Whose Job Is It Anyway?

One of our accountants asked me recently:

R:      Do you think [so and so] qualifies as a real estate professional?

CTG: I do not know [so and so]. Tell me a little.

R:      Husband pulls a W-2.

CTG: How much and how many hours?

R:      Blah blah dollars.

CTG: Works in real estate?

R:      Nah.

CTG: Hours?

R:      Maybe 2,000.

CTG: Is the wife in real estate?

R:      No.

I have told you (almost) everything you need to answer the question.

Let’s look at the Warren case.

James Warren organized Warren Assisted Living, LLC in 2015.

He purchased a group home in 2016.

He started repairing the home almost immediately.

In 2017 he worked at Lockheed Martin for 1,913 hours as an engineer.

On his 2017 tax return he claimed a $41 thousand-plus loss from the group home. He claimed he was a real estate professional.

Warren did not keep time logs.

What sets this up are the passive activity rules under Section 469. As initially passed, that Section considered rental activities (with minimal exceptions) to be “per se” passive.

The passive activity rules would then stifle your ability to claim losses. You – for the most part – had to wait until you had income from the activity. You could then use the losses against the income. 

Well, that caught real estate landlords and others around the country by surprise. When you do one thing, it is difficult to have a Congressional staffer decide that your thing is not a regular thing like the next thing across the street.

Congress made a change.

(c)(7)  Special rules for taxpayers in real property business.

 

(A)  In general. If this paragraph applies to any taxpayer for a taxable year-

 

(i)  paragraph (2) shall not apply to any rental real estate activity of such taxpayer for such taxable year, and

(ii)  this section shall be applied as if each interest of the taxpayer in rental real estate were a separate activity.

 

Notwithstanding clause (ii) , a taxpayer may elect to treat all interests in rental real estate as one activity. Nothing in the preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall be construed as affecting the determination of whether the taxpayer materially participates with respect to any interest in a limited partnership as a limited partner.

 

(B)   Taxpayers to whom paragraph applies. This paragraph shall apply to a taxpayer for a taxable year if-

 

(i)  more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer during such taxable year are performed in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates, and

(ii)  such taxpayer performs more than 750 hours of services during the taxable year in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.

 

In the case of a joint return, the requirements of the preceding sentence are satisfied if and only if either spouse separately satisfies such requirements. For purposes of the preceding sentence, activities in which a spouse materially participates shall be determined under subsection (h) .

The above is called the real estate professional exception. It is a mercy release from the per se rule that would otherwise inaccurately (and unfairly) consider people who work in real estate all day to not be working at all.

It has two main parts:

(1) You have to spend at least 750 hours working in real estate, and

(2)  You have to spend more than 50% of your “working at something” total hours actually “working in real estate.”

If you are a real estate professional, you avoid the “per se” label. You have not yet escaped the passive activity rules – you still have to show that you worked - but at least you have the opportunity to present your case.

The Court looked at Warren’s 1,913 hours at Lockheed. That means he would need 3,827 total hours for real estate to be more than ½ of his total work hours. (1,913 times 2 plus 1).

First of all, 3,827 total hours means he was working at least 74 hours a week, every week, without fail, for the entire year.

Maybe. Doubt it.

Warren is going to need really good records to prove it.

Here is the Court:

Mr Warren did not keep contemporaneous logs of his time renovating the group home.”

Not good, but not necessarily fatal. I represented a client who kept Outlook and other records. She created her log after the fact but from records which themselves were contemporaneous. Mind you, we had to go to Appeals, but she won.

In preparation for trial, Mr Warren created – and presented – two time logs.”

Good grief.

The first log maintained that he worked 1,421 hours at the group home; it was created one week before trial.”

End it. That is less than his 1,913 hours at Lockheed.

The second log maintained that Mr. Warren worked 1,628 at the group home; it was created the night before trial.”

Why bother?

This was a slam dunk for the Court. They did not have to dwell on contemporaneous or competing logs or believability or whether the Bengals will turn their season around. Whether 1,421 or 1,628, he could not get to more-than-50%.

Warren lost.

As a rule of thumb, if you have a full-time W-2, it will be almost impossible to qualify as a real estate professional. The exception is when your full-time W-2 is in real estate, maybe with an employer such as CBRE or Cushman & Wakefield.  At 1,900-plus Lockheed hours, I have no idea what Warren was thinking, although I see that it was a per se case. That means he represented himself, and it shows.

I suppose one could have a W-2 and work crazy hours and meet the more-than-50% requirement, but your records should be much tighter. And skip the night before thing.

BTW another way to meet this test is by being married.

Look at (B)(ii) again:

In the case of a joint return, the requirements of the preceding sentence are satisfied if and only if either spouse separately satisfies such requirements. For purposes of the preceding sentence, activities in which a spouse materially participates shall be determined under subsection (h) .

If your spouse can meet the test (both parts), then you will qualify by riding on the shoulders of your spouse.

Our case this time was Warren v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2024-20.

Section 1244 Stock: An Exception To Capital Loss

I was looking at a case involving Section 1244 stock.

I remember studying Section 1244 in school. On first impression one could have expected it a common quiver in tax practice. It has not been.

What sets up the issue is the limitation on the use of capital losses. An easy example of a capital asset is stock. Buy and sell stock and you have capital gains and losses (exempting those people who are dealers in stocks and securities). You then net capital gains against capital losses.

·      If the result is net capital gain, you pay tax.

·      If the result is net capital loss, the Code allows you to deduct up to $3,000 of net loss against your other types of income.

QUESTION: What if the net loss is sizeable – say $60 grand?

ANSWER: The Code will allow you to offset that loss dollar-for-dollar against any future capital gains.

QUESTION: What if the experience left a mark? You have no intention of buying and selling stocks ever again.

ANSWER: Then we are back to the $3,000 per year.

Mind you, that $3,000 entered the Code back in 1978. A 1978 dollar is comparable to $4.82 in 2024 dollars. Just to keep pace, the capital loss limit should have been cumulatively raised to $14,460 by now. It has not, of course, and is a classroom example of structural anti-taxpayer Code bias. 

Section 1244 is there to relieve some of the pressure. It is specialized, however, and geared toward small businesses.

What it does is allow one to deduct (up to) $50 grand ($100 grand for joint returns) as an ordinary loss rather than a capital loss.

There is a downside: to get there likely means the business failed. Still, it is something. Better $50 grand at one time than $3 grand over umpteen years.

What does it take to qualify?

(1)  First, there must be stock. Being a partner in a partnership will not get you there. This means that you organized as a corporation. Mind you, it can be either a C or an S corporation, but it must be a corporation.

(2)  The corporation must be organized in the United States.

(3)  The total amount of capital contributions to the corporation (stock, additional capital, whatever) must not exceed $1 million. If you are the unfortunate who puts the number above $1 million, then some of your stock will qualify and some will not.

(4)  The capital contribution must be in cash or other property (excluding stocks and securities). This would exclude stock issued as compensation, for example.

(5)  You must be the original owner of the stock. There are minimal exceptions (such as inheriting the stock because someone died).

(6)  You must be an individual. Corporations, trusts, estates, trustees in bankruptcy and so on do not qualify.

(7)  There used to be a prohibition on preferred stock, but that went out in 1985. I suppose there could still be instances involving 1984-or-earlier preferred stock, but it would be a dwindling crowd.

(8)  The company must meet a gross receipts test the year the stock is issued.

a.    For the preceding five years (or life of the company, if less), more than 50% of aggregate gross receipts must be from active business operations.

b.    Another way to say this is that passive income (think interest, dividends, rents, royalties, sales or exchanges of stocks and securities) had better be less than 50% of aggregate gross receipts. This Code section is not for mutual funds.

An interesting feature is that no formal election is required. Corporate records do not need to reference Section 1244.  Board minutes do not need to approve Section 1244.  Nothing needs to go with the tax return. The corporation must however retain records to prove the stock’s qualification under Section 1244.

And therein can be the rub.

Let’s look at the Ushio case.

In 2009 David Ushio acquired $50,000 of common stock in PCHG.

PCHG in turn had invested in LifeGrid Solutions LLC (LGS), which in turn was seeking to acquire rights in certain alternative energy technology.

PCHG never had revenues. It ceased business in 2012 and was administratively dissolved by South Carolina in 2013.

The IRS selected the Ushio’s joint individual return for 2012 and 2013. The audit had nothing to do with Section 1244, but the IRS saw the PCHG transaction and allowed a $3,000 capital loss in 2012.

Mind you, the Ushios had not claimed a deduction for PCHG stock on either their 2012 or 2013 return.

Mr. Ushio said “wait a minute …”

Some quick tax research and Ushio came back with a counter: he wanted a $50,000 ordinary loss deduction rather than the puny $3,000 capital loss. He insisted PCHG qualified under Section 1244.

The IRS had an easy response: prove it.

Ushio was at a disadvantage. He had invested in PCHG, but he did not have inside records, assuming those records even existed.

He presented a document listing “Cash Input” and “Deferred Pay,” noting that the deferred amount was never paid. Sure enough, the amount paid-in was less than $1 million.

The IRS looked at the document and noted there was no date. They wanted some provenance for the document - who prepared it? what records were used? could it be corroborated?

No, no and no.

In addition, PCHG never reported any gross receipts. It is hard to prove more-than-50% of something when that something is stuck at zero. Ushio pushed back: PCHG was to be an operating company via its investment in LGS.

The IRS could do this all day: prove it.

Ushio could not.

Meaning there was no Section 1244 stock.

Our case this time was Ushio v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2021-27.

 

There Is No Tax Relief If You Are Robbed

 

Some tax items have been around for so long that perhaps it would be best to leave them alone.

I’ll give you an example: employees deducting business mileage on their car.

Seems sensible. You tax someone on their work income. That someone incurs expenses to perform that work. Fairness and equity tell you that one should be able to offset the expenses of generating the income against such income.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) did away with that deduction, however. Mind you, the TCJA itself expires in 2025, so we may see this deduction return for 2026.

There are reasons why Congress eliminated the deduction, we are told. They increased the standard deduction, for example, and one could not claim the mileage anyway if one’s itemized deductions were less than the standard deduction. True statement.

Still, it seems to me that Congress could have left the deduction intact. Many if not most would not use it (because of the larger standard deduction), but the high-mileage warriors would still have the deduction if they needed it.

Here’s another:  a tree falls on your house. Or you get robbed.

This has been a tax break since Carter had liver pills.

Used to be.

Back to the TCJA. Personal casualty and theft losses are deductible only if the loss results from a federally declared disaster.

Reread what I just said.

What does theft have to do with a federally declared disaster?

Nothing, of course.

I would make more sense to simply say that the TCJA did away with theft loss deductions.

Let’s talk about the Gomas case.

Dennis and Suzanne Gomas were retired and living their best life in Florida. Mr. G’s brother died, and in 2010 he inherited a business called Feline’s Pride. The business sold pet food online.

OK.

The business was in New York.

We are now talking about remote management. There are any numbers of ways this can go south.

His business manager in New York must have binged The Sopranos, as she was stealing inventory, selling customer lists, not supervising employees, and on and on.

Mr. G moved the business to Florida. His stepdaughter (Anderson) started helping him.

Good, it seems.

By 2015 Mr. G was thinking about closing the business but Anderson persuaded him to keep it open. He turned operations over to Anderson, although the next year (2016) he formally dissolved the company. Anderson kept whatever remained of the business.

In 2017 Anderson prevailed on the G’s to give her $20,000 to (supposedly) better run the business.

I get it. I too am a parent.

Anderson next told the Gs that their crooked New York business manager and others had opened merchant sub-accounts using Mr. G’s personal information. These reprobates were defrauding customers, and the bank wanted to hold the merchant account holder (read: Mr. G) responsible.

          COMMENT: Nope. Sounds wrong. Time to lawyer up.

Anderson convinced the G’s that she had found an attorney (Rickman), and he needed $125,000 at once to prevent Mr. G’s arrest.

COMMENT: For $125 grand, I am meeting with Rickman.

The G’s gave Anderson the $125,000.

But the story kept on.

There were more business subaccounts. Troubles and tribulations were afoot and abounding. It was all Rickman could do to keep Mr. G out of prison. Fortunately, the G’s had Anderson to help sail these treacherous and deadly shoals.

The G’s never met Rickman. They were tapping all their assets, however, including retirement accounts. They were going broke.

Anderson was going after that Academy award. She managed to drag in friends of the family for another $200 grand or so. That proved to be her downfall, as the friends were not as inclined as her parents to believe. In fact, they came to disbelieve. She had pushed too far.

The friends reached out to Rickman. Sure enough, there was an attorney named Rickman, but he did not know and was not representing the G’s. He had no idea about the made-up e-mail address or merchant bank or legal documents or other hot air.

Anderson was convicted to 25 years in prison.

Good.

The G’s tried to salvage some tax relief out of this. For example, in 2017 they had withdrawn almost $1.2 million from their retirement accounts, paying about $410 grand in tax.

Idea: let’s file an amended return and get that $410 grand back.

Next: we need a tax Code-related reason. How about this: we send Anderson a 1099 for $1.1 million, saying that the monies were sent to her for expenses supposedly belonging to a prior business.

I get it. Try to show a business hook. There is a gigantic problem as the business had been closed, but you have to swing the bat you are given.

The IRS of course bounced the amended return.

Off to Court they went.

You might be asking: why didn’t the G’s just say what really happened – that they were robbed?

Because the TCJA had done away with the personal theft deduction. Unless it was presidentially-declared, I suppose.

So, the G’s were left bobbing in the water with much weaker and ultimately non-persuasive arguments to power their amended return and its refund claim.

Even the judge was aghast:

Plaintiffs were the undisputed victims of a complicated theft spanning around two years, resulting in the loss of nearly $2 million dollars. The thief — Mrs. Gomas’s own daughter and Mr. Gomas’s stepdaughter — was rightly convicted and is serving a lengthy prison sentence. The fact that these elderly Plaintiffs are now required to pay tax on monies that were stolen from them seems unjust.

Here is Court shade at the IRS:

In view of the egregious and undisputed facts presented here, it is unfortunate that the IRS is unwilling — or believes it lacks the authority — to exercise its discretion and excuse payment of taxes on the stolen funds.

There is even some shade for Congress:

It is highly unlikely that Congress, when it eliminated the theft loss deduction beginning in 2018, envisioned injustices like the case before this Court. Be that as it may, the law is clear here and it favors the IRS. Seeking to avoid an unjust outcome, Plaintiffs have attempted to recharacterize the facts from what they really are — a theft loss — to something else. Established law does not support this effort. The Court is bound to follow the law, even where, as here, the outcome seems unjust.

To be fair, Congress changed the law. The change was unfair to the G’s, but the Court could not substitute penumbral law over actual law.

The G’s were hosed.

Seriously, Congress should have left theft losses alone. The reason is the same as for employee mileage. The Code as revised for TCJA would make most of the provision superfluous, but at least the provision would exist for the most extreme or egregious situations.

COMMENT: I for one am hopeful that the IRS and G's will resolve this matter administratively. This is not a complementary tale for the IRS, and – frankly – they have other potentially disastrous issues at the moment. It is not too late, for example, for the IRS and G’s to work out an offer in compromise, a partial pay or a do-not-collect status. This would allow the IRS to resolve the matter quietly. Truthfully, they should have already done this and avoided the possible shockwaves from this case.

Our case this time was Gomas v United States, District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 8:22-CV-01271.

Tax Preparer Gives Gambler A Losing Hand

 

I am looking at a bench opinion.

The tax issue is relatively straightforward, so the case is about substantiation. To say that it went off the rails is an understatement.

Let us introduce Jacob Bright. Jacob is in his mid-thirties, works in storm restoration and spends way too much time and money gambling. The court notes that he “recognizes and regrets the negative effect that gambling has had on his life.”

He has three casinos he likes to visit: two are in Minnesota and one in Iowa. He does most of his sports betting in Iowa and plays slots and table games in Minnesota.

He reliably uses a player’s card, so the casinos do much of the accounting for him.

Got it. When he provides his paperwork to his tax preparer, I expect two things:

(1)  Forms W-2G for his winnings

(2)  His player’s card annual accountings

The tax preparer adds up the W-2Gs and shows the sum as gross gambling receipts. Then he/she will cross-check that gambling losses exceed winnings, enter losses as a miscellaneous itemized deduction and move on. It is so rare to see net winnings (at least meaningful winnings) that we won’t even talk about it.

COMMENT: Whereas the tax law changed in 2018 to do away with most miscellaneous itemized deductions, gambling losses survived. One will have to itemize, of course, to claim gambling losses.   

Here starts the downward cascade:

Mr. Bright hired a return preparer who was recommended to him, but he did not get what or whom he expected. Rather than the recommended preparer, the return preparer’s daughter actually prepared his return.”

OK. How did this go south, though?

The return preparer reported that Mr. Bright was a professional gambler ….”

Nope. Mind you, there are a few who will qualify as professionals, but we are talking the unicorns. Being a professional means that you can deduct losses in excess of winnings, thereby possibly creating a net operating loss (NOL). An NOL can offset other income (up to a point), income such as one’s W-2. The IRS is very, very reluctant to allow someone to claim professional gambler status, and the case history is decades long. Jacob’s preparer should have known this. It is not a professional secret.

Jacob did not review the return before signing. For some reason the preparer showed over $240 grand of gross gambling receipts. I added up the information available in the opinion and arrived at little more than $110 grand. I have no idea what she did, and Jacob did not even realize what she did. Perhaps she did not worry about it as she intended the math to zero-out.

She should not have done this.

The IRS adjusted the initial tax filing to disallow professional gambler status.

No surprise.

Jacob then filed an amended return to show his gambling losses as miscellaneous itemized deductions. He did not, however, correct his gross gambling winnings to the $110 grand.

The IRS did not allow the gambling losses on the amended return.

Off to Tax Court they went.

There are several things happening:

(1)  The IRS was arguing that Jacob did not have adequate documentation for his losses. Mind you, there is some truth to this. Casino reports showed gambling activity for months with no W-2Gs (I would presume that he had no winnings, but that is a presumption and not a fact). Slot winnings below $1,200 do not have to be reported, and he gambled on games other than slots. Still, the casino reports do provide some documentation. I would argue that they provide substantiation of his minimum losses.

(2)  Let’s say that the IRS behaved civilly and allowed all the losses on the casino reports. That is swell, but the tax return showed gambling receipts of $240 grand. Unless the casino reports showed losses of (at least) $240 grand, Jacob still had issues.

(3)  The Court disagreed with the IRS disallowing all gambling deductions. It looked at the casino reports, noting that each was prepared differently. Still, it did not require advanced degrees in mathematics to calculate the losses embedded in each report. The Court calculated total losses of slightly over $191 grand. That relieved a lot – but not all – of the pressure on Jacob.

(4)  Jacob did the obvious: he told the Court that the $240 grand of receipts was a bogus number. He did not even know where it came from.

(5)  The IRS immediately responded that it was being whipsawed. Jacob reported the $240 grand number, not the IRS. Now he wanted to change it. Fine, said the IRS: prove the new number. And don’t come back with just numbers reported on W-2Gs. What about smaller winnings? What about winnings from sports betting? If he wanted to change the number, he was also responsible for proving it.

The IRS had a point. It was being unfair and unreasonable but also technically correct.

Bottom line: the IRS was not going to permit Jacob to reduce his gross receipts number without some documentation. Since all he had was the casino reports, the result was that Jacob could not change the number.

Where does this leave us? I see $240 – $191 = $49 grand of bogus income.

My takeaway is that we have just discussed a case of tax malpractice. That is what lawyers are for, Jacob.

Our case this time was Jacob Bright v Commissioner, Docket No. 0794-22.

Losing A Casualty Loss

 

I have stayed away from talking about casualty losses.

To be fair, one needs to distinguish business casualty losses from personal casualty losses. Business casualties are still deductible under the Code. Personal casualties are not. This change occurred with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 and is tax law until 2025, when much of it expires.

This is the tax law that did away with office-in-home deductions, for example. Great timing given that COVID would soon have multitudes working from home.

It also did away with personal casualty losses, with an exception for presidentially - declared disaster areas.

Have someone steal your personal laptop. No casualty loss. Accident with your personal car? No casualty loss. Lost your house during the storms and tornados in western Tennessee at the end of March 2023? That would be a casualty loss because there was a presidential declaration.

I consider it terrible tax law, but Congress was primarily concerned about finding money.  

I am reading a case that involves casualty losses. Two, in fact. The Court included several humorous flourishes in its decision.

Let’s go over it.

Thomas Richey and his wife Maureen Cleary bought a second home in Stone Harbor on Cape May in the south of New Jersey. The house was on the waterfront with access to the open ocean. They also bought a 40-foot boat.

Sounds nice.

In 2017 storm Stella hit.

Richey and Cleary claimed casualty losses totaling over $820,000 on their 2017 tax return.

That will catch attention.

Here is the Court:

Such a large loss - one that caused them to reduce their adjusted gross income of more than $850,000 to a taxable income of zero – bobbed into the Commissioner’s view, and he selected their return for audit.”

The Commissioner did more than select the return; he denied the casualty loss deduction altogether.

Richey and Cleary petitioned the Tax Court.

Yep. Had to.

Whereas they lived in Maryland (remember: New Jersey was their second home), they petitioned the Court for trial in Los Angeles.

I do not get the why. Very little upside. Possible massive downside.

We added the case to one of our trial calendars for Los Angeles, but on the first day of that session neither petitioner showed up.”

Uh, Richey …?!

We postponed trial for a day to enable Richey to testify via Zoom.”

Richey explained that he learned about the trial only a week before, and even then, no one gave him specific details.

We do not find this credible ….”

This could have started better. 

The couple’s case began taking on water right at the start…”

The Court seemed amused.

Back to business, Richey. Let’s first establish that a casualty occurred.

He testified that he had taken pictures of the damage to both boat and home on his phone shortly after the storm.”

Good.

He explained, however, that a later software update to his phone deleted them.”

Seriously?

That left him to introduce only photographs of the house taken … nearly a year after the storm hit and after reconstruction had already begun.”

A year? Were you that busy?

These photographs depict no visible damage other than that which one might see at any construction site, and we could see nothing that showed damage that we could specifically attribute to the storm. “

Richey, I have a question for you.

… we did not find Richey’s testimony, standing alone, credible on this point.”

Have you seen John Wick?

As for the boat, the couple introduces a photograph of what the boat looked like before the storm, but nothing to show what it looked like afterwards. The couple also gave us no receipts for any boat repairs.”

Tell me the truth: did you do something to this judge’s dog?

Whom are we to believe?”

Richey, this is legal-speak for “we do not believe you.”

OK, we are going to have to lean double hard on the appraisals. Those involve third parties, so maybe we can get the Court to back off a bit.

Richey and Cleary did not get an appraisal of their own home valuing it before and after the storm.”

And may I ask why, Richey?

Richey instead consulted a real-estate agent who provided them with Multiple Listing Service (MLS) printouts of other people’s homes. This is a problem for many different reasons.”

You think?

The first … is that he didn’t talk to this agent until after the audit had begun.”

I have an idea, Richey, but it’s a long shot.

It is not impossible for a homeowner to conduct an appraisal himself …”

Richey, go improv. You live in Cape May. You know the prices. You know the damage the storm wrought. Make the Court believe you. Sell it.

They also produced no evidence of their awareness of market conditions in Stone Harbor. What we got were photographs of MLS printouts.”

You are a man of commitment and sheer will, Richey.

We infer from Richey’s having to reach out to an agent to give him such comparables an unspoken admission that he is not qualified to conduct an adequate appraisal on his own.”

I am familiar with the parlance, Richey.

If the absence of proof of damage causes the couple’s case to founder, the absence of proof on valuing that damage causes it to sink altogether.”

Well, that’s that. Maybe we can get something on the boat.

Richey and Cleary fare no better on the loss they claim for their boat.”

Richey, walk out of here with your pride intact.

All these attacks by the Commissioner have picked completely clean the flesh of their claimed deduction.”

Richey, just walk out of here.

Richey’s first mistake was scheduling a Tax Court hearing in Los Angeles. That led to the disastrous failure-to-show, which clearly angered the Court. The Court felt they were being lied to, and they never relented. The lack of an appraisal – while not necessarily having to be fatal – was fatal in this case. Richey was unable to persuade the Court that he had the experience or expertise to substitute for an appraisal.    

Sometimes the Court will carry water for a petitioner who is underprepared. We have reviewed a couple of these cases before, but that beneficent result presupposes the Court likes the person. That was not a factor here.

Our case this time was Richey and Cleary v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-43.

Donating Cryptocurrency

 

I was reading something recently, and it reminded me how muddled our tax Code is.

Let’s talk about cryptocurrency. I know that there is bad odor to this topic after Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX, but cryptocurrencies and their exchanges are likely a permanent fixture in the financial landscape.

I admit that I think of cryptos – at least the main ones such as Bitcoin, Ethereum or Binance Coin – as akin to publicly traded stock. You go to www.finance.yahoo.com , enter the ticker symbol and see Bitcoin’s trading price. If you want to buy Bitcoin, you will need around $23 grand as I write this.

Sounds a lot like buying stock to me.   

The IRS reinforced that perspective in 2014 when it explained that virtual currency is to be treated as property for federal income tax purposes. The key here is that crypto is NOT considered a currency. If you buy something at Lululemon, you do not have gain or loss from the transaction. Both parties are transacting in American dollars, and there is no gain or loss from exchanging the same currency.

COMMENT: Mind you, this is different from a business transaction involving different currencies. Say that my business buys from a Norwegian supplier, and the terms require payment in krone within 20 days. Next say that the dollar appreciates against the krone (meaning that it takes fewer dollars to purchase the same amount of krone). I bought something costing XX dollars. Had I paid for it then and there, the conversation is done. But I did not. I am paying 20 days later, and I pay XX minus Y dollars. That “Y” is a currency gain, and it is taxable.

So, what happens if crypto is considered property rather than currency?

It would be like selling Proctor and Gamble stock (or a piece of P&G stock) when I pay my Norwegian supplier. I would have gain or loss. The tax Code is not concerned with the use of cash from the sale.

Let’s substitute Bitcoin for P&G. You have a Bitcoin-denominated wallet. On your way to work you pick-up and pay for dry cleaning, a cup of coffee and donuts for the office. What have you done? You just racked up more taxable trades before 9 a.m. than most people will all day, that is what you have done.

Got it. We can analogize using crypto to trading stock.

Let’s set up a tax trap involving crypto.

I donate Bitcoin.

The tax Code requires a qualified appraisal when donating property worth over $5,000.

I go to www.marketwatch.com.

I enter BTC-USD.

I see that it closed at $22,987 on January 27, 2023. I print out the screen shot and attach it to my tax return as substantiation for my donation.

Where is the trap?

The IRS has previously said crypto is property, not cash.

A donation of property worth over $5 grand generally requires an appraisal. Not all property, though. Publicly-traded securities do not require an appraisal.

So is Bitcoin a publicly-traded security?

Let’s see. It trades. There is an organized market. We can look up daily prices and volumes.

Sounds publicly-traded.

Let’s look at Section 165(g)(2), however:

    (2)  Security defined.

For purposes of this subsection, the term "security" means-

(A)  a share of stock in a corporation;

(B)  a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation; or

(C)  a bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by a corporation or by a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel looked at this and concluded that it could not see crypto fitting the above categories.

Crypto could therefore not be considered a security.

As property not a security, any donation over $5 grand would require a qualified appraisal.

There was no qualified appraisal in our example. All I did was take a screen shot and include it with the return.

That means no charitable deduction.

I have not done a historical dive on Section 165(g)(2), but I know top-of-mind that it has been in the Code since at least 1986.

Do you know what did not exist in 1986?

The obvious.

Time to update the law, me thinks.

This time we were discussing CCA 202302012.