Why Does The IRS Want To Tax Donations Raised For A Cancer Patient?

Have you heard of a website called GoFundMe?

We are talking crowdfunding, and the technology is a dozen or so years old. It is made possible by the internet. Think of a cause, a website and a means to process payments from interested parties. The cause can vary. It might be a business startup, unexpected medical expenses, a legal defense or even a wedding fund.

There are number of crowdfunding websites, bit today our story involves GoFundMe.

I am reading the story of Casey Charf, a young Omaha woman who in 2013 was involved in a bad car crash. She had broken her neck and back. While in the hospital the doctors discovered that she had cancer.

She was interviewed by local television and her story went viral. There were fundraisers for her medical expenses, and toward that end her sister set up a GoFundMe account.

More than a thousand people donated online, raising over $50,000.

Casey has spent the last two years on medical travel and receiving treatment. The cancer unfortunately is still there, but at least it does not appear to be spreading.

In March of this year the IRS dropped in. They sent a notice that the monies raised through GoFundMe should have been reported as taxable income, and to please remit over $19 thousand in taxes, penalties and interest.

Needless to say Casey Charf is contesting the matter.

And I think she will win.

I speculate, but I think I know what triggered the IRS notice. I suspect Casey received a Form 1099-K notice.

The IRS uses the Forms 1099 series to have a third party report amounts paid you and likely representing income. A bank would send you a Form 1099-INT for interest paid on your savings, for example.

The 1099-K follows in that spirit, but it is sent by payment processors. This immediately tells us that we are dealing with debit or credit cards. Why did this enter the tax Code? Think eBay. People were conducting business activities but not sending the government its due. Congress therefore mandated that the companies that processed the payments issue annual 1099s, and it delegated to the IRS how to handle further details.

The IRS published Form 1099-K and said that the payment processor was required to file the form if (1) gross payments to a person exceeded $20,000 or (2) there were more than 200 transactions with a given person.    

GoFundMe uses WePay as its payment processor. I am willing to bet nickels to dollars that WePay issued a 1099-K to Casey Charf.

And the IRS sent a notice.

Why?

Because the IRS presumes that 1099-Ks are for business activity.

I suspect the IRS was trying to find a “business” number on the tax return that matched or exceeded the 1099-K. Finding none it churned out a notice.

Can the IRS not tell that monies are being raised for a charitable cause?

In short, no, not really.

And there is the unfortunate, inside truth of today’s IRS: every year more and more functions are being automated. The practice started out innocently enough: have third parties send information to the IRS and then have IRS computers match that information to your tax return. 

That worked well enough years ago, when reporting requirements were much lighter. They are becoming – if they haven’t already become – onerous, as the IRS wants to know every creak in the economy so Congress can tax it. Many of these notices are wrong, but they still cause angst and cost taxpayers professional fees. The dirty secret is that the IRS is intentionally shifting the cost of administering tax law to taxpayers with all these notices. They can send out anything and force you to explain how they are wrong. Fail to explain and the IRS can (and likely will) assess you.

Back to our story.

I see no reasonable tax theory under which these payments are income to Casey. There is no business activity, nor is there an employment or contractor relationship providing a backdrop for earnings from personal services. I suppose one could argue that it is akin to a lottery or bag of money found on the street, but that seems a stretch.

There is a donative intent, although as structured the amounts raised do not appear to rise to the level of a tax-deductible donation. There are strict rules with deducting payments made directly to an individual, and for the most part they require the participation of a 501(c)(3).

From a tax perspective these payments most closely resemble a gift. Gifts are not taxable.

Which is why I believe Casey Charf will win on this issue.

More importantly, may Casey have a full and speedy medical recovery.

Employers - Be Careful With Medical Reimbursement Plans

I am reading a notice from the Department of Labor titled “FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII)."

This will never make it as summer reading while on a beach.

And the DOL pretty much says what many practitioners concluded last year when the IRS issued Notice 2013-54, addressing employer reimbursement arrangements and individual health insurance policies acquired on an exchange.

COMMENT: “Exchange” and “marketplace” are the same.

The government does NOT like them.

Let’s clarify what we are talking about. There used to be a very common arrangement whereby an employer would pay your health insurance, reimburse your medical expenses, or a combination of the two, with no tax to you. These plans had several names, including health reimbursement plans or Section 105 plans. The practice had been around since before I was born.

Introduce ObamaCare. Say that someone goes on the exchange and buys an individual policy. Let’s take one more step and say that someone qualifies for a government subsidy on that individual policy.

Step One: You have someone getting money (in the form of the subsidy) from the government.

Say that person’s employer has a health reimbursement plan. The plan reimburses medical expenses, including insurance, up to some dollar amount – say $2,500.

Step Two: That person submits his/her government-subsidized Obamacare policy to the employer for reimbursement, up to $2,500.

To the extent that person’s share of the policy cost was less than $2,500, that person has broken even on the deal. To the extent that his/her share was $2,500 or more, his/her share of the cost would be $2,500 less.

Step Three: The government did not like this, did not like this at all. They huffed and they puffed and they issued Notice 2013-54, which pretty much indicated that the government was not going to allow a mixture of Obamacare individual health policies and employer reimbursement plans. Many practitioners were shocked. Heck, I myself had a similar plan at one time.

But there were a select few companies who continued marketing these things. Introduce some painful and lawyerly reading of the rules, and the companies declared that “their” plan would somehow pass muster with Notice 2013-54.

If there was any legitimate question, there is none now.

Let’s review Q&A 3:

Q: A vendor markets a product to employers claiming that employers can cancel their group policies, set up a Code section 105 reimbursement plan that works with health insurance brokers or agents to help employees select individual insurance policies, and allow eligible employees to access the premium tax credits for marketplace coverage. Is this permissible?

A: No. … the arrangements described in this Q3 are themselves group health plans and, therefore, employees participating in such arrangements are ineligible for premium tax credits….

Second, as explained in …, such arrangements are subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act …. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms, and, therefore, will violate …., which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code.

There are extremely limited exceptions, such as a one-person employer, but the broad broom has swept. The government is not going to allow a tax-free employer reimbursement for an individual policy acquired on an exchange.

So what if the employer included the reimbursement on the employee’s W-2? It would not be tax-free then, by definition. My previous understanding was that an employer could reimburse the individual policy, as long as the reimbursement was included on the employee’s W-2.

COMMENT: Another way to say it is that the government doesn’t care, as long as it gets its tax.

Let’s take a look at Q&A 1:

Q: My employer offers cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

A: No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer’s payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee.

Huh? Wait a minute here.

I interpret this to mean that an employer cannot have employees submit their insurance bills for reimbursement in lieu of other compensation. To phrase it differently, the employer must give the employee a raise (or bonus) and the employee must decide whether he/she wants to use the raise (or bonus) toward the insurance. The employee may decide to take the money and go on vacation; the employer cannot decide this for the employee.

By the way, notice that we have been speaking about individual health policies. The above discussion does not apply to group health policies acquired through SHOP, which is the exchange for businesses with less than 50 full-time employees. Those polices are group policies, not individual policies, and do not qualify for the ObamaCare subsidy. No subsidy, different rules.

Barriers to Tax Reform

The New York Times ran an article yesterday titled “The Real Barrier to Tax Reform” written by Bruce Bartlett. I have no issue with Mr. Bartlett, although I rarely read The New York Times. Nonetheless, what caught my eye is the following table of “tax expenditures”:

These “expenditures” make it difficult to raise enough “revenues” to cover whatever the government’s spending binge of the moment is.

I can see how reasonable people may debate the tenth – accelerated depreciation – as an expenditure. Instead look at categories such as the 401(k), medical insurance and employer-provided pension plans.

 A couple of observations on this:

(1)   Since when are monies taken from us as taxes to be called “revenues?”

(2)   Since when are monies we keep to be called “expenditures?”

There is an odor of bad fish with the vocabulary. Apple has revenues, as they have something I want and am willing to pay for. The government - not so much. This damage to the language is itself a barrier to tax reform.

Oh, you may be wondering about “exclusion of net imputed rental income.” Here is the concept: if you rented out your home rather than lived in it, someone would pay you rent. The government would then tax you on your rent. So, by living in your home rather than renting it out, you are costing the government money.

You, dear homeowner-living-in-your-home, are an “expenditure.”

Bruce Bartlett "The Real Barrier to Tax Reform"