An IRS Employee And Unreported Income

 

You may have heard that Congress is tightening the 1099 reporting requirements for third party payment entities such as PayPal and Venmo. The ultimate goal is to report cumulative payments exceeding $600. Because of implementation issues, the IRS has adjusted this threshold to $5,000 for 2024.

Many, I suspect, will be caught by surprise.

Receiving a 1099-K does not necessarily mean that you have taxable income. It does mean that you were paid by one of the reporting organizations, and that payment will be presumed business-related. This is of concern with Venmo, for example, as a common use is payment of group-incurred personal expenses, such as the cost of dining out. Venmo will request one to identify a transaction as business or personal, using that as the criterion for IRS reporting  

What you cannot do, however, is ignore the matter. This IRS matching is wholly computerized; the notice does not pass by human eyes before being mailed. In fact, the first time the IRS reviews the notice is when you (or your tax preparer) respond to it. Ignore the notice however and you may wind up in Collections, wondering what happened.

The IRS adjusted the 2004 and 2005 returns for Andrea Orellana.

The IRS had spotted unreported income from eBay. Orellana had reported no eBay sales, so the computer match was easy.

There was a problem, though: Orellana worked for the IRS as a revenue officer.

COMMENT: A revenue officer is primarily concerned with Collections. A revenue agent, on the other hand, is the person who audits you.

Someone working at the IRS is expected to know and comply with his/her tax reporting obligations. As a revenue officer, she should have known about 1099-Ks and computer matching.

It started as a criminal tax investigation.

Way to give the benefit of the doubt there, IRS.

There were issues with identifying the cost of the items sold, so the criminal case was closed and a civil case opened in its place.

The agent requested and obtained copies of bank statements and some PayPal records. A best guess analysis indicated that over $36 thousand had been omitted over the two years.

Orellana was having none of this. She requested that the case be forwarded to Appeals.

Orellana hired an attorney. She was advised to document as many expenses as possible. The IRS meanwhile subpoenaed PayPal for relevant records.

Orellana did prepare a summary of expenses. She did not include much in the way of documentation, however.

The agent meanwhile was matching records from PayPal to her bank deposits. This proved an unexpected challenge, as there were numerous duplicates and Orellana had multiple accounts under different names with PayPal.

The agent also needed Orellana’s help with the expenses. She was selling dresses and shoes and makeup and the like. It was difficult to identify which purchases were for personal use and which were for sale on eBay.

Orellana walked out of the meeting with the agent.

COMMENT: I would think this a fireable offense if one works for the IRS.

This placed the agent in a tough spot. Without Orellana’s assistance, the best she could do was assume that all purchases were for personal use.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Orellana introduced a chart of deposits under dispute. She did not try to trace deposits to specific bank accounts nor did she try to explain – with one exception - why certain deposits were nontaxable.

Her chart of expenses was no better. She explained that any documents she used to prepare the chart had been lost.

Orellana maintained that she was not in business and that any eBay activity was akin to a garage sale. No one makes a “profit” from a garage sale, as nothing is sold for more than its purchase price.

The IRS pointed out that many items she bought were marketed as “new." Some still had tags attached.

Orellana explained that she liked to shop. In addition, she had health issues affecting her weight, so she always had stuff to sell.

As for “new”: just a marketing gimmick, she explained.

I always advertise as new only because you can get a better price for that.” 

… I document them as new if it appears new.”

Alright then.

If she can show that there was no profit, then there is no tax due.

Orellana submitted records of purchases from PayPal.

… but they could not be connected or traced to her.

She used a PayPal debit card.

The agent worked with that. She separated charges between those clearly business and those clearly personal. She requested Orellana’s help for those in between. We already know how that turned out.

How about receipts?

She testified that she purchased personal items and never kept receipts.

That would be ridiculous, unheard of. Unless there was some really bizarre reason why I keep a receipt, there were no receipts.”

The IRS spotted her expenses that were clearly business. They were not enough to create a loss. Orellana had unreported income.

And the Court wanted to know why an IRS Revenue Officer would have unreported income.

Frankly, so would I.

Petitioner testified that she ‘had prepared 1040s since she was 16’ and that she ‘would ‘never look at the instructions.’”

Good grief.

The IRS also asked for an accuracy penalty.

The Court agreed.

Our case this time was Orellana v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-51.

Firing A Client

We fired a client.

Nice enough fellow, but he would not listen. To us, to the IRS, to getting out of harm’s way.

He brought us an examination that started with the following:

We filed in Tax Court. I was optimistic that we could resolve the matter when the file returned to Appeals. There was Thanos-level dumb there, but there was no intentional underreporting or anything like that.

It may have been one of the most demanding audits of my career. The demanding part was the client.

Folks, staring down a $700 grand-plus assessment from the IRS is not the time to rage against the machine.  An audit requires documentation: of receipts, of expenses. Yes, it is bothersome (if not embarrassing) to contact a supplier for their paperwork on your purchases in a prior year. Consider it an incentive to improve your recordkeeping.

At one point we drew a very harsh rebuke from the Appeals Officer over difficulties in providing documentation and adhering to schedules. This behavior, especially if repetitive, could be seen as the bob and weave of a tax protester, and the practitioner involved could also be seen as enabling said protestor.

As said practitioner I was not amused.

We offered to provide a cash roll to the AO. There was oddball cash movement between the client and a related family company, and one did not need a psychology degree to read  that the AO was uncomfortable. The roll would show that all numbers had been included on the return. I wanted the client to do the heavy lifting here, especially since he knew the transactions and I did not. There were a lot of transactions, and I had a remaining book of clients requiring attention. We needed to soothe the AO somehow.

He did not take my request well at all.

I in turn did not take his response well.

Voices may have been raised.

Wouldn’t you know that the roll showed that the client had missed several expenses?

Eventually we settled with the IRS for about 4 percent of the above total. I knew he would have to pay something, even if only interest and penalties on taxes he had paid late. 

And that deal was threatened near the very end.

IRS counsel did not care for the condition of taxpayer’s signature on a signoff. I get it: at one point there was live ink, but that did not survive the copy/scan/PDF cycle all too well. Counsel wanted a fresh signature, meaning the AO wanted it and then I wanted it too.

Taxpayer was on a cruise.

I left a message: “Call me immediately upon return. There is a wobble with the IRS audit. It is easily resolved, but we have time pressure.”

He returned. He did not call immediately. Meanwhile the attorneys are calling the AO. The AO is calling me. She could tell that I was beyond annoyed with him, which noticeably changed her tone and interaction. We were both suffering by this point.

The client finally surfaced, complaining about having to stop everything when the IRS popped up.

Not so. The IRS reduced its preliminary assessment by 96%. We probably could have cut that remaining 4% in half had we done a better job responding and providing information. Some of that 2% was stupid tax.”

And second, you did not stop everything. You had been in town a week before calling me.”

We had a frank conversation about upping his accounting game. I understand that he does not make money doing accounting. I am not interested in repeating that audit. Perhaps  we could use a public bookkeeper. Perhaps we could use our accountants. Perhaps he (or someone working for him) could keep a bare-boned QuickBooks and our accountants would review and scrub it two or three times a year.

Would not listen.

We fired a client.

An IRS Examination And A New IRS Hire

 

I have gotten dragged into a rabbit hole.

I often get involved with clients on a one-off basis: they are buying a company, selling their business, expanding into other states, looking into oddball tax credits and so forth. Several of our clients have been selling their businesses. In some cases, they have been offered crazy money by a roll-up; in others it is the call of retirement. I was looking at the sale of a liquor store last fall. As business sales go, it was not remarkable. The owner is 75 years old and has been working there since he was a teenager. It was time. The sale happened this year.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. The CPA who works with the liquor store was taking time off, but I was in the office. The owner remembered me.

“Can I see you this afternoon,” he asked.

“Of course. Let me know what works for you.”

He brought an IRS notice of appointment with a field revenue officer. I reviewed the notice: there was a payroll issue as well as an issue with the annual deposit to retain a fiscal year.

I had an educated guess about the annual deposit. This filing is required when a passthrough (think partnership or S corporation) has a year-end other than December. We do not see many of these, as passthroughs have mostly moved to calendar year-ends since the mid-eighties. The deposit is a paper-file, and clients have become so used to electronic filing they sometimes forget that some returns must still be filed via snail mail.

The payroll tax issue was more subtle. For some reason, the IRS had not posted a deposit for quarter 4, 2022. This set a penalty cascade into motion, as the IRS will unilaterally reorder subsequent tax deposits. Let this reordering go on for a couple of quarters or more and getting the matter corrected can border on a herculean task.

I spoke with the revenue officer. She sounded very much like a new hire. Her manager was on the call with her. Yep, new hire.

Let’s start the routine:

“Your client owes a [fill in the blank] dollars. Can they pay that today?”

“I disagree they owe that money. I suspect it is much less, if they owe at all.”

“I see. Why do you say that?”

I gave my spiel.

“I see. Once again, do you want to make payment arrangements?”

I have been through this many times, but it still tests my patience.

“No, I will recap the liabilities and deposits for the two quarters under discussion to assist your review. Once you credit the suspended payroll deposit to Q4, you will see the numbers fall into place.”

“What about the 8752 (the deposit for the non-calendar year-end)?

“I have record that it was prepared and provided to the taxpayer. Was it not filed?”

“I am not seeing one filed.”

“These forms are daft, as they are filed in May following the fiscal year in question. Let’s be precise which fiscal year is at issue, and I will send you a copy. Do you want it signed?”

The manager chimes in: that is incorrect. Those forms are due in December.”

Sigh.

New hire, poorly trained manager. Got it.

I ask for time to reply. I assemble documents, draft a walkthrough narration, and fax it to the field revenue officer. I figure we have one more call. Maybe the client owes a couple of bucks because … of course, but we should be close.

Then I received the following:

 

I am not amused.

The IRS has misstepped. They escalated what did not need to escalate, costing me additional time and the client additional professional fees. Here is something not included when discussing additional IRS funding for new hires: who is going to train the new hires? The brain drain at the IRS over the last decade and a half has been brutal. It is debatable whether there remains a deep enough lineup to properly train new hires in the numbers and time frame being presented. What is realistic – half as many? Twice as long? Bring people out of retirement to help with the training?

Mind you, I am pulling for the IRS. The better they do their job the easier my job becomes. That said, there are realities. CPA firms cannot find qualified hires in adequate numbers, and the situation does not change by substituting one set of letters (fill-in whatever word-salad firm name you want) for another (IRS). Money is an issue, of course, but money is not the only issue. There are enormous societal changes at work.

What is our next procedural move?

I requested a CDP hearing.

The Collections Due Process hearing is a breather as the IRS revs its Collections engines. It allows one to present alternatives to default Collections, such as:

·      An offer in compromise

·      An installment agreement

I have no intention of presenting Collections alternatives. If we owe a few dollars, I will ask the client to write a check to the IRS. No, what I want is the right to dispute the amount of tax liability.

A liability still under examination by a field revenue officer. I have agreed to nothing. I have not even had a follow-up phone call. A word to the new hires: it is considered best practice – and courteous - to not surprise the tax practitioner. A little social skill goes a long way.

The Notice of Intent to Levy was premature.

Someone was not properly trained.

Or supervised.

I question whether this would have happened 15 or more years ago.

But then again, 15 years from now the new hires will be the institutional memory at the IRS.

It is the years in between that are problematic.

Common Law Versus Statutory Employee

 

I am looking at a case concerning employee status and payroll taxes.

I see nothing remarkable, except for one question: why did the IRS bother?

Let’s talk about it.

There was a 501(c)(3) (The REDI Foundation) formed in 1980. Richard Abraham was its officer (a corporate entity must have an officer, whether one gives himself/herself a formal title or not). Mr A’s wife also served on the Board.

REDI did not do much from 1980 to 2010. In 2010 Mr A – who was a real estate developer for over 40 years – developed an online course on real estate development and began offering it to the public via REDI. Mr A was a one-man gang, and he regularly worked 60 hours or more per week on matters related to the online course, instruction, and student mentoring.

COMMENT: Got it. It gave Mr A something to do when he “retired,” if 60 hours per week can be called retirement. I have a client who did something similar, albeit in the field of periodontics.

So REDI went from near inactive to active with its online course. For its year ended May 2015 it reported revenues over $255 grand with expenses of almost $92 grand.

COMMENT: Had REDI been a regular corporation, it would have paid income taxes on profit of $163 grand. REDI may have been formed as a corporation, but it was a corporation that had applied for and received (c)(3) status. Absent other moving parts, a (c)(3) does not pay income taxes.

The IRS flagged REDI for an employment tax audit.

Why?

REDI had not issued Mr A a W-2. Instead, it issued a 1099, meaning that it was treating Mr A as an independent contractor.

Let’s pause here.

A W-2 employee pays FICA taxes on his/her payroll. You see it with every paycheck when the government lifts 7.65% for social security. Your employer matches it, meaning the government collects 15.3% of your pay.

A self-employed person also pays FICA, but it is instead called self-employment tax. Same thing, different name, except that a self-employed pays 15.3% rather than 7.65%.

My first thought was: Mr A paid self-employment tax on his 1099. The government wanted FICA. Fine, call it FICA, move the money from the self-employment bucket to the FICA bucket, and let’s just call … it … a … day.

In short: why did the IRS chase this?

I see nothing in the decision.

Technically the IRS was right. A corporate officer is a de facto statutory employee of his/her corporation.

§ 3121 Definitions.

 

(d)  Employee.

 

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" means-

 

(1)   any officer of a corporation; or

 

Yep, know it well. Been there and have the t-shirt.

Mind you, there are exceptions to 3121(d)(1). For example, if the officer duties are minimal, the Code does not require a W-2.

Mr A argued that very point.

Problem: there was only one person on the planet that generated revenues for REDI, and that person was Mr A. Revenues were significant enough to indicate that any services performed were also substantial.

There was another argument: REDI had reasonable basis under Section 530 for treating Mr A as a contractor.

COMMENT: Section 530 is an employment relief provision if three requirements are met:

·      Consistency in facts

·      Consistency in reporting

·      Reasonable basis

Section 530 was intended to provide some protection from employment tax assessments for payors acting in good faith. On first impression, 530 appears to be a decent argument. Continuing education instructors are commonly treated as contractors, for example. If REDI treated instructors with similar responsibilities the same way (easy, as there was only one instructor) and sent timely 1099s to the IRS, we seem to meet the three requisites.

Except …

Section 530 deals with common law workers.

Corporate officers are not common law workers. They instead are statutory employees because the statute – that is, Section 3121(d) – says they are.

Mr A was a statutory employee. REDI was therefore an employer. There should have been withholding, tax deposits and payroll return filings. There wasn’t, so now there are penalties and interest and yada yada yada.

I probably would have lost my mind had I represented REDI. Unless Mr A was claiming outsized expenses against 1099 income, any self-employment tax he paid would/should have approximated any FICA that REDI would remit as an employer. Loss to the fisc? Minimal. Let’s agree to switch Mr A to employee status going forward and both go home.

Why did this not happen? Don’t know. Sometimes the most interesting part of a case is not in the decision.

Our case this time was The REDI Foundation v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-34.

The IRS Changes An In - Person Visit Policy

 

This afternoon I was reading the following:

As part of a larger transformation effort, the Internal Revenue Service today announced a major policy change that will end most unannounced visits to taxpayers by agency revenue officers to reduce public confusion and enhance overall safety measures for taxpayers and employees.”

One can spend a lifetime and never interact with a Revenue Officer. We are more familiar with Revenue Agents, who examine or audit tax returns and filings. Revenue Officers, on the other hand, are more specialized: they collect money.

I deal with ROs often enough, but – then again – consider what I do. I rarely meet with one in person, though. The last time I met an RO was one late afternoon at northern Galactic Command. I was the only person in the office, until I realized that I was not. I encountered someone who claimed to be an RO, which I immediately and expressly disbelieved. He presented identification, which gave me pause. He then asked about a specific client, giving me grounds to believe him. The IRS could not contact a taxpayer, so the next step was to contact the last preparer associated with that taxpayer.

I was – BTW – not amused.

I wonder if the above IRS policy change has something to do with an event that occurred recently in Marion, Ohio. The following is cited from a recent House Judiciary Committee letter to IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel:

On April 25, 2023, an IRS agent—who identified himself as 'Bill Haus' with the IRS’s Criminal Division—visited the home of a taxpayer in Marion, Ohio. Agent 'Haus' informed the taxpayer he was at her home to discuss issues concerning an estate for which the taxpayer was the fiduciary. After Agent 'Haus' shared details about the estate only the IRS would know, the taxpayer let him in. Agent 'Haus' told the taxpayer that she did not properly complete the filings for the estate and that she owed the IRS 'a substantial amount.' Prior to the visit, however, the taxpayer had not received any notice from the IRS of an outstanding balance on the estate.
 
"During the visit, the taxpayer told Agent 'Haus' that the estate was resolved in January 2023, and provided him with proof that she had paid all taxes for the decedent's estate. At this point, Agent 'Haus' revealed that the true purpose of his visit was not due to any issue with the decedent’s estate, but rather because the decedent allegedly had several delinquent tax return filings. Agent 'Haus' provided several documents to the taxpayer for her to fill out, which included sensitive information about the decedent.
 
"The taxpayer called her attorney who immediately and repeatedly asked Agent 'Haus' to leave the taxpayer's home. Agent 'Haus' responded aggressively, insisting: 'I am an IRS agent, I can be at and go into anyone's house at any time I want to be.' Before finally leaving the taxpayer’s property, Agent 'Haus' said he would mail paperwork to the taxpayer, and threatened that she had one week to satisfy the remaining balance or he would freeze all her assets and put a lean [sic] on her house.
 
"On May 4, 2023, the taxpayer spoke with the supervisor of Agent 'Haus,' who clarified nothing was owed on the estate. The supervisor even admitted to the taxpayer that 'things never should have gotten this far.' On May 5, 2023, however, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS— the first and only written notice the taxpayer received of the decedent’s delinquent tax filings—addressed to the decedent, which stated the decedent was delinquent on several 1040 filings. On May 15, 2023, the taxpayer spoke again with supervisor of Agent 'Haus,' who told the taxpayer to disregard the May 5 letter because nothing was due. On May 30, 2023, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS that the case had been closed.”

Yeah, someone needs to be fired.

The IRS did point out the following in today’s release:

For IRS revenue officers, these unannounced visits to homes and businesses presented risks.

No doubt, especially for those who think they can go into “anyone’s house at any time.”

What will the IRS do instead?

In place of the unannounced visits, revenue officers will instead make contact with taxpayers through an appointment letter, known as a 725-B, and schedule a follow-up meeting. This will help taxpayers feel more prepared when it is time to meet.

Taxpayers whose cases are assigned to a revenue officer will now be able to schedule face-to-face meetings at a set place and time, with the necessary information and documents in hand to reach resolution of their cases more quickly and eliminate the burden of multiple future meetings.

There will be situations where the IRS simply must appear in person, of course:

The IRS noted there will still be extremely limited situations where unannounced visits will occur. These rare instances include service of summonses and subpoenas; and also sensitive enforcement activities involving seizure of assets, especially those at risk of being placed beyond the reach of the government.

These situations should be a fraction of the number under the previous policy, however.

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.