Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

Don’t Be A Jerk

 

I am looking at a case containing one of my favorite slams so far this year.

Granted, it is 2020 COVID, so the bar is lower than usual.

The case caught my attention as it begins with the following:

The Johnsons brought this suit seeking refunds of $373,316, $192,299, and $114,500 ….”

Why, yes, I would want a refund too.

What is steering this boat?

… the IRS determined that the Johnsons were liable for claimed Schedule E losses related to real estate and to Dr. Johnson’s business investments.”

Got it. The first side of Schedule E is for rental real estate, so I gather the doctor is landlording. The second side reports Schedules K-1 from passthroughs, so the doctor must be invested in a business or two.

There is a certain predictability that comes from reviewing tax cases over the years. We have rental real estate and a doctor.

COMMENT: Me guesses that we have a case involving real estate professional status. Why? Because you can claim losses without the passive activity restrictions if you are a real estate pro.

It is almost impossible to win a real estate professional case if you have a full-time gig outside of real estate.  Why? Because the test involves a couple of hurdles:

·      You have to spend at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities, and

·      Those hours have to be more than ½ of hours in all activities.

One might make that first one, but one is almost certain to fail the second test if one has a full-time non-real-estate gig. Here we have a doctor, so I am thinking ….

Wait. It is Mrs. Johnson who is claiming real estate professional status.

That might work. Her status would impute to him, being married and all.

What real estate do they own?

They have properties near Big Bear, California.

These were not rented out. Scratch those.

There was another one near Big Bear, but they used a property management company to help manage it. One year they used the property personally.

Problem: how much is there to do if you hired a property management company? You are unlikely to rack-up a lot of hours, assuming that you are even actively involved to begin with.

Then there were properties near Las Vegas, but those also had management companies. For some reason these properties had minimal paperwork trails.

Toss up these softballs and the IRS will likely grind you into the dirt. They will scrutinize your time logs for any and every. Guess what, they found some discrepancies. For example, Mrs. Johnson had counted over 80 hours studying for the real estate exam.

Can’t do that. Those hours might be real-estate related, but the they are not considered operational hours - getting your hands dirty in the garage, so to speak. That hurt. Toss out 80-something hours and …. well, let’s just say she failed the 750-hour test.

No real estate professional status for her.

So much for those losses.

Let’s flip to the second side of the Schedule E, the one where the doctor reported Schedules K-1.

There can be all kinds of tax issues on the second side. The IRS will probably want to see the K-1s. The IRS might next inquire whether you are actually working in the business or just an investor – the distinction means something if there are losses. If there are losses, the IRS might also want to review whether you have enough money tied-up – that is, “basis” - to claim the loss. If you have had losses over several years, they may want to see a calculation whether any of that “basis” remains to absorb the current year loss.

 Let’s start easy, OK? Let’s see the K-1s.

The Johnson’s pointed to a 1000-plus page Freedom of Information request.

Here is the Court:

The Johnsons never provide specific citations to any information within this voluminous exhibit and instead invite the court to peruse it in its entirety to substantiate their arguments.”

Whoa there, guys! Just provide the K-1s. We are not here to make enemies.

Here is the Court:

It behooves litigants, particularly in a case with a record of this magnitude, to resist the temptation to treat judges as if they were pigs sniffing for truffles.”

That was a top-of-the-ropes body slam and one of the best lines of 2020.

The Johnsons lost across the board.

Is there a moral to this story?

Yes. Don’t be a jerk.

Our case this time was Johnson DC-Nevada, No 2:19-CV-674.

Does An LLC Member Pay Self-Employment Tax?

There is an issue concerning LLCs that has existed for approximately as long as I have been in the profession. I am thinking about it because I recently finished a research memo which included this issue.

This time we are talking about limited liability companies (LLCs) and self-employment income. One pays self-employment tax on self-employment income, and the dollars can add up rather quickly.

The offending party is the following enchanting prose from Code section 1402(a)(13) addressing self-employment income:

           

… there shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments described in … "

We do not need degrees in taxation to zero in on the term “limited partner” as being the key to this car. If you are a limited partner you get to exclude “the distributive share” of something. Since the IRS wants you to pay tax on something, the less of that something is probably a good thing.

So what is a limited partner in this conversation?

We don’t know.

The above wording came from an IRS proposed Regulation in 1977. The IRS stirred such a hornet’s nest that Congress put a hold on the Regulation. The hold has long since expired, but the IRS has not wanted to walk back onto that hill. It has been 37 years.

To be fair, the playing field changed on the IRS.

Have you ever heard of the Estate of Ellsasser? Don’t worry if you haven’t, as I suspect that many tax CPAs have not. Let’s time travel back to 1976. In addition to Bob Newhart and the Carol Burnett Show, people were buying tax shelters. The shelters worked pretty well back then, long before the passive activity rules entered the game. One of those shelters used to provide one with self-employment income, on which one would pay self-employment – also known as social security – tax.

Doesn’t sound like much of a shelter, doesn’t it?

The purpose was to get social security credits for someone who had not worked, had not earned enough credits, or had not earned enough to maximize their social security benefits.

The IRS did not like this at all, because at the time it was concerned with people taking advantage of social security. That was before our government decided to bankrupt us all, which act has now switched to the IRS demanding money from anyone foolish enough to make eye contact.

You see, in those days, there were entities known as “limited partnerships” in which a general partner made all the decisions and in return the limited partners got regular checks. A limited partner had little or no sway over the management of the place. It was an investment, like buying IBM or Xerox stock. There was no way the IRS was going to let a limited partner buy social security credits on the back of a limited partnership investment. No sir. Go get a job.

Fast forward about twenty years. There is a new sheriff in town, and that sheriff is the limited liability company (LLC). The states had created these new toys, and their claim to fame is that one could both work there and limit one’s liability at the same time. Unheard of! A limited partnership could not do that. In fact, if a limited partner started working at the place he/she would lose the protection from partnership liabilities. No limited partner was going to do that voluntarily.

And there you have a tax Regulation written in the 1970s referencing a “limited” partner. Twenty years later something new appears “limiting” one’s exposure to entity liabilities, but not being at all what the IRS had in mind two decades before.

And so the question became: does an LLC member have to pay self-employment tax?

And the issue has recently compounded, because there is also a new ObamaCare tax (the additional Medicare tax of 0.9%) which applies to …. wait on it… self-employment income. Yep, it applies to something the IRS cannot even define.

And then you have tax professionals trying to work with this nonsense. We do not have the option of putting the issue on the shelf until the baby is old enough to go to college. We have to prepare tax returns annually.

So I was looking at something titled “CCA 201436049.” It is nowhere as interesting as the final season of Sons of Anarchy, but it does touch upon our magic two words from the 1970s.

BTW, a “CCA” is a “Chief Counsel Advice” and represents an internal IRS document. It cannot be cited or used as precedence, but it gives you a VERY GOOD idea of what the IRS is thinking.

In our CCA, there is company that manages mutual funds. The management company used to be an S corporation and is now an LLC. The members of the management company pretty much do all the investment activity for the mutual funds, and the management company gets paid big bucks. The management company in turn pays its members via a W-2 and then “distributes” the remaining profit to them. The members pay social security on the W-2 (same as you or I) but not on the distributive share.

OBSERVATION: For the tax purist, a partnership is not allowed to pay its partner a W-2. The reason is that a partner in a partnership is considered to be self-employed, and self-employed people do not receive W-2s. LLCs have thrown a wrench into practice, however, and it is not uncommon to see an LLC member receive a W-2.

To get a CCA, the taxpayer has to be in examination. An IRS person in the field requests direction on how to handle an issue. The issue here is whether that distributive share should be subject to self-employment tax or not. A CCA is therefore like giving instructions to IRS examiners in the field.

The IRS goes through the same tax history we talked about above, and it is very skeptical that just “limiting” someone’s liability was the intent of the 1970s Regulation. It goes on to take a look at two recent cases.

In Renkemeyer, the Tax Court determined that lawyers within a law practice did not fit the “limited partner” exception, especially since they were actively working, something a 1970s “limited partner” could not do. They had to pay self-employment taxes on their distributive income.

In Reither the taxpayer issued W-2s and argued that that was sufficient to keep the rest of the distributive income from being subject to self-employment tax. The District Court made short work of the argument, primarily because there is no statutory support for it.

So … surprise, surprise… the CCA determined that the management company’s distributive share was subject to self-employment tax.

By itself, this is not surprising. What I did notice is that the IRS is paying more attention to this issue, and it is winning its cases. How much longer can it be before Congress finds this “new” source of tax revenue?

Granted, I think the odds of any meaningful tax legislation between Congress and this White House to be close to zero. There will be at least a couple of years.  That said, I suspect that tax planners have only so many years left to ramp this car onto the interstate before Congress takes our keys away.

What Can The IRS Do To You For Ignoring That Wage Or Levy Request?

What happens if the IRS sends you a levy (say on an employee, but it could also be your account payable to a vendor) and you ignore it?

You can guess that it is not going to be good.

I am looking at U.S. v 911 Management.

Daniel Dent was the sole manager of 911 Management, a limited liability company. The company must have been successful, as it was distributing $5,700 monthly to Kathy Weathers, one of its members. In 2007, the company further entered into an agreement with Kathy to operate two hotels owned by her, from which it would pay her 3% of the monthly gross proceeds.

In 2007, the IRS served levy against the bank accounts of 911 Management. That action wound up in litigation.

In February 2008, the IRS served Notice of Levy on 911 Management. It wanted both the $5,700 and 3%, as the Weathers had fallen behind on taxes for 1996 and from 1998 through 2006. Turns out that Tom and Kathy Weathers were convicted of tax fraud. Tom was serving 60 months at Club Fed, and Kathy received two years of probation.

OBSERVATION: Tom Weathers went to prison in October 2005. Coincidentally, 911 Management was formed the same month. The Company was paying Kathy $5,700 monthly, and that amount increased when she added the management of two hotels into the mix. The IRS was fairly confident that the transaction was a sham and a way to provide monies to her while her husband was in jail.

There were technical issues with the levy notice, and the previous levy effort by the IRS was in litigation. Dent contacted his business advisor as well as an attorney, and he in turn received two separate but not conflicting responses. The business advisor informed him that a bond had been posted, satisfying all the back taxes for the Weathers. It was therefore not necessary to honor the Notice of Levy, as the matter had been resolved.

COMMENT: The Revenue Officer informed Dent otherwise and that monies were still due. This must have alerted Dent that not all the facts were in.

Dent also contacted an attorney, who had reservations about the levy procedure itself. The attorney believed that the levy did not apply, because the levy was for salaries and wages and the payments to Mrs. Weathers were neither.

OBSERVATION: Thus began a high-stakes gambit. There are tax practitioners who play a heavy-procedural game, waiting if not stoking the IRS to make a procedural mistake. For the most part, I have found this to be the arena of the tax attorneys rather than tax CPAs, and I have been on the listening end of some scathing anecdotes by IRS revenue agents over the years. The IRS catches on, of course, and will commonly assign more experienced agents when such a practitioner surfaces. Still sometimes the tactic works, and the tete a tete continues another day.

Dent informed the revenue officer that the levy did not apply. He of course did not remit the $5,700 or the 3%. The revenue officer vociferously disagreed. Dent did not remit anything, relying upon his attorney’s advice that the levy was erroneous.

Remember that I mentioned the IRS had levied in 2007, a year before? That case was decided, and both 911 Management and Dent were held personally liable for the levy request. That is what happens when one ignores a levy: one steps into the shoes of the delinquent taxpayer. It is the levy equivalent of the “responsible person” taxes, which apply when one does not remit withheld payroll taxes.

So Dent was held personally responsible. Can it get worse?

You bet.

There is another penalty: the Section 6632(d)(2) penalty, which is 50% for failure to honor the levy. The IRS wanted this penalty against Dent. Remember, the IRS believed 911 Management to be a sham, so they were going to go the extra mile against Dent for participating in the sham and resisting the levy.

There is a “reasonable cause” exception to the penalty, and the Court decided that Dent had reasonable cause. How? Apparently, there was enough smoke on the water over IRS procedure in pursuing the levy that the Court accepted Dent’s reliance on his attorney as reasonable cause.

Mind you, they accepted his reliance on an attorney as reasonable cause to not levy another 50%. Dent was already personally responsible.

Another “win” like that and Dent might bankrupt himself.

COMMENT: 911 Management came into existence when Mr. Weathers went to jail in 2005 for five years. When did 911 Management cease doing business? Five years later – 2010 – when Mr. Weathers was released from jail. Coincidence? Just saying.