Can $2 Million Be An Honest Mistake?

 

It is a good idea to look over your tax return before hitting the “Send” button.

Why? Because things happen. Some prep software approximates a black box. It asks questions, you provide numbers and together they go someplace hidden from the eyes of man. Granted, most times the result is just fine. But there are those times ….

Let’s talk about Candice and Randall Busch.

They were preparing their 2017 tax return using a popular tax software, which shall remain nameless. They reached the point where the software wanted mortgage interest. Easy enough. They entered “21,201.25.”

So?

The software did not accept pennies.

This means that 21,201.25 went in as 2,120,125.

That, folks, is a lot of mortgage interest.

BTW one cannot deduct that much mortgage interest on a principal residence. Why? The mortgage interest deduction had been capped for many years as interest paid on the first $1 million of indebtedness. Let’s say someone paid $62,000 on $2 million of principal residence debt. The tax preparer should have caught this and limited the deduction as follows:

         62,000 * 1,000,000/2,000,000 = 32,000

The $1,000,000 cap was further reduced to $750,000 in 2017.

The tax Code has no intention of allowing an unlimited deduction for this type of interest.

Is it ever possible to get past the $1,000,000 (or $750,000) limitation? Well, yes, and it happens all the time. Borrow money on commercial real estate (say a strip mall) and there is no limitation. Borrow money on residential real estate - as long as it is not a principal residence - and there is no limitation. An example would be an apartment complex.  The limitation we are discussing is personal and involves debt on your house.

Back to the Busch’s.

They sound like average folk.

That mistake made their tax refund go through the roof.

They liked that answer.

They sent in the return.

The IRS flagged the return, which was not hard to do when the interest deduction was larger than the allowed debt for purposes of calculating the deduction itself.

The IRS wanted the excess refund back.

The Busch’s would do that.     

Then the IRS also wanted a heavy penalty (the accuracy-related penalty, for the home gamers).

The Busch’s said they wouldn’t do that. An exception to the accuracy-related penalty is reasonable cause, and they had reasonable cause all day long and three times on the weekend.

And what was that reasonable cause, asked the IRS.

It was an “honest mistake,” they replied.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Busch’s represented themselves, the lingo for which is “pro se.”

The Court acknowledged that mistakes happen. One can get distracted and enter a wrong number, one can transpose, one can get surprised by what a software might do.

But that is not the mistake here.

The mistake here was failing to review the return before sending.

The biggest number on the return – literally – was that interest deduction. It hung over the form like a Big Texan 72-ounce steak on a normal-sized dinner plate.

Here is the Court:

A careful review of the return after it was prepared would most certainly have caught the error; actually, even as little as a quick glance at the return probably would have done so.”

The Busch’s got stuck with the penalty.

The IRS Meets An Actuary

I think it was November or December of last year that I met with a client. He was “behind” on his taxes, and he now wanted to do the right thing and catch up.  He passed me a Form 1099, which he described as bogus. It had his name and social security number, but he swore he did not know the payor or provide any services for them.

Could be. Mistakes happen all the time.

I am reviewing the Tax Court summary opinion in Furnish v Commissioner. It is not a technically difficult case – the “summary” part tells you that – but it made me think of my client.

Furnish is an actuary.

QUESTION: Do you know what an actuary does? These guys/gals bring math, statistics and financial modeling to bear in measuring and predicting uncertain outcomes. They may work for insurance companies, for pension plans, for banks and investment firms. Think of them as the Sheldon Coopers of the business world.

Furnish had bought life insurance policies back when. He used policy dividends to buy additional coverage over the years, and he thereafter used policy loans to pay premiums on some or all of the policies. If you use loans to pay premiums for long enough, the policy will eventually burnout. This means it runs out of money. The insurance company will then shut down the policy. It happens with some frequency.

This happened to Furnish. The insurance company then sent him a Form 1099 saying that he had $49,255 as taxable income from the burnout.

         QUESTION: How can you have income from a burnout?

ANSWER: There are three pieces to the answer: (1) you have written checks for the policy over the years. The total amount of checks is your “basis” in the policy; (2) you have loans on the policy; (3) the policy has built-up “cash value” over the years. When the policy burns out, the cash value is used to pay off the loans. If that cash value exceeds your basis, you have income. “Phantom” income perhaps, but still income.

Furnish doesn’t buy into the $49,255 at all. He contacts the insurance company and requests files and records back to the beginning of time. The insurance company had a problem, as those old files were nonelectronic and not easily retrieved.

The insurance company wants nothing to do with this guy. Their letters to him went something like “We are right. Why do you keep bothering us?”

Ah, but they were dealing with an actuary.

Furnish sends the IRS two tax returns: one reporting the $49,255 and one not reporting and explanations for each. I presume he did not have professional advice to handle it in this manner, but so be it. The IRS of course accepts the one with the $49,255 reported in income.

PAUSE: I’ll give you a moment to get over your shock.

The IRS wanted their money. Furnish tells the IRS that the insurance company was full of bunkum and the 1099 was incorrect. The IRS tells Furnish to have the insurance company correct their paperwork. Until then, the IRS wanted their money. Eventually Furnish took the matter to the Taxpayer Advocate.

No dice with the Advocate and the matter went before a Tax Court judge. At play is Code Section 6201(d), which reads:

           

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return field with the Secretary *** by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary),  the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return.”

Furnish argued that he met the requirements of Section 6201(d). The IRS argued that he had not; that he raised the issue too late in the proceedings; that he showed only minor calculation issues; and that Furnish had bad breath. The only evidence the IRS presented was a declaration by an insurance company employee, agreeing that Furnish did in fact have bad breath.

The Court decided that Furnish had raised enough doubt whether the Form 1099 income could be materially incorrect, and that Furnish had interacted reasonably in providing information and otherwise responding to the IRS. Furnish had met the requirements of Section 6201(d), and the burden of proof shifted to the IRS.

The IRS, having presenting no additional evidence beyond a Form 1099 and a letter from the insurance company, lost. They did not meet the burden of proof.

CONCLUSION: Some commentators consider this decision an outlier, and the judge has taken criticism in the literature. My experience is for the IRS to require the taxpayer to have the issuer either void or amend the disputed information form. Makes sense, in truth. Many times the issuer will, but then there are those hard-luck cases. Furnish gives practitioners an option to consider.

Your Accountant Makes the Mistake. Do You Owe Penalties?

If your accountant omits some of your income on your personal income tax return, is it fair that you should be penalized by the IRS?

Generally speaking, reliance on a tax preparer is “reasonable cause” to request penalty mitigation from the IRS. Generally, but not always.

Enter Stephen Woodsum (SW). SW has a bachelors degree from Yale and a masters from Northwestern. He was a founding director of Summit Partners, a private equity firm.

Note: Mr. Woodsum is financially savvy.

In 1998 SW entered a transaction described as a “ten year total return limited partnership linked swap.” This transaction involved Bankers Trust Company and Deutsche Bank and included a reference to paying interest at the “LIBOR rate” upon the “notional amount” of the “reference fund.”

        Note: Financially unsavvy people do not use these words.

So, the swap was to expire in 2008 – ten years. SW was unhappy with the performance of the swap and ended it in 2006. He received at that time a Form 1099 reporting the $3.4 million Deutsche Bank paid him and another 1099 for $60,291 of interest income.

SW gave all of his tax documents to his accountant. There were over 160 such documents. SW must have had a good year, as the $3.4 million was not the largest number on his tax return. It would however had been the third largest capital gain had the $3.4 million in proceeds been reported.

The accountant prepared the return, including the interest but excluding the $3.4 million.  Some accountant. SW and his wife met with the accountant on October 15, the day the return was due. They had to go over the federal return and 27 state income tax returns. The federal return alone was 115 pages.

Mr. and Mrs. Woodsum did not notice that the accountant had left out the $3.4 million.

The IRS did notice, of course, and wanted the tax and interest, as well as penalties.

Mr. Woodsum felt he did not have to pay penalties because… well, he relied on his accountant. I agree with SW.

The court made an interesting comment. It observed that courts have previously mitigated the penalties, but it continued …

It may be (and petitioners seem to expect the Court to assume) that the omission was the result of the C.P.A.'s oversight of one Form 1099 amid 160 such forms, but no actual evidence supports that characterization. The omission is unexplained, and since petitioners have the burden to prove reasonable cause and good faith, this evidentiary gap works against their defense.”

No actual evidence supports that characterization? I would have gotten a statement from the accountant clarifying that the accountant was provided but failed to include the 1099 on my return.

The court seemed unwilling to give SW as much latitude because of his financial sophistication. The court goes on…

Mr. Woodsum, however, makes no showing of a review reasonable under the circumstances. He personally ordered the termination that gave rise to the income; he received a Form 1099-MISC reporting that income; that amount should have shown up on Schedule D as a distinct item; but it was omitted. The parties stipulated that petitioners' “review” of the defective return was of an unknown duration and that it consisted of the preparer turning the pages of the return and discussing various items. Petitioners understated their income by $3.4 million—an amount that was substantial not only in absolute terms but also in relative terms (i.e., it equaled about 10 percent of petitioners' adjusted gross income). A review undertaken to “make sure all income items are included” (in the words of Magill)—or even a review undertaken only to make sure that the major income items had been included—should, absent a reasonable explanation to the contrary, have revealed an omission so straightforward and substantial.”

I have had clients who did the same as Mr. Woodsum. It did not occur to me that they were conducting an unreasonable review. They provided all documents, answered all questions, met with me and complained about the amount I told them they owed. These are wealthy people. This is not you or I, where the absence of our salary would be immediately noticeable on our return. Mr. Woodsum reported approximately $33 million of income on his return. Note that the sale was not even the largest number on a schedule to Mr. Woodsum’s return.

The court upheld the penalties.

Perhaps this is what happens when a private equity manager gets into a complex financial transaction with names like “ten year total return limited partnership linked swap.” This court was not willing to bend much on the reporting of a “Wall Street” transaction that requires a tax seminar to understand.
The penalties were over $100 thousand.

I wonder whether Mr. Woodsum is suing his accountant for malpractice.