A Firefighter Sues

The taxation of legal settlements can be maddening.

The general rule is found in IRC Section 61, which can be colloquially summarized as:

If it breathes, moves, or eats, it is taxable.

Then come the exceptions.

The Code begins with a broad rule, and then you must find and fit into an exception to avoid taxability. A big exception for legal settlements is Section 104(a)(2):

        § 104 Compensation for injuries or sickness.

(a)  In general.

Except in the case of amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include-

(1)  amounts received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness;

(2) the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness;

What can we learn here?

(1) The Code does not care whether the judge decides or if the parties instead come to an agreement.  

(2)  It does not care if one gets paid in a lump sum or in a series of payments.

(3) It cares very much that the settlement is for something physical – whether injury or sickness.  

What about something nonphysical, such as mental or emotional distress?

Reviewing the history of the Code helps here, as we learn that the Code was changed in 1996 to clarify that mental and emotional injury settlements are excludable from income only if they arose from physical injury or sickness.

This gives the following rule of thumb:

          Physical               =       nontaxable

          Nonphysical        =       taxable      

The attorney must be aware of the above demarcation and wordsmith accordingly if some or all the settlement is for nonphysical damages. 

Can it be done?

Let’s look at the Montes case.

Suzanne Montes wanted to be a firefighter since she was a little girl. She was one of the few women to pass the exam to get into the San Francisco Fire Academy. She then was one of the few women to graduate from the program.

Good for her.

In 2016 she received a sweet assignment to a firehouse in downtown San Francisco.

You may know that firefighters work as a team and in 24-hour shifts. There are about 10 shifts per month, so they spend a LOT of time together. Suzanne was a woman. The remainder of the team were men. Many did not welcome her. First came the disparaging comments, then sabotaging her equipment, then doing - I do not know what specifically and I do not want to know – “disgusting and extremely unsanitary” things to her personal property and effects.

Thanks, guys, for painting men as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Way to represent the team.

She complained.

She sued.

She won approximately $380 grand.

Good.

She went to a CPA when it was time to file. The CPA advised that the $380 grand was not taxable.

Even better.

You know the IRS balked, as we are looking at a Tax Court case.

The IRS’s first argument?

Start with the complaint, which claimed sex discrimination and retaliation, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

There are no allegations of physical disease or harm to her in the complaint.”

We are not seeing the magic words here: physical injury, physical sickness or micrato raepy sathonich.

Hopefully her attorney salvaged this in the settlement agreement.

Here is the Court:

Our detective work here begins and ends with the settlement agreement.”

Oh oh.

There are no allegations of physical injury …, and indeed, in the summary of the complaint it says, ‘She has lost compensation for which she would have been entitled. She has suffered from emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation and her prospects for career advancement have been diminished.’”

No magic words.

Yep, she lost her case. The settlement was taxable.

The Court did hand her a small victory, though. Penalties did not apply because she took a reasonable position based on the advice of a CPA.

Our case this time was Montes v Commissioner, Docket No. 17332-21, June 29, 2023.

 

Navigating The Tax Code On Your Own

 

I received a phone call recently from the married daughter of a client. I spoke with the couple – mostly the son-in-law – about needing an accountant. They had bought property, converted property to rental status and were selling property the following (that is, this) year.

It sounds like a lot. It really isn’t. It was clear during our conversation that they were well-versed in the tax issues.

I told them: “you don’t need me.”

They were surprised to hear this.

Why would I say that?

They knew more than they gave themselves credit for. Why pay me? Let them put the money to better use.

Let’s take an aside before continuing our story.

We - like many firms - are facing staffing pressure. The profession has brought much of this upon itself – public accounting has a blemished past – and today’s graduates appear to be aware of the sweatshop mentality that has preceded them. Lose a talented accountant. Experience futility in hiring new talent. Ask those who remain to work even harder to make up the shortfall. Be surprised when they eventually leave because of overwork. Unchecked, this problem can be a death spiral for a firm.

Firms are addressing this in different ways. Many firms are dismissing clients or not accepting new ones. Many (if not most) have increased minimum fees for new clients. Some have released entire lines of business. There is a firm nearby, for example, which has released all or nearly all of its fiduciary tax practice.

We too are taking steps, one of which is to increase our minimum fee for new individual tax clients.

Back to the young couple.

I explained that I did not want to charge them that minimum fee, especially since it appeared they could prepare their return as well as I could. 

They explained they wanted certainty that it was done right.

Yeah, I want that for them too. We will work something out.

But I think there is a larger issue here.

The tax Code keeps becoming increasingly complex. That is fine if we are talking about Apple or Microsoft, as they can afford to hire teams of accountants and attorneys. It is not fine for ordinary people, hopefully experiencing some success in life, but unable – or fearful - to prepare their own returns. Couple this with an overburdened accounting profession, a sclerotic IRS, and a Congress that may be brewing a toxic stew with its never-ending disfigurement of the tax Code to solve all perceived ills since the days of Hammurabi.

How are people supposed to know that they do not know?

Let’s look at the Lucas case.

Robert Lucas was a software engineer who lost his job in 2017. He was assisting his son and daughter, and he withdrew approximately $20 grand from his 401(k) toward that end.

Problem: Lucas was not age 59 ½.

Generally speaking, that means one has taxable income.

One may also have a penalty for early distribution. While that may seem like double jeopardy, such is the law.

Sure enough, the plan administrator issued a Form 1099 showing the distribution as taxable to Lucas with no known penalty exception.

Lucas should have paid the tax and penalty. He did not, which is why we are talking about this.

The IRS computers caught the omission, of course, and off to Tax Court they went.

Lucas argued that he had been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years earlier. He had read on a website that diabetes would make the distribution nontaxable.

Sigh. He had misread – or someone had written something wildly inaccurate about – being “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity.”

That is a no.

Since he thought the distribution nontaxable, he also thought the early distribution penalty would not apply.

No … again.

Lucas tried.

He thought he knew, but he did not know.

He could have used a competent tax preparer.

But how was he to know that?

Our case this time was Robert B. Lucas v Commissioner T.C.M. 2023-009.

How A Drug Dealer Then Affects Marijuana Taxation Today

 

I spent substantial time last week reviewing and researching issues related to the marijuana industry. There is one Code section – Section 280E – that overpowers almost all tax planning in this area.

That section came into the Code in 1982.

It came in response to a Tax Court decision.

Let’s talk about it.

Here is the Court setting the table:

During …, petitioner Jeffrey Edmonson was self-employed in the trade or business of selling amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. His primary source of controlled substances was one Jerome Caby, who delivered the goods to petitioner in Minneapolis on consignment. Petitioner paid Caby after the drugs were sold. Petitioner received on consignment 1,100,000 amphetamine tablets, 100 pounds of marijuana, and 13 ounces of cocaine during the taxable year 1974. He had no beginning inventory of any of these goods and had an ending inventory of only 8 ounces of cocaine.

What got this bus in motion was a 1961 Supreme Court decision holding that everyone who made money – whether through legal or illegal activities – had to pay taxes on that money.

Edmonson got busted.

The IRS came in with a jeopardy assessment.

The IRS was concerned about Edmonson skipping, hence the jeopardy. This assessment causes all taxes, penalties, and interest to become immediately due. This allows to IRS to exercise its Collections powers (liens, levies, not answering phone calls for extreme durations) on an expedited basis.

Edmonson might not have been too concerned about po-po, but he wasn’t about to mess with the IRS. Although he did not keep books and records (obviously), he came up with a bunch of expenses to reduce his taxable income.

The IRS said: are you kidding me?

Off they went to Tax Court.

Edmonson went green eyeshade.

·      He calculated cost of goods sold for the amphetamines, marijuana, and cocaine

·      He calculated his business mileage

·      He had business trips and meals

·      He paid packing expenses

·      He had bought a small scale

·      He used a phone

·      He even deducted an office-in-home

The IRS, on the other hand, reduced his cost of goods sold and simply disallowed all other expenses.

The Court reduced or disallowed some expenses (it reduced his office in home, for example), but it allowed many others, including his cost of goods sold.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner asserts by his testimony that he had a cost of goods sold of $106,200. The nature of petitioner’s role in the drug market, together with his appearance and candor at trial, cause us to believe that he was honest, forthright, and candid in his reconstruction of the income and expenses from his illegal activities in the taxable year 1974.

The Edmonson decision revealed an unanticipated quirk in the tax Code. This did not go over well with Congress, which closed the Edmonson loophole by passing Code section 280E in 1982:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

This Code section pretty much disallows all business deductions (marijuana is classified as a controlled substance), except for cost of goods sold. Cost of goods sold is not considered a deduction in the tax Code; rather it is a subtraction from gross receipts to arrive at gross income. Think about a business where you could not deduct (most or all) your salaries, rent, utilities, taxes, insurance and so on. That is the headwind a marijuana business faces.

Meanwhile, things around us have changed greatly since 1982. Marijuana is legal in 21 states, and medical marijuana is legal in almost twice that number. Colorado by itself has collected over $2 billion in taxes since legalizing marijuana. There are publicly traded companies in the marijuana industry. There are even ETFs should you want to invest in this sector.

And that is how we have business activity that may be legal under state law but is illegal under federal law. The federal tax Code taps into federal law – that is, the Controlled Substances Act – and that tap activates Section 280E and its harsh tax result. 

Our case this time was Edmonson v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1981-623.

"I Never Heard Of The Alternative Minimum Tax"

 

I am looking at a case that involves the alternative minimum tax.

While it still exists, much of the steam has thankfully been taken out of the AMT. It started off as Congressional reaction to a handful of ultrawealthy families paying little to no income taxes decades ago. Congress’s response was to require a second tax calculation, disallowing certain things – such as exemptions for your dependents.

Yes, you read that correctly, you large-family tax scofflaw.

Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if this thing had been scaled to only reach the wealthy and ultrawealthy, but that is not what Congress did. Congress instead gave you a spot, and then you were on your own. For 2017 that spot was approximately $84 grand in income for marrieds filing jointly.

I used to see the AMT as often as a Gibson’s employee sees donuts.

Thankfully the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 did a couple of things to defang the AMT:

(1) It increased the exemption (that is, the spot) for everyone. Marrieds now have an exemption of approximately $115,000, for example.

(2)  More importantly, it adjusted a previous rule that phased-out the exemption as one’s income increased. For example, marrieds in 2017 would start phasing-out when their income reached approximately $160,000. Now it is over $1 million, which makes a lot more sense it if was truly targeted at the wealthy.

Why the absurdly low previous income thresholds for the AMT, especially since it was supposed to target the “rich?” Think of it as Congressional addiction to paper crack – the paper being your dollar bills.

The tax law is a little saner until 2026, when the TCJA goes “poof.” Much prior tax law will then resurrect – including the previous version AMT.

Robert Colton and Alina Mazwin (R&A) filed a joint return for 2016.

The IRS did its computer matching and sent them a notice. There was $125,000 reported by JP Morgan Chase Bank. The IRS wanted taxes on it.

R&A explained to the IRS that the $125,000 was a legal settlement, and that half of it went to Mr Colton’s ex-spouse.

The IRS said OK, but we want taxes on the $62,500.

Let’s take an aside here. You may have heard that lawsuit settlements are not taxable. That is only partially true. The lawsuit has to involve physical injury (think a car crash, for example) to be tax-free.

It appears that Mr Colton’s settlement was of the non-car crash variety, meaning that it was taxable.

R&A then amended their 2016 return, picking up the $62,500 but also claiming a miscellaneous itemized deduction of $80,075 for attorney fees.

Hah! They might even get a tax refund out of this, right? Take that, IRS.

Except …

Guess what is not deductible for the AMT.

Yep, that miscellaneous itemized deduction.

So – for AMT purposes – their income went up by the $62,500 but there was no deduction for the related legal fee.

How much income did R&A have before the IRS contacted them?

About $40 grand.

Yep, the AMT had been bent so far beyond recognition that it trapped someone amending a return to show perhaps $100 grand in income.

Folks, that income level does not go you invited to the cool parties on Martha’s Vineyard.

Let me share a line from the case:

Petitioners stated in their petition that ‘[they] never heard of [the] alternative minimum tax.”

I get it. I consider it unconscionable that an average person has to hire someone like me to prepare their taxes.  

Our case this time for the home gamers was Colton and Mazwin v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-44.

Bitcoin and Fred

I am going to dedicate this post to Fred.

Fred likes to talk about Bitcoin. He is a believer. He may as well be on the payroll.

I do not want to talk about blockchain or cryptocurrencies or any of that.

Let’s talk about the taxation of the thing, in case Fred has gotten to you.

As I write this Bitcoin is selling for around $15 grand.

On January 1, 2017 – less than a year ago – it sold for around $1 grand.

COMMENT: There is a reason why we are still working, folks.

There are even Bitcoin ATMs. I understand there around 70 or so locations around Miami alone. You can tap into one if you are going to the Orange Bowl at the end of this month.

Mind you, if you withdraw dollars-for-Bitcoins you probably have a tax consequence.

You see, the IRS has said (in 2014) that Bitcoin is not a currency. Given this thing’s propensity to swing hundreds if not thousands of dollars of day, it makes sense that it is not a currency. Currencies are supposed to have some stable value, at least until politicians run them into the ground.

No, Bitcoins are property, like stocks or a mutual fund. Like a stock or mutual fund, you have a tax consequence on the sale.

Let’s use the following numbers for the sake of discussion:

          Bought on 1/1/17                    $1,000

          Cashed-in on 12/31/17           $16,500

Let’s say you cash-in a Bitcoin while you are at the Orange Bowl. What have you got?

Way I see it, you have ...

    $16,500 (proceeds) - $1,000 (cost) = $15,500 gain

You are supposed to report $15,500 as income on your tax return.

What type of income is it?

I see a buy. I see a sell. I would argue this is capital gain. It would be short-term, as you did not own it for a year.

Let’s throw a curve ball.

Let’s say that you did some work for somebody in 2016. The paid you with that Bitcoin on January 1, 2017 – the one worth $1,000 at the time.

What are your tax consequences now?

You got paid with a Bitcoin worth $1,000. You have $1,000 of ordinary income. If you got paid for work, it is also subject to self-employment tax.

Then you sell it.

I see the following …

   $1,000 (ordinary) + $15,500 (capital gain) = $16,500   

This is what happens when Bitcoin is considered “property” rather than “currency.” It would be the same as you writing checks on your Fidelity or Vanguard mutual fund. Every time you do you are selling some of your mutual fund. And it all gets reported to the IRS at year-end.

Except that most of Bitcoin does not get reported to the IRS at year-end. Not yet, at least. In fact, in 2015 only 802 people reported Bitcoin on their tax return. You know that doesn’t make sense.

Which is why the IRS served a “John Doe” summons on Coinbase in November, 2016. Coinbase is an exchange for virtual currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. A “John Doe” summons substitutes a group or class or people for a specific person. It could be as easy as “anyone who sold more than $600 of Bitcoin between 2013 and 2015.”

Coinbase fought back, of course, but in the end the two wound up compromising. Coinbase will not provide 100% of its account data, but the IRS is getting information on over 14,000 account holders and almost 9 million transactions.

Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have become the new overseas bank accounts. It is time to come clean on this stuff, folks.

And yes, I believe there will be IRS reporting – akin to what the stock brokerages do – in the near-enough future. The government is flipping the sofa cushions for every nickel it can find. Until they get us to a 100% tax rate, they are going to keep looking for new sofas.

Someone – probably Fred - was telling me about a Bitcoin credit card.

That is a tax nightmare

Why?

Say that you bust to Starbucks in the morning. You put your coffee on the card. You stop for fuel – on the card. You go to lunch – on the card. You stop at the dry cleaners and Krogers on the way home – both on the card.

You have 5 “sales” that day. Each one has a cost, and who knows how we are going to come up with that number. Say that you do something comparable almost every work day. I will probably “fee discourage” you from using me as your tax advisor.

BTW, a similar thing can occur if you accept Bitcoin as payment for your services. Say that you are an independent contractor and two or three of your clients pay you in Bitcoin. You are going to have to price the Bitcoin every time you get paid with one, as your “proceeds” are its value on the day you receive it.

That is an accounting hassle.

Can you think of a nightmare scenario?

I  can.

What if you get paid with Bitcoin next year when it is worth $20,000. You hold onto it. Let’s say Bitcoin drops to $9,000 by December 31, 2018. You bring me the info for your taxes. How much do you have to report as income from that Bitcoin?

You have to report $20,000.

But it is only worth $9,000 now!

Yep. That is how it works since Bitcoin is not considered a currency.

What can I do to get my taxes down? Should I sell it?

Now you have a different problem. If that thing is a capital asset – and we said earlier that it was – you will have a capital loss upon sale. You will report a $11,000 capital loss on your return.

And unless you have capital gains to absorb those losses, you continue to have tax problems. Capital losses are allowed to offset only $3,000 of your “other” (read: Bitcoin) income on your tax return. You get no bang on the remaining $8,000 ($11,000 - $3,000), at least until the following year when you can use another $3,000. 

Don’t forget that you are also paying self-employment taxes on that $20,000 and not on $9,000.

This is ridiculous. If I were you, I would fire me as your tax advisor.

I do not accept Bitcoin for my fees, but I am waiting for someone to bring it up. I might do it for an isolated transaction or two. 

But no way am I using a Bitcoin credit card.

Magic Dragon, Pain Management and Taxation

I had lunch recently with a friend who has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  I learned about MS primarily through him, and the disease is frightening. He went on to explain the neural degeneration and the pain that it can – and does – cause. His doctors have prescribed any number of pain medicines, but sometimes - many times - he does not need the full power of those prescriptions. He needs more than an aspirin but much less than an opioid.

It appears that marijuana does work for pain management.

Granted, this can be a problem where we live, as marijuana is not legal in either Kentucky or Ohio.

Over twenty states permit the medical use of marijuana, and four permit its recreational use. The problem arises from its status as a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning that it is illegal under federal law. I doubt too many tax CPAs get involved with businesses selling illegal products, and those that do are probably not in public practice.

The White House has encouraged the Justice Department not to prosecute marijuana distributors who comply with state law.  Granted, the next White House may change course on this matter, but for the moment there is temporary stability.

I have no idea how a state Board of Accountancy would react.

Remember that the tax Code is federal tax law. It also contains Code section 280E, which was passed in 1982, 14 years before California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana.

Let’s look at this polished pearl of prose.

Sec 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which the trade or business is conducted.

This section was created in response to the 1981 Edmonson case, in which the Tax Court allowed a seller of amphetamines, cocaine and marijuana to deduct expenses. The decision did not go over well.

So Congress responded with “no deduction or credit shall be allowed” on public policy grounds.

However that language does not mean what it first appears to say.  

Section 280E does allow a cost-of-goods-sold deduction. The reason goes back to accounting theory. Let’s say that you sell Supreme Court clown hats. You sell a million of them for $5 each. You have to have them manufactured, which you outsource and pay $3 each.  Let’s step into a tax accounting class and the professor asks you: what is your income?

·        Is it 1 million times $5 = $5 million

·        Or is it 1 million times ($5 - $3) = $2 million

The answer is $2 million, as you get to deduct the cost of a product when your business involves selling a product.

And the Tax Court agreed in the Olive case.

Following Olive, we know that we can deduct the cost of the marijuana from the revenues received from selling marijuana. What about everything else: payroll, rent, lights, cell phone, computers and software, stationary, and so forth?

Now we run full-face into Section 280E. There is no deduction.

That has to hurt come April 15^th.

Surely the tax accountants can do something, right?

Yes, up to a point.

Remember that we said that you are allowed to deduct the cost of a product when your business involves selling a product? Another word for product is inventory, and there are things an accountant can do to tack some of those otherwise nondeductible expenses onto the inventory. You would then deduct those expenses as cost of goods sold when the product sells. I suspect you will still be leaving most of those expenses on the floor, but it is something.

More useful is to have another line of business that does not involve the sale of marijuana. Let’s say that one sets up a caregiving activity involving marijuana, providing support groups, lunches, counseling, social events and so on. As long as the primary business is not the sale of marijuana, the accountant could shift expenses (within reason; be fair) to that activity and sidestep the Section 280E disallowance. This was the Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP) case, and it received the Tax Court’s approval. Introduce creative minds and I am certain there are a thousand variations on the theme.

There is a San Francisco marijuana business (Canna Care) that has taken Section 280E to Tax Court.  In their case it means a $2.6 million deduction. They do not have a CHAMP fact pattern but are instead arguing that the disallowance is punitive and hence unconstitutional.

There has been no decision as of this writing, but I would not be optimistic.

Why? The Ninth Circuit very recently decided on the appeal of Olive mentioned above. Martin Olive operates the Vapor Room, a medical marijuana dispensary in California. In addition to selling marijuana, it offers a number of services as well as food – both for free. It made a CHAMP argument, wanting to allocate expenses between the two lines of business.

The Ninth Circuit said no, basing its decision primarily on the “free” part of the food and services. To allocate expenses to two or more trades or businesses, one must in fact be in business. There is no hope of a profit when the activity is giving things away for free, so that activity cannot rise to the level of a trade or business.

But the Ninth Circuit also slapped down Olive’s direct challenge to Section 280E, saying the tax disallowance is not based on marijuana being legal or illegal. Rather the disallowance is based on marijuana being a controlled substance, which it is and continues to be.

And there you have the federal taxation of marijuana in a nutshell.

My thoughts?

It appears that the 1982 Section 280E addition to the tax Code is a bit out-of-step with contemporary society. Perhaps Congress could change one word: 

… which is prohibited by Federal law AND the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted”.

And no, I don’t want any credit for the suggestion. I am more of a bourbon fan myself.