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.

Exceptions to Early Distribution Penalties

 

What caught my eye about the case was the reference to an “oral opinion.”

Something new, methought.

Better known as a “bench opinion.’

Nothing new, methinks.

What happened is that the Tax Court judge rendered his/her opinion orally at the close of the trial.

Consider that a tax case will almost certainly include Code section and case citations, and I find the feat impressive.

Let’s talk about the case, though, as there is a tax gotcha worth discussing.

Molly Wold is a licensed attorney. She was laid-off in 2017. Upon separation, she pulled approximately $86 grand from her 401(k) for the following reasons:

(1)  Pay back a 401(k) loan

(2)  Medical expenses

(3)  Student loans

(4)  Mortgage and other household expenses

You probably know that pulling money from a 401(k) is a taxable event (set aside a Roth 401(k), or we are going to drive ourselves nuts with the “except-fors”).

Alright, she will have income tax.

Here is the question: will she have an early distribution penalty?

This is the 10% penalty for taking money out from a retirement account, whether a company plan (401(k), 403(b), etc) or IRA and IRA-based plans (SIMPLE, SEP, etc). Following are some exceptions to the penalty:

·      Total and permanent disability

·      Death of the account owner

·      Payments over life expectancy; these are sometimes referred to as “Section 72(t)” payments.

·      Unreimbursed medical expenses (up to a point)

·      IRS levy

·      Reservist on active duty

Then it gets messy, as some exceptions apply only to company-based plans:

·      Leaving your job on reaching age 55 (age 50 if a public safety employee)

Is there a similar rule for an IRA?

·      Withdrawals after attaining age 59 ½.

Why age 55 for a 401(k) but 59 ½ for an IRA?

Who knows.

Molly was, by the way, younger than age 55.

There are exceptions that apply only to a company-based plan:

·      A qualified domestic relations order (that is, a divorce)

·      Dividends from an ESOP

There are exceptions that apply only to an IRA and IRA-based plans:

·      Higher education expenses

·      First-time homebuyer (with a maximum of $10,000)

Yes, Congress should align the rules for both company, IRA and IRA-based plans, as this is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, there is one category that all of them exclude.

Ms Wold might have gotten some pop out of the exception for medical expenses, but that exclusion is lame. The excluded amount is one’s medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI). I suppose it might amount to something if you are hit by the proverbial bus.

The rest of the $86 grand would have been for general hardship.

Someone falls on hard times. They turn to their retirement account to help them out. They take a distribution. The plan issues a 1099-R at year-end. Said someone says to himself/herself: “surely, there is an exception.”

Nope.

There is no exception for general hardship.

10% penalty.

Let’s go next to the bayonet-the-dead substantial underpayment penalty. This penalty kicks-in when the additional tax is the greater of $5,000 or 10% of the tax that should have been shown on the return.

Folks, considering the years that penalty has been around, you would think Congress could cut us some slack and at least increase the $5 grand to $10 grand, or whatever the inflation-adjusted equivalent would be.

Ms Wold requested abatement of the penalty for reasonable cause.

Reasonable cause would be that this area of the Code is a mess.

You know who doesn’t get reasonable cause?

An attorney.

Here is the Court:

So I will hold her as a lawyer and as a highly intelligent person with a good education to what IRS instructions that year showed.”

Our case this time was Woll v Commissioner, TC Oral Order.

Marijuana And Tax-Exempt Status

I am not surprised.

I am looking at a Private Letter Ruling on a tax -exempt application for an entity involved with marijuana and CBD.

I doubt the CBD plays any role here. It is all about marijuana.

I have become sensitive to the issue as I have two friends who are dealing with chronic pain. The pain has risen to the level that it is injuring both their careers. The two have chosen different ways to manage: one does so through prescriptions and the other through marijuana.

Through one I have seen the debilitating effect of prescription painkillers.

The other friend wants me to establish a marijuana specialization here at Command Center.

I am not. I am looking to reduce, not expand, my work load.

What sets up the tax issue?

Federal tax law. More specifically, this Code section:

        § 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 such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, so it runs full-face into Section 280E. There is “no deduction or credit” allowed on that tax return.

There is one exception, and that has to do with the cost of the marijuana itself. Accountants refer to this as “cost of sales,” and it would include more than just the cost of the product. It would include costs associated with buying the product or storing it, for example. Still, the big bucks would be with the cost of the product itself.

There is a Court decision which defines taxable revenues as revenues after deduction for cost of goods sold. The decision applies to all businesses, not just marijuana.

What it leaves out is everything other than cost of sales, such as rent, utilities or the wages required to staff and run the business.

That gets expensive. One is paying taxes on business profit, without being allowed to deduct all the costs and expenses normally allowed in calculating business profit. That is not really “profit” in the common usage of the word.

I am reading that someone applied for tax exempt status. They argued that their exempt purpose was:

·      To aid financially disadvantaged patients and families affected by the cost of THC and CBD medical treatment

·      To educate health providers about THC and CBD medical treatments

·      To support research into said THC and CBD medical treatments

The entity anticipated the usual stuff:

·      It will be supported by contributions and gifts

·      It will develop a website, which will give it another venue to educate about its mission as well as fundraise

·      It will develop relevant medical and treatment literature

·      It will conduct relevant seminars and classes

·      It will organize support groups for patients and their families

·      It will track and publish relevant medical data

The IRS led with:

You were formed to aid financially disadvantaged patients and patient’s families who are affected by the costs of THC and CBD medical treatment by providing financial support to cover costs of living and other expenses that the patients may incur.”

It continued:

… you are providing funding to the users of these substances who may be struggling to pay living and/or travel expenses because of their use of these illegal substances. Furthermore, your financial assistance is only available to users of these substances.”

In response the entity argued that it did not directly provide THC or CBD to individuals nor did it provide direct funding for the same.

The IRS was unmoved:

You were formed for the purpose of providing financial assistance to individuals who are engaged [in] an illegal activity which is contrary to public policy.”

The IRS rejected the tax-exempt application.

There are numerous tax-exempts throughout the nation that counsel, research, educate and proselytize concerning their mission. A substance abuse clinic can provide methadone, for example. What it cannot do is provide the heroin.

The entity could, I suppose, withdraw the financial support platform from its mission statement, greatly increasing the likelihood for tax-exempt status.

If its core mission was to provide such financial support, however, this alternative might be unacceptable.

If I were advising, I might consider qualifying the entity as a supporting organization for a pain clinic. The clinic would likely address more than marijuana therapy (it would have to, otherwise we are just circling the block), which represents a dilution of the original mission. In addition, a supporting organization transfers some of its governance and authority to the supported organization. It may be that either or both of these factors could be deal-breakers.

It has been interesting to see the continuing push on this area of tax law.

Medical Deduction For Nonconventional Treatments

Is a tax deduction available for alternative medical care?

“Alternative” does not necessarily mean unusual. It includes, for example, chiropractic care. As a decades-long gym rat and chiropractic patient, I find that rather amusing.

What does the tax Code want to see before you are permitted a deductible medical expense?

You may ask: who cares? Starting in 2018 more and more people will claim the standard deduction rather than itemize under the new tax law. And – even if you itemize – what is the nondeductible percentage for medical expenses anyway – 2%, 7.5%, 10%, 100% of adjusted gross income? Congress abuses this deduction like an unwanted toy.

I’ll tell you why: because you have flexible spending accounts, health savings accounts and their siblings. To be reimbursable the expense must meet the definition of a deductible medical expense. This is a separate matter from whether you actually deduct any medical expenses on your tax return.

Let’s look at the Malev case.

Victoria Malev suffers from spinal disease. She had seen a chiropractor, but that offered only temporary and partial relief from pain.

You can probably guess the next type of doctor she would see, but Malev wanted nothing to do with surgery and its associated risks.

She instead decided to try four different alternative treatments.

The Court was diplomatic:

… Petitioner subscribed to various forms of treatment from four individuals, none of whom would be commonly recognized as a conventional medical caregiver. And to be sure, none of the methods utilized by these individuals would commonly be recognized as a conventional medical treatment. The methods Petitioner subscribed to might be termed “alternative medicine” by the polite, but we expect the less tolerant would characterize the treatments in other than legitimate or complimentary terms.”

When asked, Malev said that she had greatly improved.

She went to see an M.D a few years later – in 2016 – and the doctor suggested surgery. The doctor further suggested she investigate “integrative” medical care.

Seems to me she was already doing that.

Question: does she have a medical deduction?

The Court pointed out the obvious: had she seen the M.D. first, there would be no issue, as the M.D. recommended she investigate alternative medicine. By reversing the order, she was claiming medical deductions before the (traditional) medical diagnosis.

One can tell that the Court liked Malev. The Court acknowledged her “sincere belief” that the treatments received were beneficial, pointed out that she had not previously known the four providers and there was no reason to believe she would pay them except for the treatments given.

The Court looked at what the Code and Regulations do NOT require of deductible medical expenses:

(1) The services do not have to be furnished by one licensed to practice medicine in any particular discipline;

(2) The services do not have to be provided in-person;

(3) The services do not need to be universally accepted as effective; and

(4) The services do not have to be successful.

Malev could immediately use (1) and (3).

The Court was skeptical, but it wanted to allow for the wild card: the role a person’s state of mind plays in the treatment of disease.

Malev believed. The Court believed that she believed.

She got her medical deduction.

However, in an effort to indicate how fact-specific the case was, the Court continued:

… it is appropriate to note that we fully appreciate the position taken by the Respondent in this case, and [we] consider their position to be more than justified.”

I read Malev as a one-off. If you are thinking of alternative or integrative health care, see an M.D. – preferably an open-minded one – first. It will save both of us tax headaches.

TomatoCare And The Supreme Court

Let’s play make believe.

Late on a dark and stormy Saturday night, the Congressional Spartans - urged on by Poppa John's and the National Tomato Growers Association – passed a sweeping vegetable care bill by a vote of 220-215.

The bill went to the Senate, where its fate was sadly in doubt. The fearless majority leader Harry Leonidas negotiated agreements with several recalcitrant senators, including the slabjacking of New Orleans, an ongoing automatic bid for the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the college Bowl Championship Series and the relocation of Vermont to somewhere between North Carolina and Florida. After passage, the bill was signed by the president while on the back nine at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage, California.

As a consequence of this visionary act, Americans now had access to affordable tomatoes, thanks to market reforms and consumer protections put into place by this law. The law had also begun to curb rising tomato prices across the system by cracking down on waste and fraud and creating powerful incentives for grocery chains to spend their resources more wisely. Americans were now protected from some of the worst industry abuses like out-of-season shortages that could cut off tomato supply when people needed them the most.

California, Vermont and Massachusetts established state exchanges to provide tomato subsidies to individuals whose household income levels were below the threshold triggering the maximum federal individual income tax rate (presently 39.6 percent). The remaining states had refused to establish their own exchanges, prompting the federal government to intervene. The Tax Exempt Organization Division at the IRS, recognized for their expertise in technology integration, data development and retention, was tasked to oversee the installation of federal exchanges in those backwater baronies. IRS Commissioner Koskinen stated that this would require a reallocation of existing budgetary funding and – as a consequence - the IRS would not be collecting taxes from anyone in the Central time zone during the forthcoming year.

The 54 states that did not establish their own exchanges filed a lawsuit (Bling v Ne’er-Do-Well) challenging a key part of the TomatoCare law, which read as follows:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any vegetable coverage amount is the amount equal to the lesser of the greater…”

These benighted states pointed out that, botanically, a tomato was a fruit. A fruit was defined as a seed-bearing vessel developed from the ovary of a flowering plant. A vegetable, on the other hand, was any other part of the plant. By this standard, seedy growth such as bananas, apples and, yes, tomatoes, were all fruits.

There was great fear upon the land when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Depending upon how the Supreme Court decided, there might be no tomato subsidies because tomatoes were not vegetables, a result clearly, unambiguously and irretrievably-beyond-dispute not the intent of Congress on that dark, hot, stormy, wintery Saturday night as they debated the merits of quitclaiming California to Mexico.

The case began under great susurration. The plaintiffs (the 54 moon landings) read into evidence definitions of the words “fruit” and “vegetables” from Webster’s Dictionary, Worcester’s Dictionary, the Imperial Dictionary and Snoop Dogg’s album “Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$.”

The Court acknowledged that the words “fruit” and “vegetable” were indeed words in the English language. As such, the Court was bound to take judicial notice, as it did in regard to all words in its own tongue, especially “oocephalus” and “bumfuzzle.” The Court agreed that a dictionary could be admitted in Court only as an aid to the memory and understanding of the Court and not as evidence of the meaning of words.

The Court went on:

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of the vine. But in the common language of the 202 area code, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and, whether eaten cooked, steamed, boiled, roasted or raw, are like potatoes, carrots, turnips and cauliflower, usually served at dinner with, or after, the soup, fish, fowl or beef which constitutes the principal part of the repast.”

The Court decided:

            But it is not served, like fruits generally, as a dessert.”

With that, the Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit. The challenge to TomatoCare was courageously halted, and the liberal wing of the Court – in a show of their fierce independence and tenacity of intellect – posed for a selfie and went to Georgetown to get matching tattoos.

Thus ends our make believe.

There was no TomatoCare law, of course, but there WAS an actual Supreme Court decision concerning tomatoes. Oh, you didn’t know?

Back in the 1880s the Port of New York was taxing tomatoes as vegetables. The Nix family, which imported tons of tomatoes, sued. They thought they had the law – and common sense – on their side. After all, science said that tomatoes were fruit. The only party who disagreed was the Collector of the Port of New York, hardly an objective juror.

The tax law in question was The Tariff of 1883, a historical curiosity now long gone, and the case was Nix v Hedden. 

And that is how we came to think of tomatoes as vegetables.

Brilliant legal minds, right?

Corporations Unable To File Tax Court Petitions

Over the years I have had clients that expanded aggressively into numerous states. I was continually evaluating when they reached the “trigger” to start withholding sales taxes or payroll taxes or filing income taxes with name-the-state.  

This is an area that has radically changed since I started practice three decades ago. There was a time when you practically had to have a storefront in the state before you had to start worrying about taxes. Now you have states that want to tax you should you attend a business convention there. Among the most recent lines of attack is something called “economic nexus,” meaning that - if you target the state’s citizenry as an economic market – the state figures it has enough power to tax you. Think about that for a moment. Say someone is weaving Alpaca sweaters in Miami and decides to sell a few over the internet in Illinois or Massachusetts. ANY sales into a state would trigger nexus under this theory. Many tax professionals, me included, are skeptical whether economic nexus would even survive  a constitutional challenge under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases on tax nexus for about as long as I have been in practice, so there have been few checks-and-balances as the states claim tax superpowers for themselves.  

Let’s segue this discussion to registering a corporation to do business in a state.

A corporation or an LLC is only a corporation or LLC because a state says that they are. That is the way it works. The state wants an annual check for this, and, if asked, they will then say that you are a corporation or LLC. It is a great money tree. Paulie would have approved.

 

Let’s kick it up a notch.

Let’s say that you have an Ohio corporation. An opportunity strikes and you start doing business in Kansas. You know to worry about Kansas income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, et cetera.  What you may not consider is telling Kansas that your corporation is doing business in their state. In addition to possible fines and so forth when you finally surface, there is the possibility of compromising your attorneys’ hands should something happen, such as litigation.

Or responding to an IRS notice.

That one somewhat surprised me, but it appears that California (let’s be honest: California would be among our first guesses for any incident of state tax idiocy) is making things easier for the IRS.

I am looking at Medical Weight Control Specialist v Commissioner.

Medical had its corporate privileges suspended by California, presumably for failing to pay Paulie his annual check. It happens, unfortunately. 

Medical got into it with the IRS, which eventually sent them a 90-day letter, also known as a Statutory Notice of Deficiency (or “SNOD”). 

NOTE: Appealing the SNOD is what gets you into Tax Court. The Court gives you 90 days to appeal and not a moment over. There a sad stories of people who missed it by minutes, but there is no “close enough” rule here. 

The IRS sent the SNOD to Medical in May, 2013. Medical filed its appeal with the Tax Court in June, 2013. 

I do not know what Medical’s tax issues were, but I can tell you that the IRS wanted over $1 million-plus from them. 

Medical made things right with Paulie in May, 2014.

            OBSERVATION: One year later.

Medical obtained a “certificate of reviver” and “certificate of relief from contract voidability” from California. 

Someone at the IRS must have read Sun Tzu and the maxim that the battle is won before the armies take the field. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss. Medical did not legally exist when it filed its appeal, and that which does not legally exist cannot file an appeal of a SNOD with the Tax Court.

Medical fought hard, they really did, but California law was against them. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and dismissed the appeal.

And there went $1 million-plus.

Now, every state is different, so the answer for an Ohio corporation (say) might be different from a California corporation. But I will ask you what I would ask a client: is it worth it to test the issue?

The IRS seems to have caught on to this Oh-you're-a-California-corporation-sorry-about-your-luck thing. I see that another California taxpayer – Leodis C Matthews, APC – got its appeal bounced when the IRS made virtually the same argument.

Please remember to pay Paulie.