The EV Tax Credit

I was reading an article recently that approximately 40% of Americans have not heard about the EV tax credits.

EVs are battery powered cars. We used to have hybrids, which sometimes used a motor and other times a battery. EVs by contrast are 100% battery powered.

If you are thinking about buying one for personal use, here are a few markers to keep in mind:

(1)   There was an OLD tax credit and now there is a NEW tax credit.

a.     The OLD credit went through April 18, 2023.

b.    The NEW credit of course is after April 18, 2023.

Both credits can get up to $7,500, so what changed was the measuring stick.

Before April 19, the EV had to be assembled in North America.

After April 18, one test became two tests:

·       The battery itself has to be manufactured in North America, and

·       Then critical minerals in the battery (cobalt and lithium, for example) must be extracted or processed in the U.S. or in a country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement.

Notice that OLD $7,500 credit (assembled in North America) has become two NEW credits of $3,750 each. You can get to $7,500, but along a different route.

It matters. For example, the new Ford Mustang Mach-E only qualifies for one of the credits – only $3,750 – because its battery comes from abroad.

Some – like the Genesis GV70 – used to qualify for the old $7,500 credit but no longer qualify for anything under the new rules.

If you are considering an EV, please double check whether the vehicle qualifies. Here is the Department of Energy’s website:

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax2023.shtml

(2)   Congress included some price caps on qualifying vehicles. These things are expensive, and Congress was trying to exert downward pressure.

To qualify,

·       A van, SUV or pickup truck must cost $80 grand or less.

·       Any other vehicle (a sedan, for example) must cost $55 grand or less.  

(3)   Starting in 2024, you will have the option of using the credit immediately when you purchase the vehicle. It would make for an easy down payment, I suppose.  

The heavy lifting is done behind the scenes, as the dealerships will register on a new website to initiate and receive the credits. If you are curious, that website is: 

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/register-your-dealership-to-enable-credits-for-clean-vehicle-buyers  

(4)   For the first time, used EVs will qualify for a credit. This credit will not be as large as the one for new EVs, but it is not insignificant either. Here are the ropes:

·       The price must be $25 grand or less.

·       The car must be at least two years old.

·       The car qualifies only once in its lifetime.

·       The credit is up to $4 grand, limited to 30% of the price.

·       You can claim the used EV credit once every three years.  

(5)   There are income limits on both the new EV and used EV credits. Make too much money and you will not qualify.  

For example:

New EV

           Married        income < $300,00

                                       Single          income < $150,000

                            Used EV

                                        Married       income < $150,000

                                        Single         income < $75,000  

You can test for income either in the year of purchase or the immediately preceding year. I am thinking – to be safe – that one should generally go with the preceding year. It would be no fun to apply a $7,500 credit against the purchase of an EV and then give it back because you reported too much income on your 2024 tax return.  

(6)   Up to now, we have been talking about buying an EV for personal use. There is a similar credit if you lease rather than buy, but some rules are different.

·       Since the leasing company (and not you) owns the vehicle, the income test does not apply.

·       The credit requires the EV be manufactured by a “qualified manufacturer” rather than the two-step qualification discussed above for a purchased vehicle. This should result in a wider selection.

·       Mind you, the leasing company is not required to pass (all or any of) this credit on to you. Education is important here - and expect negotiation.  

The reason the rules are different is that this second credit is designed for businesses – rather than individuals – buying an EV. By bringing in a leasing company, we flipped from the first to the second credit.  

I am not in the market for a car myself.  If I were, though, I would go in a very different direction.

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.

Income And Cancellation of Bank Debt

 

There is a basic presumption in the tax Code that any accession to “wealth” is income. It isn’t much of a leap for the tax Code to then say that all income is taxable unless otherwise excluded.

Let’s next look at “wealth.” I propose a working definition as follows:

          Assets (A) = Liabilities (L) + Wealth (W)

A little algebra shows the following:

          A – L = W

Here is spiff on the above: do you have wealth if your liabilities go down?

Let’s look at the Katrina White case.

Katrina started a business in 2015. She took out a business loan for $15,000. She leased space for her business, signing a three-year lease.

The business did not work out. The family lent her $8 grand, but there was no way to save it. She had repaid the bank less than a grand when her remaining debt of $14,433 was discharged. The bank sent her a 1099, of course, as all American life events can apparently be reduced to a 1099.

Katrina never made a payment on the lease. Since rent was late for more than two months, the entire lease became due and payable. That fiasco totaled $21,700.

 She filed her return.

The IRS said she left out income of $14,433.

How?

Let’s go through it.

Katrina said that her wealth (that is, A – L = W) was as follows when the business failed:                 

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Utilities, estimated		2,500
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
Family loan		7,800
		61,936
Net wealth		(29,876)

The IRS wasn’t buying this. They argued that:

·      The estimated utilities were a no go.

·      The family loan wasn’t really a “loan.”

·      While we are at it, the lease breach wasn’t really a loan, as the landlord had no intention of enforcing the debt.

The IRS math was as follows:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
		29,936
Net wealth		2,124

The matter went to Tax Court.

The Court pointed out the obvious: Katrina signed a valid and binding lease contract. Perhaps the landlord decided that there was nothing there to pursue, but it cannot be argued that she had an enforceable debt.

The Court saw the following:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
		51,636
Net wealth		(19,576)

Let’s recap our numbers:

Wealth per Katrina was          ($29,876)

Wealth per the IRS was              $2,124

Wealth per the Court was        ($19,576)

Remember what we said at the beginning, that all income is taxable unless there is an exception?  Well, there is an exception for cancellation of debt. Several, in fact, but today we are concerned with only one: insolvency. The Code says that one does not have income to the extent that one is insolvent.

What is insolvency?

Go back to the formula: A – L = W.

To the extent that “W” is negative, one is insolvent. Another way of saying it is that one has more debts than assets.

So, who showed negative “W”?

Well, Katrina did. So did the Court.

Katrina was insolvent. That was an exception to cancellation of indebtedness income. Katrina did not have taxable income. The IRS lost.

Our case this time was Katrina White v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023.-77.

Self-Renting a Big Green Egg

Sometimes tax law requires you to witness the torture of the language. Other times it herds you through a sequence of “except for” clauses, almost assuring that some future Court will address which except is taking exception.

And then you have the laughers.

I came across an article titled: Corporation’s self-leasing rental expense deduction denied.”

I was curious. We tax nerds have an exceptionally low threshold for curiosity.

Before reading the article, I anticipated that:

(1)  Something was being deducted

(2)  That something was rent expense

(3)  Something was being self-leased, whatever that means, and

(4)  Whatever it means, the deduction was denied.

Let us spend a little time on (3).

Self-lease (or self-rental) means that you are renting something to yourself or, more likely, to an entity that you own. It took on greater tax significance in 1986 when Congress, frustrated for years with tax shelters, created the passive activity (PAL) rules. The idea was to separate business activities between actually working (active/material participation) and living the Kennedy (passive activity).

It is not a big deal if all the activities are profitable.

It can be a big deal if some of the activities are unprofitable.

Let’s go back to the classic tax shelter. A high-incomer wants to shelter high income with a deductible tax loss.

Our high-incomer buys a partnership interest in a horse farm or oil pipeline or Starbucks. The high-incomer does not work at the farm/pipeline/Starbucks, of course. He or she is an investor.

In the lingo, he/she is passive in the activity.

Contrast that with whatever activity generates the high income. Odds are that he/she works there. We would refer to that as active or material participation.

The 1986 tax act greatly restricted the ability of the high-incomer to use passive losses to offset active/material participation income.

Every now and then, however, standard tax planning is flipped on its head. There are cases where the high-incomer wants more passive income.

In the name of all that is holy, why?

Has to do with passive losses. Let’s say that you had $10,000 in passive losses in 2015. You could not use them to offset other income, so the $10,000 carried over to 2016. Then to 2017. They are gathering dust.

If we could create passive income, we could use those passive losses.

How to create passive income?

Well, let’s say that you own a company.

You rent something to the company.

Let’s rent your car, your office-in-home or your Big Green EGG XXL.

Rent is passive income, right? The tax on our passive income will be zero, as the losses will mop up every dollar of income.

That is the “self-rental” the tax Code is after.

But it also triggers one of those “except for” rules: if the self-rental results in income, the income will not qualify as passive income.

All your effort was for naught. Thank you for playing.

Back to the article I was reading.

There is a doctor. He is the only owner of a medical practice. He used the second story of his house solely for the medical practice. Fair be fair, he had the practice pay him rent for that second floor.

I have no problem with that.

The Tax Court disallowed the corporation a rent deduction.

Whaaat? That makes no sense.

The purpose of the passive/active/material participation rules is not to deny a deduction altogether. The purpose is to delay the use of losses until the right type of income comes around.

What was the Tax Court thinking?

Easy. The doctor never reported the rental income on his personal return.

This case has nothing to do with self-rental rules. The Court simply was not permitting the corporation a deduction for rent that its shareholder failed to report as income.

The case for the home gamers is Christopher C.L. Ng M.D. Inc.