let’s move on to a treaty.

Under general tax rules, Australia would be able to tax American workers at Pine Gap. They are - after all – working in Australia. This was not the desired result, so a treaty in the 1960s exempted American workers at Pine Gap from Australian tax. There was a requisite, though: to be exempt, the wages had to be taxed by the U.S.

Got it. There was a one-bite-at-the-apple rule. Australia would back off if the U.S. got the first bite.

But U.S. tax law also includes a foreign earned income exclusion, whereby an American worker overseas could exempt some (or all) of his/her wages from tax, if certain requirements were met.  

How could Australia be sure that the wages were being taxed by the U.S.? Mind you, the alternative was for Australia to apply the default rule, meaning that both Australia and the U.S. would tax the wages. Sure, the worker could claim a foreign tax credit on his/her U.S. tax return, but the tax consequences of working at Pine Gap would have escalated unappealingly.  

The treaty was revised in the 1980s to allow American workers at Pine Gap to relinquish their foreign earned income exclusion by entering into a closing agreement with the IRS.

SECOND ACT: we have an income tax treaty.

Cory was a U.S. Air Force veteran and engineer. In 2009 he received a job offer from Raytheon to work at Pine Gap. He was informed that Australia would not tax him, but to get there he would have to sign a closing agreement with the IRS. The agreement was straightforward: he would not claim the foreign earned income exclusion.

Mind you, he did not have to sign a closing agreement. Australia would then tax him, and his U.S. return would get a little more complicated.

Cory signed the agreement.

The point behind a closing agreement is finality. Both sides agree, settle, and move on. Excepting fraud or malfeasance, there are no “do-overs.” That is - as you would expect - the reason that one requests one. An example is the wrap-up of a taxable estate. The tax practitioner does not want that estate resurrecting later, causing headaches when all parties considered the matter closed.

Cory wanted out of his closing agreement.

Problem.

Closing agreements arise under a Code section. This means that the Court would be reviewing statutory law (that is, the Code as statute on the matter) and not just the general principles of contract law (offer, acceptance, and all that).

That Code section doesn’t let one off the hook without showing malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact.

Cory argued that he met that standard. Somebody somewhere at the IRS did not have appropriate signature authority; the IRS committed malfeasance by sharing information with his employer, Raytheon; he was induced to sign by false representations.

I think Cory was grasping at straws.

The Court apparently thought the same way. The Court decided Cory was stuck with the agreement. He signed it; he owned it.

THIRD ACT: we have a closing agreement.

This is a specialized case pulling-in several different areas of the Code.

I get Cory’s point. He wanted exemption both from Australian tax AND some/all U.S. tax.

Me too, Cory. Me too.

Our case this time was Cory H Smith v Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3 (Aug 25,2022).

You Received An IRS CP2000 Notice

I read a considerable amount on a routine basis. It might be fairer to say that I skim, changing it to a read if I think that something might apply here at Galactic Command.

I came across something recently that made me scoff out loud.

Somebody somewhere was talking about never receiving an IRS CP2000 notice again.

Yeah, right.

What is a CP2000?

You know it as the computer match. The IRS cross-checks your numbers against their numbers. If there is a difference – and the difference is more than the cost of a stamp – their computers will generate a CP2000 notice.

How does the IRS get its numbers?

Easy. Think of all the tax reporting forms that you have received over the years, such as:

W-2 (your job)   

1099-INT (interest from a bank)

1099-DIV (dividends from a mutual fund)

1099-SA (distribution from an HSA)

1099-B (proceeds from selling stock)

It is near endless, and every year or so Congress and/or the IRS requires additional reporting on something. There is already a new one for 2022: the minimum threshold for payment card reporting has been reduced from $20,000 to $600. Think Venmo or Pay Pal and you are there.

If the IRS has information you didn’t report: bam! Receive a CP2000.

It happens all the time. You closed a bank account but forgot about the part of the year that it did exist.  You traded on Robinhood for a couple of weeks, lost money and tried to forget about it. You reimbursed yourself medical expenses from your HSA.   

The common denominator: you forgot to tell your tax preparer.

We get a ton of these.

Then your tax preparer might have caused it.

Maybe you did a 60-day roll on an IRA. Your preparer needs to code the distribution a certain way. Flub it and get a CP2000.

These you try to never repeat, as you are just making work for yourself.

Is this thing an audit?

Technically no, but you might still wind-up owing money.

The notice is proposing to make changes to your return. It is giving you a chance to respond. It is not a bill, at least not yet, but ignore the notice and it will become a bill.

The thing about these notices is that no one at the IRS reviews them before they go out. Yours are the first set of eyes to look upon them, and your preparer the second when you send the notice to him or her. You there have one of the biggest frustrations many practitioners have: the IRS sends these things out like candy; many are wrong and would be detected if the IRS even bothered. Attach an explanation to your return in the hope of cutting-off a notice? Puhleeze.

You really need to respond to a CP2000. I have lost track of how many clients over the years have blown these notices off, coming to see me years later because some mysterious tax debt has been siphoning their tax refunds. Combine this with the statute of limitations – remember, three years to file or amend – and you can be digging a hole for yourself.

If you agree with the notice, then responding is easy: check the box that says you agree. The IRS will happily send you a bill. Heck, don’t even bother to reply. They will send you the same bill.

If you disagree, then it can be more complicated.

If the matter is relatively easy – say an HSA distribution – I might attach the required tax form to my written response, explaining that the form was overlooked when filing.

If the matter is more complicated – say different types of mismatches – then I might change my answer. My experience – especially in recent years – is that the IRS is doing a substandard job with correspondence requiring one to think. They have repetitively forced me into Appeals and unnecessary procedural work.  My response to more complicated CP2000 notices? I am increasingly filing amended returns. Mind you, the IRS DOES NOT want me to do this. Neither do I, truthfully, but the IRS must first give me reason to trust its work. I am not there right now.

You can fax your response, fortunately.

You might try to call the IRS, but I suspect that will turn out poorly. Shame, as that would be the easiest way to request additional time to reply to the CP2000.

Whatever you do, you have 30 days. The days start counting beginning with the date of the letter, so mail delays can cost you.

Is the IRS gunning for you?

Remember: no one at the IRS has even looked at the notice you received.

 

Reorganizing A Passive Activity

 

I am looking at a case that stacks a couple of different tax rules atop another and then asks: are we there yet?

Let’s talk about it.

The first is something called the continuity of business doctrine. Here we wade into the waters of corporate taxation and - more specifically - corporate reorganizations. Let’s take an easy example:

Corporation A wants to split into two corporations: corporation B and corporation C.

Why? It can be any number of things. Maybe management has decided that one of the business activities is not keeping up with the other, bringing down the stock price as a result. Maybe two families own corporation A, and the two families now have very strong and differing feelings about where to go and how to get there. Corporate reorganizations are relatively common.

The IRS wants to see an active trade or business in corporations A, B and C before allowing the reorganization. Why? Because reorganizations can be (and generally are) tax-free, and the IRS wants to be sure that there is a business reason for the reorganization – and avoiding tax does not count as a business reason.

Let me give you an example.

Corporation A is an exterminating company. Years ago it bought Tesla stock for pennies on the dollar, and those shares are now worth big bucks. It wants to reorganize into corporation B – which will continue the exterminating activity – and corporation C – which will hold Tesla stock.

Will this fly?

Probably not.

The continuity of business doctrine wants to see five years of a trade or business in all parties involved. Corporation A and B will not have a problem with this, but corporation C probably will. Why? Well, C is going to have to argue that holding Tesla stock rises to the level of a trade or business. But does it? I point out that Yahoo had a similar fact pattern when it wanted to unload $32 billion of Alibaba stock a few years ago. The IRS refused to go along, and the Yahoo attorneys had to redesign the deal.

Now let’s stack tax rules.

You have a business.

To make the stack work, the business will be a passthrough: a partnership or an S corporation. The magic to the passthrough is that the entity itself does not pay tax. Rather its tax numbers are sliced and diced and allocated among its owners, each of whom includes his/her slice on his/her individual return.

Let’s say that the passthrough has a loss.

Can you show that loss on your individual return?

We have shifted (smooth, eh?) to the tax issue of “materially participating” and “passively nonparticipating” in a business.

Yep, we are talking passive loss rules.

The concept here is that one should not be allowed to use “passively nonparticipating” losses to offset “materially participating” income. Those passive losses instead accumulate until there is passive income to sponge them up or until one finally disposes of the passive activity altogether. Think tax shelters and you go a long way as to what Congress was trying to do here.

Back to our continuity of business doctrine.

Corporation A has two activities. One is a winner and the other is a loser. Historically A has netted the two, reporting the net number as “materially participating” on the shareholder K-1 and carried on.

Corporation A reorganizes into B and C.

B takes the winner.

C takes the loser.

The shareholder has passive losses elsewhere on his/her return. He/she REALLY wants to treat B as “passively nonparticipating.” Why? Because it would give him/her passive income to offset those passive losses loitering on his/her return.

But can you do this?

Enter another rule:

A taxpayer is considered to material participate in an activity if the taxpayer materially participated in the activity for any five years during the immediately preceding ten taxable years.

On first blush, the rule is confusing, but there is a reason why it exists.

Say that someone has a profitable “materially participating” activity. Meanwhile he/she is accumulating substantial “passively nonparticipating” losses. He/she approaches me as a tax advisor and says: help.

Can I do anything?

Maybe.

What would that something be?

I would have him/her pull back (if possible) his/her involvement in the profitable activity. In fact, I would have him/her pull back so dramatically that the activity is no longer “materially participating.” We have transmuted the activity to “passively nonparticipating.”

I just created passive income. Tax advisors gotta advise.

Can’t do this, though. Congress thought of this loophole and shut it down with that five-of-the-last-ten-years rule.

This gets us to the Rogerson case.

Rogerson owned and was very involved with an aerospace company for 40 years. Somewhere in there he decided to reorganize the company along product lines.

He now had three companies where he previously had one.

He reported two as materially participating. The third he treated as passively nonparticipating.

Nickels to dollars that third one was profitable. He wanted the rush of passive income. He wanted that passive like one wants Hawaiian ice on a scorching hot day.

And the IRS said: No.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Rogerson’s argument was straightforward: the winner was a new activity. It was fresh-born, all a-gleaming under an ascendent morning sun.

The Court pointed out the continuity of business doctrine: five years before and five after. The activity might be a-gleaming, but it was not fresh-born.

Rogerson tried a long shot: he had not materially participated in that winner prior to the reorganization. The winner had just been caught up in the tide by his tax preparers. How they shrouded their inscrutable dark arts from prying eyes! Oh, if he could do it over again ….

The Court made short work of that argument: by your hand, sir, not mine. If Rogerson wanted a different result, he should have done - and reported - things differently.

Our case this time was Rogerson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2022-49.

Basis Basics

I am looking at a case involving a basis limitation.

Earlier today I accepted a meeting invite with a new (at least to me) client who may be the poster child for poor tax planning when it comes to basis.

Let’s talk about basis – more specifically, basis in a passthrough entity.

The classic passthrough entities are partnerships and S corporations. The “passthrough” modifier means that the entity (generally) does not pay its own tax. Rather it slices and dices its income, deductions and credits among its owners, and the owners include their slice in their own respective tax returns.

Make money and basis is an afterthought.

Lose money and basis becomes important.

Why?

Because you can deduct your share of passthrough losses only to the extent that you have basis in the passthrough.

How in the world can a passthrough have losses that you do not have basis in?

Easy: it borrows money.

The tax issue then becomes: can you count your share of the debt as additional basis?

And we have gotten to one of the mind-blowing areas of passthrough taxation.  Tax planners and advisors bent the rules so hard back in the days of old-fashioned tax shelters that we are still reeling from the effect.

Let’s start easy.

You and I form a partnership. We both put in $10 grand.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

 

The partnership buys an office condo for $500 grand. We put $20 grand down and take a mortgage for the rest.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

         Mortgage        240,000       240,000

                                250,000       250,000

So we can each have enough basis to deduct $250,000 of losses from this office condo. Hopefully that won’t be necessary. I would prefer to make a profit and just pay my tax, thank you.

Let’s change one thing.

Let’s make it an S corporation rather than partnership.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash               10,000        10,000                   

         Mortgage             -0-              -0-

                                10,000        10,000

Huh?

Welcome to tax law.

A partner in a general partnership gets to increase his/her basis by his/her allocable share of partnership debt. The rule can be different for LLC’s taxed as a partnership, but let’s not get out over our skis right now.       

When you and I are partners in a partnership, we get to add our share of the mortgage - $480,000 – to our basis.

S corporations tighten up that rule a lot. You and I get basis only for our direct loans to the S corporation. That mortgage is not a direct loan from us, so we do not get basis.

What does a tax planner do?

For one thing, he/she does not put an office condo in an S corporation if one expects it to throw off tax losses.

What if it has already happened?

I suppose you and I can throw cash into the S. I assure you my wife will not be happy with that sparkling tax planning gem.

I suppose we could refinance the mortgage in our own names rather than the corporate name.

That would be odd if you think about. We would have personal debt on a building we do not own personally.

Yeah, it is better not to go there.

The client meeting I mentioned earlier?

They took a partnership interest holding debt-laden real estate and put it inside an S corporation.

Problem: that debt doesn’t create basis to them in the S corporation. We have debt and no tax pop. Who advised this? Someone who should not work tax, I would say.

I am going to leverage our example to discuss what the Kohouts (our tax case this time) did that drew the Tax Court’s disapproval.               

Let’s go back to our S corporation. Let’s add a new fact: we owe someone $480,000. Mind you, you and I owe – not the S corporation. Whatever the transaction was, it has nothing to do with the S corporation.

We hatch the following plan.

We put in $240,000 each.

You: OK.

We then have the corporation pay the someone $480,000.

You: Hold up, won’t that reduce our basis when we cut the check?

Ahh, but we have the corporation call it a “loan” The corporation still has a $480,000 asset. Mind you, the asset is no longer cash. It is now a “loan.”  Wells Fargo and Fifth Third do it all the time.

You: Why would the corporation lend someone $480,000? Wells Fargo and Fifth Third are at least … well, banks.

You have to learn when to stop asking questions.

You: Are we going to have a delay between putting in the cash and paying - excuse me - “loaning” someone $480,000?

Nope. Same day, same time. Get it over with. Rip the band-aid.

You: Wouldn’t a Court have an issue with this if we get caught … errr … have the bad luck to get audited?

Segue to our court case.

In Kohout the Court considered a situation similar enough to our example. They dryly commented:

Courts evaluating a transaction for economic substance should exercise common sense …”

The Court said that all the money sloshing around could be construed as one economic transaction. As the money did not take even a breather in the S corporation, the Court refused to spot the Kohouts any increase in basis.

Our case this time was Kohout v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-37.

Overcontributing To Your 401(k)

 

One of the accountants had a question for me:

A:               I added up the W-2s, but the wages per the software does not agree to my number.

CTG:          Is your number lower?

A:               Yes.

Let’s talk about 401(k)s. More specifically, let’s talk about 401(k)s when one changes jobs during the year. It can be an issue if one is making decent bank.

You are under age 50. How much can you defer in a 401(k)?

For 2021 you can defer $19,500. The limit increased to $20,500 for 2022.

You change jobs during 2021. Say you contributed $14,000 at your first job. The second job doesn’t know how much you contributed at first job. You contribute $12,000 at your second job.

Is there a tax problem?

First, congrats. You are making good money or are a serious saver. It could be both, I suppose.

But, yes, there is a tax problem.

The universe of retirement plans is divided into two broad categories:

·      Defined benefit

·      Defined contribution

Defined benefit are also known as pension plans. Realistically, these plans are becoming extinct outside of a union setting, with the government counting as union.

Defined contribution plans are more commonly represented by 401(k)s, 403(b)s, SIMPLES and so forth. Their common feature is that some – maybe most – of the dollars involved are the employee’s own dollars.

Being tax creatures, you know that both categories have limits. The defined benefit will have a benefit limit (the math can be crazy). The defined contribution will have a contribution limit.

And that contribution limit is $19,500 in 2021 for someone under age 50.

COMMENT: If you google “defined contribution 2021” and come back with $58,000, you may wonder about the difference between the two numbers. The $58,000 includes the employer contribution. Our $19,500 is just the employee contribution. This difference is one of the reasons that solo 401(k)s work as well as they do: they max-out the employer contribution – assuming that the income is there to power the thing, of course.  

Let’s go back to our example. You deferred $26,000 for 2021.

Are you over the limit?

Yep.

If you add your two W-2s together, is the sum your correct taxable wages for 2021?

Nope.

Why not?

Because a 401(k) contribution lowers your (income) taxable wages. You went $6,500 over the limit. Your taxable wages are $6,500 lower than they should be.

 What do you do?

There are two general courses of action:

(1)  Contact one of the employers (probably the second one) explain the issue and request that the W-2 be amended by the deadline date for filing your return – that is, April 15. Rest assured, you have just drawn the wrath of someone in the accounting or payroll department, but you have only so many options. 

BTW the earnings on the excess contributions are also taxable to you. Say that you earned 1% on the excess. That $65 will be taxable to you, but it will be taxable the following year. 

In summary,

§  Your 2021 W-2 income goes up by $6,500

§  You will report the $65 earnings on the excess contribution in 2022.

    It is a mess, but the second option is worse.

(2)  You do not contact one of the employers, or you contact them too late for them to react by April 15.

Your 2021 W-2s show excessive 401(k) deferral.

Your tax preparer will probably catch this and increase your taxable W-2 totals by $6,500. This is what created the accountant’s question at the beginning of this post.

Oh well, you say. You are back to the same place as option one. No harm, no foul – right?

Not quite. 

First, your employer may not be too happy if the issue is later discovered. This is an operational plan issue, and there can be penalties for operational plan issues. 

Second, once you go past the time allowed for correction, the money is stuck in the plan until you are allowed take a distribution (or until the employer learns of the issue and corrects the plan on its own power). 

Say you never tell them. Let’s not burn this bridge, right? 

Problem. Take a look at this bad boy: 

                 Section 402(g)(6)  Coordination with section 72 .

For purposes of applying section 72 , any amount includible in gross income for any taxable year under this subsection but which is not distributed from the plan during such taxable year shall not be treated as investment in the contract.

What does this assemblage of mostly unintelligible words mean?    

It means that you will be taxed again when the 401(k) finally distributes the excess contribution to you. 

Yep, you will be taxed twice on the same income. 

That $6,500 got expensive. 

Upon reflection, there really is no option 2. You have to tell your employer and have them correct the W-2.      

Reporting Income Below A 1099 Filing Requirement

 

I am looking at a case that reminded me of a very recent telephone call with a client.

Let’s talk about the client first.

It is tax season here at Galactic Command as I type this. The client sent me the paperwork for the joint return.  She included a note that she had withdrawn from her 401(k) but had not received a 1099.

“Do I have to report it, then?” she asked.

This is a teaching moment: “yes.” The answer is “yes.”

One is required to report his/her income fully and accurately, irrespective of whether one receives a 1099 or other information reporting. I, as a tax CPA, might not even be able to sign as preparer, depending upon the size and consequence of the numbers.

I had her contact the investment company and request a duplicate tax form. It was for the best, as the company had withheld taxes on the distribution.

Let’s look next at the Legoski case.

During 2017 John Legoski (John) had a job and a side gig. His gig was buying stuff online and selling said stuff via drop shipments. He was paid via Amazon Payments. He in turn paid for stuff using PayPal. He received a 1099 from Amazon Payments for $29,501.

Which he did not report.

The IRS caught this, of course, because that is what computerized matching does. That notice does not even go past human eyes before the IRS mails it.

His argument: he thought that his gross receipts did not meet the minimum reporting threshold for third-party payments.

COMMENT: For 2017, a third-party settlement company was required to issue John a 1099-K if (1) gross payments to John exceeded $20,000 and (2) there were more than 200 transactions.

I presume that John had less than 200 transactions, as he certainly was paid more than $20 grand. But it doesn’t matter, as he is required to report all his income whether or not he received a 1099.

The IRS wanted taxes and penalties of $9,251 on the $29,501.

Seems steep, don’t you think?

That is because the IRS did not spot John any cost of goods sold.

Push back, John. Send the IRS your PayPal account activity. That is where you bought everything. It may not be classroom accounting, but it is something.

John … did not do this. He did not provide any documentation to the IRS, to the Court, to anybody.

John, John, … but why?

Bam! The Court disallowed him a cost of goods sold deduction.

Next were the penalties on the unreported income (which was not reduced for a cost of goods deduction).

The Court wanted John to show reasonable cause for filing his tax return the way he did.

John, listen to me: you are not an accountant. You are barely a novice gig worker. You didn’t know. This was undecipherable tax law to you. You botched, but you did not do so on purpose.

However, his failure to provide a PayPal activity statement where he paid for EVERYTHING HE BOUGHT FOR RESALE did not put the Court in a forgiving mood.

The Court decided he was responsible for penalties, too.

And I would bet five dollars and a box of Girl Scout Thin Mints that John made little to no money from his gig – heck, he probably lost money - but this escapade cost him over $9 grand.

Let me check. Yep, John appeared before the Court pro se. As we have discussed before, this does not necessarily mean that he showed up in Court without professional representation. From the way it turned out, though, I feel pretty confident that he winged it.

COMMENT: For 2022 the 1099 reporting for this situation has changed. The $20,000/200 transactions requirement is gone. The new law requires a 1099 for payments over $600. Yep, you read that right.

Our case this time was Legoski v Commissioner, T.C. Summary 2021-15.

An Attorney Learns Passthrough Taxation

 

I have worked with a number of brilliant attorneys over the years. It takes quite a bit for a tax attorney to awe me, but it has happened.

But that law degree by itself does not mean that one has mastered a subject area, much less that one is brilliant.

Let’s discuss a case involving an attorney.

Lateesa Ward graduated from law school in 1991. She went the big firm route for a while, but by 2006 she opened her own firm. For the years at issue, the firm was just her and another person.

She elected S corporation status.

We have discussed S status before. There is something referred to as “passthrough” taxation. The idea is that a business – an S corporation, a partnership, an LLC – skips paying its own tax. Rather the tax-causing numbers are pushed-out to the owners – shareholders, partners, members – who then include those numbers on their personal return and pay the taxes thereon personally.

Why would a rational human being do that?

Sometimes it makes sense. A lot of sense, in fact.

I will give you one example. Say that you have a regular corporation, one that the tax nerds call a “C.” Say that there is real estate in there that has appreciated insanely. It wouldn’t hurt your feelings to sell the real estate and pocket the money. There is a problem, though. If the real estate is inside a “C,” the gain will be taxed to the corporation upon sale.

That’s OK, you reason. You knew taxes were coming.

When you take the money out of the corporation, you pay taxes again.

Huh?

If you think about, what I just described is commonly referred to as a “dividend.”

That second round of income taxes hurts, unless one is a publicly-traded leviathan like Apple or Amazon. More accurately, it hurts even then, but ownership is so diluted that it is unlikely to greatly impact any one owner.

Scale down from the behemoths and that second round of tax probably locks-in the asset inside the C corporation. Not exactly an efficient use of resources, methinks.

Enter the passthrough.

With some exceptions (there are always exceptions), the passthrough allows one – and only one – round of tax when you sell the real estate.

Back to Lateesa.

In 2011 the S corporation deducted salary to her of $62,388.

She reported no salary on her personal return.,

In 2012 the S deducted salary to her of $73,448.

She reported salary of $47,171.

In 2011 her share (which was 100%, of course) of the firm’s profits was $1,373.

She reported that.

Then she reported the numbers again as though she was self-employed.

She reported the numbers twice, it seems.

The IRS could not figure out what she was doing, so they came in and audited several years.

There was the usual back-and-forth with documenting expenses, as well as quibbling over travel and related expenses. Standard stuff, but it can hurt if one is not keeping adequate records.

I was curious why she left her salary off her personal return. I have a salary. Maybe she knew something that has escaped me, and I too can run down my personal taxes.

She explained that only some of the officer compensation was salary or wages.

Go on.

The rest of the compensation was a distribution of “earnings and profits.” She continued that an S corporation shareholder is allowed to receive tax-free distributions to the extent she has basis.

Oh my. Missed the boat. Missed the harbor. Nowhere near water.  Never heard of water.

What we are talking about is a tax deduction, not a distribution. The S corporation took a tax deduction for salary paid her. To restore balance to the Force, she has to personally report the salary as income. One side has a deduction; the other side has income. Put them together and they net to zero. The Force is again in balance.

Here is the Court:

Ward also took an eccentric approach to the compensation that she paid herself as the firm’s officer.”

It did not turn out well for Ms. Ward. Remember that there are withholdings and employer-side payroll taxes required on salary and wages, and the IRS was already looking at other issues on those tax returns. This audit got messy.

There was no awe here.

Our case this time was Lateesa Ward v Commissioner and Ward & Ward Company v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-32.

Botching An IRS Bank Deposit Analysis

 

What caught my eye was the taxpayer’s name. I am not sure how to pronounce it, and I am not going to try.

I skimmed the case. As cases go, it is virtually skeletal at only 6 pages long.

There is something happening here.

Let’s look at Haghnazarzadeh v Commissioner.

The IRS wanted taxes, penalties and interest of $2,424,100 and $1,152,786 for years 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Sounds like somebody is a heavy hitter.

Here is the Court:

“… the only remaining issue is whether certain deposits into petitioners’ nine bank accounts are ordinary income or nontaxable deposits.”

For the years at issue, Mr H was in the real estate business in California. Together, Mr and Mrs H had more bank accounts than there are days of the week. The IRS did a bank deposit analysis and determined there was unreported income of $4,854,84 and $1,868,212.

Got it.

Here is the set-up:

(1) The tax Code requires one to have records to substantiate their taxable income. For most of us, that is easy to do. We have a W-2, maybe an interest statement from the bank or a brokers’ statement from Fidelity. This does not have to be rocket science.

This may change, however, if one is in business. It depends. Say that you have a side gig reviewing articles before publication in a professional journal. What expenses do you have? I suspect that just depositing the money to your bank account might constitute adequate recordkeeping.

Say you have a transportation company, with a vehicle fleet and workforce. You are now in need of something substantial to track everything, perhaps QuickBooks or Sage, for example. 

(2) Let’s take a moment about being in business, especially as a side gig.

Many if not most tax practitioners will advise a separate bank account for the gig. All gig deposits should go into and all business expenses should be paid from the gig account. What about taking a draw? Transfer the money from the gig account to a personal account. You can see what we are doing: keep the gig account clean, traceable.

  (3) Bad things can happen if you need records and do not keep any.

We know the usual examples: you claim a deduction and the IRS says: prove it. Don’t prove it and the IRS disallows the deduction.

The tax Code allows the IRS to use reasonable means to determine someone’s income when the records are not there.  

(4) One of those methods is the bank deposit analysis.

It is just what it sounds like. The IRS will look at all your deposits, eliminating those that are just transfers from other accounts. If you agree that what is left over is taxable, the exercise is done. If you disagree, then you have to provide substantiation to the IRS that a deposit is not taxable income.

The substantiation can vary. Let’s say that you took a cash advance on a credit card. You would show the credit card statement – with the advance showing – as proof that the deposit is not taxable.

Let’s say that your parents gifted you money. A statement or letter from your parents to that effect might suffice, especially if followed-up with a copy of their cancelled check.

You might be wondering why you would deposit everything if you are going to be flogged you with this type of analysis. There are several reasons. The first is that it is just good financial and business practice, and you should do it as a responsible steward of money. Second, you are not going to wind up here as default by the IRS. Keep records; avoid this outcome. A third reason is that the absence of bank accounts – or minimal use of the same – might be construed as an indicator of fraud. Go there, and you may have leaped from being perceived as a lousy recordkeeper to something more sinister.

Back to the H’s.

They have to show something to the IRS to prove that the $4.8 million and $1.8 million does not represent taxable income.

Mr H swings:

For 2011 he mentioned deposits of $1,556,000 $130,000, and $60,000 for account number 8023 and $1,390,000, $875,000, and $327,000 for account number 4683”

All right! Show your cards, H.

Why would I need to do that? asks Mr H.

Because ……. that is the way it works, H-man. Trust but verify.

Not for me, harumphs Mr H.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner husband did not present evidence substantiating his claim that any of these deposits should be treated as nontaxable.”

Maybe somebody does not understand the American tax system.

Or maybe there is something sinister after all.

What it is isn't exactly clear.

COMMENT: This was a pro se case. As we have discussed before, pro se generally means that the taxpayer was not represented by a tax professional. Technically, that is not correct, as someone could retain a CPA and the decision still remain pro se. With all that hedge talk, I believe that the H’s were truly pro se. No competent tax advisor would make a mistake this egregious.  

Our case (again) was Haghnazarzadeh v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-47.