A Bad Idea

I am reading an abstract for an upcoming article in the Southern California Law Review.

When an electricity provider wants customers to pay their bills monthly, it sends them a bill each month. Yet this is not how the tax system works, at least for independent contractors. Their taxes are due quarterly, but they receive a tax statement (Form 1099) only one time a year. It is up to the individual, then, to know when their taxes are due and how to pay them, and it is on that individual to estimate how much they owe each quarter. As a result, compliance for independent contractors – particularly for online platform workers–tends to be lacking. Failure to pay their estimated taxes subjects these taxpayers to potential penalties and causes the government to collect less tax revenue.

Yep, quarterly taxes for the self-employed. I know a lot about the topic.

There is a simple, yet entirely overlooked, reform that could vastly improve compliance when it comes to paying estimated taxes: third-party information returns (Form 1099s) should be issued to taxpayers on a quarterly basis. The idea is straightforward and intuitive. If the government wants people to pay taxes four times per year, it needs to effectively “bill” them four times per year. This idea is supported by social science research showing that, the more taxpayers are reminded to pay their taxes, the more likely they are to do so.

Sigh.

If only it were so simple.

Unspoken is an arrogance that accounting is just pushing a button. Everything is automated, right, so what is the issue?

Much is automated. More so today than when I started, and it will be more so again when I eventually retire. But much is not all. Much is not necessarily even much.

The presumption that Fortune 500 accounting departments are the norm for businesses will lead to erroneous conclusions, including the one above. There are over 30 million companies in the United States. Less than 1 percent of those are publicly traded, and the Fortune 1000 constitutes a fraction of that fraction. There is an entire economic sector - the self-employeds, the small- and mid-market companies - that are unlikely to have an accountant - much less an accounting department - available to respond to the whims of nonserious minds. Most CPAs - including me – advise that market. When we meet with ownership, we meet with the owner or owners, not an assemblage at an annual shareholder meeting.  When decisions are required, the number of decision makers is few; in many cases, it is only one.

Somehow this overlooked sector represents roughly half of all economic activity and approximately two-thirds of all jobs created in the United States since the 1990s. This sector employs tens of millions, allowing them home ownership, EV purchases, private schools, higher education, smart phones, streaming services, and perhaps an occasional vacation to Disney World.

Can this sector push a button to generate quarterly 1099s because a professor thinks the idea has been “entirely overlooked?” Maybe, but probably not. More likely, they will call their CPA – assuming they have one.

That quarterly 1099 is somehow now in my court.

CPAs want to go home, too.

Then there is the issue of who will prepare these 1099s. I know that accounting literature is not a thing, but glance at the following:

Statistics from the AICPA suggest that 75 percent of current CPAs will retire in the next 15 years.

Does this seem like an appropriate time to further add to the problems of accounting? Many already see a profession facing future demands exceeding its ability to supply.

No, I don’t think that quarterly 1099s are a bright idea.

In fact, maybe the Congressional effort in 1986 to move almost all taxable year-ends to December 31, further compressing our work schedule was – in retrospect – not such a bright idea.  

Notices are the bane of tax practice. One may be a gifted practitioner but send enough penalty notices and even a loyal client begins to question. Maybe the decades of Congress “balancing” budget bills by increasing tax penalties on virtually anything that moves was not such a bright idea.

Maybe the relentless introduction of arbitrary, inconsistent if not preposterous – other than as blatant money grabs - tax laws was not such a bright idea.

Maybe passing tax laws late in the year when there is no time for advisors to react – or even better, passing those laws the following year but with retroactive effect – was not such a bright idea.

Maybe the hubris that just one more surtax, deduction or tax credit will somehow solve the enduring difficulties of the species and pave the highway to heaven was not such a bright idea. 

We are showered by sententious minds bringing bright ideas.

They should be entirely overlooked.

Why You Always Use Certified-Mail For A Paper-Filed Return

Just about all tax returns are moving to electronic filing.

It makes sense. Our server sends a return to the government server, starting the automated processing of the return. Minimal manpower, highly automated, more efficient.

COMMENT: Electronic filing however does allow states and other filing authorities to include filing “bombs,” which can be very frustrating. We had a bomb recently with the District of Columbia. It could have been resolved – should have, in fact – but that would have required someone in D.C.  to answer our e-mail request or telephone call. Belatedly realizing this was a bar too high, we called the client to inform them of a change in plans. We would be paper filing instead.

Sometimes a state will say they never received a return. Our software maintains log events, such as electronic transmission of returns and their acceptance by the taxing authority. Tennessee has done this over the last few years as they updated some of their systems. Fortunately, the matter generally resolves when we present proof of electronic filing.

Do you remember when – not too many years ago – standard professional advice was to send tax returns using either certified or registered mail? That was that era’s equivalent of today’s electronic filing. We used to, back in the Stone Age, send our April 15^th individual extensions as follows:

·      Include multiple extensions per envelope. There could be several envelopes depending on the number of extensions.

·      Include a cover sheet detailing the extensions included in the envelope.

·      Certify the mailing of the envelope.

The problem with this procedure is that it could be abused. One could mail an empty envelope to the IRS, certifying the same. If any question came up, one could point to that envelope as “proof” of whatever. I do not know how often this happened in practice, but I recall having this very conversation with IRS representatives.

This reminds me of a recent case dealing with an issue arising from putting a paper-filed return in the mail. As we move exclusively to electronic filing, this issue will transition to history – along with rotary phones and rolodexes.

Let’s talk about the Pond case.

The IRS audited Stephen Pond’s return and made a mistake, concluding that Pond had underpaid his taxes. Pond paid the notice for tax due and interest on the 2012 tax year. The matter also affected 2013, so Pond overpaid his taxes for that year also. Pond’s accountant caught the mistake and filed for a refund for both years.

The accountant did the following:

(1)  He mailed the 2012 and 2013 tax refund claims in the same envelope to Holtsville, New York.

(2) He mailed a claim for refund of overpaid 2012 interest to Covington, Kentucky, which in turn forwarded the matter to Andover, Massachusetts.

Andover responded first. It wanted proof of the underlying 2012 filing (as the overpaid interest was for 2012). It took a while, but Pond eventually received his 2012 refund, including interest.

Time passed. There was no word about 2013. Pond contacted the IRS and was told the IRS never received the 2013 amended return.

COMMENT: While not said, I have a very good guess what happened. The IRS has had a penchant for stapling together whatever arrives in a single envelope. For years I have recommended separate envelopes for separate returns, as I was concerned about this possibility. It raised the cost of mailing, but I was trying to avoid the staple-everything-together scenario.

Pond sent a duplicate copy of his 2013 amended return.

Months went by. Crickets.

Pond contacted Holtsville and was informed that the IRS had closed the 2013 file.

Oh, oh.

A couple of weeks later Pond received the formal notice that the IRS was denying 2013 because it had been filed after statute of limitations had run.

Pond filed a formal protest. He filed with Appeals. He eventually brought suit in district court. The district court held against Pond, so he is now in Appeals Court.

This is tax arcana here that we will summarize.

     (1)  The general way to satisfy a statutory filing requirement is physical delivery.

(2)  Mail can constitute physical delivery.

a.    However, things can happen after one drops an envelope into the mailbox. The post office can lose it, for example. It would be unfair to hold someone responsible for a post office error, so physical delivery has a “mailbox” subrule:

If one can prove that an item was mailed, the subrule presumes that the item was timely delivered.

NOTE: Mind you, one still must prove that one timely put the item in the mail.

(3)  Congress codified the mailbox rule in 1954 via Section 7502. That section first included certified and registered mail as acceptable proof of filing, and the rule has been expanded over the years to include private delivery services and electronic filing.

(4) The question before the Court was whether Section 7502 supplanted prior common law (physical delivery, mailbox rule) or rather was supplementary to it.

a.    Believe it or not, the courts have split on this issue.

b.    What difference does it make? Let me give an example.      

There is an envelope bearing a postmark date of October 5, 20XX (that is, before the October 15^th extension deadline). The mail was not certified, registered, or delivered by an approved private delivery service.

If Section 7502 supplanted common law, then one could not point to that October 5 date as proof of timely filing. The only protected filings are certified or registered mail, private delivery service or electronic filing.

If Section 7502 supplemented but did not override common law, then that October 5 date would suffice as proof of timely mailing.

Let’s fast forward. The Appeals Court determined that Pond did not qualify under the safe harbors of Section 7502, as he did not use certified or registered mail. He could still prove his case under common law, however. Appeals remanded the case to the District Court, and Pond will have his opportunity to prove physical delivery.

My thoughts?

If you are paper filing – especially for a refund - always, always certify the mailing. Mind you, electronic filing is better, but let’s assume that electronic filing is not available for your unique filing situation. Pond did not do this and look at the nightmare he is going through.

Our case this time was Stephen K Pond v U.S., Docket No 22-1537, CA4, May 26, 2023.

 

Roth IRA Recharacterizations Are Going Away

You may have heard that there has been a tax change in the land of Roth IRAs. It is true, and the change concerns recharacterizations.

And what does that seven-syllable word mean?

Let’s say that you have $50,000 in a traditional (or “Trad”) IRA. “Traditional” means that you got to deduct the money when you put it in. You did so over several years, and you now have – after compounding - $50 grand. Congrats.

You read that this thing is a tax bomb waiting to go off.

How?

Simple. It will be taxable income when you take it out. That is the bargain with the government: they give you the deduction now and you give them the tax later.

You decide to convert your “Trad” into a Roth. That way, you do not pay tax later when you take the money out.

You find out that it is pretty easy to convert, irrespective of what you hear on radio commercials. Let’s say your money is with Vanguard or T Rowe Price. Well, you call Vanguard or T Rowe and explain what you are up to. They will explain that you need a Roth IRA account. You will then have two IRA accounts:

          CTG Reader Traditional IRA, and

          CTG Reader Roth IRA

There is $50 grand in the Traditional IRA account.

You convert.

There is now $50 grand in the Roth IRA and $-0- in the Traditional IRA accounts.

You did it. Good job.

BTW you just created $50 grand of taxable income for yourself.

How? Well, you converted money from an IRA that would be taxable someday to an IRA that will not be taxable someday. The government wants its money someday, and that someday is today.

You didn’t think the government would go away, did you?

Let’s walk this thing forward. Say that we go into next year and your Roth IRA starts tanking. It goes to $47 grand, then $44 grand. The thing is taking on water.

It is time to do your taxes. You and I are talking. We talk about that $50 grand conversion. You tell me about your fund or ETF slipping. I tell you that we are extending your return.

Why?

That is what changed with the new law.

For years you have had until the date you (properly) file your return to “undo” that $50 grand conversion. That is why I want to extend your return: instead of having to decide on April 15, extending lets you wait until October 15 to decide. You have another six months to see what that mutual fund or ETF does. 

Let's say that we wait until October 8^th and the thing has stabilized at $43 grand.

You feel like a chump paying tax on $50 grand when it is only worth $43 grand.

I have you call Vanguard or T Rowe and have them move that money back into CTG Reader Traditional IRA. Mind you, this has to be done by October 15 as the tax extension will run out. We file your return by October 15, and it does NOT show the $50 grand as income.

Why? You unwound the transaction by moving the money back to the Traditional account. Think of it as a mulligan. The nerd term for what we did is “recharacterization.”

It is a nice safety valve to have.

But we will soon have recharacterizations no more. To be accurate, we still have it for 2017 returns but it goes away for later tax years. Your 2017 return can be extended until October 15, 2018, so October 15, 2018 will be extinction day for recharacterizations. It will just be a memory, like income averaging.

BTW there is a variation on the above that will continue to exist, but it is only a distant cousin of what we discussed. Let’s go to your 2018 tax return. In March, 2019 you put $5,500 in a Roth IRA. You will still be able to reverse that $5,500 back to a regular IRA by October 15, 2019 (remember to extend!).

But the difference is that the distant cousin is for one year’s contribution only. You will not be able to take a chunk of money that you have accumulated over years, roll it from a Trad to a Roth and have the option to recharacterize back to a Trad in case the stock market goes wobbly.

Sad in a way.

What’s Fair Got To Do With It?

I am reading a tax case with an unfortunate result.

It does not seem that difficult to me to have planned for a better outcome.

I have to wonder: why didn’t they?

Let’s set it up.

We have a law firm in New York. There is a “heavy” partner and the other partners, which we will call “everybody else.” The firm faced hard times, and “everyone else” kept-up their bleed rate (the rate at which they withdraw cash), with the result that their capital accounts went negative.

COMMENT: A capital account is increased by the partner’s share of the income and reduced by cash withdrawn by said partner. When income goes down but the cash withdrawn does not, the capital account can (and eventually will) go negative. 

Let’s return to our heavy partner.

He was concerned about the viability of the firm. He was further concerned that New York law imposed on him a fiduciary responsibility to assure that the firm be able to pay its bills. I applaud his sense of responsibility, but I have to point out that any increased uncertainty over the firm’s capacity to pay its bills might have something to do with “everybody else” taking out too much cash.

Just sayin’.

Our partner’s share of firm income was almost $500 grand.

Problem is that the cash did not follow the income. His “share” of the income may have been $500 grand, but he left around $400 grand in the firm to make-up for the slack of his partners.

And you have one of those things about partnership taxation:   

·      The allocation of income does not have to follow the allocation of cash.

There are limits to how far one can push this, of course.

Sometimes the effect is beneficial to the partner:

·      A partner tales out more cash than his/her share of the income because the partnership owns something with big-time depreciation. Depreciation is a non-cash expense, so it doesn’t affect his/her distribution of cash.

Sometimes the effect is deleterious to the partner:

·      Our guy took out considerably less cash than the $500K income.

Our guy did not draw enough cash to even pay the taxes on his share of the income.

OBSERVATION: That’s cra-cra.

What did he do?

He reported $75K of income on his tax return. Seeing how did not receive the cash, he thought the reduction was “fair.”

Remember: his partnership K-1 reported almost half a million.

The number on his personal return did not match what the partnership reported.

COMMENT: By the way, there is yet one more form to your tax return when you do not use a number reported by a partnership. The IRS wants to know. He might as well just have booked the audit.

Sure enough, the IRS sent him a notice for over $140,000 tax and $28,000 in penalties.

Off to Tax Court they went.

And he had … absolutely … no … chance.

Partnerships have incredibly flexible tax law. There is a reason why the notorious tax shelters of days past were structured around partnerships. One could send income here, losses there, money somewhere else and muddy the waters so much that you could not see the bottom.

In response, Congress and the IRS tightened up, then tightened some more. This area is now one of the most horrifying, unintelligible stretches in the tax Code.  It can – with little exaggeration – be said that all the practitioners who truly understand partnership tax law can fit into your family room.

Back to our guy.

The Court did not have to decide about New York law and fiduciary responsibility to one’s law firm or any of that. It just looked at tax law and said:

Your income did not match your cash. You set this scheme up, and – if you did not like it – you could have changed it. Once decided, however, live with your decision.

Those are my words, by the way, and not a quote.

Our law partner owed the tax and penalties.

Ouch and ouch.

I must point out, however, that the law firm’s tax advisors warned our guy that his “fiduciary” theory carried no water and would be disregarded by the IRS, but he decided to proceed nonetheless. He brought much of this upon himself.

What would I have recommended?

For goodness’ sake, people, change the partnership agreement so that the “everybody else” partners reported more income and our guy reported less. It is fairly common in more complex partnerships to “tier” (think steps in a ladder or the cascade of a fountain) the distribution of income, with cash being the second – if not the first – step in the ladder. The IRS is familiar with this structure and less likely to challenge it, as the movement of income would make sense.

Another option of course would be to close down the law firm and allow “everybody else” to fend for themselves.

I would argue that my recommendation is less harsh.

Ohio Residency: Bright-Line and Common-Law Tests

How does one become an Ohio resident?

It’s not hard, I suppose. One could just buy a house in Ohio and live there.

How does one stop being an Ohio resident?

That one is a bit trickier. I would probably start by selling that same house and moving. It is a simple solution, but not one tailored to the needs of the snowbirds. I would not mind being a snowbird. Call me crazy, but I could separate myself from Cincinnati winters and spend that time in better weather.

Let’s say that you live in Cincinnati. You have a second home in Ft. Myers, Florida and a great deal of discretion as to how much time you spend in each state. You would like to move your “residency” to Florida, as Florida does not have an income tax. You still have friends and family in Cincinnati, however, so you intend to keep your house here. Can you do so and still be considered a Florida resident?

Of course you can.

Ohio is not one of those states that will chase you down to the ends of the earth to tax you years after you have left.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules to follow.

And someone recently thought that those rules did not apply to them. The case is Cunningham v Testa. Let’s talk about it.

We have talked before about the idea of “domicile” in state taxation. Domicile is easy for the vast majority of us. We have one house, and we live there with our family. We have one house, one abode, one domicile. A house gives one an “abode,” and if one is fortunate one can afford more than one abode. Domicile rises above that. Domicile wants to know which abode is one’s true home: the one with the pencil markings measuring the kids’ height over the years, the squeaky floorboard at the top of the steps, the cold corner in the living room that never really warms up no matter how one sets the thermostat.

Domicile wants to know which abode is that house. You know - your home. The concept borders on the mystical.

Ohio is one the states that looks at domicile when determining whether one is a resident or nonresident. Ohio doesn’t care about that house in Florida. That is just an abode until one raises it to the level of domicile.

Remember that Ohio has a tremendous number of snowbirds. In years past the state expended a not-insignificant amount of resources reading tea lives and consulting Tarot cards to figure-out whether or not someone was an Ohio resident. Ohio needed something less employee-intensive.

Ohio decided to use a “bright-line” test and would henceforth look at “contact periods.” If one had enough contact periods it would consider one a resident. If not, it would consider one a nonresident … unless there were other factors indicating that one was a resident.  

For the most part it was now an arithmetic exercise. The “… unless” part was there to prevent one from gaming the count.

COMMENT: A contact period occurs if (1) one is away from his/her domicile (2) overnight and (3) is in Ohio for all or part of two consecutive days.  It is not the same as sleeping overnight in Ohio, as the test is not where one sleeps. One could book a hotel in Covington, Kentucky for example, and cross the bridge into Ohio in the morning. If one crossed the bridge for two consecutive days, there would be a contact period.

Ohio added up the contact periods. If there were at least 183, then Ohio considered one a resident.

            NOTE: Starting in 2015 that count has been raised to 213.

Back to the Cunninghams.

He filed an “Affidavit of Non-Ohio Domicile” for tax year 2008, using his name, social security number and Cincinnati address. She did not file anything.

COMMENT: Mrs. Cunningham is immediately out-of-the-game.

He declared he was a resident of Tennessee, although he did not give an address.   

            COMMENT: That did not help.

Nonetheless, filing the Affidavit shifted the burden to Ohio.

And Ohio responded by issuing a notice and then an assessment.

The Cunninghams appealed.

Time to show your cards, Ohio.

(1)   Cunningham and his wife were raised in Ohio and raised their children there.

COMMENT: Fail. What else do you have, Ohio?

(2)   He listed his Ohio address on his tax return.

COMMENT: Dumb but not fatal.

(3)   He had his Tennessee utility bills forwarded to Cincinnati for payment.

COMMENT: Same as (2), although I am wondering who was in Cincinnati to pay the bills if they were in Tennessee.

(4)   He maintained an Ohio driver’s license.

COMMENT: That guy, he is such a procrastinator …

(5)   He voted in Ohio during the year.

COMMENT: Did no one advise this guy?

(6)   He did not present a calendar of contact periods.

COMMENT: He’s got this ADD thing with paperwork …

(7)   He filled-out paperwork to obtain homestead exemption on his Cincinnati residence.

COMMENT: Really?! I mean it, REALLY???

Let’s just say that the Tax Commissioner persuaded the Ohio Supreme Court that any affidavit Cunningham filed was bunkum. Cunningham was an Ohio resident under common-law tests. The bright lines rules – while invaluable – are not an absolute defense against the common-law tests for residency.

There has been some hyperventilation in the wake of this decision. Here is an example from the Ohio Society of CPAs:

This ruling will encourage even more litigation whenever the commissioner decides to challenge an affidavit as ‘false,’ and will render almost meaningless the recent increase in allowable contact periods from 182 to 212.”  

No, no it doesn’t, and I greatly doubt that Ohio wants to get into repetitive shootouts with taxpayers on this issue. That is why Ohio moved to a bright-line standard in the first place.

Just have some common sense out there, folks.

TomatoCare And The Supreme Court

Let’s play make believe.

Late on a dark and stormy Saturday night, the Congressional Spartans - urged on by Poppa John's and the National Tomato Growers Association – passed a sweeping vegetable care bill by a vote of 220-215.

The bill went to the Senate, where its fate was sadly in doubt. The fearless majority leader Harry Leonidas negotiated agreements with several recalcitrant senators, including the slabjacking of New Orleans, an ongoing automatic bid for the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the college Bowl Championship Series and the relocation of Vermont to somewhere between North Carolina and Florida. After passage, the bill was signed by the president while on the back nine at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage, California.

As a consequence of this visionary act, Americans now had access to affordable tomatoes, thanks to market reforms and consumer protections put into place by this law. The law had also begun to curb rising tomato prices across the system by cracking down on waste and fraud and creating powerful incentives for grocery chains to spend their resources more wisely. Americans were now protected from some of the worst industry abuses like out-of-season shortages that could cut off tomato supply when people needed them the most.

California, Vermont and Massachusetts established state exchanges to provide tomato subsidies to individuals whose household income levels were below the threshold triggering the maximum federal individual income tax rate (presently 39.6 percent). The remaining states had refused to establish their own exchanges, prompting the federal government to intervene. The Tax Exempt Organization Division at the IRS, recognized for their expertise in technology integration, data development and retention, was tasked to oversee the installation of federal exchanges in those backwater baronies. IRS Commissioner Koskinen stated that this would require a reallocation of existing budgetary funding and – as a consequence - the IRS would not be collecting taxes from anyone in the Central time zone during the forthcoming year.

The 54 states that did not establish their own exchanges filed a lawsuit (Bling v Ne’er-Do-Well) challenging a key part of the TomatoCare law, which read as follows:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any vegetable coverage amount is the amount equal to the lesser of the greater…”

These benighted states pointed out that, botanically, a tomato was a fruit. A fruit was defined as a seed-bearing vessel developed from the ovary of a flowering plant. A vegetable, on the other hand, was any other part of the plant. By this standard, seedy growth such as bananas, apples and, yes, tomatoes, were all fruits.

There was great fear upon the land when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Depending upon how the Supreme Court decided, there might be no tomato subsidies because tomatoes were not vegetables, a result clearly, unambiguously and irretrievably-beyond-dispute not the intent of Congress on that dark, hot, stormy, wintery Saturday night as they debated the merits of quitclaiming California to Mexico.

The case began under great susurration. The plaintiffs (the 54 moon landings) read into evidence definitions of the words “fruit” and “vegetables” from Webster’s Dictionary, Worcester’s Dictionary, the Imperial Dictionary and Snoop Dogg’s album “Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$.”

The Court acknowledged that the words “fruit” and “vegetable” were indeed words in the English language. As such, the Court was bound to take judicial notice, as it did in regard to all words in its own tongue, especially “oocephalus” and “bumfuzzle.” The Court agreed that a dictionary could be admitted in Court only as an aid to the memory and understanding of the Court and not as evidence of the meaning of words.

The Court went on:

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of the vine. But in the common language of the 202 area code, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and, whether eaten cooked, steamed, boiled, roasted or raw, are like potatoes, carrots, turnips and cauliflower, usually served at dinner with, or after, the soup, fish, fowl or beef which constitutes the principal part of the repast.”

The Court decided:

            But it is not served, like fruits generally, as a dessert.”

With that, the Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit. The challenge to TomatoCare was courageously halted, and the liberal wing of the Court – in a show of their fierce independence and tenacity of intellect – posed for a selfie and went to Georgetown to get matching tattoos.

Thus ends our make believe.

There was no TomatoCare law, of course, but there WAS an actual Supreme Court decision concerning tomatoes. Oh, you didn’t know?

Back in the 1880s the Port of New York was taxing tomatoes as vegetables. The Nix family, which imported tons of tomatoes, sued. They thought they had the law – and common sense – on their side. After all, science said that tomatoes were fruit. The only party who disagreed was the Collector of the Port of New York, hardly an objective juror.

The tax law in question was The Tariff of 1883, a historical curiosity now long gone, and the case was Nix v Hedden. 

And that is how we came to think of tomatoes as vegetables.

Brilliant legal minds, right?