Are You Insolvent Or Not?

There is a case called Hamilton v Commissioner. It was recently decided in the 10^th Circuit, and it caught my eye.

Since it went to a Circuit court, you may correctly assume that this case was on appeal.

Frankly, I do not see a win condition for the taxpayer here. It does, however, give us an opportunity to discuss the concept of a tax nominee.

The patriarch of our story – Mr Hamilton – borrowed over $150,000 to send his son to medical school.

Mr Hamilton injured his back in 2008 – and badly.

I presume that translated into loss of income and a difficult time servicing debt.

Mrs Hamilton finally got the student loan discharged in 2011.

A key point is that the student loan belonged to Mr Hamilton – not the son. When the loan was discharged, the tax effect is therefore analyzed at Mr Hamilton’s level, as he was the debtor.

Before the discharge, Mrs Hamilton transferred approximately $300 grand into a rarely used savings account owned by her son. He in turn gave her the username and password so she could access the account. Throughout 2011, for example, she withdrew close to $120,000 from the account.

COMMENT: There you have the issue of a nominee: whose account is it: Mrs Hamilton’s, the son’s, or both? Granted, it the son’s name is on the account, but is he acting as the face man – that is, a nominee – for someone else?

The issue in the case is whether the discharged debt of $150 grand was taxable to the Hamiltons in 2011.

In general, if your recourse debt is discharged, you have taxable income. There are several exceptions, of which one of the better known is bankruptcy. File for bankruptcy and the tax Code allows you to exclude the debt from taxable income.

But … it requires you to file bankruptcy.

There is a similar – but not quite the same – exception that has to do with insolvency. For tax purposes, one is insolvent if one’s debts exceeds one’s assets.

EXAMPLE: You have assets (house, car, savings, etc.) of $400,000. You owe $500,000. You are insolvent to the extent that your debts exceed your assets ($500,000 – 400,000 = $100,000).

Mind you, you are not filing for bankruptcy. I suppose it is possible that you could power through this stretch, cutting back personal expenditures to a minimum and applying everything else to debt. Still, you are technically insolvent.

The tax Code lets you exclude debt forgiveness from taxable income to the extent that you are insolvent.

EXAMPLE: Let’s continue with the above example. Say that $50,000 is forgiven. You are $100,000 insolvent. $50 grand is less than $100 grand, so $50 grand would be excluded under the insolvency exception.

NEXT EXAMPLE: What if $125 grand was forgiven? You could exclude $100 grand and no more. That last $25,000 would be taxable, as you are no longer insolvent.

The insolvency calculation puts a lot of pressure on what to include and what to exclude in the calculation. Do you include a 401(k) account, for example? Do you include someone else’s loan on which you cosigned?

In the Hamilton case, do you include that savings account?

Under state law, the son did own the account. Tax law however will rarely allow itself to be trapped by mere formality. This judicial doctrine is referred as “substance over form,” and it means what it says: tax law will generally look at the players and on-field performance and resist being distracted by the school band and T-shirt cannons.

The Court made short work of this case.

The taxpayers argued, for example, that the son could change the username and password at any time, so it would be a leap to call him an agent or nominee for his parents.

Yep, and a delivery spaceship for intergalactic deep-dish pizza could land on Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta during rush hour.

If you can log-in with impunity and move $120,000 grand, then you have effective control over the bank account. The mother’s name was not on the account, but it may as well have been because the son was his mother’s agent – that is, her nominee.

I have no problem with that. I would have done the same for my mother, without hesitation.

What the Hamiltons could not do, however, was leave-out that bank account when they were counting assets for purposes of the insolvency calculation. It was, after all, around $300 hundred – less than a Bezos but a lot more than a smidgeon.

Did it affect the insolvency calculation?

Of course it did. That is why the case went to Court.

The Hamiltons were not insolvent. They had income from the debt discharge.

They had to try, I guess, but I doubt whether they ever had a win condition.

Paying Tax On Borrowed Money

I am looking at a Tax Court case where the IRS was chasing almost two-thirds of a million dollars. It involves an attorney and something called “litigation support agreements.”

There is a term you do not hear every day.

The taxpayer is a class-action lawyer.

You see, in a class action, the law firm sues on behalf of a group – or class - of affected parties. Perhaps numerous people were affected by a negligent act, for example, but there is not enough there for any one person to pursue litigation individually. Combine them, however, and you have something.

Or the lawsuit can be total malarkey and the law firm is seeking a payday, with little to no regard to the “class” it allegedly represents.

Ultimately, a class action is a tool that can be used for good or ill, and its fate depends upon the intent and will of its wielder.

Let get’s back to our taxpayer.

It takes money to pursue these cases. One has to bring in experts. There can be depositions, travel, cross-examinations. This takes money, and we already mentioned that a reason for class action is that no one person has enough reason – including money – to litigate on his/her own power.

Did you know there are people out there who will play bank with these cases? That is what “litigation support agreements” are. Yep, somebody loans money to the law firm, and – if the case hits – they get a very nice payoff on their loan. If the case fails, however, they get nothing. High risk: high reward. It’s like going to Vegas.

The taxpayer received over $1.4 million of these loans over a couple of years.

Then IRS came in.

Why?

I see two reasons, but I flat-out believe that one reason was key.

The taxpayer left the $1.4 million off his tax return as taxable income. The taxpayer thought he had a good reason for doing so: the $1.4 million represented loan monies, and it is long-standing tax doctrine that one (generally) cannot have income by borrowing money. Why? Because one has to pay it back, that is why. You are not going to get rich by borrowing money.

There are variations, though. It is also tax doctrine that one can have income when a lender forgives one’s debt. That is why banks issue Forms 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt) when they write-off someone’s credit card. How is it income? Because one is ahead by not having to pay it back.

Our taxpayer had different loan deals and agreements going, but here is representative language for one litigation support agreement:

… shall be a litigation support payment to [XXX] made on a nonrecourse basis and is used to pay for all time and expenses incurred by [XXX} in pursuant [sic] of this litigation. Said payment shall be repaid to …. at the successful conclusion of this litigation with annual interest to be paid as simple interest at the rate of …. as of the date of concluding this litigation.”

Let’s see: there is reference to repayment and an interest rate.

Good: sounds like a loan.

So where is the problem?

Let’s look at the term “nonrecourse.” In general, nonrecourse means that – if the loan fails – the lender can pursue any collateral or security under the loan. What the lender cannot do, however, is go after the borrower personally. Say I borrow a million dollars nonrecourse on a California house that subsequently declines in value to $300 grand. I can just mail the keys back to the lender and walk away without the lender able to chase me down. I am trying to divine what the broader consequence to society could possibly be if numerous people did this, but of course that is silly and could never happen.

Still, nonrecourse loans happen all the time. They should not be fatal, as I am technically still obligated on the loan - at least until the time I mail back the keys.

Let’s look at the next phrase: “successful conclusion of this litigation.”

When are you on the hook for this loan?

I would argue that you are on the hook upon “successful conclusion of this litigation.”

When are you not on the hook?

I would say any time prior to then.

The loan becomes a loan – not at the time of lending – but in the future upon occurrence of a distinguishable event.

The IRS was arguing that the taxpayer received $1.4 million for which he was not liable. He might be liable at a later time - perhaps when the universe begins to cool or the Browns win a Super Bowl – but not when that cash hit his hand.

Granted, chances are good that whoever lent $1.4 would pursue tort action if the taxpayer skipped town and sequestered on an island for a few years, but that would be a different legal action. Whoever put up the money might sue for fraud, nonperformance or malfeasance, but not because the taxpayer was liable for the debt. 

Let’s go back: what keeps one from having income when he/she borrows money?

Right: the obligation to pay it back.

So who did not have an obligation to pay it back?

The taxpayer, that’s who.

The IRS won the case. Still, what bothered me is why the IRS would go after this guy so aggressively. After all, give this arrangement a few years and it will resolve itself. The law firm receives money; the law firm spends money. When it is all said and done, the law firm will burn through all the money, leaving no “net money” for the IRS to tax.

So what fired up the IRS?

The taxpayer filed for bankruptcy.

Before burning through the money.

Meaning there was “net money” left.

He was depriving the IRS of its cut.

There is the overwhelming reason I see.

Our case this time was Novoselsky v Commisioner.

Deducting Expenses Paid With Paycheck Protection Loans

There was a case in 1931 that is influencing a public controversy today.

Let’s talk about it.

The taxpayer (Slayton) was in the business of buying, holding and selling tax-exempt bonds. He would at times borrow money to buy or to carry tax-exempt bonds he already owned.

Slayton had tax-exempt interest income coming in. That amount was approximately $65 thousand.

Slayton was also paying interest. That amount was approximately $78 thousand.

COMMENT: On first read it does not appear that dear old Slayton was the Warren Buffett of his day.

Time came to file his tax return. He omitted the $65 grand in interest received because … well, it was tax-exempt.

He deducted the $78 grand that he was paying to carry those tax-exempt securities.

The IRS said no dice.

Off to Court they went.

Slayton was hot. He made several arguments:

(1)  The government was discriminating against owners of tax-exempt securities and – in effect – nullifying their exemption from taxation.

(2)  The government was discriminating against dealers in tax-exempt bonds that had to borrow money to carry an inventory of such bonds.

(3)  The government was discriminating in favor of dealers of tax-exempt bonds who did not have to borrow to carry an inventory of such bonds.

I admit: he had a point.

The government had a point too.

(1)  The income remained tax-exempt. The issue at hand was not the interest income; rather it was the interest expense.

(2)  Slayton borrowed money for the express purpose of carrying tax-exempt securities. This was not an instance where someone owned an insubstantial amount of tax-exempts within a larger portfolio or where a business owning tax-exempts borrowed money to meet normal business needs.

The link between the bonds and the loans to buy them was too strong in this case. The Court disallowed the interest expense. Since then, tax practitioners refer to the Slayton issue as the “double-dip.”  The dip even has its own Code section:

        § 265 Expenses and interest relating to tax-exempt income.

(a)  General rule.

No deduction shall be allowed for-

(1)  Expenses.

Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, or any amount otherwise allowable under section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income) which is allocable to interest (whether or not any amount of such interest is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Over the years the dip has evolved to include income other than tax-exempt interest, but the core concept remains: one cannot deduct expenses with too strong a tie to nontaxable income.

Let’s fast forward almost 90 years and IRS Notice 2020-32.

To the extent that section 1106(i) of the CARES Act operates to exclude from gross income the amount of a covered loan forgiven under section 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the application of section 1106(i) results in a “class of exempt income” under §1.265- 1(b)(1) of the Regulations. Accordingly, section 265(a)(1) of the Code disallows any otherwise allowable deduction under any provision of the Code, including sections 162 and 163, for the amount of any payment of an eligible section 1106 expense to the extent of the resulting covered loan forgiveness (up to the aggregate amount forgiven) because such payment is allocable to tax-exempt income. Consistent with the purpose of section 265, this treatment prevents a double tax benefit.

I admit, it is not friendly reading.

The CARES Act is a reference to the Paycheck Protection loans. These are SBA loans created in response to COVID-19 to help businesses pay salaries and rent. If the business uses the monies for their intended purpose, the government will forgive the loan.

Generally speaking, forgiveness of a loan results in taxable income, with exceptions for extreme cases such as bankruptcy. The tax reasoning is that one is “wealthier” than before, and the government can tax that accession to wealth as income.

However, the CARES Act specifically stated that forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection loan would not result in taxable income.

So we have:

(1)  A loan that should be taxable – but isn’t - when it is forgiven.

(2)  A loan whose proceeds are used to pay salaries and rent, which are routine deductible expenses.

This sets up the question:

Are the salaries, rent and other qualified expenses paid with a Paycheck Protection loan deductible?

You see how we got to this question, with Section 265, Slayton and subsequent cases that expanded on the double dip.

The IRS said No.

This answer makes sense from a tax perspective.

This answer does not make sense from a political perspective, with Senators Wyden and Grassley and Representative Neal writing to Secretary Mnuchin that this result was not the intent of Congress.

I believe them.

I have a suggestion.

Change the tax law.

IRA Changes For 2020

 The issue came up last week with a retired client, so let’s talk about it.

What is going on in 2020 with your IRAs?

There are several things here, so let’s go step-by-step:

(1)  Do you have to take a minimum required distribution (MRD) if you turned 70 1/2 in 2020?

ANSWER: No. The new age requirement is age 72.

(2)  What if I turned 70 ½ in 2019 and delayed my initial MRD until 2020?

ANSWER: Thanks to the CARES Act, that initial MRD is delayed one more year – until 2021.

(3)   I am well over 70 ½.  Do I have a MRD for 2020?

ANSWER: No. You can take money out, but you are not required to.

(4)  What if I already took out my MRD?

ANSWER: There are two answers, depending on when you took the MRD.

(a) If you took the MRD in January 2020, there is nothing you can do at this point.

(b)  If you took the MRD after January 31, 2020, you have until July 15, 2020 to return the money.

BTW there is a possible tax trap here. You are allowed only one non-trustee-to-trustee rollover (meaning you received and cashed the check with the intent of paying it back within 60 days) within a rolling 12-month period. If you did this in 2019, you need to check whether you are caught within this 12-month dragnet.

(5)  I have an inherited IRA account. Is there any change for me?

ANSWER: If the decedent passed away before 2020, you do not have an MRD for 2020.

There is a technical point in here if one was waiting five years before emptying the inherited IRS account: 2020 will not be counted as a year. In effect, you now have six years to empty the account rather than five.

(6)  I am having cash-flow issues as a consequence of the virus-related lockdown. I am thinking about tapping my IRA in order to get through. Is there something for me?

ANSWER: There are several changes.

(1) The 10% penalty for pre-age-59 ½ payouts for COVID-related reasons is waived on distributions up to $100,000.

(2) The income tax on the distribution still applies, but the tax can be paid over three years.

(3) And you also have 3 years to put the money back in the IRA. If you do, the money restored will be treated like a qualified rollover.

a.    Remember, this is taking place over 3 years. It is possible that you will have paid income tax on some or all of the money you restore in your IRA. If so, you can file an amended return and get your income tax back.

(7)  I am taking “substantially equal periodic payments” from my IRA. I am under age 59 ½ and needed the money. Is there a break for me?

ANSWER: A SEPP program allows one to avoid the penalty for early withdrawals, but it comes at a price: on has to take withdrawals over a given period of time.

A SEPP is not the same as a MRD, so the new rules do not apply to you.

(8)  Is it too late to fund my IRA for 2019?

ANSWER: Normally, you have until April 15 of the following year to fund an IRA. For 2019, that deadline has been extended to July 15, 2020.

SBA Paycheck Protection Program

The last couple of weeks here at Command Center have been … unprecedented.

We have sent employees home, although we have not let anyone go.

Critical personnel (including me somehow) are still coming in, although we are instituting a policy of one-person-in-the-office-at-a-time.  

I understand working at home, but a typical accounting firm is not geared to work from home indefinitely. For one thing, it takes administrative staff to keep the information and document flow going to the at-homers, and there is no administrative staff.

Fortunately, the IRS and many (if not most) states have acknowledged the reality of the situation and are allowing extensions of time to file and pay. There was probably no choice: preparers were not going to be able to get the work done anyway. It is likely that your return will be extended this year, even if you have never extended before.

Some of our clients have shut down. One, for example, works with product promotion at Kroger’s. Have you been to a Kroger’s recently? The last problem they have is moving merchandise.

Let’s talk about something. There is a brand-new SBA program for emergency funding. It may be that you have never considered government assistance before, but these are extreme times.

We are talking about the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Congress took an existing SBA loan program and sweetened the pot. Its purpose is – flat out – to encourage employers to retain employees and – if the employer has already furloughed employees -to hire them back.

Here are the general features of the program:

(1)  It expires June 30, 2020.

(2)  Think businesses with less 500 employees, but there are exceptions.

(3)  In a bit of a surprise for the SBA, the program includes nonprofits (again, with less than 500 employees)

(4)  The maximum loan amount is 2.5 times average payroll during the one-year period before the date the loan is made.

a.    With adjustments for new businesses, of course.

(5)  That maximum caps out at $10 million.

(6)  The loan is principally to fund payroll (with some limitations), but it will also cover health insurance, rent, utilities and some interest expense.

(7)  Now think math:

A times B

A is the sum of those expenses described in (6) for the 8 weeks after you get the loan.

(8)  Let’s talk B.

B is a fraction. The government wants to know whether your workforce has gone up or down in number.

The numerator is going to be the number of employees between February 15 and June 30, 2020.

The denominator is the number of employees during the same period in 2019.

There are adjustments for real-life situations that do not fit the above periods.

There is also a test which substitutes payroll dollars for the number of employees. You fail the test if your payroll reduction (dollar-wise) exceeds 25%.

(9)  So what, you ask.

Let’s say you have 17 employees for the 2020 period.

Let’s say you had 16 employees for the 2019 period.

Fraction-wise, that is over 100%. Let’s round that down to 100%.

Let’s multiply that 100% by something.

What is the something?

The loan you took out.

Let’s say the loan was $125,000.

Multiply $125,000 by 100%.

You get $125,000.

The government will forgive 100 PERCENT of the loan! The entire $125,000 is gone, forgiven, paid-off, hasta luego, soyonara.

Wow.

(10)      Is there a follow-up to that?

Yep.

Generally, the forgiveness of debt results in income to the person whose debt was forgiven. It is why people get those 1099s in the mail from the credit card companies which have given up on collecting.

For purposes of this loan, the forgiveness will NOT count as income.

So let’s get this straight. You keep your employees on board. The government loans you money for your payroll. The government forgives the money. You walk away scot-free.

What happens if you don’t get to 100%? Then a portion of the loan remains. You pay interest not to exceed 4% and repay that portion of the loan over a period of up to 10 years. Still … not bad.

Folks, if this is you – please check it out before the deadline or the funding runs out.

Can You Have Reasonable Cause For Filing Late?

I am looking a reasonable cause case.

For the non-tax-nerds, the IRS can abate penalties for reasonable cause. The concept makes sense: real life is not a tidy classroom exercise. If you have followed me for a while, you know I strongly believe that the IRS has become unreasonable with allowing reasonable cause. I have had this very conversation with multiple IRS representatives, many of whom agree with me.

I am looking at one where the penalty was $450,959.

To put that in perspective, a January 29, 2019 MarketWatch article stated that the median 65-year-old American’s net worth is approximately $224,000.

Surely the IRS would not be assessing a penalty of that size without good reason – right?

Let’s go through the case.

Someone died. That someone was Agnes Skeba, and she passed away on June 10, 2013.

Agnes had an estate of approximately $14 million, the bulk of which was land (including farmland) and farm machinery. What the estate did not have was a lot of cash.

On March 6, 2014 the attorney sent an extension form and payment of $725,000 to the IRS.         

COMMENT: An estate return is due within 9 months of death, if the estate is large enough to require a return. Seems within 9 months to me.

The attorney included the following letter with the payment:

Our office is representing Stanley L. Skeba, Jr. as the Executor of the Estate of Agnes Skeba. Enclosed herewith is a completed “Form 4768 — Application for Extension of Time to File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate Taxes” along with estimated payment in the amount of $725,000 made payable to “The United States Treasury” for the above referenced Estate Tax.

Additionally, we are requesting a six (6) month extension of time to make full payment of the amount due. Despite the best efforts of this office and the Executor, the Estate had limited liquid assets at the time of the decedent’s death. Accordingly, we have been working to secure a mortgage on a substantial commercial property owned by the Estate in order to make timely payment of the balance of the Estate Tax anticipated to be due.

Currently, we have liquid assets in the amount of $1.475 million and the estimated value of the total estate is $14.7 million. Accordingly, we have submitted payments in the amount of $575,000 to the State of New Jersey, Division of Revenue, for State estate taxes payable and in the amount of $250,000 to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue for State inheritance taxes payable. We are hereby submitting the balance of available funds to you, in the amount of $725,000, as partial payment of the expected U.S. Estate Taxes for the Estate.

We are in the process of securing a mortgage, which was supposed to close prior to the taxes being due, in the amount of $3.5 million that would have permitted us to make full payment of the taxes timely. Due to circumstances previously unknown and unavoidable by the Executor, the lender has not been able to comply with the closing deadline of March 7, 2014. It is anticipated that the lender will be clear to close within fourteen (14) days and then we will remit the balance of the estimated U.S. Estate Taxes payable.

Additionally, there has been delays in securing all of the necessary valuations and appraisals due to administrative delays caused by contested estate litigation currently pending in Middlesex County, New Jersey.

I would say he did a great job.

But the estate did not pay-in all of its estimated tax ….

A few days later the estate was able to refinance. The estate made a second payment of $2,745,000 on March 18, 2014. This brought total taxes paid the IRS to $3,470,000.

COMMENT: Mrs. Skeba died on June 10^th. Add 9 months and we get to March 10^th. OK, the second payment was a smidgeon late.

Now life intervened. It took a while to get the properties appraised. The executor had health issues severe enough to postpone the court proceedings several times. The estate’s attorney was diagnosed with cancer, delaying the case. Eventually the law firm replaced him as lead attorney altogether, which caused further delay.

As we said: life.

The estate asked for an extension for the federal estate tax return. The filing date was pushed out to September 10, 2014.

The estate was finally filed on or around June 30, 2015.

          COMMENT: Nine-plus months later.

The tax came in at $2,528,838, with estimated taxes of $3,470,000 paid-in. The estate had a refund of $941,162.

Until the IRS slapped a $450,959 penalty.

Huh?

The IRS calculated the penalty as follows: 

$2,528,838 – 725,000 = 1,803,838 times 25% = $450,959

The reason? Late filing said the IRS.

On first pass, it seems to me that the worst the IRS could do is assess penalties for 8 days (from March 10 to March 18). Generally speaking, penalties are calculated on tax due, meaning the IRS has to spot taxes you already paid-in.

In addition, need we mention that the estate was OVERPAID?

The attorney asked for abatement. Here is part of the request:

Beyond September 10, 2014, the Estate continued to have delays in filing due to the pending and anticipated completion of the litigation over the validity of the decedent’s Will, which would impact the Estate’s ability to complete the filing and the executor’s capacity to proceed. Initially, it, was anticipated that the trial of this matter would be heard before Judge Frank M. Ciuffani in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County, Chancery Division-Probate Part in July of 2014. Due to health concerns on behalf of the Plaintiff, Joseph M. Skeba, the Judge delayed these proceedings multiple times through the end of 2014, each time giving us a new anticipation of the completion of the trial to permit the estate tax return to be filed. Upon the Plaintiffs improved health, the Judge finally scheduled a trial for July 7, 2015, which was expected to allow our completion in filing the return.

           

Accordingly, this litigation, which was causing us reason to delay in the filing, gave rise to the estate’s inability to file the return.

Finally, in May of 2015 we were notified of the Estate’s litigation attorney, Thomas Walsh of the law firm of Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas, LLP, that he was diagnosed with cancer that would possibly cause him to delay this matter from proceeding as scheduled. In early June, we were notified by Mr. Walsh’s office that his prognosis had worsened and he would be prevented from further handling the litigation of this matter, so new counsel within his firm would be assisting in carrying this matter through trial. Due to the change in counsel, it was deemed that the anticipated trial was no longer predictable in scheduling, so the Estate chose to file the return as it stood at such time.

Displaying the compassion and goodwill toward man of deceased General Soleimani, on or around November 5, 2015 the IRS responded to the attorney’s letter and stated that the reasons in the letter did not “establish reasonable cause or show due diligence.”

Shheeeessshh.

The accountant got involved next. He included an additional reason for penalty abatement:

I do not believe the IRS had knowledge of the extension in place at the time the penalty was assessed, nor did they have a record of the additional payment of $2,745,000. The IRS listed the unpaid tax as $1,803,838 and charged the maximum 25% to arrive at the penalty of $450,959.50. The estate not only paid the entire tax the estate owed by the due date to pay but also had an overpayment. Section 6651(b) bars a penalty for late filing when estimated taxes are paid.

           

The IRS did not respond to the accountant.

The accountant tried again.

Here is the Court:

                To date, IRS Appeals has not responded to either letter.

I know the feeling, brother.

You know this is going to Court. It has to.

The estate’s argument was two-fold:

1.  The estate was fully paid-in. In fact, it was more than fully paid-in.
2.  There was reasonable cause: an illiquid estate, health issues with the executor, issues with obtaining appraisals, an estate attorney diagnosed with cancer, on and on.

The IRS came in with hyper-technical wordsmithing.

Based on § 6151, the Government cleverly reasons that the last day for payment was nine months after the death of Agnes Skeba—March 10, 2014; because no return was filed by that date a penalty may be assessed. Applying the rationale to the facts, the Government contends only $750,000 was paid on or before March 10, 2014, when $2,528,838 was due on that date. Referring back to § 6651(a)(1), a 25% penalty on the difference may therefore be assessed because it was not paid by March 10, 2014. As such, the full payment of the estate tax on March 18, 2014 is of no avail because the “last date fixed” was March 10, 2014. Accordingly, the Government argues that the imposition of a penalty in the amount of $450,959.00 is appropriate.

The Court brought out its razor:

The Government puts forth a valid point that there is an administrative need to complete and close tax matters. Here, the Estate had nine months to file the return, the extension added six months, and Defendant unilaterally added another nine months to file the return. Although there was the timely payment of the estate taxes, the matter, in the Government’s view, lingered and the administrative objective to timely close the file was not met. See generally Boyle, 469 U.S. at 251. There may be a need for some other penalty for failure to timely file a return, but Congress must enact same.

Slam on the wordsmithing.

COMMENT: Boyle is the club the IRS trots out every time there is a penalty and a late return. The premise behind Boyle is that even an idiot can Google when a return is due. The IRS repetitively denies penalty abatement requests – with a straight face, mind you – snorting that there is no reasonable cause for failure to rise to the level of a common idiot.

That said: did the estate have reasonable cause?

Finally, another issue in this case is whether Plaintiff demonstrated reasonable cause and not willful neglect in allegedly failing to timely file its estate tax return. Although the Court has already determined that the penalty at issue was not properly imposed pursuant to the Government’s flawed statutory rationale, it will review this issue for completeness.

In the tax world, folks, that is drawing blood.

In this case, Mr. White submitted his August 17, 2015 letter explaining the rationale for not filing. (See supra at pp. 5-6). For example, in Mr. White’s letter, he indicated that certain estate litigation was delayed due to health conditions suffered by the executor. (Id.). Additionally, Mr. White refers to the Hoagland law firm and one of the attorneys assigned to the case as having been diagnosed with cancer. (Id.). The Hoagland firm is a very prestigious and professional firm and based on same, Mr. White’s letter shows a reasonable cause for delay.

In addition, Mr. White’s prior letter of March 6, 2014 notes that there was difficulty in “securing all of the necessary valuations and appraisals. . . caused by the contested litigation.” (Hayes Cert., Ex. C). Drawing from my professional experience, such appraisals often require months to prepare because a farm located in Monroe, New Jersey will often sit in residential, retail, and manufacturing zones. To appraise such a farm requires extensive knowledge of zoning considerations. Thus, this also constitutes a reasonable cause for delay.

I hope this represents some whittling away of the Boyle case. That said, I wonder whether the IRS will appeal – so it can protect that Boyle case.

I would say the Court had little patience with the IRS clogging up the pipes with what ten-out-of-ten people with common sense would see as reasonable cause.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Estate of Agnes R. Skeba vs U.S..